Fight Woodworking Piracy: Add EULA Restrictions

An anonymous reader writes "Ed Foster's Gripelog discusses EULA restriction on a new woodworking tool. A small woodworking tool manufacturer, Stots Corporation, includes a license agreement on its TemplateMaster jig tool. The tool is licensed, not sold, and customers cannot sell it or lend it to others. Nor can they sell or lend the jigs they make with it. "Shrinkwrap licenses are showing up everywhere," a reader recently wrote. "I just bought a jig for making dovetailing jigs -- this is woodworker talk if it's unfamiliar to you. The master jig contained a license that says I've licensed the master jig, not bought it. The license says I can't lend or sell the master, and furthermore I can't lend or sell the jigs I make with the master." The reader was referring to Stots Corporation of Harrods Creek, KY, and the user agreement for its TemplateMaster product. Sure enough, the Stots license says TemplateMaster may be used "in only one shop by the original purchaser only" and that "you may not allow individuals that did not purchase the original Product (to) use the Product or any templates produced using the Product..." A FAQ document on the Stots website explains that the license is necessary because "the purpose of the TemplateMaster is to clone itself. Therefore we are verifying your honesty that only you will use the tool and you will not be passing it around to others to use for free. It is exactly the same as the 'shrink wrap' agreement that comes with almost all computer software. Please help us fight 'tool piracy'."

Comments

Bah!

[niko9]

Please help us fight 'tool piracy'.

The only tool piracy crime being perpetraed is that the lawyers in that company are able to procreate without supervision.

--

Re:Bah!

[lanswitch]

But are you gonna be the supervisor? I'm not gonna watch that...

Re:Bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a sterilization program in mind. It consists of a number of kits each containing:

1 leather bit
1 10 gauge shotgun
1 000 shell for said gun
2 stout men to hold the lawyer down
1 funnel, heavy duty steel, galvanized
1 extra absorbant self-adhesive gauze pad
1 Sterilization Certification sticker
and 3 shots of whisky

Re:Bah!

[ocelotbob]

It's a small price to pay if it means fewer lawyers in this world. Of course, many of these lawyers need to say hello to my little friend...

Of course, this is all MHO

Re:Bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are any of those shots of whisky for the lawyer?

Re:Bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you? Some kind of comedian?

Yeah, one, but it doesn't have any alcohol in it.

Re:Bah!

[ddimas]

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If I was foolish enough to buy such a thing I would spend considerable time and money to VIOLATE THEIR EULA.

I actually have a woodworking shop in my garage, telling me that I don't own a tool I paid for is theft!

Incidently, software EULA's amount to theft also.

Re:Bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me get this straight. They make a tool that you use to make tools. But if you use the tool for what they make it for you are going against the EULA? That would be like Microsoft saying you can't use Visual Basic ( a program) to make other programs.

Re:Bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, AFIAK, it's more like Runtime Revolution's ( www.runrev.com ) licensing provision against making competing software with their program. (For those you too lazy to click the link, RunRev is a development environment.) I frankly think that's extremely wrong, but it is consistent with the conventional wisdom which states:

"If you make something, you are morally entitled to use all available loopholes in the law to dishonestly guarantee yourself millions of dollars in sales."

*sigh* If the company is small enough, someone will sue the crap out of them before they can collect any money this way.

Re:Bah!

[kabocox]

You'd like to supervise the lawyers in that company while they procreate?

Simple

[tobybuk]

Don't buy it if you don't like the conditions. Oh, and tell your friends not to as well.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

But do they really have a right to slap restrictions on the use of everything under the sun?

Re:Simple

[switched4OSX]

You may be right there, but what happens when this becomes the next great trend in the tool world?

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, vote with your feet.

Works until they all gang up and back everybody into a corner.

Re:Simple

[Asic Eng]

The problem with shrinkwrap licenses is, that by the time you get the license you *have* already bought the thing. To change contract conditions after a sale was agreed is cheating. Why should you be bound by any private contract which you did not agree to?

Re:Simple

[pubjames]

Don't buy it if you don't like the conditions.

But should they be allowed to put these conditions onto a product you have purchased?

Before you say "they can putever they damn well please", no they can't. You couldn't sell a product - for instance - with a label saying "this product may break without warning after only a few days. But that's not our responsibility." It is their responsibility, whether they like it or not, and you as a consumer have certain legal rights.

Re:Simple

[Zork the Almighty]

Likewise nobody can sell you a product with a license like "by using this product, you surrender your right to free speech". Oh wait, it was called Microsoft Frontpage.

"You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services, infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate any state, federal or international law, or promote racism, hatred or pornography."

Re:Simple

[ColdGrits]

They have the right to tell you what you may and may not do with their product, yes.

Just as you have the right to tell them to go swivel and take your custom elsewhere.

Re:Simple

[surprise_audit]

A couple of observations:

1) Suppose a woodworking company bought one of these tools? Would it be OK of any employee of the company to use it?
2) As for "this product may break without warning, and we don't care" - isn't that exactly what most software manufacturers say? That their products are not guaranteed to perform the tasks for which they were purchased?

Re:Simple

[Troed]

When you buy the product, it becomes _your_ product.

Re:Simple

[DNS-and-BIND]

In no event shall Microsoft be liable for any damages whatsoever, even in the event of fault (including negligence).

--Windows XP Professional license agreement

Re:Simple

[hyphz]

Well, sure.

The problem with this attitude is: if they make less money as a result, the license will go away pretty quick.

However, if they make MORE money as a result, all the other firms will do the same thing, because of course all the other firms also want to make more money.

Re:Simple

[DingoBueno]

They have the right to tell you what you may and may not do with their product, yes.

Care to clarify? So if Ford says "You may not drive this truck on dirt roads," does that mean that I am liable to be sued if I do? If that's the case, Ford would've had a dirt-road-certified truck years ago, probably for the low, low price of only twice that of the standard 150.

Re:Simple

[tobybuk]

>> You couldn't sell a product - for instance - with a label saying "this product may break without warning after only a few days.

That's because there are laws governing your rights when a company sell you a product.

And I would guess (IANAL) that sililar laws govern sales of licences.

We're not going back to the laws of the wild west here - people cannot sign away consumer rights using a contract - well, they can put whatever they want in them but they don;t trump consumer laws.

I really to think that these kind of things are best governed by the free market. Use your wallet, tell your friends.

Re:Simple

[tobybuk]

>> if they make MORE money as a result

Then it will be because people like their product so much that they are prepared to put up with the licence in return for its benefit.

Either way, the market will determine if this 'product' has value. It's the capitalist way.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

bullshit...buy away...

Just how the hell are they supposed to enforce compliance for this idiotic EULA? It's not like they're trading tools on ToolZaa or something.. This is like the record labels in the 70's & 80's trying to get rid of home taping. Short of planting spies in every user's household, place of work, etc, it cannot be done. You'll have a real hard time adding DRM to wood.
Next thing you know the Toolmakers Industry Association of America will be demanding a levy on every piece of wood sold, "to compensate us for piracy"

Only in America... Tell me, do these jigsaws crash often?

Re:Simple

[DjReagan]

Clarification? It comes down to free speech. They can say whatever they want. They have the right to say that the moon is made of purple cheese, and the earth is a football owned by a marauding space goat.

Just because they have the right to say it, doesn't mean that it has any bearing on the real world.

Re:Simple

[Zirtix]

Companies don't have the right to free speech.

Re:Simple

[EllisDees]

> They have the right to tell you what you may and may not do with their product, yes.

No, they don't. Once you've paid for it, it is yours to do with as you please unless you sign a contract that restricts you in some
way.

Re:Simple

[Hellkitten]

So if Ford says "You may not drive this truck on dirt roads," does that mean that I am liable to be sued if I do?

It really comes down to what you bought. If you bought a car you can do whatever you like (as far as Ford has any say, traffic laws and regulations is another matter). If you bought the right to use a specific car, which remains the property of ford, they may attach conditions like that. (The could have a warranty void if driven on dirt roads clause in a regular purchase though)

This happens all the time, though you usually buy the rigt to drive the car for a limited time/distance it's called car rental and nobody seems to have any problem with it.

What this company is trying to do is rent out woodworking tools, for a one-time payment, without any time limit. Legally they may be in the clear, but if someone tried to pull something like that on a product I need, I would tell them to go do something likely to be anatomically impossible, and make do without their product.

Re:Simple

[gfxguy]

That's an interesting thought. The shrink-wrap agreement might say "if you do not agree to all of the terms of this agreement, you must return the product to the retailer where it was purchased for a refund." (or something like that).

But then, isn't that part of the agreement? What if that's one of the parts I don't agree to?

Re:Simple

[Threni]

"Why should you be bound by any private contract which you did not agree to? "

You're not.

Re:Simple

[rizzo420]

this won't. i've worked as a woodworker, and knowing the mentality of woodworkers, it won't happen that way. they won't buy into it. if they do, the majority if them will have broken it within a few weeks. it's not worth it to the company to try to sue each and every one of them. not to mention woodworkers do a lot of their work under the table.

the only part of the license that is wrong is the fact that you can't make jigs with the tool and sell those jigs. those jigs aren't made using the same ways of the jig master, it's just used as the tool. most experienced woodworkers could make the same jig with another tool, it just might take a little longer. there's no reason for such a license. i hope the company understands that they're not going to make it in the woodworking world.

Re:Simple

[tobybuk]

LOL - What you say is true. But I think we're talking more of the theoretical implications of extending this kind of licence outside of the S/W world.

Re:Simple

[the_brat_king]

I don't think even the voided warranty is correct. Ford, GM, and Chrysler DID try to put warranty clauses in stating that if you used aftermarket parts, your warranty would be voided. This was struck down, and made specifically illegal (with certain exceptions... ie. a Nitrous Oxide boost on your car WILL void the warranty -- but then, it's normally illegal on the street anyway). Car manufacterers have tried a number of these types of "warranty clauses" to make a person use/buy only dealer authorized parts/services, and every time, they've been stricken down specifically because you've bought the vehicle (even using Ford or GMAC financing). The most common one is fluid changes and routine vehicle maintenance.

Contract law is a very finicky field, if you've ever bought or sold products, services or other goods based upon a license/contract/deed, you've seen that the contract must lay out, in minute detail, all items to be transferred, all services to be rendered, and limitations on the same prior to the sale; this also must be done after clearly identifying ALL parties to the contract, and all parties must agree to be bound by the specific terms set forth. With Contracts there is always the requirement of knowledge of the content of the contract, and a specific agreement to the terms of the contract.

Unless you sign an agreement prior to purchase, there can be no lease/rental. A contract must be written and agreed to BY BOTH PARTIES prior to the exchange of goods (or services). If this "eula" is inside the tool's packaging, then it is not enforceable -- further, the company may be liable for civil penalties if they try to enforce the contract, because it would be a "bad faith" action. Use of the tool cannot imply agreement with the license, that agreement can only be made prior to purchase, because the first party to the agreement (seller) has already benefited from the transfer of goods, and sold the goods without any contract attached. To try to enforce THIS license after the purchase could be akin to bait and switch (advertising or selling a product as something that it is not), in this case, the baiting would be a "general sale of the tool," with the switch happening if the company were to try to change the sale to an unlimited term of lease with specific limitations, via ex post facto attachment of license to the product.

Most EULAs are a moot license, and therefore, unenforceable from the start, because the contract is not given, and agreed to, prior to a party to the sale receiving benefits, and without a waiver prior to sale of the right to purchase an unecumbered product.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to my eyes. Capitalism doesn't allow these kinds of rules on who can make what. That's a demand economy. Free traders should oppose patents and laws that allow restraints on trade like this. They don't, because free trade isn't really what they want.

Re:Simple

[Joe U]

Here's a suggestion, send your own agreement and put in a clause, 'by opening this envelope and reading this agreement you agree that all other agreements between us are void'.

Re:Simple

[hplasm]

So, either no-one buys any of these, and the mfg goes bust- or- everyone who does buy one, makes 000s of copies, and the mfg goes bust. No Problem - till the SCO tactics start....

Re:Simple

[protoshoggoth]

Oh of course they do, at least in the US.

While the supreme court has created the notion of a distinction between commercial and non-commerical speech, the commercial speech does enjoy SOME protection. And in any case they're constantly whittling away at their own definition of what falls into the less-protected category.

Re:Simple

[royalblue_tom]

Here's a suggestion. If you want to license a product, rather than sell it, why not do that, and ask the customer to sign the license up front?

And in many cases, the EULA is not an agreement with the company you bought the product for (reseller). These EULAs are so much bullcrap, that they have a sketchy history in law (some judges have let them hold, others have overturned them).

Re:Simple

[Sj0]

I see, so they'd be liable because they sold you a tool then included a piece of paper inside that said "oh, by the way, you didn't really buy this, it's still ours". I'm glad to see that there's something to protect against stupidity like that, because otherwise, I could see people not owning ANYTHING in the next 10 years or so. It's just too good for the company to be able to make any restrictions it wants and it's just too good for the manufacterers of any given item to not even need to nessessarily "sell" anything, only chargine money for it as if it's been sold, then including a piece of paper saying "Oh, by the way, this is still ours. This is what you're not allowed to do with it..."

Re:Simple

[EllisDees]

It doesn't matter what the 'skrink-wrap agreement' says after I've bought it and brought it home with me. It's already mine. I don't have to agree to anything because the sale is already done - a EULA is as good as toilet paper at that point.

Re:Simple

[Hellkitten]

I don't think even the voided warranty is correct.

I was referring to warranty in the sense of something that goes beyon what is required by law. EG: Ford could give you a guarantee that your car won't rust for 5 years but only if you don't drive on dirt roads. Is this disallowed?

A contract must be written and agreed to BY BOTH PARTIES prior to the exchange of goods (or services).

A contract is often not nessesary, you could enter into an agreement without actually signing anything, eg: by climbing into a taxi and stating your destination you agree to pay for the trip, no contract nessesary. By asking a barman for a beer you enter an agreement to exchange money for beer. By driving into a parking and leaving your car there you agree to the conditions on the sign by the entrance (even if you didn't read it).

I think thats the if the customer is made aware of the fact that what he's buying is a lisence, and not the object the lisence, is enforcable without a signature. If the customer chooses to buy the lisence without reading it he should be free to do so. But these tool producers should make sure the box is labelled very clearly if they want to be on the safe side. But to be able to prove that the customer was aware he bought a lisence to use an object and not the object itself there should be contracts involved.

My guess is that they're just setting up for threatening letters if someone starts mass producing copies of the jigs, and hope they won't have to take it ti court.

Re:Simple

[the_brat_king]

I agree with the oral contracts for those listed -- and many others, with these though, the conditions are made known (price per distance listed on/in taxi -- price of beer made known -- terms of parking lot posted). They are obvious exchanges, but, in this case the contract is not obvious, nor is it expected, but it IS written.

Because of these (the non-obvious nature, and the written contract) must be fully viewable and agreeable to both parties prior to the sale. Also, if it is infact a lease (no matter what the terms), this must be noted.

Simply noting that a license is enclosed can not be valid proof of consent to the license, because the buyer has not had the opportunity to agree to the license after fully reading (and theoretically understanding) it but, prior to entry into it.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what a site license would be for. But they aren't smart enough to have something like that on their site or in their "EULA". Besides, doesn't this fall more under the umbrella of an "appliance" than something that can be copyrighted? Maybe we should write on our money, credit cards, and checks that the acceptance of our payment voids any other agreements other than the agreement of a warranty by the manufacturer and the right to return a product to the retailer.

Re:Simple

[pyrosoft]

not to mention woodworkers do a lot of their work under the table.

So to speak. Although laying on your back and getting sawdust in your eyes gets old after a while, so I usually flip the thing over. Sanding goes much faster that way.

Re:Simple

[trixillion]

If you change the words around a little, it sounds just like the hobby computing industry complaining about Microsoft's Basic license.

"this won't. i've worked as a programmer, and knowing the mentality of programmers, it won't happen that way. they won't buy into it. if they do, the majority if them will have broken it within a few weeks. it's not worth it to the company to try to sue each and every one of them. not to mention programmers do a lot of their work under the table.

the only part of the license that is wrong is the fact that you can't make an improvement to the software with the software and sell the improved software. most experienced programmers could make the same software, ... it just might take a little longer. there's no reason for such a license. i hope the company understands that they're not going to make it in the software world."

Food for thought, eh.

Re:Simple

[rizzo420]

the difference between software and this jig is that there is already a lot of free software for all platforms that aid in writing software. this jig is something that most woodworkers would have made on their own anyways. it's just a simple aid to them. nothing that would greatly improve their work or change things. microsoft's software is different, it's not a tool for programmers (with the exception of their developers tools, but that's specific for microsoft's platforms). the jig is universal. it's a broader tool. it's like saying that you have to pay to use the middle click or ctrl-v/x and ctrl-c combo to copy/cut and paste. like you need a license for each developer, or even each person that uses a computer, to use those keys to make their jobs easier. if i made a ton of dove-tailed joints, i'd probably make a jig for myself from the ones i've already made. if i bought a jig to help make them, i'd let the other people that worked in my shop use it. it's stupid not to. and $40 for a thing like that? yes, i realize that sounds like complaining about MS's costs for windows and office. copying the jig and copying software are completely different. it's much more difficult to make the same exact jig (using the same materials and all) than it is to copy a piece of software. the kicker is the fact that no one other than the person who paid for the license can use the methods explained on how to make a dove-tailed joint, even if they aren't using the jig.

the license is more restrictive than a software license because a software license restricts software to one computer, not one user. that's what separates them. even MS doesn't say "only the person who paid for this software can use it".

Re:Simple

[pmz]

Don't buy it if you don't like the conditions. Oh, and tell your friends not to as well.

If it's a useful tool, what about buying it and ignoring the EULA. If the company questions whether you obtained it properly, say "I got it at a flea market. I didn't see any EULA attached to it--I bought it fair and square"

Re:Simple

[clambake]

Before you say "they can putever they damn well please", no they can't. You couldn't sell a product - for instance - with a label saying "this product may break without warning after only a few days. But that's not our responsibility." It is their responsibility, whether they like it or not, and you as a consumer have certain legal rights.

Not a big software buyer, eh?

Re:Simple

[black mariah]

Go drive your brand new F-150 through some mud, into a ditch, through a barn full of chickens, over the river and through the woods, then see if you're covered under warranty. ;)

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

okay, use your brain before posting. "says" here means in a contract/EULA/whatever. NOT just out in a press releas or something

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

We have to add tool company executives to our "first against the wall when the revolution comes" list. Probably alphabetically right after telemarketers.

Ladies and Gentlemen...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Mastah Jig!

Yo wazzup y'all! Mastah Jig in the house! Word!

Re:Ladies and Gentlemen...

[Anonymous Coward]

...
Cats: All your wood are belong to us.
Cats: You are on the way to destruction.
Captain: What you say !!
Cats: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Cats: HA HA HA HA ....
Captain: Take off every 'Jig' !! ...

And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[flyboy974]

If you disassemble it in order to figure out how to put it back together, that's reverse engineering. I believe that somebody will sue you for DMCA violations. Rather, they'll just send a supena to you and let you cry for a week before revoking your TemplateMaster license.

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[Gabrill]

License physical objects you cannot. Rent them you can. Buy them you can. Interesting this is.

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[jaavaaguru]

What about televisions, dogs, etc? (I live in the UK)

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[LaForce]

I'm pretty sure that woodworking is still very much an analog art, and therefore does not fall under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Just a hunch.

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[ThaReetLad]

you're not licensing the dog, tv etc. You are licenced a right to own a dog, tv etc.

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[mdxi]

That's "license" as in "tax", not "license" as in "purchase right to use".

Government != commercial entity.

Yet.

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[in7ane]

You buy a license to receive the BBC's signal, not to own a TV (buy a TV, remove the tuner, use it as a monitor only and you don't need a license).

Now for licenses with dogs... You get a license to own a dog (like to own a firearm for lack of me being able to come up with a decent comparison), not that you license the dog from your local pet store. Although I can see it now:

this dog may be used "in only one household by the original purchaser only" and that "you may not allow individuals that did not purchase the original dog (to) use the Animal or any offspring produced using the Animal...". Please help us fight 'puppy piracy'.

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it a violation of digital protection mechanisms when you hit your thumb with a hammer?

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[malkavian]

Yeesh.. I think I'd prefer to go and buy the whole paper for about 40p, and have eternal rights to look at it whenever!
Don't think they're going to get much joy from that kinda license...

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[vidarh]

You're not licensing a television, you're buying a license to have a TV set in your house (regardless of your ownership rights to the TV). Same for dogs, you are paying a license to have the dog in the UK, not for the property rights for the dog.

You couldn't go into a TV store and license a TV. You could rent one, buy one, lease one, buy one on credit or find some other interesting way of managing ownership, but licensing the TV set would not be one of them. Afterwards you would need to buy a license to have the TV, regardless of whether you obtained ownership to it, or merely usage rights.

Now, it's conceivable that you could structure a contract that would have similar implications to this "license", but it would be complicated, because when it comes to this kind of agreement the general approach of the courts (IANAL) is that "if it quacks like a duck..." - if you pay a one time fee for a product and have no further dealings with the company, and the product is a physical one, the courts would likely look at it and decide that for all practical purposes it has the properties of a purchase, and should be treated like a purchase regardless of any contract unless you had received clear benefits beyond a normal purchase that would make the restrictions equitable.

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[Anonymous Coward]

You actually require a licence to operate a TV receiver in the UK. Whether it is used to receive BBC broadcasts is irrelevant.

Even if you could purchase a receiver that could not tune in to BBC frequencies you still require a TV licence to operate it.

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[BlackHawk-666]

Actually, you don't even need to remove the tuner. They can't legally force you to potentially destroy equipment you have purchased. I own a TV and don't pay a TV license since I don't watch broadcast signals. All I had to do was ring up the licensing place and explain I had a TV to watch my DVD collection but I didn't watch broadcasts.

They reserved the right to come and inspect at some time and I said they could inspect all they like. A guy came around, saw I had a TV, signed his form and left. They haven't been back in the 3 years since.

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no dog licenses in the UK these days.

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[fyonn]

What about televisions, dogs, etc? (I live in the UK)

okay, I'm guessing that you are being facetious however, in the UK you require a licence for neither.

dog licences I beleive are no-longer required to own a dog, the secondary effect of which is that it's no-longer illegal to kill one. well, lets put that in context, when you had a dog licence, if you accidentally ran over a dog, it was a crime (dogs being property and all), now it's just unfortunate. same as with cats. of course you can't be nasty to them either but thats different.

as for tv's, well, contrary to popular opinion and the impression that the tv licencing ppl give out, you do not require a tv licence to own a tv. you do require a tv licene to receicve bradcast tv signals however.

this means that if you only own a tv to use with your playstation 2 and dvd player, and you do not watch tv or sky etc. then you *do not require a licence*.

the tv licencing co will probably hassle you about it, but if you force them into giving you a yes or no answer, they'll admit that you are in the right. you also don't have to damage the tuner either (to ensure that it can't receive tv). it's recommended to detune it, and you really ought to pull the arial out, but thats it.

dave

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[fyonn]

That's "license" as in "tax", not "license" as in "purchase right to use".

I beleive thats "licence" as in "tax", not "license" as in "purchase right to use"

dave

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[fyonn]

You're not licensing a television, you're buying a license to have a TV set in your house

no, you're buying a licence to receive broadcast tv signals in your home. this is independant of your ability to own a tv.

ie if you use a tv for playing dvds only, then you do not need a licence. if you own a vhs recorder hooked up the the arial, but no tv, then you do need a licence (as you are receiving broadcast tv)

dave

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[Anonymous Coward]

And I believe that's not actually "beleive " but "believe" as in this comment.

