Saturday, October 11, 2003

Ominous lawsuit threat This report says that a "digital content security" company anticipates filing a lawsuit under the DMCA against a student who wrote a paper disclosing that the "security" can be overcome by holding down the Shift key while inserting the CD.  See also Derek Slater's comment.  This would be a "Silly-Ass Lawsuit" if it weren't so damned scary. 11:05:39 AM     Treatment for a severely disabled infant upheld A $60 million jury verdict against Columbia/HCA will not be reinstated.  The Texas Supreme Court has affirmed by a 7-0 vote a Court of Appeals decision to overturn the 1998 jury verdict which had been based on the decision by the hospital's personnel to provide treatment to a severely disabled newborn against the wishes of the parents.  Some excerpts from the AP report: When Sidney was born, her eyes were fused, her head about the size of a golf ball. Because she did not have fully developed lungs, doctors used a throat tube to pump oxygen into her body. She survived but with severe disabilities, including blindness and mental retardation. She cannot walk, talk or feed herself.  *      *      * Several Houston-area Baptist and Jewish leaders sided with the Millers, arguing the court should protect the sanctity of the family.  *      *      * Although courts and state law recognize parents are the appropriate decision makers for their infants, the court said, there are limits to withholding treatment. Testimony showed the girl's chances improved the sooner treatment was provided, the court said. There was no time to get a court order to supersede the order to withhold treatment. The court threw out the family's claims of battery and negligence. "(The doctor) had to make a split-second decision," the court said. Even though the Millers were in the delivery room, "there was simply no time to obtain their consent to treatment or institute legal proceedings." 9:44:53 AM     Granholm steps in it We recently linked to a Tom Bray commentary on the recent legislative struggle over charter schools in Michigan.  The denoument of the controversy was a legislative fiasco, an embarrassment to the Governor. The legislation, Senate Bill 393, is now law, 2003 PA 179, by virtue of the Governor's inadvertent failure to veto it.  The bill was passed to provide for 15 new "urban high school academies" in the Detroit school district.  Granholm was planning a veto when she was requested by the Senate, on September 18, to return the bill for further work.  This is what is known as a "recall" of the bill.  What Granholm overlooked was that both houses of the Legislature must ask for the bill to be returned.  Having failed to veto the bill, it is now law in this state, under Article IV, Section 33 of the Michigan Constitution.  State Representative Jim Howell asked the Attorney General for an opinion, and the AG concluded that the bill had been enacted, citing three previous AG opinions which came to the same conclusion.   The issue is now before the courts, but we would predict that the courts will agree with the Attorney General. Granholm, after this blunder, has taken the position that she will not recognize the legal status of the law.  This is a peculiar position to take after having herself served one term as Attorney General. Not to worry, Ms. Governor.  Your esteemed predecessor made the same mistake once himself.  See Oops: Charters bill may already be law (Detroit Free Press) and an editorial entitled Sorry state: Charter spat costs $200 million (Lansing State Journal). 7:02:35 AM

© Copyright 2003 Franco Castalone. Last update: 11/2/2003; 7:53:52 AM.