Slashdot Mirror

Cisco is a California corporation. Criminal Liability of a Corporate Officer or Agent

With an embedded firmware device, the end use has no need to agree to any "shrink wrap" license or ToS prior to use. Whatever firmware is provided is used, and "copied" into RAM, under Fair Use - that's a normal and expected part of operation, the purchase would be otherwise worthless. Perhaps, an agreement could be required when deliberately downloading an upgrade, but that is not the case here.

Therefore, the user might never have agreed to allow Cisco to take control of their purchased device, and change it's operating behavior. Cisco was negligent in making "automatic upgrades" a default. They should, at a minimum, have made the default to be "off," and popped up a warning/permission agreement if the user turned it on.

What they have essentially done is to ship a Trojan Horse, the result of which was criminal*.

It hasn't been determined if the terms of their new unilateral contract are reality with the new firmware - but if they capture browsing behavior, they're also in violation of the ECPA, since the automatic download of new firmware would have required no authorization from the user. If they ship new product with firmware which does that, they'll still be criminals, because the user cannot be required to provide authorization for that as a condition of using the product.

*"Whoever...knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer...the term âoedamageâ means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information;..shall be punished..." - 18 USC 1030

Texas
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-there-a-3-day-cooling-off-period-after-a-car-ha-5545.html
THERE IS NO 3 DAY CHANCE TO GET OUT OF A CAR PURCHASE IN TEXAS

http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/ca/law/c05.html
California
Finally, consumers should be aware that the three-day "cooling off" period that allows a buyer to cancel a contract within three days does not apply to the purchase of new or used cars. Because the contract cannot be canceled under this consumer protection provision, a buyer should exercise caution before signing any contract for the purchase of a used car.

However... if it is not a car... and at your home... and worth over $25...

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/products/pro03.shtm
If you buy something at a store and later change your mind, you may not be able to return the merchandise. But if you buy an item in your home or at a location that is not the seller's permanent place of business, you may have the option. The Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) Cooling-Off Rule gives you three days to cancel purchases of $25 or more. Under the Cooling-Off Rule, your right to cancel for a full refund extends until midnight of the third business day after the sale.

The Cooling-Off Rule applies to sales at the buyer's home, workplace or dormitory, or at facilities rented by the seller on a temporary or short-term basis, such as hotel or motel rooms, convention centers, fairgrounds and restaurants. The Cooling-Off Rule applies even when you invite the salesperson to make a presentation in your home.

Under the Cooling-Off Rule, the salesperson must tell you about your cancellation rights at the time of sale. The salesperson also must give you two copies of a cancellation form (one to keep and one to send) and a copy of your contract or receipt. The contract or receipt should be dated, show the name and address of the seller, and explain your right to cancel. The contract or receipt must be in the same language that's used in the sales presentation.

(lists of various exceptions).

You are making a terrible metaphor. Ford does have a monopoly on producing mustangs. That is why people aren't producing mustangs. Trust me if someone reverse engineers and sells a mustang. They will get their asses sued and will lose. What Psystar is arguing and this is specific to Florida is that a contract tying to devices together where tying is only caused by that contract can be considered a Monopoly because you are forcing the consumer to buy a certain product. This is exactly what Apple has been performing and I hope this is an excellent wake up call to them. Source: http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/fl/law/antitrust.html If you want to learn more before using caps.

...I'd have to ask an attorney whether any US states do.

They do in Texas....

However - and this is big - how can Microsoft change the habits and behavior of many millions of users?

All MS has to do to wipe Google off the map is make sure all new OEM sales of MS-Windows point their searches only to MS own excuse for a search service. Or make sure that one of the payloads snuck into a "security" update does so. Something over 75% of people just leave the default install. Even if they don't leave the defaults, every time support bleats the "re-format, re-install" mantra they get rid of all those customizations. Eventually they disappear through attrition.

Illegal tying helped them out with MSIE vs Netscape. Netscape had the market, but MSIE came pre-installed on all Wintel hardware and all W95 CDs. Don't take my word for it. Look up US DOJ vs MS. Both products rather sucked.

Illegal tying helped them out in getting WMA/WMV and its DRM a serious share in a market where a few years ago they had none. Don't take my word for it. Look up the case of MS vs the EC, which MS is still footdragging on.

And to a certain extent, illegal tying helped them out in getting MS-Word and MS-Excel to take the place of WordPerfect and Quattro. Heck that was probably the whole reasong for bundling everything into MS-Office in the first place.

Parent post was interesting enough to do some web research:
Minnesota does indeed have a lemon law on _automobile_ purchases. The MN Attorney General web site had more information on consumer laws. specifically states that '...that there is no three day "cooling-off" law when you buy a car...'