Isn't it fun when a Grammer Nazi screws up? ;)

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[the gnat]

You're not licensing a television, you're buying a license to have a TV set in your house

Actually, this is probably worse. Sorry, but this is like the ultimate incarnation of the "nanny state", when the government can fine you for illegally watching a public broadcast in the privacy of your home. In America, of course, we all pay for PBS whether we want to or not (I don't own a TV), but I would much prefer to have this extracted from my tax dollars invisibly than having to file a fucking license in order to avoid nasty visits from the BBC cops. These assclowns actually think it's funny.

I hate to sound like another hysterical Slashbot equating Bush with the rise of Naziism, but if we ever end up in a society like 1984, it will be because of unchecked excesses of this sort. "Brazil" doesn't seem quite as absurd once you've read about the TV licensing goons. The Brits I know (some very close friends) understand exactly how absurd this is, too.

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[fyonn]

Isn't it fun when a Grammer Nazi screws up?

no fool :)

it's the obligatory spelling mistake in a spelling flame, don't you know anything? besides, I was doing the "making fun of a grammar nazi" bit, stop stealing my thunder! :)

dave

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[kfx]

In America, of course, we all pay for PBS whether we want to or not

Since you don't have a TV then you probably never see all the donation drives and intro/outro screens saying that "this show was paid for by contributions from [such-and-such company or organization] and viewers like you".

AFAIK, local PBS stations are entirely supported by viewers. They then use the money viewers give them to purchase programming from other PBS stations or from BBC, etc. To my knowledge, there is not and never has been a national PBS network that receives funding from the federal government.

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[GMontag451]

AFAIK, local PBS stations are entirely supported by viewers. They then use the money viewers give them to purchase programming from other PBS stations or from BBC, etc. To my knowledge, there is not and never has been a national PBS network that receives funding from the federal government.

Well, you don't know very far then. All PBS and NPR stations are supported by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting which gets quite a bit of money from the federal government.

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[akadruid]

You are fortunate in this case. For some reason owning a tv but claiming not receive broadcast signals will satisfy the bbc, but not owning a tv at all will result in 2-3 visits a year.

And for all the '1984' and 'nanny state' arguements, the license was in place before 1984, before 1948, and before televisions (it was a radio license then).
The BBC has recieved many awards for it's programming world wide and remains the least biased programming body in the world, as it is unaffected by commercial, governmental or even popularity considerations, but purely regulated as a public interest body.
The pure fact that you are not required to watch TV anyway seems to have escaped most of the world's population these days.

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[swv3752]

PBS programs are sometimes funded by Federal Grants. But of course a private individual could also apply for these same grants for a Public Access show they are producing.

The parent poster of the parent is mistaken about direct funding of PBS or NPR. There is a huge difference between funding one show and subsidizing the network.

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[Dogtanian]

You buy a license to receive the BBC's signal, not to own a TV

I made a similar post some time back, but I'll say it again briefly. Legally, the license fee has no connection with the BBC. The government could choose to spend the money on anything they liked, they just happen to spend roughly the amount collected on the BBC.

All this is, of course, a legalistic convenience for the government. In reality, anyone who uses this argument to say that there is no connection between the fee and the BBC is probably just trying to be smart...

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[Anonymous Coward]

A guy came around, saw I had a TV, signed his form and left.

Thanks for the reminder of why this was necessary. We USians are bad about taking what few freedoms we have left for granted, and reminders like this TV-tax weirdness are always appropriate.

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[Anonymous Coward]

From Dictionary.com:

licence ( P ) n. & v. Chiefly British. Variant of license.

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that's "that's" as in "that is", not "thats" as in plural of "that".

Re:And don't tear about that antique dresser now!

[squiggleslash]

Sure. I gather you can get fined and even serve jail time for hacking your cable box to get HBO in the US. I mean, it's a cable going into your house, surely you have the right to do with it whatever you want?

The BBC is subscription funded. For some reason, the subscription's called a "license". Get over it.

Forget Jigs... try Soy Sauce

[JabberWokky]

There's a generic brand of Soy Sauce (sold at Nugget Groceries, IIRC) that has "All Intellectual Property Rights Reserved" in an stern looking box on the side of the bottle. Swan Soy Sauce, maybe?

--
Evan "Tried it, went back to Kikoman"

Re:Forget Jigs... try Soy Sauce

[nucal]

They may have been required to use the warning by the soybean seed producers, especially if the seed was modified to be resistant to pesticides. This could be part of a legal measure to prevent farmers from illegally using seed produced on their own farms as opposed to having to buy new seed every year. Sort of the agribusiness version of music piracy ...

Re:Forget Jigs... try Soy Sauce

[kfg]

I might point out that the technical term for a soybean seed is. . . "soybean."

KFG

Re:Forget Jigs... try Soy Sauce

[nucal]

whatever ...

Re:Forget Jigs... try Soy Sauce

[twiddlingbits]

A lot of these hybrids bred to resist this and that themselves do not produce seeds that have the same characteristics. That is so Joe Farmer has to buy new seed each year. It also prevents the crops from adapting over time to the micro-climate of his fields, thus decreasing the productivty of his crops to that of the average.

Re:Forget Jigs... try Soy Sauce

[MrResistor]

There is more than one recipe for Soy Sauce, and it is entirely possible that it is the recipe they consider their IP.

My wife is a waitress at a sushi restaurant which is owned and operated by japanese immigrants. They bought the restaurant from an older japanese couple who were ready to retire. As part of the sale the husband (and sushi chef) got a recipe for soy sauce, and his hand made soy sauce is the only soy sauce you will get in his restaurant (which is fine by me, because now that I've had his I realize that Kikoman is crap). Additionally, his wife was given recipes for sesame seed salad dressing and green tea ice cream.

Buying recipes with a restaurant is not unusual (why else would you buy a restaurant instead of just opening your own?), and they are generally as closely guarded as any mission critical IP. The real difference with them is that they don't even share the recipes with each other. If the wife goes out of town and didn't make enough, well... sorry, no salad or ice cream for you.

Re:Forget Jigs... try Soy Sauce

[Anonymous Coward]

Marketing droid stupid useage. All beans are seeds.

Re:Forget Jigs... try Soy Sauce

[nucal]

All I know is that beans are good for your heart ... oh well ...

Generic

[Anonymous Coward]

*Generic shrinkwrap overlords comment here*

I wish this license BS didn't exist, But I think the future we are facing is one where you don't really own any of your products (They are all licesenced) and you can't do anything to change them (DMCA protection).

It's all gone Orwellian :/

Re:Generic

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that the future that immediatly preceeds the one with a bunch of pissed-off have-nots (those who don't own a portfolio of intellectual properties) saying to themselves, "Huh. I own this gun. I own these bullets."

Re:Generic

[switched4OSX]

Of course, maybe by then the bullets will have a EULA saying you can't give them to someone else- and shooting someone is giving them the bullet.

Re:Generic

[devilspgd]

Could you claim you lent the bullet out, and they refused to return it?

Re:Generic

[Anonymous Coward]

Even worse, they misappropriated the bullet's intellectual property for personal gain. (Tried not to die.) This, of course, will be a capital offense.

Re:Generic

[devilspgd]

I can see it now... Shrinkwrapped licenses on bullets...

By allowing this bullet to enter your property or person, or accepting delivery of said bullet, you hereby agree to the following last will and testament:

-I hereby wish my estate and all holdings to be liquidated and transferred to off-short holdings savings account number #

Is this really a problem?

[Llywelyn]

Um. This sounds like a bad attempt at mockery by the company, is it really an issue?

Re:Is this really a problem?

[gl4ss]

well, it's not really an issue NOW.

but it may be in the future, and if companies keep adding them licenses to everything the general public will start to think them as legit and reasonable(after which it's just a short route to get them legalized).

so while it is absolutely stupid now the gov(customer protection officials) should move in and hit them with a very large clue bat *smack* right between their eyes, before they start making enough penetration to move from a bad joke into (perceived)reality.

Re:Is this really a problem?

[switched4OSX]

Government intervention unlikely- after all, most politicians have already been bought by major corporations. How do you think Microsoft gets away with not living up to the rulings against it?

Re:Is this really a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked as a cabinet maker to put myself through college. Now I am a software engineer. Sadly, I totally get this... I do not think it is an attempt to be funny, I think they may be serious.

This is a very unusual situation -- a jig making jig. I've worked with dovetail jigs before, and they are complicated enough. I would think the reproduction and resale of the jigjig would be protected by patent.

Protection of the items made with the jig (jigs) is strange. It is similar to charging a royalty for the use of a simple dovetail jig. That is, if one licenses use of the ACME dovetail jig, they must pay royalties of x$ for each corner of each drawer made with the jig and sold commercially. Of course any cabinet maker would then simply make their own jig. One only buys a jig because it is convenient. Even if an item is patented, one may make a copy of that thing for ones own use.

The real issue is commercial viability. Microsoft licenses me to use Excel. GNU licenses me to use gnumeric. I also have some spreadsheet like widgets that I wrote. In general, because of licensing, I will use my own jig, I will not use either Excel or gnumeric -- the terms of both are bad for me. It is similar for the shopowner. A single shop needs a bunch of dovetail jigs. They can buy a bunch of jigs, make a bunch of jigs, or license the jig-jig and make a bunch of jigs. Or they can look at the jig-jig and make their own. There is only one question - "which solution is most cost effective?"

I think this company will find that there is a big difference between coding Autocad or Microsoft Excel from scratch and making a jigjig. A huge difference in basic old fashioned man-hours.

Re:Is this really a problem?

[budgenator]

The web site, Slots website, said patent applied; which is not the same as patented, or patented and withstood numerous court chalenges.

the bottom line is, you can buy a dove-tail jig, so its obvious the jigs to make dovetail jigs have been arround for I'd guess a century or two. Somewhere along the line somebody either got a patent that expired long-ago, was turned down due to art prori or lack of unobviosness.

Re:Is this really a problem?

[Mattcelt]

I still don't get it. It's not like jig manufacturers are going out of business in droves. They have obviously been making money on the same business model for a very long time, or there wouldn't be any jig manufacturers. The essential nature of the jig hasn't changed, it is used for exactly the same purposes now as it was before. This is, quite simply, a way to make more money from the same process that has made them money since its inception.

As far as patentability, it costs a lot of money to patent anything. It would have to be a hugely complicated, non-obvious, and innovative jig design to warrant an enforceable patent, and even then they would have to sell a much larger number than normal just to break even. While I'm sure there are some companies who would go through this hassle, it's not going to be worth it for most.

Consider as well that licenses which are appended after the exchange of money are NOT ENFORCEABLE. Post-sale changes cannot be added by either party without the explicit consent of both parties. So if you purchase the jig without knowing about the license, it's not valid.

I am half-tempted to suggest that one purchase a jig, learn how to make one's own in that pattern, then send it back unused. This company should know better, and only a vocally dissatisfied customer base is going to teach it its lesson.

Re:Is this really a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft licenses me to use Excel.

Really? MS sold Excel to me (well, they sold it to a store, who sold it to me). There was no license, except for the stupid "if you agree" BS, which I happily ignored. (Why would I agree to have my rights limited in order to use something I already own?)

GNU licenses me to use gnumeric

I don't know who GNU is, but GNUMeric is free for everybody else to use. I think you're getting hosed. (And incidentally, if someone is trying to 'license' GNUMeric to you, you should contact the FSF - it's probably illegal.)

I will not use either Excel or gnumeric -- the terms of both are bad for me

Again, you should just buy Excel, or download and use GNUMeric from someone who doesn't make you agree to some stupid 'license' in order to use it.

Re:Is this really a problem?

[nmos]

he bottom line is, you can buy a dove-tail jig, so its obvious the jigs to make dovetail jigs have been arround for I'd guess a century or two. Somewhere along the line somebody either got a patent that expired long-ago, was turned down due to art prori or lack of unobviosness.

They won't get a patent on "making a dovetail jig" but maybe they can get one on "making a dovetail jig of this exact shape/design"?

Re:Is this really a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need a license to use software. The ludicrous claim, that you need a license because you are making a "copy" of a work in RAM, is used as the basis for all this licensing nonsense. It's pretty obvious that, if in order to make use of a "work" you must make a copy of a portion of said "work", then that copying would be covered by fair use/dealing. There are no other provisions in the copyright act that call for a use license.

Software EULA's are bogus because:
1. You don't require a license to use a work. (fair use/dealing)
2. Software is presented as a sold good in retail environments. (first sale doctrine does apply)
3. The license is presented as a post sale contract and is thus not valid by first sale doctrine.
4. The license is invalid anyway because it does not give consideration to both parties involved.
(ie. Every software "license" only takes away rights from the user of the software. There is no benefit to the user as the user is allowed to make use of the software without the license. This is one measure of a contract's validity.)

However, If this jig making company is telling the purchasers up front that they are buying a license, shows them the contents of the license, and then has them sign it, AND the purchaser still makes the purchase, then there is no reason that it should not be binding.

Re:Is this really a problem?

[pmz]

This is a very unusual situation -- a jig making jig.

No, I don't see how it is unusual at all. The only way they really could constrain people from marketing the jigs is if each customer signed into some sort of contract, which was a prerequisite for actually getting the jig-tool. Then, each tool is registered, in a legally-binding way, to a customer, who is then liable for violating a real contract.

This is a business model that simply does not work well for high-volume products. For this sort of jig-tool, all the company can do is protect their patent on the design.

Of course, IANAL.

Re:Is this really a problem?

[spitzak]

GNU licenses me to use gnumeric

WRONG!!!! You are free to use gnumeric any way you want. You do not need a license to do so.

What GNU does is grant you a right to violate the copyright on the source code for gnumeric. You are free to ignore this right, and most users of gnumeric do ignore it.

Getting...

[grosa]

jiggy with it, is that forbidden by the EULA?

Don't you get protections with a licensed product?

[admbws]

So if you break your jig, or it gets stolen, you can phone up and ask for a replacement.

I once snapped a software CD and I got a new one. Can't be much different.

Bill

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's think of a way to blame this on Microsoft.

Re:Bill

[kfg]

"Let's think of a way to blame this on Microsoft."

Dear sir, I'm afraid I have prior art on that; and can prove it. Your suggestion is in violation of my intellectual property rights. Please cease and desist immediately.

KFG

These seeds may not be planted

[nuffle]

The sesame seeds contained in this package are inteded for consumption by the purchaser only. You hereby agree not to plant these seeds. Help us prevent plant piracy!

Re:These seeds may not be planted

[Anonymous Coward]

Not funny at all... a dianthus plant I bought from a local garden centre had a label stating that it was a registered proprietary variety, and propagation of it was forbidden.

Welcome to the 21st century...

Re:These seeds may not be planted

[Anonymous Coward]

That is how genetically engineered food works. You plant the seeds you buy from a company, the crops grow, but the seeds generated by those crops won't grow into new crops next year. Nice isn't it? If you live in Timbuktu, get those seeds and just plant them you now aren't selfsustainable as you have been before as you'd get the seeds from what you grow, no by being tricked into buying the seeds from that company under the promise of higher production you are now dependent on that company and have to buy seeds again.

-t

Re:These seeds may not be planted

[vidarh]

Don't joke about that - go read up on what Monsanto think is reasonable use of their seeds... Monsanto is one of the largest seed manufacturers in the world, and one of their pet peeves is that farmers who collect seeds from their harvest are undermining their income stream. To the point where they are trying to restrict it with license agreements, patents and genetically modified crops that don't produce viable seeds...

Re:These seeds may not be planted

[ron_ivi]

We've already been there and back with seeds with usage restrictions built in.

But on the subject of sesame seeds... they're a very big crop - the sixth largest in the world production of edible oil seeds.

And yes, there is valuable intellectual property in sesame seed genetics.

Re:These seeds may not be planted

[zcat_NZ]

Help us prevent plant piracy!

Three words for you..

"Roundup-Ready Canola"

Re:These seeds may not be planted

[Sven Tuerpe]

You hereby agree not to plant these seeds.

Not funny. A couple of months ago I bought a hibiscus plant. With it came this label stating in serveral languages: "Propagation prohibited."

Re:These seeds may not be planted

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they've been around for decades, long, long before genetic engineering got started. Read up on what an F1 hybrid is, and how it can't breed true because the first generation gene mixture remixes in the next generation...

I just wish anti-GM zealots would make up their mind whether they believe:

1) Evil GM companies threaten the racial purity of our crops by spreading foreign genes about
or:
2) Evil GM companies maximise profits by making plants with sterile pollen that can't reproduce themselves..

(many appear to believe both at tonce...)

Re:These seeds may not be planted

[the gnat]

To be fair, though, is this necessarily the fault of the company? If you're from Europe, you're well aware that Byzantine government regulations are every bit as much in style as over here in the States, although individual examples vary widely in absurdity. It could be required thanks to some amendment that one of your Green politicians pushed through for God-knows-what reason. (Although this wouldn't really be any less absurd than a plant EULA.) You only have to look at the power-line/EMF scare in the US to understand the ill effects of well-meaning zealotry combined with utter ignorance.

Re:These seeds may not be planted

[Anonymous Coward]

with seeds it is in fact a pattent issue. they pattented the modified seeds and so they became the only ones allowed to produce and sell them. thats a bit screwy, but the pattent system allows it.

putting eulas on tools is screwy and doesnt have any basis in ip law.

Re:These seeds may not be planted

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I always microwave my homegrown before selling it to stop the seads from growing. I bred "angel wings" over several years, it took me alot of giggling fits sometimes a was to stoned to work out which sample was the best, then i would have to another bong hits the next day. That was hard graft and deadication and no mug punter is growing my seads, tyvm.

Re:These seeds may not be planted

[I_l00P]

Monsanto actualy does this, the trangenic soy seeds that they sell here in Brazil produce steril crops.

Re:These seeds may not be planted

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, if you were growing quality shit, you wouldn't have seeds. That's the whole meaning of Sinsemillia.

Re:These seeds may not be planted

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a TV news report in the UK (BBC) in the last few weeks about a company in India providing pirated GM cotton seeds to local farmers in competition IIRC with Monsanto

Re:These seeds may not be planted

[Jesrad]

And yes, there is valuable intellectual property in sesame seed genetics.

It's not property, it's a temporary loan from the Public Domain. Too bad most people (especially Disney) tend to forget this.

Re:These seeds may not be planted

[Ancient Devices King]

Growing up in farm country, I was under the impression that the grains that are most palateable to humans are crosses of two strains that in general tend to produce infertile seeds, so this shouldn't be an issue anyway.

Re:These seeds may not be planted

[b1t r0t]

It also says "not for consumption". It's possible that this is for liability reasons. 1) "We're not responsible for people getting sick from eating this plant" 2) "We're not responsible for this plant getting out in the wild".

Here's a link I found that shows hibiscus is considered a noxious weed by the U.S. government and three states.

Re:These seeds may not be planted

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought a Japanese maple last year. On the care instructions was a note in fine print saying asexual reproduction of the tree was a patent infringement.

Re:These seeds may not be planted

[Anonymous Coward]

Eveil fucking GM companies created the "Terminator (TM)" gene and it is used to produce seed that can not re-produce.
It's against GOD!

Rent a life!

[capt.Hij]

This is great! Pretty soon I can go through life without owning everything, and everything I use will essentially be rented. I will be relieved of the material need to own things. "Imagine a world with no posessions."

Not only that, if I get caught breaking the drug laws, the feds can't take anything that I own since I won't own anything. Best of all, when I get tired of my wife and daughter I just have to stop paying the license fees.

I'm free! Free! Free! This is better than living in New Hampshire!

Wife and daughter... Oh cr4p. I don't own anything anyway. This is bogus...

Re:Rent a life!

[3_doggz]

Don't they say that all possession is thieft anyway? So why doesnt one big corporation own everything in the world and we'll rent it from them, Hay wait, isn't that Microsoft?

Re:Rent a life!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said that.

Re:Rent a life!

[Anonymous Coward]

This, and the grandparent, remind anyone of communism? Interesting points...

Re:Rent a life!

[skinfitz]

This is great! Pretty soon I can go through life without owning everything, and everything I use will essentially be rented. I will be relieved of the material need to own things. "Imagine a world with no posessions."

Hey don't knock it - Buddhists have been doing this for centuries.

Re:Rent a life!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, but not quite in the way he's describing above. Eeek!!!

Re:Rent a life!

[Frit Mock]

You are wrong in one point of your vision ... it is not a world _without_ possession, it is a world, where a _few people posses everything_ and the majority of people are just granted a few rights.

Uhm ... hey it is quite close to the world we are already living, 10% of the people posses 90% of all property.

Re:Rent a life!

[DeepDarkSky]

More like the majority of the people pay rent or licensing fees to the few people possessing everything.

Re:Rent a life!

[RayBender]

You are wrong in one point of your vision ... it is not a world _without_ possession, it is a world, where a _few people posses everything_ and the majority of people are just granted a few rights. Uhm ... hey it is quite close to the world we are already living, 10% of the people posses 90% of all property.

And so we've come full circle. In the middle ages the landed gentry owned the "means of production"(i.e. all the land), while the peasants eked out a living at their mercy. In early industrial times it was the factory owners who owned said means, and the workers were terribly exploited (that pretty much still is the case in many developing countries). Then there was Communism, where the state did the exploiting. What we are witnessing now is a mad grab for the modern means of production - knowledge. "Intellectual property".

You made one mistake though - the majority are not granted a few rights. They may be told they have certain inalienable rights; but when living in a company town, eating company food, and relying on company health care, what rights and how much freedom do you really have? Can you speak out against corrupt managment wiithout losing everything? Can you move elsewhere when working conditions are dangerous (if you have no startup capital, no equity in your house, own nothing of value or cannnot resell what you do have, and need a good letter of reference in a tight labor market. And assuming things are better anywhere else..)?.

Welcome to anarcho-Capitalist heaven; where a few people own everybody else.

Re:Rent a life!

[Anonymous Coward]

feds can't take anything that I own since I won't own anything

They can take away your lease/license.

Re:Rent a life!

[willtsmith]

There is little substantial difference between feudalism, communism, facism, royalism and lazze-fair capitalism beyond there names. It's like dressing Mickey Mouse in a sailor suit and calling him Daffy Duck.

They all mean the same thing and evolve in the same manner. All the power and influence are placed in the hands of the very few. Everyone else prospers or suffers at their mercy.

Our nation and world is coming dangerously close to a global capital feudalism via the policies of the WTO, World Bank and IMF. These organization promote "market freedom" but their freedom is the freedom to oppress the little guy, expropriate local resources for global behemoth coroporations, put small companies out of business and barter labor like a commodity to drive every worker into the lowest possible denominator.

Totalitarianism is all the same. The people in charge of "Capitalist" Russia are the same individuals who were running "Communist" USSR. The "Capitalist" barons of China are the same people running the "Communist" party.

The totalitarianists have simply discovered that chaotic chronie dictatorships are easier to maintain than rigid planned dictatorships. Internal competition keeps the chronies biting at each other and not the leader.

They all do the same thing, only one wears a sailor suit, the other has red shorts with yellow buttons. Our global corporations are becoming dangerously close to permanently taking the US manufacturing base overseas along with our independence. They have placed their willing syncophant in the White House. They are actively working on permanently riggin elections with electronic voting machines that can be manipulated at will with no possibility of oversight or recount.

Re:Rent a life!

[lardbottom]

I think you fail to realize that you don't really own anything anyway. Anyone can come and take away what you think of as "yours" with little or no valid reason. It happens every day.

Also, to coin a significantly tired phrase "You can't take it with you"

Society makes more sense if you look at people as a commodity instead of people. Your toaster can't own anything, right? But if I give it a piece of bread, then it will make toast!

