Slashdot Mirror
Domain: techfirm.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to techfirm.com.
Comments · 8
-
Blown way out of proportion.
Here is the order; http://www.techfirm.com/logorder.pdf
Now I am not a lawyer, but what it seems to me like they are saying is this;
"We don't care that you don't log IP addresses. You can log them because they are in RAM. We want you to record the IP address of people requesting
They're not asking for an entire memory dump every time that memory changes. They aren't asking for the physical memory. The article makes me believe they actually have a good comprehension of what is going on.
At least, that's what I read when I RTFA. -
unsure why the story has been rejected here so far
-
Re:What next?
According to the linked pdf of the settlement:
12. The settlement, in my view, is particularly valuable to the General Public because its benefits as a practical matter will have a broad reach to protect the rights of millions of consumers and it will for the first tim in history cause teh major software retailers to make available to consumers at the point of sale software license agreements for review, allow consumers to get ALL their money back from Software Publishers even if the shrink-wrap is broken, and cause the major software publishers like Microsoft to post their EULAS on the web for public viewing prior to slae with the corresponding web addresses printed in the respective software cartons. This result is particularly important as the software industry enters a new era of activation procedures, consumer tracking methods, and digitial rights managment - the remedies in this case allow consumers to more fairly review the software license agreements prior to sale and vote with their wallets - potentially causing software publishers to more efficiently compete on licensing terms.
Emphasis and spelling errors mine. -
article text
In case the server can't keep up:
A Fatal Blow to Shrinkwrap Licensing?
By Ed Foster, Section Columns
Posted on Mon Dec 20th, 2004 at 08:02:57 AM PDT
Having so often been the bearer of bad news from the legal front, I am thrilled to have some good news to report for a change. The old-fashioned shrinkwrap license appears to have suffered from what may well be a mortal wound. Microsoft, Symantec, Adobe, CompUSA, Best Buy, and Staples have agreed in the settlement of a California lawsuit to change their ways, and you can already see the first results at the software retailer nearest you.
In January 2003, California resident Cathy Baker walked into her local CompUSA store to return copies of Windows XP and Norton AntiVirus she'd purchased there. When trying to install the programs, she had of course been confronted by all the obnoxious terms in the Windows and NAV End User License Agreements. Instead of clicking OK, she took them back to the store for a refund, as the EULAs said she was supposed to do if she refused to accept the terms.
At CompUSA, however, Baker was told the store's policy was that it could not give refunds for software once the customer has opened the package. Even though Baker had no way of seeing the EULAs until after she purchased the products, took them home, opened the package and tried to install the software on her computer, she was now told she could not get her money back even when she rejected the terms. (In a somewhat bizarre twist, after she protested enough, one CompUSA employee told her that they had "secret instructions" from Symantec to provide refunds in such circumstances.) So, like many others before her, Baker was confronted with the classic shrinkwrap license conundrum: She could only see the terms by opening the box, and opening the box meant she was stuck with it. But Baker did something most others before her had not - she went and got a lawyer.
"When Miss Baker came to us, we felt it was an important case to bring for the benefit of the general public," says Baker's attorney, high tech litigation specialist Ira Rothken. "In our research, we found that it hadn't been discussed before - there was no guidance on it in the literature. Here you have a multibillion-dollar industry that is using improper business practices as a consistent policy, in violation of federal and California consumer warranty statutes. As a practical matter, the consumer couldn't review the terms and conditions prior to the sale and couldn't reject them with any certainty they could get all their money back."
After Rothken first filed the lawsuit in February of 2003, ensuing news coverage brought more consumers forward with similar stories of their own. An amended complaint to the case Rothken filed in May of that year added a second plaintiff along with Baker and also included Adobe, Staples and Best Buy as defendants with Microsoft, Symantec and CompUSA. Ultimately the parties entered a mediation process and in April they reached a settlement under which the six defendants had up to 120 days to make the agreed-upon changes to their procedures. The entire settlement along with the amended complaint and exhibits can be read in a PDF file on Rothken's website, but it reads in part:
"The Settlement Agreement provides to the General Public of California, amongst other things, the right of consumers to return applicable Symantec, Adobe and Microsoft software for full monetary refunds even if the shrink-wrap has been opened -
article text
In case the server can't keep up:
A Fatal Blow to Shrinkwrap Licensing?
