Category: law

Posted on

Recall MLA Nathan Neudorf

In the 2023 provincial election, the Lethbridge East Riding had a very close result with Nathan Neudorf ultimately remaining MLA. 1

With what happened in the Legislature the other day, the passing of Bill 2 without debate… Neudorf needs to be held accountable. He voted for this attack on our freedoms. He needs to be recalled.

Update: It appears I’m not the only one that feels this way: https://operationtotalrecall.ca

Update 2: Instead of just complaining, I’m going to do something about it.

  1. Neudorf only won by 636 votes.[↩]
Posted on

Alberta Uses Notwithstanding Clause to Attack Constitutional Rights and Freedoms

I watched the livestream yesterday as the UCP ruling party voted to take away our constitutionally protected right to collective bargaining and the freedom to gather and strike. I’m livid.

The Alberta Teachers’ Association president, Jason Schilling, shared his thoughts in a news scrum yesterday:

https://youtu.be/Hy1YKLrbGuQ?si=iEeVKSbVv5uwgnKQ

Now that they’ve taken this unprecedented step, what rights will they take away next?

It looks like the Alberta Federation of Labour is preparing a response. If the teachers can’t strike then the unions that are still allowed to strike will take up that mantle. This fight is not over and it looks like it’s going to be ugly.

Posted on

Apple Sued for Monopoly

Last Thursday the US Department of Justice announced it was suing Apple for monopolizing smartphone markets within the United States. I’ve spent the last few days trying to wrap my head around how much of this is hype and how much is a legitimate public concern?

From the Office of Public Affairs | US Dept. of Justice:

The complaint alleges that Apple’s anticompetitive course of conduct has taken several forms, many of which continue to evolve today, including:

  • Blocking Innovative Super Apps. Apple has disrupted the growth of apps with broad functionality that would make it easier for consumers to switch between competing smartphone platforms.
  • Suppressing Mobile Cloud Streaming Services. Apple has blocked the development of cloud-streaming apps and services that would allow consumers to enjoy high-quality video games and other cloud-based applications without having to pay for expensive smartphone hardware.
  • Excluding Cross-Platform Messaging Apps. Apple has made the quality of cross-platform messaging worse, less innovative, and less secure for users so that its customers have to keep buying iPhones.
  • Diminishing the Functionality of Non-Apple Smartwatches. Apple has limited the functionality of third-party smartwatches so that users who purchase the Apple Watch face substantial out-of-pocket costs if they do not keep buying iPhones.
  • Limiting Third Party Digital Wallets. Apple has prevented third-party apps from offering tap-to-pay functionality, inhibiting the creation of cross-platform third-party digital wallets.

The complaint also alleges that Apple’s conduct extends beyond these examples, affecting web browsers, video communication, news subscriptions, entertainment, automotive services, advertising, location services, and more. Apple has every incentive to extend and expand its course of conduct to acquire and maintain power over next-frontier devices and technologies.

After investigating the top five complaints…

Blocking Innovative Super Apps: Super Apps provide multiple services including payment and instant messaging services, effectively becoming an all-encompassing self-contained commerce and communication platform that embraces many aspects of personal and commercial life. At the same time they are taking Apple to task, regulators in the US and Europe have also expressed concerns about the overall power of the such super apps and appear to be giving mixed signals over their concerns of privacy and monopoly powers.

Suppressing Mobile Cloud Streaming Services: Although Apple originally put up some roadblocks for Microsoft and its Xbox streaming services, it is now allowed on iOS1. Perhaps there are other services of which I’m not aware that apply here, but it sounds like this is an older grievance that has been rectified.

Excluding Cross-Platform Messaging Apps: Although iPhone’s green bubbles have been characterized as the epitome of Apple’s unfairness — reading into the complaint it appears it’s more about the lack of SMS support in public APIs so that other apps can choose to mix their own propriety message protocols with SMS the way iMessage does. I agree, Apple should open up both phone and SMS messaging for third parties.

Diminishing the Functionality of Non-Apple Smartwatches: This complaint boils down again to restrictions on the public API that Apple’s private APIs don’t have. Although I think it’s absurd to say third party smartwatches only run on bluetooth and “Apple recognizes users frequently disable Bluetooth on their iPhone without realizing that doing so disconnects their watch”2 and has therefore allowed syncing to continue with Apple Watch while bluetooth is disconnected. But really… who frequently disables Bluetooth?

Limiting Third Party Digital Wallets: As explained in the briefing, “Digital wallets are apps that allow a user to store and use passes and credentials, including credit cards, personal identification, movie tickets, and car keys, in a single app.” The complaint alleges that if “financial institutions offered digital wallets, then users would have access to new apps and technologies without needing to share their private financial data with additional third parties, including Apple.” I’d rather share my private data with Apple who believes that privacy is a human right vs. the retailers who are notorious for tracking users.