The Minnesota law for the three day "cooling off" period applies to In home purchases by door to door salespeople.

I can find nothing specific about 3 day return for anything, including or excluding software in Minnesota. (Although, Down In The Valley record stores reports that Body Jewelry cannot be returned per MN state law.)

I worked for a software supplier in Minnesota and our policy was that the software was yours as soon as you signed the contractual purchase agreement. Opened or not, we would not take it back. Services performed could always be disputed, but we never ever took back software, even with MN State contracts.

I find that most retail stores have a far more liberal return policy like Best Buy a Minnesota Corporation.

1. Acceptance: Both parties must agree to the terms. Since most EULAs do not have real-time user authentication systems, it's hard to prove who, if anyone, actually agreed to the EULA.
2. Consideration: Under contract law, both parties must recieve something of benefit from a contract. However, with most EULAs, only the manufacturer benefits. There may also be a question of duress in requiring the purchaser to agree to additional terms in order to use the product he's already paid for.
3. Legality: A contract may not contain illegal terms. This affects EULAs which purport to take constitutional rights from users. (freedom of speech, etc)
4. Capacity: Both parties must be competent to enter into the legal arrangement. EULAs suffer the same problems here as in acceptance. Which is why I have my dog press the mouse button whenever I'm presented with some ridiculous EULA.

more info

example from California:

Capacity of the Parties

In order to be bound to a contract, the parties must be competent to enter into such a legal arrangement. Underage persons, persons who are mentally ill, and intoxicated persons are usually not held to the contracts they enter.

Be sure to drink a quart of whiskey before installing anything!

If the kid is under 18, it's a gray area at best on the applicability of a contract to him. Are you responsible then for a contract you never saw that was "signed" by someone not able to sign a contract alone in the first place?

Capacity of the Parties

In order to be bound to a contract, the parties must be competent to enter into such a legal arrangement. Underage persons, persons who are mentally ill, and intoxicated persons are usually not held to the contracts they enter. However, a minor may have the option of enforcing a contract.

Every state in the U.S. does though.

I'm not sure there is any evidence available online.

Claiming another's work as your own is not copyright infringement.

Whether something infringes on a copyright is difficult to discern; thus, a great deal of case law has been generated on the subject. For example, in a written work, outright plagiarism--the exact copying of words--is copyright infringement, but the copyright does not prevent others from using the facts and ideas used in that work.

In any case, your quibble is irrelevant, because my statement of "wouldn't it be simpler if there were no copyright laws" does not preclude plagiarism laws.

Yes, that way when I write something or record something, I can forget about worrying if someone is going to copy it and claim it as their own.

Umm, no that's plagiarism, not copyright infringement.

Furthermore, "does not preclude plagiarism laws" implies that there are actual plagiarism laws, which there are not (e.g. the California Code [ca.gov] does not include the words "plagiarism" or "plagiarize"). Plagiarism, as we've established, is a common-law doctrine and is not codified.

Consideration is a legal concept which describes something of value that is given in exchange for a performance or a promise to perform. The presence of consideration distinguishes contracts from gifts. Consideration can be a promise to do something there is no legal obligation to do, or a promise to not do something there is a legal right to do. Promises to exchange money, goods, or services are forms of consideration. All parties in an agreement must give consideration in order to create a contract, but courts typically do not look at the adequacy of consideration unless there is evidence of some type of wrongdoing by the party benefiting most from the contract.

Let's say Bob does put it in the form of an if ... then ... statement and Alice clearly assents in writing. There still isn't an enforcable contract because there is no consideration.

Alice can't force Bob to haul the ship away if he's reluctant to do so and Bob can't force Alice to turn the wreck (or the monetary value of the wreck) over to him if she disposes of it otherwise.

Consideration has to be an element of any contract. Here's a link which discusses consideration in Minnesota law, but it is general enough to apply to other states. I learned from this page that consideration distinguishes contracts from gifts. Gifts or promises to make a gift, I believe, are not enforcable. I also learned that each party to a contract needs to give some consideration.

Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected

Consideration

Consideration is a legal concept which describes something of value that is given in exchange for a performance or a promise to perform. The presence of consideration distinguishes contracts from gifts. Consideration can be a promise to do something there is no legal obligation to do, or a promise to not do something there is a legal right to do. Promises to exchange money, goods, or services are forms of consideration. All parties in an agreement must give consideration in order to create a contract, but courts typically do not look at the adequacy of consideration unless there is evidence of some type of wrongdoing by the party benefiting most from the contract.