No, I don't work for the RIAA, but I think I must have genes from someone who does to come up with this crap.

Re:Rent a life!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Someday you'll drive to the Sony in your Sony to buy more Sony."

Re:Rent a life!

[Multics]

Isn't this the entire point of the GPL?

More properly, isn't this the entire point of the GPL-like world?

As much as I dislike RMS, the guy clearly is the intellectual property leader in pretty much any space I know of. We are fighting these things out in court and not rioting like third world countries.

I think the question to ask is what can we do to assure that 'FREE' makes it out into all these other disciplins before there is nothing left that is not 0wn3d.

-- Multics

Re:Rent a life!

[Moofie]

Buddhists don't pay license fees on their robes either.

Re:Rent a life!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two ways to get to the point of not owning anything. The first is communism - the idea that you don't need anything since you can just go and take 'what you need and when you need it' (one slogan is - 'to everyone according to their needs and according to what they deserve'). The other is to license everything (the capitalist way)

Two extremes, similar results - everage person is screwed.

Re:Rent a life!

[Moofie]

Donald wore a sailor suit. Daffy was usually nekkid.

I would argue that some forms permit more class mobility than others.

Why is it dangerous for the US to move manufacturing overseas? Wouldn't that lead to a softening of the power of nation states, which would be Good?

Re:Rent a life!

[Anonymous Coward]

> "Imagine a world with no posessions."

John Lennon: "Imagine no possessions" (lyrics)
Elvis Costello: "Was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions"?" (lyrics)

Re:Rent a life!

[tkg]

They have placed their willing syncophant in the White House.

As they do in every election. There is no real difference between the democrans and republicrats. The superficial differences we see are only to give an unwitting public the illusion of choice.

Re:Rent a life!

[jafuser]

Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

Re:Rent a life!

[ultranova]

Less power to the Government means more power to the Corporation. Power will allways find an owner, corrupting that owner and consuming him untill there's no humanity whatsoever left... It takes longer if the new ruler is strong and benevolent at the beginning, but neither will last, not strength nor benevolence. Power, the need to get more of it and the terrible fear of loosing it, will drive all other thoughts and concerns from his mind. It will be a terrible burden, but he will cling to it, because it's the only thing he has. Tolkien sure knew what he was talking about; replace the Ring with a crown or a thrown, and it all starts making a lo more sense... But anyway, at least democracy tries to disperse power to more people who reign less time, whereas companies can have a very small number of people wielding the actual power for a very long time.

Re:Rent a life!

[pmz]

I think you fail to realize that you don't really own anything anyway. Anyone can come and take away what you think of as "yours" with little or no valid reason.

Well, this is where the Second Amendment and the Fouth Amendment step in and is why those pesky NRA folk actually have a point.

Re:Rent a life!

[pmz]

I think people do know the Democratic Party's platform. No need to repeat it, here.

Re:Rent a life!

[clambake]

This is great! Pretty soon I can go through life without owning everything, and everything I use will essentially be rented. I will be relieved of the material need to own things. "Imagine a world with no posessions."

The really ironic thing is... those companies that you are renting from will suddenly find that they don't own any of thier office equipment either... Then things may begin to be rethought.

Re:Rent a life!

[skinfitz]

How do you know? Ever ASKED one? Arhar!

Re:Rent a life!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask me how impressed I am with Buddhists. Now ask me how impressed I am with capitalism. Notice which one of these is the driving force of inovation.

Re:Rent a life!

[skinfitz]

Ahh but perhaps it's part of the license agreement for the robes that they are not allowed to mention that they are under license.

Sort of a Digital Monk Copyright Act or Non-Disrobing Agreement.

Re:Rent a life!

[Jetson]

This is great! Pretty soon I can go through life without owning everything, and everything I use will essentially be rented. I will be relieved of the material need to own things. "Imagine a world with no posessions."

That's how the upper class live. Once you get past the "Wealthy Barber" level of financial planning, most books recommend creating an "incorporated self" that is, in essense, a single-shareholder holding company that owns all of your belongings, contracts out your services and diverts a substantial portion of the resulting income into tax-deferred investment accounts. The Porsche becomes a "company car", etc., etc. The "legitimate" reason for incorporating is to protect your assets from hungry lawyers, but the tax deferrals that come with that structure are arguably of more benefit.

Re:Rent a life!

[willtsmith]

Don't forget that companies are non-democratic. There is very little control of companies outside the inner management circle. The shareholders themselves can veto directors, but they have no power to nominate them.

The entire corporate structure is controlled by a cadre of CEOs that mutually sit on each others boards and scratch each others backs. That's neither a market force, nor a democratic force. It is a totalitarian force.

Re:Rent a life!

[willtsmith]

There is a difference between being corrupted by cynical forces and being a cynical force.

But yes, I do fundamentally agree. On economic issues there is little remaining difference between Republicans and Democrats. They both know who butters their bread. The ordinary citizen cannot afford to write $1000 campaign checks.

I can see it now

[robbyjo]

EULA

License Rights

We grant you a nonexclusive, nontransferable limited license to use the woodworking tool for purposes of developing your new tools and cutting trees only. You may
also give, lend, or sell this tool to the third party. If you want to use the tool for any purpose other than as expressly permitted under this agreement you must contact
us to obtain the appropriate license. We
may audit your use of the tool. Tool documentation is either shipped with the programs, or documentation may accessed online
at our website.

Ownership and Restrictions

We retain all ownership and intellectual property rights in the tool.

You may not:

• use the programs for any purpose other than as provided above, including but not limited to, literally hacking computers and harming others;
  
• make tools that compete with our product lines;
  
• distribute the tools unless accompanied with the document;
  
• charge your end users for use of the tool;
  
• remove or modify any tool markings or any notice of our proprietary rights;
  
• use the tool to provide third party training on the content and/or functionality of the tool;
  
• assign this agreement or give the tool, tool access or an interest in the tools to any individual or entity except as provided under this agreement;
  
• cause or permit reverse engineering (unless required by law for interoperability), disassembly or decompilation of the tool;
  
• disclose results of any program benchmark tests without our prior consent; or,
  
• use any our company name, trademark or logo.
  

Re:I can see it now

[willtsmith]

I wonder if the jig license prevents the user from modifying the jig (reverse engineering).

Re:I can see it now

[robbyjo]

Hey hey... wait there moderators... The parent post is a joke. Wha??

Live Satire

[Tom]

Real life is a satire on itself.

I can't quite decide whether this is for real or a very elaborate prank. In case it is the later: Kudos. Very convincing.

Hey, I can do that, too!

[PontifexPrimus]

Ok, that's it. I'm patenting the Incline(tm), the Pulley(tm), the Lever(tm) and the Wheel(tm). Since every complex machine in use today has one or more of them incorporated, I guess I'm due, say, three quarters of the world's GNP.
Glad no one thought of that before me...

Re:Hey, I can do that, too!

[mlush]

Ok, that's it. I'm patenting the Incline(tm), the Pulley(tm), the Lever(tm) and the Wheel(tm).

I think UniLever may have beaten youto one of thoes

Re:Hey, I can do that, too!

[0x0d0a]

Ok, that's it. I'm patenting the Incline(tm), the Pulley(tm), the Lever(tm) and the Wheel(tm). Since every complex machine in use today has one or more of them incorporated, I guess I'm due, say, three quarters of the world's GNP.

Speaking from a non-mechanical-engineer standpoint, I'd have to say that I'd consider the Pentium 4 a "complex machine".

Re:Hey, I can do that, too!

[TheRealSync]

Three quarters? I'm not sure there's that much left for you, as I hereby patent the pushbutton. I guess I own the world!

Re:Hey, I can do that, too!

[darnok]

Too late - a patent lawyer here in Australia successfully patented the wheel a year or two ago. He did it to expose the stupidity in the current patent system; not to collect royalties (at least as far as I know...)

Re:Hey, I can do that, too!

[Ripplet]

Eh? What do you mean? I've just paid my Au$699 for the next year's wheel licenses. That's per wheel mind. We're still haggling over the spare as I say that 'technically' I don't use it (not in the last year anyway), but he says it's still a part of the system and therefore I need to pay.
Didn't you get your letter yet?

Re:Hey, I can do that, too!

[ScottGant]

I'm going to copywrite the word "is"!

I'd want royalties whenever it's said in a movie or song also.

As in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "We wouldn't get very far in life without saying "is"."

Just a thought...

Re:Hey, I can do that, too!

[nvlass]

Lets patent silicon devices then... :)

Re:Hey, I can do that, too!

[willtsmith]

Heh,

That reminds me of the patent placed on coolers WITH wheels.

I'm not sure if the prior art search ever revealed THE WAGON!!!!!!

Honestly some inventions are so old and obvious that the patent office should make lists of DUHH things (fire, wheel, lever, pendulum) that cannot be patented by simply adding them to another product.

Re:Hey, I can do that, too!

[tkg]

Actually, I hold the copyright to Latin and all its derivatives, so you're attempt to copyright 'is' would be an infringement. My lawyer will be in touch.

Is this really a new thing?

[Zog The Undeniable]

Most physical objects get patented somehow - look at the bottom of any shaped bit of plastic and it will usually have a PAT number or at least PAT. APP. Maybe it's just the stupid shrink-wrap licence agreement that's new.

Re:Is this really a new thing?

[cperciva]

Those are normally design patents, not utility patents -- they don't stop other people making a product which uses the same principles to achieve the same effect, but instead restrict people from making products which look the same.

Self-replicating woodworking stuff?

[eidechse]

Ugh...how do I scan my cabinets for viruses?

Re:Self-replicating woodworking stuff?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look for small holes or open 'ports'. I think it's called W32woodworm.

EULA killing AI

[t4b00]

Consider Artificial Intelligence might never happen because if this kind of thing, bots could be unable to "clone themselves" due to End User License Agreement.

Poetry in motion

Re:EULA killing AI

[Spoing]

Consider Artificial Intelligence might never happen because if this kind of thing, bots could be unable to "clone themselves" due to End User License Agreement.

Here's a thought: With quantum computing, there may be 'software' that can't be copied...not even by the original developers.

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[richie2000]

So if you break your jig

Except it isn't your jig, now is it? It's their jig that you just broke and you'll probably have to buy them a new one.

But how does this affect insurance? If it's their stuff and you only license it, they should cover the costs for keeping the jig insured against theft, right?

Patents, not shrinkwrap licenses

[silentbozo]

If this gizmo is so damn cool, they should be using patents, not shrinkwrap licenses to protect it. Seriously, what kind of fool buys a car that requires you to use "Ford Brand Gasoline" in the agreement? Similarly, if they think they can use a piece of paper to keep someone from sharing THEIR OWN WORK, then they need to take the overpriced asshole of a lawyer who suggested the idea, and throw him out of a 20 story window.

First sale doctrine folks.

Re:Patents, not shrinkwrap licenses

[switched4OSX]

Screw the 20 story window. Throw the lawyer out of a 2nd story window, repeatedly. No use letting him die quick.

Re:Patents, not shrinkwrap licenses

[MacFury]

what kind of fool buys a car that requires you to use "Ford Brand Gasoline" in the agreement?

All you have to do is make the fool believe he wants to buy Ford Brand Gasoline.

Re:Patents, not shrinkwrap licenses

[crazyphilman]

I bought a GMC Sonoma back in '99 (it was the '99 model). The GMC Sonoma uses special GMC transmission fluid. NOBODY but GMC SELLS IT. And, worse, no one will put regular tranny fluid in my car, so I can't get it changed out. The guys at Valvoline told me that I should go to the GMC dealer, buy a few gallons of the stuff, and bring it back -- then they'd be delighted to put it in. Swell.

The truck is only a couple of years old, and all kinds of shit malfunction on it every day. Minor shit, nothing serious (the mechanicals seem to be pretty solid). For example, the radio will occasionally just decide not to play tapes. I found out that if I put the tape in, and when it starts to CLICK-CLICK-CLICK, smack the center console of the dash with the heel of my hand a couple of times, the tape will start to work again. Another thing -- the heater fan will occasionally just up and quit. It won't turn on again for days. The vacuum lines in the dash are fine; I can switch from heater to defog and such, no problem. But the fan won't come on. I found out by accident that if I release the parking brake suddenly enough, the fan will start working again. WTF???

Fuck, man, I need to get a new car one of these days... Next time I'm buying a Subaru.

Re:Patents, not shrinkwrap licenses

[bmajik]

you void your BMW E46 M3's warranty if you don't use the specified oil, Castrol 10W60 Full synthetic, which is only available at BMW and porsche dealers, at outrageous expense.

Nobody else makes a 10W60 full synthetic oil.

Can't do it.

[harriet nyborg]

You don't buy a license to a physical item - like a dovetailing bit - you buy the bit. It's your's. You own it and have full right to use it for the purpose intended. You can sell it, loan it to someone else, and modify it (as long as the modification doesn't infringe someone else's patent).

The difference with this and a software license is that one rivalous, and one non-rivalous. I cannot loan someone my dovetailing bit without giving up posession myself. Thus, the bit is a rivalous asset.

On the other hand, software can be copied and shared with others without me giving up posession. In this manner, software as a product is non-rivalous. When you "buy" software you only ever receive a copy - the software company keeps posession of the original - so you what you are buying is a license to use.

Re:Can't do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

that seems to be contradicted by the statement in the EULA that says "this is a product designed to copy itself" they are worried that sombody will make 100 1st generation jigs and give them to people who will use them as masters. Those people should buy the masters from them.

or so the theory goes.

Re:Can't do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should mention that to IBM who did exactly this with their mainframes for several decades without any legal problems.

Re:Can't do it.

[tony_gardner]

There are some things where its not clear whether they are a physical object or not. Clearly they are talking about the master pattern for the dovetails. A dovetailer is a machine which cuts the end of a bit of wood into crennelations (up and down bits like on the top of a castle). It does this often by using a hand router to cut around a metal form which is the "master form" which then produces copies of the master form in wood. Obviously they think that their master form is an original pattern, and that copying is is analogous to photocopying a book. That is: they consider the pattern, rather than the metal of the form to be the thing of value. You could equally use the pattern of the metal to cut copies of that pattern into metal, rather than wood; thus destroying what they consider to be the value of the item: its rarity and uniqueness.

Having seen a few dovetail forms, I'd have to say it would want to be a pretty amazing form.

I think another way of looking at it would be to consider keys. your landlord can't stop you from lending your key to someone else, but I'd think that making copies of it and distributing it to all of your friends would create a bit of a stir, as would selling your key: and the key is also one of your "rivalrous assets".

Re:Can't do it.

[Afty0r]

You don't buy a license to a physical item - like a dovetailing bit - you buy the bit. It's your's. You own it and have full right to use it for the purpose intended. You can sell it, loan it to someone else, and modify it

You can do, but in the USA, the company responsible for the EULA can take you to court for doing so. If you cannot afford a good enough lawyer to make a convincing argument that the EULA should not be valid, you will lose an enormous amount of money. In the event that you do hire a good enough lawyer, you will only lose a large amount of money.

This is an enormous, and rapidly growing, problem in the USA. Many other countries have employed a policy of "plaintiff pays" the legal fees, should they lose the suit - but in the USA one must initiate yet more costly action (I believe you call it a SLAPP suit?) in order to obtain these fees, and such suits are rarely succesful.

In the UK for example, our government offers "Legal Aid" - a scheme by which people can get free or reduced cost legal help for fighting cases. This greatly reduces the disincentive to fight that an ordinary (non supported) court battle would have, which in turn reduces the incentive for companies to sue individuals with cases that are not strong.

The end result is that in the UK there are very very few frivolous or weak lawsuits brought about against individuals, lower costs for everyone, and a fairer system for society.

Does anyone know why the US does not have a system for aiding people in legal battles, and why when a motion in court is found to not be enforcable in law, does the person who brought the suit (and therefore a large monetary cost) to someone erroneously, does not have to pay?

Re:Can't do it.

[HAL9OOO]

If this catches on I suggest you dump your E-Bay stock! I mean if you don't own it, how can you sell it?

Re:Can't do it.

[silentbozo]

Too many lawyers. No, seriously, we have too many lawyers, and they all need work. Idle hands (or in this case, solicitors) make for the devil's work. Too bad we can't force lawyers into the poor house by forcing them to take out extravagant malpractice insurance policies. I'm sure the doctors here would love to see that happen.

Re:Can't do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously this has been a huge problem for jib makers for hundreds of years, which is why there are no more jig makers and this jig maker had to design their jib entirely from scratch with no prior knowledge of any other jig.

Oh wait.

Re:Can't do it.

[mumblestheclown]

Impressive academic reference to rivalrous goods. I surmise, threfore, that you are an academic with your head up your ass.

Are you saying that it is not possible to lease a car?

the contract is what the contract is. If you don't like the contract, don't agree to it. if the process of "agreeing" to the contract is suspect, then let an AG or a court sort it. but please don't tell me that i can't lease or otherwise give you temporary, limited use of a physical item. that's bullshit.

Re:Can't do it.

[Lumpy]

Does anyone know why the US does not have a system for aiding people in legal battles,

yes.

the problem is Lawyers.

when lawyers get old they become Judges and Congress/senate members.

so therefore the United states government and legal system is made up of mostly Lawyers.. the club that is interested in one thing only... sustaining and expanding it's business.

Make it illegal for a lawyer to become a Judge or a member of the government and you will fix the problem.

Re:Can't do it.

[kuroth]

> If you cannot afford a good enough lawyer to make a convincing argument that the EULA should
> not be valid, you will lose an enormous amount of money. In the event that you do hire a good
> enough lawyer, you will only lose a large amount of money.

This is an unfortunately common misconception.

I have been sued twice in my life by people with far more money than I have. In one case, I defended myself - against their real "went to law school" attorneys - and won. In the second case, I hired an attorney, won, and they were forced to pay all my legal expenses.

Both times, the other parties tried to pull the "we're going to play the 500lb gorilla, and sue you into oblivion" routine. I think that they were expecting me to run screaming or something. I didn't. They lost.

Bring it on, lawyer-boy.

The common trait of both of these lawsuits? I was right. And, despite the cynicism that a lot of people seem to have about the American legal system, the person who's right will prevail in a vast majority of cases.

If someone threatens to sue you, and you're right, let them. Go in, make your case, and you'll probably prevail. A judge will know that you aren't an attorney, and generally cut you a fair amount of slack.

Re:Can't do it.

[hyphz]

> Make it illegal for a lawyer to become a Judge

Umm, well.. who the heck *are* going to become judges, then? People who don't know the law?

Probably a better bet would be to nationalise lawyers. Make them a public service like the police.

Re:Can't do it.

[whovian]

I think another way of looking at it would be to consider keys. your landlord can't stop you from lending your key to someone else, but I'd think that making copies of it and distributing it to all of your friends would create a bit of a stir, as would selling your key: and the key is also one of your "rivalrous assets".

I was thinking along the same lines. Locksmiths in general do follow a restrictive key duplication policy: if the key is stamped "Do Not Duplicate" then they shouldn't make a copy, except for the original key owner (here, landlord).

Obviously there's the liability issue, but locksmiths have to some kind of morals because they could make any key from scratch.

Re:Can't do it.

[f0rt0r]

I think what he is referring to is that, in the U.S., a contract that violates the applicable laws is null and void. So he is trying to prove the contract contradicts the law, and is therefore null and void ( in the U.S. ). Two or more parties can draw up and sign a contract that says anything they want, and sign it. But that doesn't make it binding from the legal point of view.

Re:Can't do it.

[Marc2k]

The problem isn't lawyers, it's people. It's the old money/power corrupts etc etc. It makes more sense that we have people necessarily knowledgeable about the law interpreting laws and writing them than it does to put, say, farmers in Congress. The problem is flat out: people. Some people will always be corrupt, some will stay in line for fear of retribution, some don't care to see things change, ad infinitum. No matter WHO you bar from or appoint to legal positions, they're going to have an agenda. it's just coincidentally unfortunate that the people most qualified to be judges and legislators may have this particular agenda.

Re:Can't do it.

[TA]

No, IBM did not. You rented the mainframe from them. Nobody at the time imagined that anyone would ever want to buy their own computer, so the first businesses were all built around the rent-a-mainframe concept.

Re:Can't do it.

[Lumpy]

I have a simple question...

what is wrong with making a high quality product that, because of the manufacturing advantages, cant be made at home for the same retail price?

have companies become so incompetent to the point that quality items can no longer be made?

Re:Can't do it.

[I8TheWorm]

Because most of our politicians (law-makers) are in fact lawyers themselves?

Re:Can't do it.

[RedWizzard]

A lease is a fixed term contact that requires the return of the goods in question at the termination of the contract. This case is clearly not a lease. There is no contact or agreement made before the sale is finalised - it's a shrinkwrap "license". They are selling the good and then claiming that the buyer has fewer rights than is customary. It's dodgy at best.

Re:Can't do it.

[RedWizzard]

You don't buy a license to a physical item - like a dovetailing bit - you buy the bit. It's your's. You own it and have full right to use it for the purpose intended.

I think you've acutally understated the situation. You don't just have the right to use the purchased good for the purpose intended, you have the right to use the purchased good for any purpose.

Re:Can't do it.

[Artifakt]

At this point, judges who weren't formerly practicing lawyers are becoming increasingly rare in the USA. It used to be (up till about 1950) fairly common that people were appointed judges and then given training in the law as needed. Often they were 'warned' that they were being considered for a judgeship and given a chance to bone up on the law in advance. Supposedly, they were selected for generally above average common sense and moral virtue. Pragmatically, it was sometimes a reward for political cronyism. What's surprising is that bribery, obviously bad decisions, and abuses of power were apparently no more common under that system than today, possibly less so.

Re:Can't do it.

[Artifakt]

If you are untrained as an attorney, the judge will often bend over backwards to make sure you get a fair chance. After all, if you lose, you can still get an attorney for an appeal, and then the judge's decisions will be scrutinized much more closely. It's not like acting as your own lawyer once means you have to keep doing it. Two caveats - 1. I am not an attorney, and this is not professional advice. 2. This applies more to criminal cases than civil ones.

Re:Can't do it.

[cybergrue]

Just one minor thing. IIRC (IANAL) SLAPP stands for Spurious Lawsuit against Protesting People. Its a lawsuit launched (usually) by a large corp aginst some protesting group on frivouls grounds to make them shut up, or to bankrupt them with legal fees. I believe its illegal in several places.

Ahh, isn't the american legal system grand.

Re:Can't do it.

[jvkjvk]

I think another way of looking at it would be to consider keys. your landlord can't stop you from lending your key to someone else, but I'd think that making copies of it and distributing it to all of your friends would create a bit of a stir, as would selling your key: and the key is also one of your "rivalrous assets".

I don't think this analogy is quite right. Instead, I think another way of looking at it if you want to use keys is: Let's say you bought a house (the bullshit about not owning the jig is just that). Could you make keys for all your friends if you wanted? I think so...

Re:Can't do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

This probably depends on how well you can present yourself. If you can clearly tell your side of the story, and are operating under more or less the same method of reasoning as the judge, you have a chance.

If you have difficulty forming a sentence or rely upon some logic radically different from the judge (faith instead of logic, for example, or sharia versus voodoo), you don't have such a great chance.

Re:Can't do it.

[kabocox]

Does anyone know why the US does not have a system for aiding people in legal battles, and why when a motion in court is found to not be enforcable in law, does the person who brought the suit (and therefore a large monetary cost) to someone erroneously, does not have to pay

Since you are a foreigner I'll let you know, but you can't spread it around. We, the people, of the United States, are in the process of selling our souls to corporate interests. It is in the corporate interest for business to send a little legal form letter to an individual that could utter destory an individual's life.