By Ed Foster, Section Columns
Posted on Mon Dec 20th, 2004 at 08:02:57 AM PDT
Having so often been the bearer of bad news from the legal front, I am thrilled to have some good news to report for a change. The old-fashioned shrinkwrap license appears to have suffered from what may well be a mortal wound. Microsoft, Symantec, Adobe, CompUSA, Best Buy, and Staples have agreed in the settlement of a California lawsuit to change their ways, and you can already see the first results at the software retailer nearest you.
In January 2003, California resident Cathy Baker walked into her local CompUSA store to return copies of Windows XP and Norton AntiVirus she'd purchased there. When trying to install the programs, she had of course been confronted by all the obnoxious terms in the Windows and NAV End User License Agreements. Instead of clicking OK, she took them back to the store for a refund, as the EULAs said she was supposed to do if she refused to accept the terms.
At CompUSA, however, Baker was told the store's policy was that it could not give refunds for software once the customer has opened the package. Even though Baker had no way of seeing the EULAs until after she purchased the products, took them home, opened the package and tried to install the software on her computer, she was now told she could not get her money back even when she rejected the terms. (In a somewhat bizarre twist, after she protested enough, one CompUSA employee told her that they had "secret instructions" from Symantec to provide refunds in such circumstances.) So, like many others before her, Baker was confronted with the classic shrinkwrap license conundrum: She could only see the terms by opening the box, and opening the box meant she was stuck with it. But Baker did something most others before her had not - she went and got a lawyer.
"When Miss Baker came to us, we felt it was an important case to bring for the benefit of the general public," says Baker's attorney, high tech litigation specialist Ira Rothken. "In our research, we found that it hadn't been discussed before - there was no guidance on it in the literature. Here you have a multibillion-dollar industry that is using improper business practices as a consistent policy, in violation of federal and California consumer warranty statutes. As a practical matter, the consumer couldn't review the terms and conditions prior to the sale and couldn't reject them with any certainty they could get all their money back."
After Rothken first filed the lawsuit in February of 2003, ensuing news coverage brought more consumers forward with similar stories of their own. An amended complaint to the case Rothken filed in May of that year added a second plaintiff along with Baker and also included Adobe, Staples and Best Buy as defendants with Microsoft, Symantec and CompUSA. Ultimately the parties entered a mediation process and in April they reached a settlement under which the six defendants had up to 120 days to make the agreed-upon changes to their procedures. The entire settlement along with the amended complaint and exhibits can be read in a PDF file on Rothken's website, but it reads in part:
"The Settlement Agreement provides to the General Public of California, amongst other things, the right of consumers to return applicable Symantec, Adobe and Microsoft software for full monetary refunds even if the shrink-wrap has been opened -
Re:VeriSign class action - 404?
Just in case you are looking for the document I was referring to in the parent posting: Here it goes...
-
404 is not the same as domain not found
The actual complaint in the class action law suit has very serious confusion involving the technical issues surrounding the SiteFinder.
In the introduction, they discuss that the SiteFinder replaces what was previously done with 404 errors. However, as has been previously discussed many times here on SlashDot, 404 errors occur when the domain exists, but the requested document does not exist on the webserver hosting that domain (it is the webserver than returns the 404 HTTP error code). In actually, when a domain didn't exist, you would get an error stating "Could not find domain". The complaint even describes how, in the past, incorrectly typing a URL would give a 404 error (they use the typo "ssyncalot.com" as a typo of "syncalot.com"). This behaviour never occured.
Although I feel that legal action against Verisign is a good idea, the plaintiffs should perhaps organize their technical facts before appearing in court.
-
VeriSign class action - 404?After quickly scanning the class action document against VeriSign, I am shocked about the incompetence of the plaintiff's lawyers: Their argumentation about 404 error pages has nothing to do with VeriSign's DNS change.
Is it that hard for a "high technology" law firm to understand how DNS works?
A s/\"404\"/NXDOMAIN/g; would definitely improve their chances to win the law suit.