<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>law &#8211; PPCGeeks.com</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.ppcgeeks.com/tag/law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.ppcgeeks.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 05:09:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Radiation Labels For Cell Phones? Maine Says No, San Francisco Says Yes</title>
		<link>https://www.ppcgeeks.com/2010/03/30/radiation-from-cell-phones-maine-says-no-san-francisco-says-yes/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:56:43 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dsl reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electromagnetic radiation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[radiation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ppcgeeks.com/?p=4301</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[While the city of San Francisco endeavors onwards to make it a legal requirement for cell phone makers to include radiation labels on their handsets, various Maine lawmakers have been pushing a similar bill that would require labels on phones and packaging warning users (especially the pregnant women and helpless children) keep the devices away [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.ppcgeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/RadiationCell.jpg"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" style="margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px; border: 0pt none;" src="https://www.ppcgeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/RadiationCell.jpg" border="0" alt="" hspace="10" width="400" height="200" align="left" /></a></p>
<p>While the city of San Francisco endeavors onwards to make it a legal requirement for cell phone makers to include radiation labels on their handsets, various Maine lawmakers have been pushing a similar bill that would require labels on phones and packaging warning users (especially the  pregnant women and<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo" target="_blank"> helpless children</a>) keep the devices away from their head and  bodies because of the cancer risk from electromagnetic radiation (not<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/25470564@N08/4203209127/in/pool-chernobyl-2" target="_blank"> this</a> type of radiation, which is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster" target="_blank">worst ever release of radiation</a> that has ever occurred).</p>
<p>However, this legislative work is now dead according to <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20100329/tc_zd/249617" target="_blank">PC Magazine</a>. What a waste of a good name of law, as the official name of the bill was enticing as it was to be known as the &#8220;Children&#8217;s Wireless Protection Act&#8221;. Also, remember folks, we may not have to worry about cell phone radiation as the world *may* end in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon" target="_blank">2012</a>.</p>
<p>Source- <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Maine-Rejects-Radiation-Warning-Labels-on-Cell-Phones-107631" target="_blank">DSL Report</a></p>
<p>Image Credit- <a href="http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2008/01/having_trouble_sleeping_it_mig.php" target="_blank">SF Weekly</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Paid an ETF to AT&#038;T/Cingular in the last 12 years? Your check is in the mail (maybe)</title>
		<link>https://www.ppcgeeks.com/2010/01/26/paid-an-etf-to-att-in-the-last-12-years-your-check-is-in-the-mail-maybe/</link>
					<comments>https://www.ppcgeeks.com/2010/01/26/paid-an-etf-to-att-in-the-last-12-years-your-check-is-in-the-mail-maybe/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:56:12 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Carriers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AT&T]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[at&t wireless]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[atat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[atat wireless]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cingular]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class-action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ETF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[flat-rate ETF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawsuit]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ppcgeeks.com/?p=2707</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[What is $18 million divided amongst all the former subscribers of AT&#38;T Wireless/Cingular who paid a flat-rate ETF between January 1, 1998 and November 4, 2009 minus lawyer fee&#8217;s? Not a whole lot, but if you happen to fit into that category then you should be getting your portion in the mail (hopefully sometime this [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.ppcgeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/att_logo1.jpg"><img decoding="async" style="margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px; border: 0pt none;" src="https://www.ppcgeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/att_logo1.jpg" border="0" alt="" hspace="10" width="300" height="190" align="left" /></a></p>
<p>What is $18 million divided amongst all the former subscribers of AT&amp;T Wireless/Cingular who paid a flat-rate ETF between January 1, 1998 and November 4, 2009 minus lawyer fee&#8217;s? Not a whole lot, but if you happen to fit into that category then you should be getting your portion in the mail (hopefully sometime this decade). AT&amp;T has settled an ETF class action lawsuit in New Jersey and $18 million was the agreed-upon settlement.</p>
<p>Below is a message sent to Engadget by AT&amp;T reinforcing that this settlement is not an admission of guilt but the cheap way out.</p>
<blockquote><p><em>We strongly deny any wrongdoing, and no court has found AT&amp;T  Mobility committed any wrongdoing regarding these fees. However, we have  agreed to settle to avoid the burden and cost of further litigation.</em></p>
<p><em>It&#8217;s important to note that the litigation involves old early  termination fee policies of the old AT&amp;T Wireless and Cingular. In  2008 we introduced a new, more flexible early termination fee policy, in  which we pro-rate the ETF if you are a new or renewing wireless  customer who enters a one- or two-year service agreement.</em></p></blockquote>
<p>May there be a day where ETF&#8217;s are either non-existent or at least more inline to the actual cost of the phone it is intended to cover. Go <a href="http://www.attmetfsettlement.com/" target="_blank">here</a> to file a claim if you fit the criteria.</p>