Forget Iraq and hidden WMD, the RIAA has weapons of mass terror. You'd be terrorized if you recieved a little piece of paper that basicly said you have pay one commerce instution all your money or pay all your money to a lawyer that will attempt to fight it. Do you really think it is in the corporate interest for me to be able to fight? Nope. I have not as shot. Another business has a shot. But I as an individual am worthless legally without money/resources to back me.

Re:Can't do it.

[kahei]

In the UK for example, our government offers "Legal Aid" - a scheme by which people can get free or reduced cost legal help for fighting cases. This greatly reduces the disincentive to fight that an ordinary (non supported) court battle would have, which in turn reduces the incentive for companies to sue individuals with cases that are not strong.


Yes, legal aid can be a powerful force if one or both parties happen to qualify for it (and that's not simple to work out) and if the case itself qualifies, and if the LSC, the body in charge of legal aid, happens to care about the particular case. Not surprisingly, the LSC likes political cases that get its members in the newspapers...

Once legal aid is involved, whether it's a _positive_ force is something that varies randomly. For instance the legally aided party can receive damages whereas the other can *not*, which makes legal aid cases unique and often very dangerous for one side. Then again, the legally aided party's counsel has a fairly strong incentive to give _bad_ advice and force a reselection -- if only to avoid the hours of unpaid auditing work that come with a legal aid case. And then, of course, the party recieving legal aid is under no financial pressure and can often win just by dragging the case out until the other side is bled dry -- and, of course, as with so many things in life sometimes it seems as if the more money you have, the easier it is to persuade that legal aid to come your way :)

But, overall, I'd say it's certainly no more corrupt than other comparable British welfare institutions (housing!), and getting rid of it probably wouldn't help all that much.


The end result is that in the UK there are very very few frivolous or weak lawsuits brought about against individuals, lower costs for everyone, and a fairer system for society.


Bless!

Re:Can't do it.

[Alsee]

The difference with this and a software license

No difference.

When you buy a book you are not buying ANY sort of licence. You own the book, and you own the copy embedded in that book. You do not need a licence to read it.

When you buy a record or CD you are not buying ANY sort of licence. You own the record or CD, and you own the copy embedded in that record or CD. You do not need a licence to play it.

When you buy off-the-shelf software you are not buying ANY sort of licence. You own the disk, and you own the copy embedded in that disk. You do not need any sort of licence to install and run it.

Software licences are not based on copyright law. They are based on an attempt to twist contract law into saying that buying a product equals agreeing to a contract. If Software EULA's are valid then the EULA on this jig is valaid, and an EULA on a tomato would be valid.

If anyone wants to argue software EULA's are valid, go ahead, but you have no right to complain when EULA's spread to jigs and tomatos.

-

Re:Can't do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know why the US does not have a system for aiding people in legal battles

Because there are more lawyers then defendants?

Re:Can't do it.

[multimed]

Interesting story, an my congratulations. Certainly the fact that the person who was right won over high-priced lawyers is encouraging. However, I believe you are missing a very important point: In most of these types of cases, the problem is the little guy has so much more to lose than the megacorp. If I get sued by a big company, even if I'm 100% in the right, at some point if they are able to raise the stakes enough, I will settle rather than proceed if there's even a slim chance I could lose. Said another way, it isn't enough to know that the vast majority of time the person who's right prevails--because if it comes down to losing everything one has or even going to jail, just the possibility of losing is enough to very heavily tip the scales in favor of the big guys.

Not that I have some terrific idea to fix it--loser pays has it's own set of problems. Though I don think in civil cases, all legal fees should be paid by the petitioner for any appeals after an original ruling.

Re:Can't do it.

[demigod]

Does anyone know why the US does not have a system for aiding people in legal battles, and why when a motion in court is found to not be enforcable in law, does the person who brought the suit (and therefore a large monetary cost) to someone erroneously, does not have to pay?

Let me see...
Oh ya, two of the most politically powerful groups, large corporations and trail lawyers, benefit from the situation.

Re:Can't do it.

[kuroth]

> However, I believe you are missing a very important point: In most of these types of cases,
> the problem is the little guy has so much more to lose than the megacorp. If I get sued by a
> big company, even if I'm 100% in the right, at some point if they are able to raise the stakes
> enough, I will settle rather than proceed if there's even a slim chance I could lose.

I disagree.

First of all, your assets are small potatoes to Global Super Megacorporation. They're a multimillion (maybe billion) dollar company. There are only so many resources that they're going to throw at getting, what, a few hundred thousand dollars - which they'll probably never be able to collect anyway - out of you.

There's a reason that they try to intimidate you: because it costs them money if you don't buckle. If you stand up to them, they'll go bully an easier target.

> Said another way, it isn't enough to know that the vast majority of time the person who's right
> prevails--because if it comes down to losing everything one has or even going to jail,

Only the government can put you in jail. Global Super Megacorporation does not have that authority.

It looks like we'll just have to disagree on this. I can see where you're coming from, but I could never allow myself to be bullied.

Re:Can't do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know why the US does not have a system for aiding people in legal battles,

It does. The Nixon administration established a legal aid program in the 1970s. In 1995, congress stripped most funding for the program, and changed the rules about which cases it can take.

So legal aid is now prohibited from taking on many cases, and even if it can accept a case, the client must literally live below the poverty line. Elgiability is based on household income. If the client lives with a roommate, significant other, or anyone else, legal aid has to count those other people's income in with the client's in order to determine eligibility.

These days, legal aid tends to deal with miniscule cases, such as housing disputes for people on social security.

and why when a motion in court is found to not be enforcable in law, does the person who brought the suit (and therefore a large monetary cost) to someone erroneously, does not have to pay?

Because such a blanket provision would effectively make large corporations immune to lawsuits. People would be afraid of sueing someone with lots of money because they know that if they lose, they will have to pay outrageous legal fees.

There is also the issue of companies filing essentially frivilous suits knowing they will win some small amount, and knowing the defendent will have to cover their legal expenses.

Judges, however, often have discretion to decide if one side should pay the legal fees for the other side.

Patented dovetails

[Anonymous Coward]

A friend of mine, recently had his house robbed. They took the draws from the bedside tables because that's where they assume the jewelery/watches are. So he went to a cabinet maker to have some draws made to replace the stolen ones. They refused because the size of dovetails joints are often patented. He was told he needed to find the patent holder for that particular size of dovetail joint.

Even stranger is that this didn't happen in the U.S., it was Australia.

Hmm..

[OneSmartFellow]

the purpose of the TemplateMaster is to clone itself

Surely that is not the prupose, although I would agree to a statement something like this

the purpose of the TemplateMaster is to clone templates, which implies it can clone itself

What bothers me is that you could say the same thing about a lathe, which also has the ability to be used to create more of itself.

producing a tool capable of creating a copy of that same tool surely is a risky business venture.

It is a shame they resorted to such tactics, rather than more traditional methods.

Copyright violation in article

[PhilHibbs]

Surely the licence agreement is subject to copyright law!

GNU

[Conspire]

Who is going to write the recommended GNU license the company should switch to! And next thing you know they will invest in SCO!

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can who do what?

Problematic if you're a treehugger.

[illuminata]

What exactly would a hippie do in a situation like this? On one hand, they would want to protest the fact that Stots isn't letting them share. Not to mention, a true hippie absolutely loves a good protest.

On the other hand, these tools are used to promote the murdering and desecration of helpless, beautiful trees.

I understand that you're torn, flower children. But I must ask, what would you do in this situation.

Re:Problematic if you're a treehugger.

[ottawanker]

I understand that you're torn, flower children. But I must ask, what would you do in this situation.

Speaking from experience, the answer to your question is LSD.

Re:Problematic if you're a treehugger.

[ajs318]

On one hand, they would want to protest the fact that Stots isn't letting them share.

I think you mean "..... protest against the fact ....." rather than "..... protest the fact ....." which would imply being in favour of the fact {cf. "The prisoner was led from the ock, still protesting his innocence"}.

On the other hand, these tools are used to promote the murdering and desecration of helpless, beautiful trees.

Trees are plants. Plants grow out of the ground {If you want to be pedantic, I suppose you should say they grow out of the air, since plants are made mostly from carbon which they get from CO2 in the atmosphere. The ground is mostly just there to separate the roots from the leaves. You can prove this by experiment. On the other hand, to avoid upsetting too many people, maybe it's best to stick with conventional wisdom while knowing that that isn't really what happens. Cf. conventional current flow vs. electron flow}. Now, nobody objects to carrots being pulled up. Same with trees, only bigger. You can be sure that whoever the land belongs to will want to make more money out of it year after year, so they keep planting trees at the same rate they use them up.

Re:Problematic if you're a treehugger.

[illuminata]

Nice dissection. But, there's two points I would like to make.

1. I took about 30 seconds to write what I had to say (half asleep mind you, I live in the Eastern time zone). You on the other hand appear to have taken quite awhile to come up with your statements.

2. It was a joke.

So, I hope it was well worth it to pick apart my relatively thrown together post on hippies. If your post was a joke as well, good. In that case, I find it funny. If not, I'll weep for you. Also, my last sentence in the original post should have a question mark. I'm surprised that you didn't notice that after all the work you put in.

We have it allready

[ben_of_copenhagen]

Think inkjet refills. Think cellphones (batteries). DVD-R & DVD+R. This happens all the time. You are right about the lawyer, though.

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[AKnightCowboy]

So if you break your jig, or it gets stolen, you can phone up and ask for a replacement.

Why not just make a backup copy of it? If the whole point of it is to replicate itself then you can use it to make a backup of itself. Then if it breaks, just use the backup... or use the backup exclusively and store the original in a safe location. Or store your backup on Karpentryzaa (har har) for secure off-site backup.

What's next?

[zonix]

What's next, I wonder? 'Shrink wrap' (pun intented) agreements for condoms?

z

Re:What's next?

[fyonn]

What's next, I wonder? 'Shrink wrap' (pun intented) agreements for condoms?

to quote another poster about the comment on his hibiscus:

"propagation prohibited"

dave

Re:What's next?

[krumms]

What's next, I wonder?

Miffles "Socks" EULA

By opening the plastic wrapping and reading the last few words, you enter into an agreement with Miffles. This agreement places restrictions on your use of Miffles' "Socks" such as:

• 1. Feet only: You are permitted to wear your socks on your feet, only your feet and not on your elbows. Further, you may not use these socks as mittens, tea cosies or "FoxTails".
• 2. Stuffing: Socks may not be inserted into trousers, boxers, bras, briefs or any type of underwear without the written permission of Miffles. We want to know who you are so we can laugh at you.
• 3. No warranty: Should your socks come with holes, mould or the Antichrist, we cannot be held responsible. Similarly, if you add your own holes, mould or demons to the socks, it's your own fucking problem.
• 4. Never wrong: We make the rules here, so we reserve the right to always be right. If you start doing something we don't like and it's not in this agreement, we'll kick your ass anyway. You are hereby legally bound to submit to Miffles' will and to generally shut the fuck up when told to do so.
• 5. Other brands: Once you buy Miffles' "Socks", you are hereby denied the right to buy any other brands in the future. Unfair? Unbelievable? Unconstitutional? Refer to 4.

We hope you enjoy using Miffles' "Socks". Tough shit if you don't.

Re:What's next?

[Ripplet]

>agreements for condoms?

This product may not be used by the result of it's own failure!

Y2K Compliant Guaranteed

[byolinux]

This tool is Guaranteed to be Y2K Compliant - http://www.claytool.com/ - surely we need to adopt and embrace tools such as this? ;)

I should license my own tool

[webslacker]

My tool has been used by way too many women far too long to make duplicates of me. In addition to charging women for the use of my instrument, I will require that they only use my hardware for personal use and not for creating pirated copies of myself.

Re:I should license my own tool

[Anonymous Coward]

And the ridiculous thing about pirated copies is that you must provide them with support, or you could face a lawsuit.

Re:I should license my own tool

[AVee]

Well, use a shrink-wrap license, if there aren't holes in the license it should work perfectly...

Re:I should license my own tool

[clickety6]

Mate, you wouldn't have these problems if you kept to the license agreement which says you should be the sole (ab)user of your tool!

Re:I should license my own tool

[utexaspunk]

You do that, Mr. Microsoft- I'll be the FDF (Free Dick Foundation). GNU-William will only come with a license that says you can't hold me liable for your use of my tool, and you can't expect any chi-er, tech support :)

Re:I should license my own tool

[lardbottom]

Oohh.. so do you need to shrink wrap it before you loan it to someone else? My head hurts.

Re:I should license my own tool

[pmz]

So, do you prefer shink-wrap by vacuum seal or shrink-wrap by heat gun?

Let's see what's right here and what's not

[dunstan]

OK, let's treat this jig not as a tool, but as a pattern. What would seem reasonable with a pattern?

Would it be reasonable to make copies of the pattern and give them to one's friends to use in their own workshops? I would suggest not.

If I lent the pattern to my friend for him to make end products, that would seem reasonable.

If I lent the pattern to my friend, he made a copy, and then he used that copy to make end product while I used the original pattern to make end product, that would seem unreasonable.

But clearly these guys are taking the view that, while the jig itself can be considered goods which have been purchased, its use constitutes making copies - in the same way that when you buy a software CD, actually using it in your computer is considered copying (from the CD into memory). By using this logic, the maker has chosen to treat the use of the jig as copying, and *in* *law* he may well have a case.

This takes me back to the 1980s when the old Sun 3 machines came with an operating system "right to use" licence, and if used hardware was sold, then the puchaser had to purchase another "right to use" OS licence because he wasn't covered by the original licence. They stopped that years ago. More recently we've seem Microsoft suggesting to schools and charities that PC hardware donated to them by businesses probably has an OS licence which is non-transferable.

Anyways, rather than complaining about this EULA on a jig/pattern, if they really can be used to make replicas then there is clearly a need for a Free Jigs Foundation so that these silly people go out of business.

Dunstan

Re:Let's see what's right here and what's not

[91degrees]

Of course, a lot of software is quite clearly a licence. When you call up MS and ask for licences to install Windows on 100 machines, it's quite clear that you are buying a licence and not a copy of software, as opposed to when you purchase a CD with software on it.

I have to wonder whether it really is a licence when it looks so much like a sale. A piece of paper that the purchaser may or may not have read is probably not a legally binding document. Copyright may well cover making identical jigs. I seriosuly doubt it covers anything made using that jig.

Re:Let's see what's right here and what's not

[fyonn]

This takes me back to the 1980s when the old Sun 3 machines came with an operating system "right to use" licence, and if used hardware was sold, then the puchaser had to purchase another "right to use" OS licence because he wasn't covered by the original licence. They stopped that years ago.

netapp (was it?) thought it was a good idea though, if you buy old netapp eq, then they'll insist you rebuy the software before they'll let you pay them for a maintenance agreement.

bloody ridiculous

dave

Re:Let's see what's right here and what's not

[jazman]

Ok, let's treat this hammer not as a tool, but as a pattern (for banging in nails). What would seem reasonable with this pattern, and perhaps more importantly if we don't call a spade a spade is it reasonable to assume it can't be a spade?

Would it be reasonable to make copies of this hammer and give them to one's friends to use in their own workshops? Yes, providing I copy the concept and not just the implementation. If OP creates a template machine to a different design from the template machine he has licenced, there is no law against that, and the EULA is an attempt to change that. If he duplicates the design of the original machine, then perhaps there is a law against that (patents?), and perhaps the EULA is an attempt at achieving the same protection without the expense of a patent. But saying you can't use a template machine to make template machines is just ridiculous, like an EULA on a compiler that says you can't make compilers with it (as Borland found to their expense some years ago).

If I lent the hammer to my friend for him to bang in nails, that would seem reasonable.

If I lent the hammer to my friend, he made a copy of that hammer, then used the copy to bang in nails - hmm. Don't see what's wrong with that, providing of course it isn't a new inventive way of hammering, e.g using spider silk and cotton wool instead of the usual stick and block of iron, or a particularly aerodynamically shaped block of iron.

The "purpose" of tools is to make things. With a sufficiently complex set of tools, you can recreate those tools out of new material. We've been able to do this for CENTURIES, and the laws for and against certain kinds of replication are equally ancient.

So, OP, consult a lawyer. If you bought, er, I mean, licenced this machine with a view to creating template machines or lending it to your friends, then you may need to get the licence tested in court, if your lawyer agrees you have a case.

Re:Let's see what's right here and what's not

[Crispy Critters]

"let's treat this jig not as a tool, but as a pattern. What would seem reasonable with a pattern?

A pattern could be protected under copyright law (like the plot of a book or the structure of a computer program). If the pattern in essence embodies a process, then protection might be available under patent law. If the pattern cannot be protected under either of these, then the user should not be restricted. You are basically arguing that intellectual property should be expanded from copyrights, patents, and trade secrets to include anything someone ever thinks, writes, says, or does.

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[Phexro]

"But how does this affect insurance? If it's their stuff and you only license it, they should cover the costs for keeping the jig insured against theft, right?"

Right. And the bank I financed my car through should be responsible for my auto insurance.

License-mania is a phase. It's happened before, and it will happen again. Western Union used to lease their telegraph machines, AT&T leased it's phone equipment, IBM leased it's computers, and so on. It will change, because in the end, it's a business model that antagonizes customers.

This is exactly the thing...

[ihatesco]

That RMS warned us about when he talked about GNU.
Look here and here.

a reproducing tool

[dynamo]

"the purpose of the TemplateMaster is to clone itself"
uh..
why would you want to buy something that can only duplicate itself?
at least it's convienient.. how many 'copy-protected' materials are themselves violations of the DCMA - on themselves?

Re:Going for fp #6

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he was going for first post #6

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[TheMidget]

So if you break your jig, or it gets stolen, you can phone up and ask for a replacement.

As stated in their FAQ they do indeed send you a new template if you break "yours":

I damaged my TemplateMasterTM while cutting a working template. Is there anything I can do?

Yes. Fill out the Honor Statement in the back of your User's Manual (or print it out from the User's Manual on the CD-ROM) and mail it to us. We will replace our damaged master for 1/2 the cost of your original purchase as long as you have registered your product with us.

This is not the first user-liscenced tool/toy

[Zeromous]

Do Not:

-squish Super Happy Fun Ball(tm)
-run with Super Happy Fun Ball(tm)
-throw Super Happy Fun Ball(tm)
-lend Super Happy Fun Ball(tm)
-make your own Super Happy Fun Ball(tm)
-have fun with Super Happy Fun Ball(tm)

Like Lawrence Lessig once said...

[Anonymous Coward]

That laws don't get changed by the consumer unless theres a large outcry. Things like this, combined with the FCC broadcast flag, and the RIAA lawsuits, could very well spell an end to the DMCA and copyright extensions, because up until now, the average consumer hasn't had to deal with the IP issues like the more tech savvy people have. In fact, 99% of them aren't even aware of these issues, but they will be soon.

Oh shit

[garethwi]

I just lent my son a hammer for his school woodworking project.

If anyone asks for me, I'm in Mexico.

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[MisterFancypants]

But they charge you 1/2 the cost, which is probably about the wholesale cost... So its still kind of a ripoff.

What are the chances

[AuMatar]

that this when this starts to snowball it will cause the uproar that makes all non-point-of-sale contracts invalid?

I can dream, can't I?

Re:What are the chances

[Anonymous Coward]

it will cause the uproar that makes all non-point-of-sale contracts invalid

They are already invalid. You can't attempt to place additional clauses in a contract after the contract has been executed.

do they think this is going to stop people?

[a.koepke]

We have software licenses and we still have software piracy.

Do you really think this is going to stop someone from lending it to a friend or replicating it. Software licenses havent stopped me copying software.

I really think this is 100% pointless.

Wha?

[BobSutan]

You have GOT to be kidding me.
My god, where is this leading us to? Now we don't even own the stuff we bought in a hardware store?

Will someone PLEASE stop the madness?!

The good news. Star Trek replicators. . .

[kfg]

are right around the corner.

The bad news, using them is illegal.

And so, boys and girls, the problem created by solving the problem of production was solved; and that's why we once again live in the dark and cold.

KFG

Re:The good news. Star Trek replicators. . .

[silentbozo]

In Damon Knight's "A for Anything" an overnight revolution takes place when cheap matter duplicators are distrbuted to everyone in the mail. Of course, you got two of them, so you could make as many copies of the matter duplicator as you wanted. The first thing that happens is that the ruthless duplicate weapons, kill off competition, essentially destroy society as we know it.

If replicators were really around the corner, illegality would become moot. Could any government, totalitarian or otherwise, hope to defeat a population that could arm itself overnight with just one set of ammo and a working gun?

Re:The good news. Star Trek replicators. . .

[LinuxGeek]

Are you kidding? The druggies would all be high on duplicated crank/coke/jolt-cola and the bankers would all be sitting on piles of gold. Every geek would have a dozen P4 and Athlon64 systems and their own personal petrified Natalie Portman. No one would want to work and probably wouldn't need to for survival purposes.

What government could survive if the people didn't want for anything?

Re:The good news. Star Trek replicators. . .

[kfg]

Guns and ammo are already cheap enough that virutally anyone can supply themselves with a surplus. The materials from which they are made are among the most plentiful and cheap on earth and the base technology is medieval.

In some places this has meant the destruction of a local social system, but the Swiss, with nearly universal aramament, seem to be holding up ok. You can go into any K-Mart and arm yourself with a week's minimum wage pay. We get the odd wingnut shooting up a school, but society hasn't crumbled (well, ok, maybe it has, but not because of the guns).

Hitler didn't take over the world. If the "bad guys" can have all the guns they want so can the "good guys."

If replicators existed the vast majority would just want to have fun with toys and would squash anyone who got in the way of that.

The only reason for a mass revolt would be if replicators existed and everyone didn't get two.

Think about it.

KFG

Re:The good news. Star Trek replicators. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

We are moving from an Age of Scarcity to an Age of Plenty. All traditional business models have assumed the the product being sold was scarce. Now this assumption is being undermined, we are seeing a move to try to create artificial scarcity.

Re:The good news. Star Trek replicators. . .

[TechnoLust]

What government could survive if the people didn't want for anything?
The Federation... duh! ;-)

Re:The good news. Star Trek replicators. . .

[srmalloy]

I think that George O. Smith's Venus Equilateral story "Pandora's Millions" predated Damon Knight's story; The Complete Venus Equilateral dates from about 1945. In it, the invention of the duplicator causes a societal collapse, as the first people to get duplicators make copies of their money, gold, and jewels, and later as anyone with a household replicator and a set of pattern discs is functionally independent for the basic necessities (duplicate yourself a fresh set of batteries when the old ones get low).

However, a society based on service value (you can't duplicate medical care, and a personal replicator can't build you a home) keeps things from falling into total chaos until the VE researchers come up with materials that cannot be scanned by the duplicator. These materials are used for money, and for packaging 'Certified Originals' -- objects that have never been scanned for duplication.

The VE stories also raise another societal issue that replicators would cause that many other stories, including Star Trek, never addressed. The VE duplicator can duplicate living material; it becomes the accepted medical practice, when faced with an extremely complicated or risky case where even the slightest mistake in treatment would kill the patient, to create as many duplicates of the patient as necessary, performing the treatment or surgery over and over again, until the physicians are able to treat the condition successfully, after which the real patient is treated the same way. This does, of course, leave the physicians in the position of having to dispose of the cured duplicate.

The ability to create duplicates of living things also establishes 'duplicate' as an epithet when used to another person, which creates a social stigma against twins.

Rights...

[CODiNE]

If this trend continues eventually we won't own anything at all. That would infringe on our self-evident rights to life, liberty and property... no wait... let's pursue *happiness* instead, who needs to own anything? ;-)
(Pursuit does not equal attainment)

-Don.