It appears there might be some legitimate monopolistic behaviour even though Apple doesn’t have a 95% monopoly control of the market the way Microsoft did during the case in 1998. I suspect there will be a few concessions but even in that case, in which Microsoft was found guilty, the end result3 was basically a mere settlement promise from Microsoft to straighten up and fly right. The remaining mystery is, even if Apple is found guilty, will the cure actually be worse for consumers?

  1. in select countries[↩]
  2. emphasis mine[↩]
  3. after appeals and technicalities[↩]
Posted on

Lethbridge police officers temporarily demoted in connection with surveillance of NDP cabinet minister

CHAT News Today

Sgt. Jason Carrier and Const. Keon Woronuk of the Lethbridge Police Service have been temporarily demoted after unauthorized surveillance of Lethbridge West MLA Shannon Phillips and stakeholders in the protections of the Castle region in southwest region.

Carrier was on-duty but on a meal break with two other officers when Phillips entered the Chef Stella Diner to meet informally with stakeholders on the Castle region changes during the morning of April 17, 2017.

Carrier texted Woronuk — who was acting sergeant on duty at the time — with a picture of the meeting and location. Woronuk attended the diner shortly thereafter.

In a conversation between the two uniformed officers as they left the diner after taking photos of the meeting, Woronuk said to Carrier that he, “would hate to see Phillips drive away from the restaurant and there was a reason to stop her,” according to the penalty decision.

In addition to taking photos, Woronuk was involved in setting up surveillance and subsequently following one of the stakeholders while running a police information check on them.

Full article after the jump:
Continue reading “Lethbridge police officers temporarily demoted in connection with surveillance of NDP cabinet minister”

Posted on

Links O’ Plenty

The following are a couple of the things I’ve been checking out lately:

No Tolls on the Internet by the brilliant Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney. I can hardly believe that American legislator’s are even thinking about ripping control of the Internet out of the hands of the people and bequeathing it to the telecoms.

Guy from the Train Effect is a good read on creating environments that juxtapose ideas and images not normally associated with each other creating a positive and memorable experience. I think Flickr does a great job of this.

Do it Yourself Impeachment, since I’m not a US citizen I can only watch from the sidelines, but for those of you that are, here’s your call to action; now is the time.

Posted on

Micro$oft Picks Fight with Mike Rowe

The Software giant is mad because Mike Rowe’s new website http://www.mikerowesoft.com sounds a lot like Microsoft.com. Well boo-hoo. They offered him $10 to buy the domain from him. He said he’d like $10,000 and after they realized their scare tactics weren’t working it sounds like they might actually back off, from ZDnet, “We take our trademarks seriously, but in this case maybe a little too seriously. It’s important to recognize that under the law companies are required to take this type of action to protect their trademark against widespread infringement. But that said, we appreciate that Mike Rowe is a young entrepreneur who came up with a creative domain name. We’re currently in the process of resolving this matter in a way that will be fair to him and satisfy our obligations under trademark law.”

Posted on

Pooh heirs hire Cochran in Disney suit

Attorney Johnnie Cochran Jr., best known for his work in OJ Simpson’s murder trial, stated last month that he is swearing off criminal law. It was announced today that his newest client is Winnie the Pooh — actually the heirs of the Stephen Slesinger. They allege that Disney owes them millions of dollars because they miscalculated royalties due from the sales of Pooh dolls, books and other merchandise for years. The lawsuit has been going on for the last 12 years, and the Slesinger’s have changed attorneys several times in that time.

Pati Slesinger stated, “We are honored to have Mr. Cochran […] on our team.” Stephen Slesinger, Pati’s father, acquired the rights to Pooh from British author A.A. Milne in 1930 and expanded them in a 1932 agreement.

Update: A legal opinion on the case was delivered December 21, 2012.

In 1930, A.A. Milne transferred to Slesinger exclusive merchandising and other rights to Winnie-the-Pooh works in the U.S. and Canada. In 1961, Slesinger exclusively “assigned, granted, and set over to” Disney the rights in the 1930 agreement. A 1983 agreement sought to resolve the parties’ disputes, but Slesinger contends it retained rights in the works, while Disney maintains Slesinger assigned all rights. In 1991, before the present litigation, Slesinger sued in state court, alleging breach of the 1983 agreement. Slesinger acknowledged that the 1983 agreement “regranted, licensed and assigned all rights” to Disney. The action was ultimately dismissed. The dispute continued in federal court. The district court dismissed, noting that the parties’ actions indicated the rights were transferred to Disney in the 1983 agreement. Between 1983 and 2006, Disney registered at least 15 trademarks. In 2004, Disney registered copyrights in 45 works and renewed copyright registrations for another 14. Slesinger did not attempt to perfect or register trademarks or copyrights before asserting its federal claims and never objected to Disney’s registrations until 2006, when the state court dismissed its claims and Slesinger attempted to cancel Disney’s applications and marks. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s dismissal, citing estoppel.