<p>Source- <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/26/atandt-settles-new-jersey-etf-case-for-18m/" target="_blank">Engadget</a></p>
<p>After the break is a copy of the Press Release.</p>
<p><span id="more-2707"></span></p>
<p>Important Notice from the United States District Court for the District  of New Jersey about a Class Action Settlement<br />
Para ver este aviso en espanol, visita www.ATTMETFSettlement.com/espanol</p>
<p>A Class Action Settlement Could Affect Your Rights If You:<br />
• Subscribed to wireless telephone service from AT&amp;T Mobility LLC  (&#8220;AT&amp;T Mobility&#8221;) or its predecessors and paid or were charged a  flat-rate early termination fee (&#8220;ETF&#8221;) at any time after January 1,  1998; or<br />
• Your contract included a flat-rate ETF provision at any time after  January 1, 1998.<br />
A proposed Settlement has been reached in a class action alleging that  AT&amp;T Mobility&#8217;s flat-rate ETF (generally between $150 and $175) was  unlawful. The Settlement resolves several other cases that challenge  AT&amp;T Mobility&#8217;s flat-rate ETF. AT&amp;T Mobility strongly denies any  wrongdoing, but has agreed to settle to avoid the burden and cost of  further litigation. The sole purpose of this notice is to inform you of  the Settlement so that you may decide what to do.<br />
If the Settlement is approved, a settlement fund of $16,000,000 in cash  and $2,000,000 in non-cash benefits will be created. Class Members who  submit Claim Forms may receive monetary or other benefits. You may also  choose to exclude yourself from, or object to, the Settlement. The Court  has appointed attorneys to represent the Class. You may hire your own  attorney, but only at your own expense.<br />
For a full description of the Settlement, related Court documents, and  deadlines and forms, please visit www.ATTMETFSettlement.com.<br />
• Claim Forms are due June 14, 2010, but the date may be extended.<br />
• Requests to exclude yourself from the Settlement must be submitted to  the Settlement Administrator and are due March 24, 2010.<br />
• You or your lawyer has the right to appear before the Court and object  to the Settlement. Any objections to the Settlement are due March 24,  2010, and any objections to attorneys&#8217; fees requested are due April 12,  2010.<br />
• The Court will determine whether to approve the Settlement at a  Fairness Hearing on April 14, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in the United States  District Court for the District of New Jersey.<br />
• If you do not exclude yourself by March 24, 2010 and you are a member  of the Class, you will be bound by the terms of the Settlement and give  up your rights to sue in court or arbitration regarding issues in the  case.<br />
You can get a Claim Form at www.ATTMETFSettlement.com/claimform by  calling 1-888-228-0885 or<br />
by writing the AT&amp;T Mobility ETF Settlement Claims Administrator,  c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 2266, Faribault, MN 55021-2386.<br />
Questions may also be directed to Class Counsel by email at  info@ATTMETFSettlement.com.<br />
Please do not contact AT&amp;T Mobility or the Court with questions  about this Settlement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.ppcgeeks.com/2010/01/26/paid-an-etf-to-att-in-the-last-12-years-your-check-is-in-the-mail-maybe/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>WTF!?! IBM patents shorthand speak! PPCG BBQ FTW LMAO!</title>
		<link>https://www.ppcgeeks.com/2010/01/03/wtf-ibm-patents-shorthand-speak-ppcg-bbq-ftw-lmao/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jan 2010 16:57:52 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IBM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LOL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[techdirt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[text]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[text speak]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ppcgeeks.com/?p=2337</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[As it seems to reason, all shorthand textual communication is now patented by IBM. At least this is the conclusion I came to after reading the following on TechDirt&#8211; theodp writes &#8220;The USPTO has granted IBM a patent covering the Resolution of Abbreviated Text in an Electronic Communications System, lawyer-speak for translating &#8220;IMHO&#8221; to &#8220;In [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.ppcgeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/PPCGBBQFTW-300x180.jpg"><img decoding="async" style="margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px; border: 0pt none;" src="https://www.ppcgeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/PPCGBBQFTW-300x180.jpg" border="0" alt="" hspace="10" width="300" height="180" align="left" /></a></p>
<p>As it seems to reason, all shorthand textual communication is now patented by IBM. At least this is the conclusion I came to after reading the following on <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091230/0957277551.shtml" target="_blank">TechDirt</a>&#8211;</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>theodp</strong> writes <em>&#8220;The USPTO has granted IBM a patent covering  the <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=7,640,233">Resolution  of Abbreviated Text in an Electronic Communications System</a>,  lawyer-speak for <a href="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4045/4225941130_c68b39924a_o.jpg">translating  &#8220;IMHO&#8221; to &#8220;In My Humble Opinion&#8221;</a> and vice versa. From the patent:  &#8220;One particularly useful application of the invention is to interpret  the meaning of shorthand terms&#8230;For example, one database may define  the shorthand term &#8216;LOL&#8217; to mean &#8216;laughing out loud.'&#8221;</em></p></blockquote>
<p>I for one am interested in what implications this could have on our increasingly textual-heavy way of communicating with each other. Will it spell the end to such speech? Or is IBM merely patenting this concept so others will not abuse it? Only time will tell.</p>
<p>Further reading-</p>
<p><a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=7,640,233.PN.&amp;OS=PN/7,640,233&amp;RS=PN/7,640,233" target="_blank">IBM&#8217;s Patent</a></p>
<p><a href="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4045/4225941130_c68b39924a_o.jpg" target="_blank">Artistic example of said patent</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