Perfect case of why someone should be in charge

[Anonymous Coward]

How many joiners or carpenters are going to pay attention to these restrictions? They'll probably not even know about 'em. If they do, they'll think it couldn't possibly be meant to apply to their legitimate lending to their co-workers.

After a while, when almost every carpenter has tools under such a license, however, it gives company lawyers the opportunity to claim that the license is an accepted industry standard. At that point, they can start ENFORCING such rules, and building even more restrictive regimes on top of them.

This is a perfect example of why immoral licensing should be nipped in the bud by a rights watchdog organisation, regardless of what the consumers accept at the time.

Re:Perfect case of why someone should be in charge

[black mariah]

Not immoral, unethical. There's a very distinct difference.

Nobody is going to pay attention to these restrictions. The company will not care if you lend it to friends. This is to keep people from doing large-scale duplication of the jig and selling it as their own. There are already laws in place that do that, but any way you can CYA is good.

Sad, Scary and Ironic

[Pan T. Hose]

As intelligent people we are usually concerned mostly about our right to read but we are soon going to face the new fight, fight for our undeniable freedom to jig, whatever that means.

Isn't that ironic that the term "hacker" originally described someone who makes furniture with an axe? Don't you think?

What next? A boat not sold but licensed with the EULA explicitly prohibiting the very act of abordage? Well, that will stop piracy for sure. "Ahoy, Matey. By saying 'Argh!' ye agree to the terms of the following End User License Agreement..."

"Aah, my woodwork!"

[Compact Dick]

Where's the "I'm not supposed to get jigs in it!" troll when you need him?

Re:"Aah, my woodwork!"

[windex82]

personally i was waiting for the "ive been copying the jig for 17 minutes now!" troll

FLU EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

The flu virus contained in this sneeze is intended for the consumption by the sneezed upon
entity/person (the "PURCHASER") only. The PURCHASER hereby agrees not to replicate the
DNA/RNA contained therein. Any unauthorized replication is a violation of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act and will be prosecuted. Any use of or supply of dockable proteins
-- intended or unintended -- shall be considered a circumvention of a copy protection
mechanism pursuant to the DMCA and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Help us prevent flu piracy.

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[richie2000]

And the bank I financed my car through should be responsible for my auto insurance.

I think that's the wrong analogy. If you rent a car, do you or Hertz buy the insurance for it?

Land Law

[PurpleWizard]

I'm currently studying land law in the UK. Interesting parallels have leapt to mind from how it was in England in the 14th Century. You didn't own land (you still technically don't it's all the Crowns land) you had a tenure on the land and paid rent (some simplification here).

So we don't have to worry about this leasing/licensing everything, over the next 600 years it will probably drift back to actual ownership by people. As the feudal lords lose their grip.

Re:Land Law

[beq]

But this hasn't changed that much in England in the 21st century. Much of the land is still "sold" as a leasehold, rather than as a freeholding (and I believe freeholdings are ancient in English law as well). Most of the land is still actually owned by titled nobles, and typically leased to the "owner" (leaseholder) for 99 years at a time. There are longer leases than that, some much longer, but the principle still applies. Leases are usually renewed for some nominal fee, but there's no requirement that they be. Technically, the actuall landowner would be within their rights to tell the "owner" to vacate when the lease comes up for renewal. Some land is also given as a "lifeholding", where the lease expires immediately upon the lifeholder's death, and this can't be inherited in the usual way.

Interestingly enough, this is also much the way most real estate works in Hawaii, which shouldn't surprise anyone who has even a cursury knowledge of it's history.

-Brendan

Re:Land Law

[isaac]

So we don't have to worry about this leasing/licensing everything, over the next 600 years it will probably drift back to actual ownership by people. As the feudal lords lose their grip.

That's reassuring.

Of course the unfree tenures were only officially abolished in Britain in 1922 and their attendant feudal duties (admittedly pro forma by then) in 1935. How many generations lived and died as serfs under unfree tenure? Taking the long view is small comfort to those of us who see in these trends the seeds of a new dark age.

-Isaac

Re:Land Law

[willtsmith]

I'm kinda cool with the Native American concept that you cannot OWN land persee. The land belongs to the earth and those who come after use.

What we call "ownership" are really indefinite rights of use. We can barter those rights with others. Those rights may be subject to regulation by common (government) authorities subject to the overall well-being of society.

Such regulation includes zoning (residential, agricultural, industrial), mining uses (including sand, peete, topsoil, water), right of way (utilities, transportation, etc...), environmental (maintaining sustainable land (you don't have the right to DESTROY land in such a way that makes it unusable for future generations)).

Any woodworking people out there?

[BenjyD]

From the poor-quality pictures on the website, this appears to be a shaped metal template which you copy onto a piece of wood with a router (a kind of jigsaw?).

Am I missing something? That seems a pretty simple thing - not the kind of thing you'd expect to make millions selling, or be able to force people to agree to such a licence to use. Does it have some magical properties not apparent to a guy who failed woodwork?

Re:Any woodworking people out there?

[nathanh]

From the poor-quality pictures on the website, this appears to be a shaped metal template which you copy onto a piece of wood with a router (a kind of jigsaw?).

A router is a very high speed cutting tool primarily used for making decorative edges though you can also use it for trimming edges, cutting grooves, rounding edges, creating tongues, etc. It's more like a drill than a jigsaw though the cutting edges are different to drills. If you've ever seen a dremel with a milling bit then imagine something 10x bigger and 100x more dangerous.

Am I missing something? That seems a pretty simple thing - not the kind of thing you'd expect to make millions selling, or be able to force people to agree to such a licence to use. Does it have some magical properties not apparent to a guy who failed woodwork?

A dovetail jig lets you create two types of edges. These edges interlock to create an incredibly strong right-angle join with no nails and no screws. The dovetail shape determines the properties of the join and every jig vendor vigorously defends their unique shape. It's an identity thing. It's not magical, but I can understand why they're trying to prevent people copying their jigs.

Take note that dovetail jigs are fairly modern (as are routers). The dovetail joint is ancient (1000s of years?) but was traditionally done with a handsaw and a chisel. It takes an extremely skilled person to create a good dovetail joint by hand. The dovetail jig allows any semi-skilled amateur to make incredibly good dovetail joints in just a few minutes. Any hobbyist worth his (or her) salt has a dovetail jig.

Re:Any woodworking people out there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Routers work with a steel or carbide tipped cutter spinning at roughly 30K RPM. Think Dremel on roids, mounted in a sturdy base with adjustable height.

Through the use of hollow rub collars (more difficult, fractions, mmph) or router bits with a top or bottom-mounted ball bearing the same size as the cutting path of the bit (easy, no math), it is relatively easy to make exact copies of any pattern with very little to no wear.

Of course there's a little vibration, and even carbide wears down (albeit slowly), but you can still expect 1/64" accuracy for awhile.

So it's not as accurate or repeatable as a large CNC router. But it's a handy tool that can be pretty precise. And it's pretty cheap for that precision. But it's just a precisely machined guide for a less precise operation accomplished with hand power tools.

The license? Ludicrous.

This is coming from a former custom cabinetmaker of 10 years.

Re:Any woodworking people out there?

[DJerman]

The license may have a point if they own the patent on the jig -- the patent prohibits "you" from manufacturing the jig unless "they" license you to.

If you sign a contract they have a lease agreement with you. If you pay money and go home to be ambushed by this paper, it's arguable they do not. If they have a lease agreement they can control subletting and selling, if they don't they can't.

I am not a lawyer, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night, but I watch contract law courses on PBS. ;)

Re:Any woodworking people out there?

[geekoid]

It used to be, if you needed good woodworking done, you could judge the quality of the wood worker by his dovetails. No more. Now we have to hope the wood worker we hire is worth a damn.

Look at the silly monkey

[BorgDrone]

The only tool piracy crime being perpetraed is that the lawyers in that company are able to procreate without supervision.

They aren't very smart either (or, alternatively, they are very smart).

From the article:
The master jig contained a license that says I've licensed the master jig, not bought it.
(...)
the Stots license says TemplateMaster may be used "in only one shop by the original purchaser only" and that "you may not allow individuals that did not purchase the original Product (to) use the Product (...)
(emphasis mine)

So you're not buying the product, and are not allowed to let anyone who didn't buy the product use it.
Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, that does not make sense.!

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[digitalunity]

You were right the first time. They are extremely stupid. Listen up everyone, THIS IS ILLEGAL. With one caveat, if the company actually owns a patent for this device, than you must pay a royalty(with permission) to recreate one. However, it doesn't seem this is incredibly inventive or creative, so I don't think they'd qualify for a patent on this.

The 'First Sale Doctrine' means you can do whatever you want with something after you buy it. Strangely enough, software seems to be excluded(kind of. But I don't understand why). This is a right, no one can take it away from you(except yourself, by contract). I don't think, if challenged, their EULA would prevent anyone from exercising their right to sell something they've purchased.

Hell, without the First Sale Doctrine, the RIAA would have shut down used CD stores years ago.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[jazman]

Half a caveat. If they have a patent you can't duplicate the design. A patent doesn't mean you can't create template machines *at all*, only that you can't create one to that particular design. Dyson's patent on vortices didn't put Hoover out of business; it only meant they had to pay him a royalty for creating vortex-driven vacuum cleaners; their previous designs were not affected.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[sg_oneill]

I think that software and "stuff" are distinguished because software essentially forms a sort of design for a bunch of actions. Stuff however is a thing that exists in meatspace.

Its redundant to say "IANAL" but I'm pretty sure that you cant just sign away basic rights, like "I can do what the fuck I like with this 'stuff', including sell it to someone else if its not suitable for my uses or I'm finished with it".

They need to ask a lawyer about this stuff, cos I suspect they just humiliated themselves.

And yeah. Ya cant mass reprocuce the stuff for others because of patents. But heres the rub: If I break a patent to make something for myself, I'm fairly convinced thats ok, as long as I dont pass it on. I might be wrong there.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's a loophole they're leaving in so they can sue loads of people and make huge wads of cash in a few years time?

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[Phigs]

software seems to be excluded(kind of. But I don't understand why)

This is due to the fact that as the consumer you hold the right to waive any implied warranties, including those contained in the First Sale Doctrine. So when you click on "I Agree" in that EULA, you are agreeing to that expressed warranty which then can negate any implied warranty that previously existed for that contract (except for Fitness for Human Consumption). So as long as it's spelled out in the contract, and you used the item therefore agreeing to the terms, it can be upheld in court.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[benhaha]

Software is covered by first sale, even though you have to copy it in order to use it. This is because the United States Code contains a specific exception for software users. The exception is:

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(a) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner

This means that you do not have to agree to the EULA in order to use the software, even though using the software involves making a copy. So just click past it.

DJB's page on Software Rights

I am not a lawyer though...

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[budgenator]

Not only can you not use it if you didn't buy, the un-buyable device, you can't use the jigs it products.

Dovetail jigs aren't rocket science and have been arround for almost as long as there have been cabinet-makers. I'm sure each step in the "evolution" of the dovetail joint could be considered a logical and obvious step from the previous and therefore un-patentable for that and also there must be a couple hundred years worth of prior art on this.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[mhesseltine]

If they have a patent you can't duplicate the design.

No, actually, if they have a patent, you can't duplicate the design and sell it. If you want to go down in your workshop with the patent papers from the USPTO and build one, that's legal. Just don't try to sell it to anyone.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[NormalVisual]

Not quite true. From a patent law firm's website:

"A patent permits its owner to exclude members of the public from making, using, or selling the claimed invention."

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[Dr. Evil]

I've seen that quote before and I interpreted it as a clause which makes "copying software" onto your HDD legal (because the softawre needs to be "installed"), and copying it into RAM for execution legal.

Software can get away with what it does while the woodworking tool cannot because software is considered both a copyrightable work and a patentable invention. You can't redistribute copyrighted works without the author's permission.

These dovetail jig-making-jig people need a patent to protect themselves... They can terminate a license with a licensee, and sue them up the wazoo, but I don't think there is anything they can do about the tools they produced and distributed.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[NormalVisual]

Dang it - I even previewed the damn post and screwed up the law firm's URL. Here it is: Oppedahl & Larson LLP:

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[mhesseltine]

It's OK. The USPTO site also shows the same thing in its glossary for the term patent. I stand corrected.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[Alsee]

As you say, EULA's are supposedly valid because of contract law. However *if* EULA's are valid for software then they are also valid on this jig-thingy. It also means that the supermarket can start slapping EULA's on tomatos and milk cartons

-

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[schon]

This is due to the fact that as the consumer you hold the right to waive any implied warranties, including those contained in the First Sale Doctrine.

This is beside the point. It has nothing to do specifically with software, which is NOT exempt from first sale doctrine, at all.

So when you click on "I Agree" in that EULA, you are agreeing to that expressed warranty

Actually, no. The only thing that says "clicking 'I agree' means you agree" is the EULA itself. So, if you don't agree, you can happily click "I agree" without, in fact, agreeing.

as long as it's spelled out in the contract, and you used the item therefore agreeing to the terms, it can be upheld in court.

And if you don't agree, you're free to use the software anyway.

What's interesting is that regardless of whether the end user agrees or not, such a contract (presented after the sale) is invariably illegal, and wouldn't hold up in court, because it's an attempt to change the terms of another contract that has already been executed (purchasing the software is a contract, and the EULA is attempting to modify the contract after it's been executed, which is illegal.)

In order to be upheld in court, an EULA would have to be presented to the purchaser before they buy it, not afterwards (at which point, it doesn't matter whether the user clicks "I agree" or not.)

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[rizzo420]

Not only can you not use it if you didn't buy, the un-buyable device, you can't use the jigs it products.

so basically it's only useful for people that work for themselves with no other employees, unless the other employees are not allowed to use the jig. makes it kind of a pain in the ass for woodworkers having only one guy allowed to make dove-tailed joints. it's really a stupid product without a real purpose. they'll lose money on it.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[nmos]

You know, you SHOULD be right but at least some clauses in eulas HAVE been upheld in court. I believe that at least one reason is that these eulas are a "common practice in the industry". That's why I cringe every time I point out a particularly nasty eula to a customer and they say "yeah that's bad but they could never enforce it". Apparently just allowing these things to exist is enough to set some sort of precidnet.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[WNight]

But, you don't agree to it by clicking through because there's nothing in it for you (no consideration).

You already paid for the software. The moment you leave the store you own it (not the copyright, but the right to use it fully, resell it, etc). They can't offer you the right to use it because you already have it. But, even if they offered you something in the EULA, it still wouldn't be valid because you must click through to use the software, something you own and have the right to use.

Also, because clicking through isn't optional (you must do it to use the software), it can't signify agreement. If they added a "I don't agree, but let me use the software" button then the "I Agree" button *might* be binding.

The courts are really very harsh on bogus contracts and this fits many criteria. In fact, it's almost extortion because they're withholding your legal right to use a product you own, to make you sign an exploitive contract...

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[Anonymous Coward]

In order to be upheld in court, an EULA would have to be presented to the purchaser before they buy it, not afterwards (at which point, it doesn't matter whether the user clicks "I agree" or not.)

I've recently become aware of a proposed section 2b ammending the Uniform Commercial Code that would allow these "Shrink Wrap" licenses, and remove the rights and calm self assurance of the previous author.

http://www.cptech.org/ucc/

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[Anonymous Coward]

Breaching a contract is not illegal. In fact, it is encouraged if it will lead to a more economically efficient allocation of resources. The only thing a breach of contract leads to is damages to the non-breaching party. As for a contract of sale, it depends on what it says. If it doesn't have any provisions that extend beyond payment and delivery of the goods, then the EULA is not modifying anything.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[ghost-hacked]

but if your not selling it, who's going to know you made it.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[ichimunki]

Prior to a change in copyright law which (in my opinion) nullifies EULAs, the act of copying software from a floppy or CD to a hard drive (during installation, for instance) or from media into memory was technically an infringement. Therefore, in order to legally install or use software, the license was necessary. Since this is obviously contrary to common sense, Congress added a clause in Title 17 that says it is not an infringement to copy software if doing so is a requirement to use the software.

Nevertheless, you could probably be forced to agree to a EULA if you would like to "register" your product for such advantages such as being able to download updates for free from the software firm's web site. And because most updates create a modified work using the original software, it is quite possible that such an agreement on the user's part could be binding even on the original software package. Thus, rights one would normally have in a work are surrendered in order to be able to obtain and use the update.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or a doctor. This is not legal or medical advice. Past performance does not indicate future value. Do not attempt to use this post internally. And personally, I prefer Free Software.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[mcrbids]

In order to be upheld in court, an EULA would have to be presented to the purchaser before they buy it, not afterwards (at which point, it doesn't matter whether the user clicks "I agree" or not.)

Let me guess.... you forgot to mention the whole "IANAL" thing...

Explain your legal theories in a context where it's clear that they are just theories. Posts like this one make it real clear why you actually need a license to practice law - because of people like you. (BTW, IANAL)

According to my understanding, the only thing questionably legal about software is the fact that in many cases, you can't return it. It's very normal for contracts and agreements to be changed after an initial contract has been signed.

For example, last week I received a notice from the local phone company notifying me of changes in the billing terms. Nothing major, and nothing I'm worrried about - but contained therein was a phrase like "continued use of our services constitutes agreement to these terms". It's perfectly legal - the next time you make a payment, you're legally binding yourself to those terms.

Another example - your credit card company changes the interest rate, up or down. They have similar language which means, in effect, "If you don't like it, pay off the balance on the card and don't use it anymore.".

How is this substantially different than a EULA? "If you don't like these terms, don't use the software!". Where this starts to break down is when you can't take the software back when you don't agree to the terms...

Of course, it's possible you might actually have legitimate legal credentials, but I sure pity the sorry schmuck who retains your services for Intellectual Property matters.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[Ignis Flatus]

With one caveat, if the company actually owns a patent for this device, than you must pay a royalty(with permission) to recreate one. However, it doesn't seem this is incredibly inventive or creative, so I don't think they'd qualify for a patent on this.

A design patent doesn't have to be incredibly inventive or creative. You could get a design patent for a crosshatch pattern on a coffee cup. It's really not much different from a copyright.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[Anonymous Coward]

You're phone service and credit card examples have nothing to do with the sale of a good.

You can't own a service, you can own a product.

It is not common practice to change the contract post sale for any product, ever.

There is a world of difference here.

BTW, please don't write like such a tool.
Seriously, you claim that because he's not a
lawyer he's an idiot, but even though you
aren't one either, you know how it all works.
OK, buddy.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[Quixadhal]

IANALE, but in all of your counter-examples the contract was viewable by both parties before any money exchanged hands. The phone company may claim you are signing a contract by paying your bill, but until you pay it, you haven't signed it.

Software is different because there's a retailer involved. If I really care about the phone company's EULA, I can talk to their representative while ordering the service (ummm, over someone else's phone I guess) and thus become aware of the terms before agreeing to them. If I walk into Best Buy and pick up a box from the shelf, I can't see the EULA until after I've purchased it. THAT is what makes shrinkwrap licensing illegal, not that the terms can be modified, but that I can't read them before I've purchased the product.

Once I've exchanged money, the First Sale doctrine applies, but the EULA is not yet enforceable since I haven't read (and implicitly agreed to) it yet. Once I open the box and read the EULA, I can either use it (thus binding myself), or return the software (thus breaking the First Sale)... except they won't accept the return. Since they refuse to release me from First Sale, I cannot be bound by the EULA unless I use the product, but I already OWN the product via First Sale. Thus the EULA is not enforceable UNLESS I'm able to return the product.

If that is NOT true, then I should be able to send you a contract in an envelope that says by accepting delivery of the envelope, you agree to pay me $1,000,000.00 USD, and that you cannot send or give the envelope away to anyone else. If I refuse to accept returns, then you can't give it back, nor can you re-address it to someone else, and therefore you have to pay me.

Again, IANAL, but it sure is fun to try and think like one!

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[mcrbids]

You're phone service and credit card examples have nothing to do with the sale of a good.

You can't own a service, you can own a product.

It is not common practice to change the contract post sale for any product, ever.

There is a world of difference here.

And, on the surface, it would seem that you are right. However, there's this little thing called "copyright" which makes software (and other media, like movies and books) quite different than other products. (like automobiles and plastic forks)

I can take a plastic fork, glue felt to it, and sell plastic fork-turkeys, if I so desire. I can use the fork as a mold to make other forks. In short, unless there's a patent on that plastic fork, I can do pretty much anything I fancy with it.

However, that's not true with soft media like software and books. I can't take a book, change some words, and publish the derivative work except under very specific, legally sanctioned circumstances.

The EULA that you click through establishes the terms of the sale. Where this is a problem is when you cannot return the software. When you can't return the software, you have the impossible situation of being forced to pay for a contract you did not agree to. That's what the hubbub is all about.

How is this legally questionable?

Seriously, you claim that because he's not a
lawyer he's an idiot, but even though you
aren't one either, you know how it all works.

Yes, I think the original poster was off, just as I think you are. Yes, I am NOT a lawyer. But what bothered me about the original post is that incorrect information was being given with confidence.

Which is better - being confidently inaccurate in what you say, or being less confident but accurate in what you say? (I choose the latter!)

I think he's an idiot, but not because he's not a lawyer. (I even conceded that he might be a lawyer, and even if he was, I think he's still an idiot) I just think that people who spout professional-sounding idiocy with confidence should disclose their credentials when doing so.

If I'm spouting idiocy, at least people know that IANAL....

Cheers!

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[nmos]

In 1997 there was a case where Gateway shipped a computer along with a list of terms including one that required arbitration in the case of any dispute. Initially the court ruled that since the terms wern't made available at the time of purchase they didn't count but an appeals court reversed that due to the fact that the customer had an opportunity to return the product if they didn't agree. They used the ProCD case as support for this decision. I don't agree with any of this but apparently you CAN be bound by terms that are disclosed only after you've paid your money.

I wonder if there might be a way to turn this around on vendors? In cases where you are buying something on "store credit" maybe a counter offer in the memo of your first payment would be enough?

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[1gor]

Beautifully said. Thanks!

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[ichimunki]

Interesting. I wonder how many appeals were made. Maybe the plaintiffs got tired of the whole thing? Personally I find it unbelievable that courts would uphold this whole notion that you can attach contracts to purchased goods and that the contracts are enforceable because you can always return the item (not that I don't believe you, it's just that the mind boggles).

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, for God's sake. It should be:

The Titanic was built by professionals. The Ark was built by amateurs.

Note spelling and capitalization changes. It's one thing to have minor misspellings in the body of the post, but is it asking so much that you proofread your .sig even a little?

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[utlemming]

The real issue is intellectual property, ie, the whole SCO thing, not whether or not you can do what you please with the product. The master jig is a form of intellectual property and is like a piece of software.

The reason you can get away with an EULA is becuase the person buys the media that the software comes in and a license to use what is on the CD. Because you buy the CD does not mean that you own the program. When you go into Best Buy and buy a computer, that Computer's hardware is yours, but you don't own the software and the designs which run the comptuer. The EULA that comes in software is just stating an agreement that you agree to not do certain things. But to grant you ownership over the program would grant you power to do certain things like copy and give it away. When you own a license to the program that limits what you can do with the program. Ownership implies control over the destiny of the product. If I were to own the copy of WinXP on my computer, then that would mean that I could COPY and GIVE IT AWAY. Since I have a license I can not. THE GPL IS AN EULA! The problems with the First Sale Doctrine are a non-issue, because the EULA provides provisions for getting out of the First Sale -- returning the product. In fact, I think that I will go over to Best Buy tonight and see what happens when I refuse an EULA after opening the product. That seems like an interesting project for the night.

With the master jig, which if I understand it correctly, it replicates itself -- it makes other jigs. Now, since the design constitutes intellectual property then an EULA makes some sense, albeit not a lot. I doubt that you will ever see such a restriction on a DeWelt saw. But the point is that if they allowed everyone to loan out their master jig then they would have no money real fast -- there would be no incentive for people to buy.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[LastAndroid]

Those are good and interesting points. I was wondering if it's legal if they allowed you to return it, but charged you for it. An example would be if a store charges a restocking fee or if the company makes you ship the product to them (at cost to you). What if you take that a step further and have the company charge you a fee to return the item. What if that fee is large or even equal to what you would get back, so either way your screwed.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[jmorris42]

> The 'First Sale Doctrine' means you can do whatever you want with
> something after you buy it. Strangely enough, software seems to be
> excluded(kind of. But I don't understand why).

Unless you are unlucky enough to live in Virgina or Maryland (the two states that passed UCITA or parts of it) software EULAs don't exist except in the publisher's minds. You are bound only by copyright law in what you can do with a software product bought at retail.

Licensing aggreements such as Software Assurance and other corporate bulk licensing deals are normally in the form of real signed contracts and are therefore fully valid and enforcable.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[jmorris42]

> According to my understanding, the only thing questionably legal about
> software is the fact that in many cases, you can't return it. It's very
> normal for contracts and agreements to be changed after an initial
> contract has been signed.

It isn't illegal, however it also isn't a valid contract. Contracts require several things to be considered as valid:

1. Both parties must agree to it. Since I already OWN a copy of a software title purchased at retail what am I, as the purchaser, being granted by the proposed contract that I don't already possess? Ownership of a legally reproduced copy of a copyrighted work includes the right to execute it in the case of computer software. Acceptance of the agreement might entitle me to support, upgrades, etc. but if I decide that the terms of the agreement are more of a negative than those benefits I am quite within my rights to reject the license agreement.

2. All parties to a contract MUST have the ability to read and agree to it BEFORE any thing of value is exchanged or service is performed and all parties must sign it. No EULA meets that requirement and is therefore invalid on it's face.

3. All parties must have the ability to enter into legally binding contacts. Since minors are allowed to purchase software with no objections by the publishers, a good case could be made that they don't actually care about the EULA.

4. As far as I know, no court has upheld the validity of clicking an "I Agree" button as being equal to a signature. Especially in light of the market reality that you can't read the EULA until you purchase and open the product, at which time retailers are forbidden by the manufacturers to refund the purchase price. (See #2)

> For example, last week I received a notice from the local phone
> company notifying me of changes in the billing terms. Nothing major,
> and nothing I'm worrried about - but contained therein was a phrase
> like "continued use of our services constitutes agreement to these
> terms". It's perfectly legal - the next time you make a payment,
> you're legally binding yourself to those terms.

Bad example. There is a difference between a PRODUCT and a SERVICE. A service is a recurring item. But if you sign up for new phone service and get their terms of service they can't change it until the next billing cycle and they have to give you a copy of the changes in advance, giving you the chance to refuse the change.

Back in the mid '90's I got into financial difficulty. The credit card co's knew because the first time I missed a payment I got a letter announcing a change in my agreement, raising my interest to levels that only a few decades ago would constitute usary. So I called the bastards and said "I refuse this change in my agreement." They of course cancelled the account, but I got to pay em off at the originally agreed upon interest rate. Of course they got wise to that trick and nowadays all cards put a default rate and the conditions that will get you moved to that rate right up front in the federally mandated disclosure statement. Point being that even banks can't change a contract after signing. And fro most software sales, the implied contract happens at the cash register when FRNs get exchanged for shrinkwrapped boxes.

And no, I'm not on some blacklist for standing up to the credit companies. I don't have those same cards but paying em off appears to have actually raised my credit score. So now any pitch that has a two digit rate (ignoring intro rates) or an annual fee gets canned instantly.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[bronsinbound]

The lawyers are, and have been for years, giving the American people an IQ test to see if they understand the concept of property rights and the proper transferral of them to the buyer. Sadly, the majority of Americans do not think in intellectual terms, so the fraud is being perpetrated almost without discussion...current audience excepted, of course.
When you purchase a product, that product (rather, copy of it) becomes yours to do with as you see fit. Now, you cannot copy disks any more than you can books or jigs, but that is it! The concept of ownership implies the right of use and disposition. Otherwise, you are only a custodian: You have the responsibilities and duties of ownership, but none of the rights.
The concept of you only "licensing" property is a direct attack on the concept of *individual* property rights as such, and you should (and most of you do) fight to preserve them.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[schon]

The EULA that you click through establishes the terms of the sale.

No, it most certainly doesn't.

The purchase establishes the terms of the sale. You give the money to the store, the store gives the product to you, and the sale is over.

what bothered me about the original post is that incorrect information was being given with confidence.

No, correct information was being given with confidence. It's just that you don't like the information.

I think he's an idiot, but not because he's not a lawyer. (I even conceded that he might be a lawyer, and even if he was, I think he's still an idiot)

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If I was a lawyer, then I would (by definition) have better information than you do. So you're saying that you know more than lawyers do?

You just don't like the fact that I disagree with you, and have sound arguments.

Re:Look at the silly monkey

[schon]

Congratulations. Never before have I witnessed anyone so completely incapable of grasping a point.

It's very normal for contracts and agreements to be changed after an initial contract has been signed.

Only if both parties agree to it. Which (as I pointed out) isn't the case with EULAs.

For example, last week I received a notice from the local phone company notifying me of changes in the billing terms.

Actually, if you look at your initial agreement, you'll find that you gave them this right.

Another example - your credit card company changes the interest rate, up or down.

Again, they reserved this right under the initial contract.

How is this substantially different than a EULA?

Well, as I said before, it's different BECAUSE YOU DID NOT AGREE TO IT WHEN YOU MADE THE INITIAL CONTRACT

As I said, the contract in question is the SOFTWARE PURCHASE. The EULA is an attempt to modify that contract after it's been executed.

They got bad legal advice.

[jcr]

You don't license a device, you sell it. If they want to prevent other people from making and selling the same device, they need to get a patent.

Looks like they were trying to be cheap, and get something akin to patent protection without bothering to file for the patent.

-jcr

Re:They got bad legal advice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I thought it looked like they may have cheaped out on getting a lawyer and decided to put something on their packaging themselves and ended up grabbing a box for McAfee as a guide.

Re:They got bad legal advice.

[schon]

You don't license a device, you sell it

Actually, whether it's a device or not has no bearing on whether it can be sold or licensed.

What matters is how it's sold or licensed.

If the customer signs a contract at the point of sale that says that it's licensed, then the contract would be binding (barring some points that would be legally onerous, but the contract would probably stipulate that the rest of the contract is still binding.)

Note that they would probably have to sign this contract with the manufacturer, or the manufacturer would have to have a separate contract with the hardware store, which would enable the store to legally act on behalf of the manufacturer.

On the other hand, if the customer buys the device from the hardware store, and isn't presented with the contract before they buy it, then the 'license' is meaningless, as you can't modify a contract after it's been executed. (A sale is a contract between buyer and seller.)

Note that this is no different from software. If an 'EULA' is presented after you buy it (say, when you go to install it) it's not enforceable.

Quickly!

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone make a jig open source project!

Happy birthday to you...

[yanestra]

Copyrighted:

Happy Birthday to You, the four-line ditty was written as a classroom greeting in 1893 by two Louisville teachers, Mildred J. Hill, an authority on Negro spirituals, and Dr. Patty Smith Hill, professor emeritus of education at Columbia University.
The melody of the song Happy Birthday to You was composed by Mildred J. Hill, a schoolteacher born in Louisville, KY, on June 27, 1859. The song was first published in 1893, with the lyrics written by her sister, Patty Smith Hill, as "Good Morning To All."

Happy Birthday to You was copyrighted in 1935 and renewed in 1963. The song was apparently written in 1893, but first copyrighted in 1935 after a lawsuit (reported in the New York Times of August 15, 1934, p.19 col. 6)

In 1988, Birch Tree Group, Ltd. sold the rights of the song to Warner Communications (along with all other assets) for an estimated $25 million (considerably more than a song). (reported in Time, Jan 2, 1989 v133 n1 p88(1)

In the 80s, the song Happy Birthday to You was believed to generate about $1 million in royalties annually. With Auld Lang Syne and For He's a Jolly Good Fellow, it is among the three most popular songs in the English language. (reported in Time, Jan 2, 1989 v133 n1 p88(1)

Happy Birthday to You continues to bring in approximately 2 million dollars in licensing revenue each year, at least as of 1996 accounting, according to Warner Chappell and a Forbes magazine article. [Source]

Don't you ever think, something's for free in the United States of America!

Re:Happy birthday to you...

[Artifakt]

Merry Birthday to You, Merry Birthday to You, May all Your Fine Dreams and Good Wishes Come True! - Mike Jitlov

Re:Happy birthday to you...

[willtsmith]

Happy Birthday -

Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday dear xxxx,
Happy birthday to you.

*
If I could reproduce music in this forum, I would communicate the notes as well.

Now come sue me you IP Motherfuckers!!!!!!

Re:Happy birthday to you...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about solfege

Hap-py birth-day to you,
sol sol la sol do ti

Hap-py birth-day to you,
sol sol la sol re do

Hap-py birth-day dear xx-xx,
sol sol sol mi do ti la

Hap-py birth-day to you.
fa fa me do re do

Finally my music degree has paid off!

Re:Happy birthday to you...

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds fishy to me.

The melody was written in 1859. The words were written in 1893. The melody and the alternate words "Good Morning to You" were PUBLISHED in 1893. The information given does not indicate precisely when the words "Happy Birthday" was first published.

Now, according to information on the Project Gutenberg site (which agrees with info I have seen on the U.S. Copyright Office pages):

"1. Works first published before January 1, 1923 with proper copyright notice entered the public domain no later than 75 years from the date copyright was first secured. Hence, all works whose copyrights were secured before 1923 are now in the public domain."

So if it was published in 1893 with a copyright notice, then at a minimum, the music and alternate words are public domain.

"5. If a substantial number of copies were printed and distributed in the U.S. prior to March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice, and the work is of entirely American authorship, or was first published in the United States, the work is in the public domain in the U.S. "

If it did not bear a copyright notice when published in 1893, then it is also likely to be in the public domain due to this rule.

I also think that there are limitations on how long a work may be copyrighted after it was created, but I am not sure about this.

Re:Happy birthday to you...

[ewhac]

That's why Mike Jittlov, creator of one the Best Damn Movies Ever Made, wrote his own birthday jingle and expressly entered it into the public domain.

Schwab

Re:Happy birthday to you...

[willtsmith]

Ahh, very clever. I never took choir, only band. Though, you forgot to specify a major scale ;-)

BTW, it's nice to have excellent karma. You can afford to write the occasional message thats considered "troll".

What legal rights come with licensing?

[Eric Savage]

Could anyone say what additional legal rights (if any) come from licensing a piece of machinery? Also I've never heard of a license to have something physical. There are permits, issued by municipalities, and there are leases and rental agreements, but licenses?

Also, I assume their design is patented or copyrighted, which to me would seem sufficient for giving them legal grounds to prevent duplication.

One more thing...

[jcr]

Incra makes a better jig, and they don't jerk you around. www.incra.com

-jcr

Rent and lease

[nuggz]

You can rent or lease a physical item.
This is a time limited possession with limited rights.
What is the big difference?

Re:Rent and lease

[scharkalvin]

You can rent or lease a physical item.
This is a time limited possession with limited rights.
What is the big difference?
The difference is you can't rent a physical item multiple times AT THE SAME TIME. You COULD do that
with software by making copies of it.

Re:Rent and lease

[k12linux]

You can rent or lease a physical item.

If they want to rent or lease out the item fine.. let them do so and call it a rental or a lease. And let them try to "rent" stuff to their customers. But if they are selling a tangible physical item for a one-time fee they are SOL as far as enforcing that EULA goes.

Hell, courts have even overturned some software EULA restrictions on reselling or giving away software which was originally bundled with a PC. So don't think a judge will be all too keen on enforcing these restrictions. The guy paid for it and if he wants to give it away or sell it I don't think there is a heck of a lot the company can do to stop him.

If he had been dumb enough to sign a rental agreement or lease when he got his jig master.. THEN they would have some say. They know they wouldn't sell any jigs if they required the buyers to sign a rental agreement. This EULA is just an attempt to get the benefits of renting to customers without the damage it would do to their sales.

But did you actually license it?

[samjam]

Sure, thats what the EULA says, but did you?

Go into the shop and ask to "buy" it. If they sell it, its yours! Who broke the EULA?

Did the shop buy & sell it, or license it, or sub-license it?

The EULA might say it is only licensed but that doesn't mean its true.

Why not say to the shop attendant: "I'd like to buy this tool master - if you are allowed to sell it, that is, ho ho", and see if they sell it.

Then, don't read the EULA which is only "rumoured" to be bad, and treat it as yours. After all, how can you be bound by the rumour of a EULA for a product which you own anyway?

Sam

This is exactly what is needed

[tarka69]

The problem with trying to change these sort of laws at the moment is that no-one outside of the software industry understands the ridiculousness of this situation. Until now. The next time you want to explain this to the average bloke in the street there is the perfect real-world example: "Imagine you've just bought a wood-working tool, but when you open the packet you discover you've already agreed to these terms ...."

What's next?

[Anonymous Coward]

A EULA restriction on a metal lathe because it can be used to make another lathe?

A license agreement on a ruler?

Solution: get proper laws protecting the customer

[ZorroXXX]

Note that this kind of madness is not possible if you have decent laws protecting the customers. In Norway we have a separate law called forbrukerkjopsloven ("customer purchase law"), which more or less corresponds to anything you buy in a shop.

This law explicit states that "Det kan ikke avtales eller gjores gjeldende vilkar som er ugunstigere for forbrukeren enn det som folger av loven her.", translated "It can not be agreed upon terms that represent a lesser benefit to the customer than what follows from this law".

The only "problem" with this law as I see it is that it only declares such terms void. In my opinion it should also be illegal for the seller to try to make the customer believe certain terms are valid if the seller knows or should have known that this law voids the terms.

The end of 'ownership' in general?

[heretic108]

This could start a trend.

Imagine if virtually all goods and services were no longer 'sold', but 'rented' or 'leased' with an EULA?

A lease agreement, or EULA, could have liquidated damages clauses, extracting whatever penalties the owner desires for breaches.

For instance - a Prada jacket that could be 'leased' with strict conditions that it may only be worn in public in combination with certain other Prada apparel.

Or a Volvo, whose lease agreement forbids playing rap music on the stereo.

Or a software package, such as an HTML editor, whose lease agreement forbids you from using it to express opinions critical of the publisher (oops, that one's not fictitious).

1 April comes late this year!

[ajs318]

Why should this surprise anyone? But it's illegal anyway. You buy something, you own it and you have the right to use it, abuse it, enjoy it and destroy it. It is yours, the receipt says so, and the person who sold it to you has given up all their rights in respect of it. A licence like that will never stand up in court. It would be a total and utter violation of the Sale of Goods Act. Just report these people to the police and Trading Standards - having someone else prosecuted for a criminal offence is cheaper than defending a civil case which will likely get put on hold anyway once it comes to light that the plaintiff has committed a criminal offence.

The reason you need a licence to operate a television or radio set, for example, is that the "airwaves" do not belong to you - you need permission to receive or transmit a signal. Transmitting equipment usually requires you also to submit to inspection to ensure that it is not causing interference to other people. {If you can prove the equipment is not being used - strictly, if they can't prove that it is being used, but They Are Bigger Than You - you don't need the licence; the authorities might insist that you do something a bit more than unplug it, but any modification that can't be undone without the use of a tool should be fine.}

Whether or not the purpose of the jig is to clone itself is irrelevant. I'm guessing it's a slab of some MDF-like material that you clamp hard against another piece of MDF, and follow the groove using a router*, with a special cutter that has a ball-bearing on the end, the same diameter as the cutting width. This way it produces an exact copy. Chippies have been making things like this ever since routers were invented, so I seriously doubt that a router jig would even be patentable with all that prior art. If you want to cut out kitchen worktops for hobs, sinks &c., you just make a template for each fixture {they are mostly standardised nowadays anyway}. Likewise for stair sides, radiator covers and so forth {if you have to make several identical pieces for one job but you know you'll never need that exact pattern again, you just leave the original on site}.

* router: in this context, not a device for sending ethernet packets to the correct recipient {which would be pronounced "router" rather than "router" anyway}, but a power tool consisting of a powerful series-wound electric motor spinning a sharp-bladed cutter at up to 30000 rpm, and mainly used for creating large quantities of sawdust.

Re:1 April comes late this year!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, where to begin? Firstly, this guy isn't in the UK so the Sale of Goods Act doesn't apply and Trading Standards can't help. Secondly, attempting to foist this license is not a criminal offence, while wasting police time is, so it is highly inadvisable to try to involve them. There is no case to answer. Your rights are inviolate, but that doesn't stop them trying it on.

Re:1 April comes late this year!

[ajs318]

Yeah, but one assumes other countries would have corresponding legislation which protects people's inalienable rights over goods they have bought and own, and likely makes it a criminal offence to try to subvert such rights; and corresponding organisations for ensuring that those rights are upheld. Whatever the US equivalent of the Sale of Goods Act is called, invoke that; and whatever the US equivalent of Trading Standards is, call them. Or failing that, make an impassioned plea to the UN for liberation };->

Re:1 April comes late this year!

[Doctor7]

A licence like that will never stand up in court. It would be a total and utter violation of the Sale of Goods Act. Not necessarily. If that were true, it would also be true of software EULAs. But software EULAs rely on the ruling that in order to use a piece of software, you have to make a copy of it, and copyright gives the holder control over anyone making copies. In this case, again, the jig is used by making copies of it, so if the manufacturer has a copyright on the design, the EULA might be valid by the same reasoning.

evil meme

[Anonymous Coward]

u may not use this hammer to make a hammer

This could actually stand in court?

[mirabilos]

I'd be really surprised if that would. For example,
in Germany Microsoft can't even do the same thing
(forbid to sell the product to others) for their
software end users (the OEM agreements are all
invalid here).

I just wonder what kind of people invents these
clauses. They must have been eaten something
really fishy...

Re:This could actually stand in court?

[Dragoon]

Imagine a Microsoft EULA that said any products created in Win2k, with the standard desktop license, and not a special dev license were property of Microsoft..

Do you actually read your EULA's with microsoft products?

Imagine having to get a special license for professional use of not only Visual Studio, but the OS itself..

There are so many possibilities..

Re:This could actually stand in court?

[mirabilos]

Yes, I actually do read EULAs.
And that clause would be void in Germany at least,
that's why I'm asking.

Only a matter of time...

[JumpingBull]

This little tidbit is indicative, perhaps, of the clear moral rot directly attributable to past generations.

We Modern Thinkers Strongly Believe that Greed is Good. From the individualistic "grab the money and run" crowd, to the Corporatist Wannabe who lusts after the contents of your wallet, we are forming an invincible faction in this most debased of societies.

And what is the basis of this moral rot, this undeniable perversion of aravice? This creeping horror that threatens the very foundation of a society dedicated to rapine, immolation and pillage?

This proud society that has "might is right" political buttons, and sufficient numbers of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass distruction to make everyone agree with our point of view? And light automatic weapons to punctuate our arguments? What is that vile affectation that threatens us?

In that word of debased infamy

SHARING

Previous misguided generations actually thought that this sharing and fairness benefited society. They actually had entire religions teaching this indoctrination of so-called ethical values. With some efforts we have infiltrated those organizations and rendered them ineffective. When have you seen those precepts being applied lately? We have had most success converting heirarchical organizations to our view - consider what we have successfully done to the Buddhist, or Christian organizations.

Why, one of our successes is requiring the needy to pay for their shelter in inclement weather! Next time you see a pan-handler ignore them ( you will anyway) with luck, they will freeze to death in the cold and no longer bother you. But it looks sooo good for the books on the Charitable Administrations. The appearence of being helpful is oh so more rewarding when you can commit the small indignities on the helpless. Be assured in our infiltrated "charitable" organizations, the milk of human kindness is a facial come shot. Really.

What is worse, our ancestors actually had the temerity to twist the mathematics to prove that a policy of co-operation has a greater systemic advantage then that of rugged individualism. Something called game theory.

A Pox on Both their Houses!

We will persevere, we have the firepower to do it. Lawyers are standing by - Disagree at your peril....

"I have looked into the Abyss, and the Abyss has looked into me.

...Neither of us liked what we saw."

Re:Only a matter of time...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was in London on Wednesday and they have a new poster campaign there.

"Don't give money to beggars. They might use it to buy drugs and those drugs might kill them, so indirectly you'll be killing them. Give it to our charity instead."

Made me sick to the stomach.

Re:Only a matter of time...

[ajs318]

Actually there are professional beggars operating in the UK. They turn up on a Saturday morning, park their BMWs on the outskirts and spend the day in the city pretending to be hungry and homeless. Then they drive home, count up the money and buy drugs.

There are real ones, too - genuinely homeless, friendless people who just got unlucky. And somewhere inbetween are people who could help themselves, if they made the effort, but just aren't. It doesn't help that many of the organisations that want to help the homeless are christian-based {christians tend to act like they have some sort of monopoly on being nice to people; I myself have direct experience of christians getting offended by a decidedly non-christian group's efforts in a good cause}. I know there are a lot of things I'd rather do than accept a penny from a christian, absit omen I should ever have to make that choice.

It also doesn't help that <KJV>that which taketh away a little of the pain associated with being homeless, bringeth indirectly other pain</KJV>.

Solution? Dismantle the mechanism which allows a dose of heroin costing pennies to manufacture to be sold for twenty pounds. And ban religious-affiliated groups from doing anything that would be considered "good deeds" by followers of any other religion in the name of their religion. You would still be allowed to attend a church / synagogue / mosque, but any Good Works not peculiar to that religion would have to be done through a separate, secular {if such works would be considered "good" by an atheist} or multidenominational {otherwise} organisation.

Re:Only a matter of time...

[Dragoon]

The most unfortunate part is that their generalisation is mostly true..

Brutal Honesty. Not something we're used to from charities. A Charity is supposed to be "nice" and "fluffy", personally, I'm amazed that they'd place an ad like this.

Personally, I'd think about donating to the charity.

Do you happen to recall the name of the charity ?

Good

[the_womble]

Once EULAs start affecting products they can understand, legislators will understand why they are a bad idea.

Re:Solution: get proper laws protecting the custom

[OneSmartFellow]

Very funny, I haven't laughed so hard for a while !

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[ekilfeather]

Actually I went and looked at the manufacturer's " User Manual " and at the back there is a form to get a replacement jig if you do break it. It uses a hilarious mixure of boy scout honour system and legalise to ensure that the woodworker isn't breaking the EULA and has actually broken the jig. I don't know if this is an attempt to satisfy the oxymoronic (or should that just be moronic?) licencing agreement or is indicative of Mr. Stots' largesse.

Re:Moot point

[Momomoto]

This actually affects fewer people than you'd think. Most farmers purchase their own seed year after year in order to insure that they have pure breeding stock. Plant breeding on the user end is not an exact science, and homologous recombination happens quite often. It takes years and years to obtain a pure breeding stock through seed saving, and even then it's through the time-consuming process of selecting the plants with traits you want from a field of thousands.

Seed saving is generally only the norm in third world agricultural economies--like India and Africa--where the retention and sharing of seed is a part of the culture. Since Monsanto hasn't made real in-roads into this market yet, it is entirely possible that they may relax their policies with regard to seed saving.

Similar EULA was already tried in the court

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a well-known Case of the Donkey's Shadow.

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you break your jig, or it gets stolen, you can phone up and ask for a replacement.

Try telling that to poor John Bobbitt!

--
Rate Naked People at Fuck Meter (not work-safe)

Shadow of things to come

[Illserve]

At some point we're going to have technology that allows material objects to replicate other material objects, with a fidelity similar to that of current digital media.

When that happens, the distinction between software and hardware will be dead and burried. You'll be able to "rip" your new car into its component atomic pattern, send it to your friend and then he can build one himself with his Betty Crocker Nano-Bake Oven(tm).

IP's going to be an even bigger business.

Re:Shadow of things to come

[Anonymous Coward]

There'll never be a commercial 3d replicating tool like that. How would the manufacturers sell more than one?

Re:Shadow of things to come

[flafish]

Easy. Code in the molecular sequence for a replicator so it couldn't replicate another replicator.

copyright is wrong licence type, patent maybe

[waterbear]

EULA restriction on a new woodworking tool

If there had been a patent for this type of tool, it would have been enough (and ok) to say, in a notice that the customer could see before purchase, that 'purchase of this tool does not carry with it any licence to make tools according to the patent'.

But if there is no patent, then there is no right to restrict public use of the unpatented but pubicly-known technology.

Copyright law doesn't restrict use of technology, e.g. reproducing a 3-d object which is a physical tool. The original tool (presumably no artistic work involved in the tool itself) was not one of the statutory 'works of authorship' in US copyright law.

If computer companiesmade saws

[ocie]

Microsoft: You go to cut a piece of wood and the saw informs you that you have not purchased the 'cut' feature. You upgrade the saw, but it complains that you are using it on non Microsoft lumber. You ignore the warning and it cuts the board into a big pile of sawdust.

GNU: Cuts great, works on all types of wood, plastic and metal. Comes with tools to resharpen the blade. Unfortunately, GNU considers the inch a proprietary standard, so lengths must be specified in cubits.

Macintosh: makes a nice looking saw that can cut some interesting patterns. It's strongest feature is the fanatical devotion by its users. Unfortunately, you can only cut one piece of wood at a time.

Re:If computer companiesmade saws

[Anonymous Coward]

The Microsoft saw uses normal steel blades. GNU uses carbide tipped blades. Micintosh, of course, uses expensive diamond blades.

why

[pheldan]

Q: Why does New Jersey have the most toxic waste dumps and why does California have the most lawyers?

A: New Jersey got first pick.

Hey, its possible...

[soliaus]

I will require that they only use my hardware for personal use and not for creating pirated copies of myself.

http://www.morningwoodlabs.com/czone/products.htm

You can also buy a kit in any Vegas porn shop.

Simple solution

[jazman]

Pay for the licence with a cheque with an EULA that states the cheque cannot be sold, lent or otherwise transferred to another party (including a bank), and that they cannot give away the money represented by that cheque to others, whether in exchange for goods or services or not.

After all, you are only verifying their honesty that only they will use the money and they will not be passing it around to others to use for free.

History

[Anonymous Coward]

Where would we be today if our prehistoric descendants didn't copy tools and allow others to use the tools that were used to make them.
Did they charge a punnet of berries for the use of their toolmaking tools ? or did others just see what they had done and make their own.
I'm suing your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-gr eat....great-great-grandfather!!!!

Is this fair? Not really.

[3seas]

Ever hear of the clean room software development process?

Can it be applied to such a thing as this?

NO!

Why? Because its a physically describe device, exist in physical reality. Where reinvention is greatly limited to the small scope of physical reality, vs. the physics of abstraction reality.

But it does seem that they themselves may be a bit confused about licensing practices. Ultimately the restrictions they have placed on teh device allow you to create exactly zero jigs from it, or at best one backup.

Think of it this way, Imagine having such a license on something like a word processor where the restriction extend to what you create with it.

They are taking a license designed for something of such broader scope in nature and applying it to something with less scope that has a natural effect of creating even further constraints, to the point of being pointless.

Are they also going to require individuals to be licensed to legally use the device? And charge a charge a multi-user site license?

That would make EULAs commie plots

[Evil Pete]

Well really if EULAs ever mean we don't own what we buy then that means we are very close to losing the concept of private property unless you make it yourself. Rent products, lease homes, rent cars etc. If you are doing all this renting and leasing do you really have any private property ?

Re:That would make EULAs commie plots

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course there is private property even if most people keep leasing or renting everything they use. It's just that all that stuff is owned by someone else, likely a company created for the purpose. The company in turn is owned by its shareholders, mostly big institutional investors such as mutual funds, pension funds etc.

Re:Solution: get proper laws protecting the custom

[hyphz]

There are similar things around for customer protection in the UK - "protected rights", which *can't* be waived, and which must be actively facilitated (unlike regular rights which need only be "not forbidden", leading to stupidity like the US argument that the DMCA doesn't block the fair use right because it doesn't forbid fair use; it makes it impossible, but nothing says a right has to be possible to exercise)

Furthermore, the onus is on the seller to watch out for those rights. So if someone asks you to sign a contract that waives a protected right, the consumer can still sue under their protected right. The seller - AFAIAA - *can't* sue you for breach of contract on the grounds that you promised to waive the right and didn't (because you can't).

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[TGK]

If you finance a car you still own the car. It's also colateral on the loan. If you didn't own it, it couldn't be considered colateral.

A better example would be, if I lease a car from a dealer (3 year lease, whatever) is that dealer still responsible for the various types of insurance on the car.

Of course not, on the other hand the dealer is responsible for most repairs on the vehicle, though you may be charged for stuff you caused to go wrong.

fadethepolice

[fadethepolice]

- just refer to my handle - - shrink wrap license violation is nothing - http://www.asdreams.org/ Does anyone else make sacrificial offerings to the icons on your desktop?

Re:These seeds may not be planted REAL EXAMPLE!

[viking80]

Worst example of EULA Peppadew is a trademarked life form. From http://www.peppadew.com/ "PEPPADEW(TM) International has registered plant breeders' rights internationally, so Sweet Piquante Peppers can only be grown under license from PEPPADEW(TM) International." "...This is because PEPPADEW INTERNATIONAL has international growing rights for Piquante Peppers and nobody else can grow them." and "The name PEPPADEW(TM) is a registered trademark which cannot be used as a descriptor (for example "PEPPADEWS" is incorrect and "PEPPADEW SOUP" is also incorrect) as this is a violation of our intellectual property rights"

Darn, and I wanted a Dalek.

[replay TV Guy]

What is Davros to do now???

Just like Communism...

[Anonymous Coward]

... except for the fact that everything is owned not by the state, but by the few veeery large banks that control the few veeery large multinationals.
Private (individual) property will be outlawed soon, and I will feel like in the good old days (I'm romanian).
Some main differences, however: the TV programme will only show commercials instead of political shows, and I will be able to "elect" one president among ex-CEOs of the aforementioned multinationals.

Re:Just like Communism...

[kfg]

What the practical difference between the state owning the corporations and the corporations owning the state is is beyond me.

By the way, one of my great grandfathers was Romanian. He crawled across half of Europe on his belly at night to get out and come to America.

Little did he suspect. . .

KFG

tool licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

This is almost certainly unlawful under EC law. It is not possible in the EC to restrict the use of a product once the customer has bought it. Would be interesting to hear from someone professional in these matters. Yes, I realize that what they have nominally tried to do is license and not sell, but I believe this would not hold up. Licensing has to meet some conditions, which this doesn't. The reason for the prohibition is to cut out some kinds of anticompetitive behavious.

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[Ripplet]

Hey dude, next time you're screwing wood, watch out for splinters...

Re:Patterns cannot be copied?

[Gilmoure]

Is this anything like the couple that was being sued (by a clothing pattern maker) for reselling or providing a swap site for used patterns on the internet?

Sounds like the rubber stamping/crafts scene

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know anything about woodworking, but there has always been an issue with rubber stamping where you could not sell items that you made with certain rubber stamps.

For example, there are some companies that would not allow you to buy or sell used rubber stamps because it would violate their copyright. In addition, they would not allow you to sell anything that you made with their rubber stamps.

Because of the backlash, some companies became known as "Angel Companies" where they would allow free and open use of their rubber stamps with no limitation. Hmmmm, this sounds kind of familiar, huh?

Other companies are hella harsh with their restrictions, but most small-timers don't care and don't heed to the rules anyway.

So if this company is licensing their designs for woodworking, then maybe there is a case for it. However, it will be almost impossible to enforce, and will just lead to alienating their customers. Overall, it's a stupid, stupid decision on their part, and the best way to combat this is to spread the word to avoid greedy ass, stupid companies like the one in the story.

Now that I would like to see

[frog51]

I'd be very impressed if you could make a lathe with a lathe.
Show me how, pleeeese:-)

Re:Now that I would like to see

[Anonymous Coward]

If I showed ya, I'd have ta kill ya!

I warned you not to get me started!

[TygerFish]

We are living in a genuinely historic time, the age of legal technology. Now that I've said that, I better do some really fancy footwork.

The law and the individual's rights and privileges under it are among the most ancient artifacts of civilization. It is also something which evolves as a society evolves with tending towards egalitarianism in properous western democracies (the heavenly light shines from above on America...), that is, laws that take away freedom of action or that provide one person or group with advantages over others tend to be struck down or superceded by laws that create balance and that protect rights.

In a sense, you could say that some of the most far-reaching and most beautiful laws are the solutions to arguments that arise from logical problems. For example, once we had slavery, the preamble to the constitution cannot have meaning in a country that practices slavery. The argument arose and it was solved by an amendment to the constitution which clarified the argument completely: if all men are created equal, no man can be another's property. Human rights trump property rights. Slavery is illegal and slave-owners are S.O.L with regard to their property rights pertaining to their slaves. That makes sense.

At least that is how it worked in the old days.

Now, in the post-industrial age of television and the megacorporation, lobbying money and a just a smidgen of public stupidity create an opportunity for organizations to create agreements which function as devices to generate a planned result in much the same way that the parts of a transistor radio work together to produce access to the airwaves.

Laws like the ones that make the EULA possible are a technology--not one for establishing socially useful principles, but for circumventing and mutating contract law so that instead of providing a level playing field between buyer and producer, the law provides for the end-user signing away all his rights to legal rememdies by buying a thing and using it.

EULAs do nothing to protect the consumer. Nothing whatsoever. They are the legal equivalent of a booby-trap: you open the box, you open the envelope, you install the software, click on the box and BANG! according to the law, you've agreed to conditions that would have to be insane to agree to under any other circumstances.

If you don't believe this, consider the enormous tire recall of the last year or two and imagine what things would be like if the tire companies involved had had a EULA at their disposal:

'by breaking or cutting the ribbon on these tires, you agree that their purpose is purely decorative and that they have no function and no warranty, explicit or implied for any use but decoration of your vehicle...'

You can't sign away your personal freedom. You can't read a document, sign it, and become an indentured servant with no rights, but you can sign a EULA and let a company do whatever it likes to you with its neglicence.

The EULA is a device to give software makers the ability to treat software buyers like cattle. It is a prime example of how people make laws when they don't give a damn about the society that rises from them.

Re:I warned you not to get me started!

[willtsmith]

You can't sign away your personal freedom. You can't read a document, sign it, and become an indentured servant with no rights, but you can sign a EULA and let a company do whatever it likes to you with its neglicence.

You can come close depending on the terms of a contract. If you contract to do a certain amount of work at a certain price that is binding. If the severance clause in the contract is steep enough, then you can effectively indenture yourself, bankruptcy then becomes the only way out.

Ironically enough, our banking industry is trying hard to make it easier for someone to indenture themselves to big finance. They want to eliminate certain forms of bankruptcy. People get into money trouble, thats what bankruptcy is for. Part of the finance industry is looking at someone and making GOOD loans. They want the ability to make POOR loans and hold individuals permanently liable.

Of course, they want no changes in the laws affecting CORPORATE bankruptcy and CORPORATE responsibility. The fact that they have little responsibility as is, notwithstanding.

The next step is to return to inherited debt. Then you can indenture your children and grandchildren as well to mega-finance corporations.

Re:I warned you not to get me started!

[bogie]

I know isn't that just digusting? Corporations can continue to screw around willy nilly with their finances and not suffer. People are largely unaware of the catfight going on where financial companies and their lobbists are trying to eliminate the last few legitimate ways out of debt.

It is sickening that these financial companies are all to eager to give credit cards to fresh 18 year olds who don't know a thing about credit. The credit card companies are like drug dealers making sure that they "hook they young" put inexperienced children in over their head. Its the same as giving a 5 year old a real gun and then being surprised as the results. People of both ages have zero idea of the consequences of their actions.

Sadly in the current political climate your only likely to see more of these types of changes which put consumers at the bottom of the pile.

Logical end to this? Naw...

[tacarat]

"These condoms may only be used for hetersexual sex in the Classic Missionary position. We reserve the right to monitor and record any and all incidences of use for compliance. For more information on our privacy policy..."

"These fertility drugs may only be used to produce intelligent children. Producing stupid children violates the terms of this agreement. This agreement can be terminated by either party without notice. Upon termination, all children and remaining medicinal doses must be immediately destroyed or returned to the manufacturer..."
=====

Not quite the same

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

In those cases, the legal action has been directed against the makers of alternative products. In this case, it seems to be against the people who've bought the product. (But in this case, is their argument that the two are the same thing?)

I can't help wondering whether, given the historical abuse, there ought to be a blanket defence of "fair competition" that can over-ride any such commercial restrictions, the same way some jurisdictions have "fair use" under copyright: you aren't allowed to break the ground rules, but contracts from a supplier can't unreasonably prevent you from using something for which you've paid in a reasonable manner.

Niche market strategy

[xyote]

I'm guessing that the template pattern in question is public domain, otherwise copyright law would suffice to allow the mfgr to protect itself. So basically, what they are selling is convenience, that it is easier to buy a copy of the template from them than to find somebody who will give you a copy of their template. That's a valid market strategy. Same thing as people who sell CD's of public domain software.

What they are doing differently, is to try to protect or enlarge their niche market by using EULA to prevent you from becoming one of their competitors, i.e. somebody who'd give away a free copy, or sell it even.

IANAL but I have my doubts about the enforcebility of such licenses, especially if there's no "click" on install to prove you alledgedly even knew there *was* a license. Also, they'd have a hell of an enforcement issue proving a copy of a public domain template came from their product.

exporting the lawyers

[cdn-programmer]

The USA prides itself as being a nation governed by laws. At the same time apparently 2/3 of the world's lawyers are in the USA.

Douglas Adams wrote in "The Hitchhicker's guide to the Gallaxy" that on one world the first people they sent off into space were the beauacrates, administrators and Lawyers.

Perhaps there is a message here.

Re:exporting the lawyers

[rit]

... and the telephone sanitizers. Shortly thereafter the entire planet died of telephone-borne infections.

And the spaceships they sent out landed on Earth, at the dawn of time...

Re:exporting the lawyers

[tiled_rainbows]

And if I remember, the beureaucrats, administrators and lawyers ended up on an uninhabited planet orbiting a yellow star in one of the outer arms of the galaxy...

Sure beats Adam and Eve for a convincing creation myth.

Not in my country

[milosoftware]

A Dutch judge has already ruled that 'shrink wrap licenses' have no legal value whatsoever. So in The Netherlands we can just happily click the "Agree" button without suffering the consequences.

Thus, breaking the seal of a software package does NOT imply that you agree with the license agreement printed on it. That goes for any product, not just sofware.

Maybe we ought to export these tools to the Netherlands (or China...), unwrap them an re-sell them to the US. They'll be more expensive, but totally license free.

Nobody

[budgenator]

You can't purchase the product, only the license to use the product, you must be a purchaser of the product to use as per the license agreement. therefore nobody can you the product!

Purpose?

[MrByte420]

the purpose of the TemplateMaster is to clone itself.

If the only purpose of this device is to clone itself, then wouldn't the only purpose of the clones be to also clone themselves. Who would want to buy this viral woodworking tool anyways?

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[kinnell]

I once snapped a software CD and I got a new one

On the other hand, software EULAs have all sorts of statements which effectively say "this software is not guaranteed to work, and we won't accept responibility for any damages caused by malfunctions, and by opening the box you agree to this" which essentially remove all your rights as a consumer.

Re:Moot point

[Catiline]

This actually affects fewer people than you'd think. Most farmers purchase their own seed year after year in order to insure that they have pure breeding stock. Plant breeding on the user end is not an exact science, and homologous recombination happens quite often. It takes years and years to obtain a pure breeding stock through seed saving, and even then it's through the time-consuming process of selecting the plants with traits you want from a field of thousands.

Gee, you sure try hard to make this sound like it hasn't been practiced across the, oh, last 10,000 years of human culture but is a fairly recent idea. In any case, there is only one method for obtaining natural crop seed, and it sure isn't buying from Monsanto.

laugh while you can!

[Alien Perspective]

been to the supermarket lately? Checked out the fruits and vegetables? Wow. So many of them are sold shrinkwrapped. I wonder why that is? Freshness? Make it easier at the checkout? Now how long do you think it will take before some "bright" marketeer/lawyer decides that it costs almost nothing to stick a slip of paper with an EULA in with your tomatoes? Want to make tomato sauce? Nope! Not allowed. Buy the can. (one sure-fire veggie EULA term: no using to pelt the execs and politicians that let this happen) It's time to grab shrinkwrap licensing by the neck, force it into the toilet, and drown it.

All this is going VERY WRONG

[Jesrad]

Your bringing Monsanto here is very relevant. By (ab)using patents and license agreements they are trying to legally justify sale revenues that they DO NOT have a right to. All their fallacious reasoning lies on the false idea that, somehow, they are entitled by law to these revenues.

They are not. Just because farmers planting the seeds reduces their income does not make it illegal. And thus the law should NOT make it illegal in any way. And this is applicable to the RIAA/MPAA as well as Stots Corporation : they should not be able to claim to be entitled to what they falsely consider "lost revenues". It is not lost, it is fair use.

You pay for a material object, you own it. That's what most average people still think when they buy a CD. In the case of these woodworking tools, a judge would simply laugh the issue out if the company tried to enforce its license. I could write on my door that you owe me five bucks whenever you come into my house, that does not mean I can extort the money out of visitors, even though it's MY door.

Besides, contrary to what Stots claims, most distributed software today comes with a license that explicitly permit redistribution and copying.

Oh, err, anyone tried to buy something with money wrapped in a "license agreement" that stipulates the money's still yours ? That would be a fit payment for Stots.

Re:All this is going VERY WRONG

[Dave the Inverted]

I could write on my door that you owe me five bucks whenever you come into my house, that does not mean I can extort the money out of visitors, even though it's MY door.

Sure you can. Nightclubs call it a "cover charge." Remember, it's your house. You can set whatever conditions you want on people entering it. Pay money, go naked, recite the Pledge of Allegiance...as long as they know up front what the conditions are and the conditions are not themselves illegal, you're perfectly free to do so. Your potential visitors are equally free to choose to go hang with someone else.

Dav2.718

Rights -- Responsibility?

[Quixote]

This is ridiculous. How long before you have to "license" the car you drive?

If the company is "licensing" this product to you, then its the owner. Shouldn't that carry some responsibility? Like, can this company be sued if you make a mistake with this tool and injure yourself? Can you sue the "owner" (the company) for not teaching you how to operate it properly? (I know, I hate to bring in more lawyers, but sometimes you have to resort to such techniques).

Re:Rights -- Responsibility?

[otis wildflower]

How long before you have to "license" the car you drive?

Lots of people do it today, it's called leasing.. You pay for the privilege of driving the car, but the leasing company owns it.

If the company is "licensing" this product to you, then its the owner. Shouldn't that carry some responsibility? Like, can this company be sued if you make a mistake with this tool and injure yourself? Can you sue the "owner" (the company) for not teaching you how to operate it properly? (I know, I hate to bring in more lawyers, but sometimes you have to resort to such techniques).

Interesting bit is, in some states (including, IIRC, NY) owners are legally liable for accidents caused by cars they lease, so leasing companies (including the large auto company financing arms) have been withdrawing from those markets.

Good Example: Ever had a birthday at a restaurant?

[lwagner]

In the 80s, the song Happy Birthday to You was believed to generate about $1 million in royalties

Have you ever had a birthday at a restaurant where they gather around and sing to you during your meal (i.e., premeditated by a friend calling the restaurant ahead of time and telling them it is your birthday)?

A while back, I couldn't figure out why they often sing a proprietary, stoooooopid-sounding song that usually features clapping hands and minimum wage workers sounding less-than-enthusiastic. Plus, no one else knows the song and they can't participate. Why not just sing "Happy Birthday"? Everyone knows it and can participate in it.

That's the reason. You have to license it and it costs money for each performance.

Re:Monsanto

[bigkahunafish]

I am actually a seed producer here in the US. On Monsanto's Roundup-Ready Soybeans, we, as a producer, must pay royalties to get into RR's in the first place. Then prices are higher for them to the seed customer (around $20/50 lb.) due to about $10 in tech fees (about $7 goes to Monsanto per 50/lb.) which we send to them. Every customer must sign an agreement (essentially EULA) which establishes that they will not reclaim GMO seeds for planting, farmers must instead go through a seed company, like us, so they pay the royalties. For signing the agreement, every farmer gets a Monsanto #, which keeps track of purchases year to year. We, as a seed processing company (a small one at that), get audited by Monsanto every so often. They check our farm records, and make sure RR seed we sold to farmers was in fact sprayed with Round-up and not a generic brand. They will also take samples of our seed to determine its generation in its genetics, so they check that we are not pirating their seed. If we were, they threaten fines of over $500/acre of produced soybeans (which is enough to bankrupt most farms).

Re:Can't do it. No?

[Steve Franklin]

Just how exactly do these escapees from the loony ward plan on enforcing their little shrink wrap "agreement"? They certainly can't prove a jig was made from their patented jigifier. Oh wait, is it even patented? That's what patent laws are for. You make a jig like our patented jig and we can prosecute you. If they need an "agreement" (that you didn't "agree" to), they must not have a patent. If they did, it would be obvious you were making an infringing product with your new Jiffy Jigifier. So, in essence, they're manufacturing a tool that makes something that's in the public domain; and so they can keep control of their little "open source" product, they add a shrink wrap agreement that says you can't go out and do exactly what they are doing--stealing somebody else's idea because it no longer has patent protection. Sounds more like hypocrisy to me than anything else.

As for it being a "physical object," let's use the drop-it-on-your-foot test. Drop it on your foot and see if it hurts. If it does, it's a physical object. Has everybody lost their blinking minds?

"Tool piracy"

[thePfhitz]

I guess the only neat thing about this is that when the BWA (Business Woodworking Alliance) conducts a raid to find any pirated tools on the premises, at least it gives people the opportunity to yell "the jig is up!!"

Open-source Jigs needed!

[k12linux]

What we need is an open source jig (OSJ). The Internet woodworking commuinty can get together and design and build a master jig. We can keep it in CVS and allow modifications and downloads for all those poor propietary jig users.

Of course we'll want to license it under the JPL (Jig Public License) so any modified versions of the Jig must be open sourced as well. Unfortunately it will only be a matter of time until Stotts starts suing the larger wood products companies for using and improving the OSJ. Then the lawsuits, licensing schemes for OSJ users and media frenzy will start... pushing Stotts' stock to new hights.

Oh wait... physical things doen't e-mail well do they? Nevermind.

A bit screwy ?

[o'reor]

Now read this :

Percy Schmeiser's web site. Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan Canada whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Canola. Since he uses his own crops for seeds, and Monsanto's GM seeds are patented, Monsanto's position is that it doesn't matter whether Schmeiser knew or not that his canola field was contaminated with the Roundup Ready gene and that he must pay their Technology Fee.

You are surrounded by lawyers. Resistance is futile.

Re:A bit screwy ?

[Ender Ryan]

I just deleted my response because it may have sounded like the words of an insane person.

Suffice it to say, if I were this guy, I'd be filled with murderous rage :)

Re:A bit screwy ?

[bluGill]

While I disagree with your conclusion, you must understand that Percy Schmeiser did intentionaly plant seeds near his neighbors, and then spray the offspring with roundup in a deliberate attempt to get the roundup ready genes into his otherwise tarditional seed crop. (By spraying with roundup he assured that only the roundup ready plants would survive)

Now if he had just planted his seeds near the neighrbor, and without spraying roundup continued to do so I would agree that nothing should happen, but he tried to get the patented genes, so I'm not on his side. He could plant near those crops one year, waited until the patent expired, and then sprayed with roundup to develop his seed, and I would be in his favor.

Re:A bit screwy ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the guy who sprayed part of his field with Round-up and planted the seeds from the survivors. I hate Monsanto, but I also don't like the cult of lies that's started around this guy. He wasn't an innocent victim. He knew exactly what he was doing. Yet everyone leaves that part out of the story. He never would have gotten in any trouble if he hadn't tried to use GM crops without permission. I don't think he should need it, but that doesn't justify leaving out relevant facts. Deception doesn't help us with this fight.

Re:A bit screwy ?

[LordKronos]

That's according to Schmeiser's story. I was a bit disturbed about the whole story for a long time, until I read a couple of third party accounts of the whole situation. According to the articles I read, although Percy didn't actually introduce the patented seeds into his crops (it was accidental contamination...probably seeds blown in by the wind from nearby crops), after it happened he knew full well what he had on his hands. He knew it was Round-Up Ready, and he took advantage of that fact. He harvested seeds from the crops so he could continue to benefit from it, knowing that what he was doing was in violation of the patent, but believing that if he were caught he could just claim ignorance.

I'm certainly no Monsanto fan (it's one of the few companies I actually actively boycott), and I'm sure that any evidence they present on the case is only going to be the evidence that proves their case (and according to what I've seen, they've even distorted evidence and exaggerated the facts). However, I also realize that Schmeiser is looking at serious repercussions for what he did, and his website is probably only going to present evidence that makes him look good (and makes him look like the little guy being picked on buy the big bully).

I wish I could remember where those articles I read came from, as they appeared to me to be the most unbiased reports I had read. If anybody has links to them, I'd appreciate if you could post them.

Re:A bit screwy ?

[willtsmith]

I'm not sure how Schmeiser could violate the patent. He isn't selling the patented seed. Nor is he violating a licensing agreement (he didn't sign one).

I'm not sure that Schmeiser had any obligation to either preserve or destroy his contaminated crop. Had the Round-Up spray been sold with a license (as is the seed) then he would be bound to paying a technology fee for his crop.

As it is, Schmeiser probably found a loophole in the licensing terms.

Re:A bit screwy ?

[LordKronos]

I'm not sure how Schmeiser could violate the patent. He isn't selling the patented seed.

But he is using a patented seed for commercial use. IANA patent attorney, but I would think this would have some bearing on the matter.

Re:A bit screwy ?

[Moofie]

Is it illegal to plant next to your neighbor? No.
Is it illegal to spray your plants with Roundup? No.
Do plants fuck? Yes.

If Monsanto wanted to protect their IP, they should not have permitted their genes to pollute Mr. Schmeisser's field. If they could not prevent that pollution, they can hardly blame Mr. Schmeisser for attempting to make the best of their negligence.

Re:A bit screwy ?

[twiddlingbits]

Because he is making money by selling the crop grown from the "pirated" seeds. Just like if someone pirates one of Intels chip making processes and use it in their chip plant to make chips for Sale. I suspect Monsanto's seeds are patented. Almost all patents requires a license to use that grants you limited rights in what you can do with the patent. A few generations of this kind of theft of property and the property becomes worthless to the company as everyone who wants it can get it for free from someone else.

Re:A bit screwy ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've also heard that Monsanto will go into farmer's fields, even ones that do not have licensing agreements with them, and spray round up on a portion of the crop. If the crop doesn't die, they will sue saying the farmer must have been using their technology. Kinda like the determining if a person is a witch by drowning them...

Re:A bit screwy ?

[kinnell]

Whether or not Percy Schmeiser is a victim, it's the precedent that this sets that is the problem. If he can be ordered to destroy his cross-polinated crop, so can anyone, whether they are deliberately exploiting the genes or not. As it is almost impossible to prevent cross pollination when GM crops are grown in the wild, it is not difficult to imagine a future when biotech companies can claim royalties from any farm.

This is especially disturbing from the point of view of the third world. Shipments of food aid containing GM grain could very well end up being planted. If this happens, a large number of farmers, who barely make a living from their crops anyway, may end up having to pay royalties on their exports, or face trade sanctions.

Re:A bit screwy ?

[Alsee]

Percy Schmeiser did intentionaly plant seeds near his neighbors

Your use of "intentionally" paints the implication that he did something wrong here. He is a farmer. He owns farmland. Any plot of farmland is almost inevitably adjacent to another plot of farmland. The adjacent farmland is almost inevitably growing the same crop.

then spray the offspring with roundup in a deliberate attempt to get the roundup ready genes into his otherwise tarditional seed crop.

Again you are abusing language. Spraying his crops with weedkiller merely increased the percentage of his crop that had this gene. It is essentially impossible for any farmer NOT to be growning some fraction of his feild with this gene. If merely growing plants with this gene makes you "guilty", then virtually every farmer is liable and must pay Montsano.

The only "extra" thing Percy Schmeiser did was spray his own farm with weedkiller (which increased the percentage of his crop that had this gene). Montsano does not have a patent on spraying weedkiller on farms. I am exremely wary of any legal theory making a farmers "guilty" for spraying weedkiller on their own crops.

-

Re:A bit screwy ?

[MadAhab]

Who fucking cares where the seed came from? He didn't purchase their seeds, he didn't "procure" them in any way, so whether he wittingly took advantage or not is fucking irrelevant. Was Monsanto willing to bear the cost of "decontaminating" his farm from their seeds? No, so they must shut the fuck up and go die.

In fact, what he probably should have done, the moment he realized what had polluted itself onto his land, was promptly sue Monsanto for the cost of all of his crops over the next 5 years.

They shit on his yard, and now they're suing him for the price of manure.

Re:A bit screwy ?

[BigBadBri]

It's also according to the Federal court decision, which threw out the 'theft' claim for lack of evidence.

What's left, and what Schmeiser is appealing, is a dubious interpretation that allows Monsanto to claim patent infringement.

There's a really good article on Schmeiser's site that looks at the logic of this interpretation, and how the Supreme Court should view it.

It raises a lot of questions about the feasibility of patent-protection for GMOs, without being wildly alarmist or OTT.

Re:A bit screwy ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am exremely wary of any legal theory making a farmers "guilty" for spraying weedkiller on their own crops.

Might not be so bad in the long run -- perhaps it will encourage farmers not to use chemicals with nasty side-effects and instead pursue "greener" alternatives that the corps haven't (yet) sunk their IP lawyers into.

Just trying to the see the bright side...

Re:A bit screwy ?

[bluGill]

He sprayed plant killer on his crops for the purpose of finding which crops it didn't affect. This was intentional. If he had sprayed roundup on his field to destroy everything (it is common in some areas to let a field rest every few years, during rest years you kill everything), and just hadn't gone back and destroyed a few contaminated seeds before he planted whatever I'd feel for him. However he didn't, he sprayed not to get rid of all plants (which is what roundup on a normal field will do), but to get rid of all plants not protected, with the goal of selecting the protected ones.

If he had just planted seeds near his neighbors like like he did in previous years, not sprayed roundup, I would not consider there to be an issue with gene transfer, even if the transfered genes increased his yield. However he clearly had intent to force the gene transfer to his seeds.

I hate to bring intent into patent law, but I think it applys here.

Re:A bit screwy ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if Monsanto prevails in the case, then what I would do if I were Monstanto is to visit every farm that did not buy my patented, licensed seed and blow pollen from my genetically modified plants over their fields in order to contaminate them so that they must now pay license
fee to me.

Re:A bit screwy ?

[drinkypoo]

Especially given that Monsanto owns a patent on the "terminator gene" which causes the plants to produce sterile seed. They want it both ways, and that's simply not reasonable. If you have the technology to prevent this kind of propagation, use it, and stop whining.

Re:A bit screwy ?

[Moofie]

However, if their Terminator plants have sex with my plants, they're liable for making my plants sterile.

This whole idea of making something that can replicate itself into intellectual property needs some serious un-fucking.

Re:A bit screwy ?

[clambake]

Because he is making money by selling the crop grown from the "pirated" seeds. Just like if someone pirates one of Intels chip making processes and use it in their chip plant to make chips for Sale. I suspect Monsanto's seeds are patented. Almost all patents requires a license to use that grants you limited rights in what you can do with the patent. A few generations of this kind of theft of property and the property becomes worthless to the company as everyone who wants it can get it for free from someone else.

I would assume that the "license" to use this man's land, which Monsanto is doing by freely delivering thier seeds to him via wind power, is full and total control over any patents that the customer's company has. Or at least, that's the license to use any of MY land...

Re:A bit screwy ?

[clambake]

In fact, what he probably should have done, the moment he realized what had polluted itself onto his land, was promptly sue Monsanto for the cost of all of his crops over the next 5 years.

Why not follow the spam-warehousing approach. Offer to grow and care for the seeds, and any subsequent seeds that are decended from future generations, at $5 PER SEED PER DAY.

If they don't want to pay, that's fine... But, in your "landscape EULA", the penalty for non-payment is forfiture of the patent to the public domain.

Re:A bit screwy ?

[clambake]

That's according to Schmeiser's story. I was a bit disturbed about the whole story for a long time, until I read a couple of third party accounts of the whole situation. According to the articles I read, although Percy didn't actually introduce the patented seeds into his crops (it was accidental contamination...probably seeds blown in by the wind from nearby crops), after it happened he knew full well what he had on his hands. He knew it was Round-Up Ready, and he took advantage of that fact. He harvested seeds from the crops so he could continue to benefit from it, knowing that what he was doing was in violation of the patent, but believing that if he were caught he could just claim ignorance.

I'm not sure how this works in your world, but seeds that were "blown in" to his land are his property from that point on. Otherwise, maybe I can make a wierd lookign rock, patent it, and then hurl it through your window... Then sue you for having one of my patented rocks in your house. ... In fact, hey, what's your address?

Re:A bit screwy ?

[Alsee]

he clearly had intent to force the gene transfer to his seeds.

Again, he did not force a gene transfer. He couldn't have prevented the gene transfer if he tried.

What he did was go from a low percentage to a high percentage. Either way he is growing plants with the gene.

It is also standard practice for almost 10,000 years to hand-pick your most productive plants and animals for seed-stock/breeding.

Hell, he could have picked one plant at random for his seedstock (with no intent) and had an X% chance of ending up with his entire next crop carrying this gene. It seems according to your argument this example would be entirely innocent. And if this innocent case did occur, would he become "guilty" if he started using roundup to kill weeds, taking advantage of the fact that his field was innocently immune to the weedkiller?

-

Re:A bit screwy ?

[twiddlingbits]

Part of the facts under dispute is IF the seeds were blown onto his land, or if they were gotten illegally. I can see some seeds being blown in but only an inconsequential amount. It would take many generations of the patented plants (assuming they didnt cross with his regular plants) to get enough seed to grow a good sized crop.

Re:A bit screwy ?

[TPFH]

He knew it was Round-Up Ready, and he took advantage of that fact. He harvested seeds from the crops so he could continue to benefit from it, knowing that what he was doing was in violation of the patent, but believing that if he were caught he could just claim ignorance.

I have a question. Did Schmeiser use Round Up[tm] on the crops that he grew from the harvested seeds?

(This part is obvious) Round-Up Ready [tm] seeds are genetically engineered so that you can repeatedly spray herbicides on them. Most crops would die if you sprayed, what more than twice(?). But the idea of Round Up Ready[tm] seeds is that you can continuously spray Round Up[tm] herbicides on your crops, and theoretically, get bigger crops because of it.

It seems to me that if he was not doing this, then Monsanto doesn't really have a case, as their GE seeds are to my knowledge, only good for that purpose, and without taking advantage of it are otherwise less valuable because there are lots of consumers that do not want to eat GMOs. (Even if there are no labels and the corporations thumb their noses at us.)

Is he the same guy that turned around and sued Monsanto for contaminating his crops? From what I understand it is still not that uncommon for farmers to harvest their seeds. It is a traditional practice. The main reason I would see for him to not harvest his seeds would be to get a clean crop. But if his neighbors are just going to re-contaminate him again what is the point?

(This post brought to you by, random replies via Meta Moderation.)

Whoa, slow down there, lefty...

[gfxguy]

This seems to be more of a gray area than, say, a car, and yet not quite like the "content" of a CD or DVD.

It's a device meant to produce jigs, apparently. So it's a tool designed for creating items. Now, the way I look at it, these absolutely stupid licensing restrictions have a solution, much like the stupid licensing of compilers way back when. Some of you older folks out there might remember a time when you'd buy a C compiler (for example). You'd have to give the company that wrote the compiler royalties on every product sold that was created with that compiler. It's true. Screw open source, man.

Then along came GCC. Sure, you needed the commercial compiler to compile GCC, so that version of GCC you created was restricted (legally). Then we point out the stupidity of the licensing scheme - recompile GCC with the GCC you just created, and the new GCC is not restricted. Most software companies then saw the stupidity of this kind of licensing and licensed their products with a new kind of less restrictive license. Now I can't think of any, offhand, that don't simply allow you to compile and sell your program.

Having dabbled in wood working myself (although not having made any dovedail joints), it seems to me if you have a jig to make dovedail joints you can use it to make another restriction free jig. Use the original jig to make a jig, then use the new jig to make a jig, and viola, no stupid restrictions.

It may not be as simple as recompiling GCC (because the jig creates a dovetail creating jig, not another jig that creates a dovetail creating jig), but if I was annoyed, that's what I'd do.

Really, though, it just points out the stupidity of this kind of licensing. I find it hard to believe there aren't any other jigs with less stupid restrictions.

Re:Whoa, slow down there, lefty...

[operagost]

Please excuse me my lack of mod points- but that's brilliant! I just had another one of those "why didn't I think of that" moments.

Re:Whoa, slow down there, lefty...

[tkg]

Now I can't think of any, offhand, that don't simply allow you to compile and sell your program.

Most, if not all, commercial compiler licenses do have a clause that forbids the creation of competing products though. So, you could not compile a competing compiler, for instance, and in your example, the first compile of GCC would be a violation. Athough, I doubt subsequent compiles with GCC could be traced back to the commercial compiler, so stupidity remains.

Re:Whoa, slow down there, lefty...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does't Microsoft Visual C++ have a restriction that the licensee can't make a competitor to Microsoft Word/Office?

Re:Whoa, slow down there, lefty...

[tkg]

I think VC++ has a restriction from making a competitor to any Microsoft product. Borland's compiler has similar restrictions, IIRC.

Re:Whoa, slow down there, lefty...

[mdielmann]

It may not be as simple as recompiling GCC (because the jig creates a dovetail creating jig, not another jig that creates a dovetail creating jig), but if I was annoyed, that's what I'd do.

And there is the rub. With old compilers, you could make...a compiler. This results in recursion, which points out the flaw in the system (how many generations do I have to be removed before I can use the tool wherever I like?). This is totally different here, since recursion is not present - the tool you make doesn't perform the same functions as the tool you licensed.

I'm not commenting on whether I think this is right, and I'm not yet decided, but your analogy is completely flawed, lacking the same basis as the current case.

Re:Whoa, slow down there, lefty...

[MrResistor]

With old compilers, you could make...a compiler. This results in recursion, which points out the flaw in the system (how many generations do I have to be removed before I can use the tool wherever I like?). This is totally different here, since recursion is not present - the tool you make doesn't perform the same functions as the tool you licensed.

RTFA

The tool is specifically described as a "jig for making jigs", and their FAQ specifically states that the reason for the EULA is that the purpose of the tool is to clone itself. That sure sounds like recursion to me.

Also, since you seem to be unfamiliar with the term, a jig is the closest thing there is to a compiler in woodworking..

Sorry, but the analogy is quite solid, it is your understanding of the situation which is completely flawed.

Re:Whoa, slow down there, lefty...

[mdielmann]

My bad, I recall reading that earlier.

Re:Whoa, slow down there, lefty...

[Doctor Faustus]

Use the original jig to make a jig, then use the new jig to make a jig, and viola, no stupid restrictions.

Don't forget, this is analog copying, so there would probably be some accuracy lost.

Re:Whoa, slow down there, lefty...

[fizbin]

Does't Microsoft Visual C++ have a restriction that the licensee can't make a competitor to Microsoft Word/Office?

It's not quite that bad.

The restriction is only on certain libraries shipped with the compiler, and even then the restriction only applies if you wish to redistribute your product. (The restriction is placed on the "you may redistribute these libraries, or stuff linked to these libraries, without paying us royalties as a part of your product" clause)

If you want to make a Microsoft Office clone, it "just" means that there are a few libraries which you might use freely in other products which you'll have to reimplement yourself. You're still perfectly free to use either the C or C++ compiler.

I'll note that people who sell proprietary code libraries often have restrictions on redistributing their code or programs made with their code. For example, the people behind WinZip might sell a general-purpose decompression library with the condition that you don't make a WinZip competitor. In essence, with the Microsoft VC++ compiler, you get a standard compiler license plus a fairly standard proprietary code library license. (And note that to the extent that it is ever standards-compliant, the compiler is standards-compliant without the particular libraries covered by this non-compete clause)

Sun has a similar (though less restrictive) license on java - there, it talks about "significant added value" before you can ship java with your product. (So you can't create a new programming language called "avaj" just by changing some directory names and then charge for the result)

Re:Whoa, slow down there, lefty...

[Anonymous Coward]

then use the new jig to make a jig, and viola

You used a jig to make a jig and a stringed musical instrument? That's very impressive!

Viola [va-yo-la] n. A stringed instrument of the violin family, slightly larger than a violin, tuned a fifth lower, and having a deeper, more sonorous tone.
Voila [vwa-la] expr.(French) Used to call attention to or express satisfaction with a thing shown or accomplished.

Re:Whoa, slow down there, lefty...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oww, my eye!

I'm not supposed to get jigs in it!

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

ARGH. So wrong.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[imsabbel]

If you want someone to read you mod up wish, why post as AC? (remember, many people browse at 1+
Or do you want posts modded up you dont want to be associated with?

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderater shouldn't browse at 1+. I always used to browsed at -1 when I had mod points. (I read to much to be allowed to mod now, see the FAQ)

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want someone to read you mod up wish, why post as AC? (remember, many people browse at 1+ Or do you want posts modded up you dont want to be associated with?

First, you cannot post to a story you have modded. So you have to post AC (after logging out) if you want to also mod the story.

Second, a good habit for moderators (who don't have time to read all -1's) is to search for "mod parent up". I do this, and apparently others do to because "mod parent up" postings as AC often do get results.

Here is the license

[Mordaximus]

User Agreement

The link is at the bottom of the page, labeled user agreement. There is NO specific link from the template master page. There is NO warning from the online purchase (at least up until the point that you check out and are ready to fill in billing info) that you are NOT purchasing the product.

Surely that is not legal?

Re:Good Example: Ever had a birthday at a restaura

[Safety Cap]

You're not prohibited from performing it, just from selling it. If you charge someone to come into your place of business (think of an amusement park/sports arena/theater), then you have to have a license and possibly pay royalties. If access is free to the public, you do not.

When I worked for a movie theater (back in the dark ages), we were allowed to only play music that was licensed by ASCAP as the company had a license with them but no one else.

You can go on a local street and sing "Happy Birthday" to your heart's content, but as a bartender at a club that charges a cover, you cannot sing it to a customer without paying.

Right of first sale?

[Asprin]

Why doesn't the right of first sale prevent the manufacturer from doing some of this?

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[rizzo420]

they can't be charging you at all. if it's not your fault the jig broke, if it's just natural wear and tear or some flaw in the design (which they seem to think they are immune from with this whole license thing), they have to replace it since you don't own it.

Licensing Tools

[a1z26b2y25]

Just don't buy from them. The rest of the tool manufacturers will get the message. Woodworkers are not a dumb sheep bunch like the typical PC user. I have been woodworking for years now. These people will not sit by and let someone do this. They are used to building / fabricating their own tools if need be. This will flop, mark my words.

Re:Licensing Tools

[willtsmith]

Yeah, this kinda sounds like programmers vs Microsoft. The programmers ultimately win because they can produce stuff WITHOUT Microsoft. Although, Windows XP and Linux are a lot more complicated than a woodworking jig.

Just get a minor to buy it and open it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just get a minor to buy it and open it...

Actually patents are MORE restrictive

[TheConfusedOne]

If they were to merely copyright the template machine then you can't duplicate the particular design. If they have a patent for "mechanical template producing mechanism" then you're dead in the water unless they want to license the patent.

Re:Actually patents are MORE restrictive

[loners]

And the patent office wouldnt be able to find any prior art for it either!

patented seeds

[budgenator]

There is a canadian farmer being sued by montsanto for have a crop contaminated by montsanto's seed stock. Montsanto actualy tresspassed onto the guys property, stole seeds from his crop for genetic testing and later sued him for have a field that was 20% contaminated.

OBTW, heirloom seeds are big business, seed prodicers will pay big busks for them; the undomesticated corn is probably worth millions.

Re:patented seeds

[Momomoto]

You're completely ignoring the reality of the situation: Percy knew that he had Round-Up Ready crop, and he willfully continued to propagate it even though he didn't ever buy the seeds. That's thievery, regardless of the draconian policies surrounding it.

If you don't agree to their terms and conditions, don't buy the product, yes. So when you find out the product is in your field, don't continue growing them.

Re:patented seeds

[budgenator]

Percy knows what he did, God Knows what Percy did, everybody else is guessing. It's a lot more likely that pollen from a neighbor's geneticaly modified crop blow across the property line and contaminated his crops than it is that he somehow got seeds he never bought; all other things being equal.

Re:patented seeds

[Momomoto]

I'm not denying that he acquired it through cross-contamination (proof positive that current buffer zones aren't large enough). The point that I am trying to make here is that, once he had these GM crops he didn't destroy them like he should have.

If a hot air balloon crashes in your field, and you keep the balloon, it's still theft.

This is stupid

[Charcharodon]

I repeat this is stupid.

Mod Parent Up! License have little legal standing

[Jesrad]

The parallel to slavery and personal priviledges is very interesting. But I'd like to correct just one thing:

you open the box, you open the envelope, you install the software, click on the box and BANG! according to the law, you've agreed to conditions that would have to be insane to agree to under any other circumstances.

I don't think EULAs hold any legality whatsoever, at least in my country. The only laws and right restrictions that can be legally enforced on a user installing software are the laws that regulate sales, and all written contracts signed by said user. Nowhere does the EULA fits into this, except in the case of most site-licenses, where there is a written, signed agreement.

This means that companies that rely on EULAs to restrict rights are standing in a legal limbo. The only enforceable parts of EULAs are the clauses that grant the user additional rights. For example, the GPL is a "legally-valid" license in my country: it is a paper "signed" by the copyright holder, that states (s)he won't sue you if you copy and redistribute or modify the software if you abide to some conditions. It is only legally-binding the author, not the user. If the user does not comply to the restrictions, then (s)he violates the copyright laws, not the GPL. This makes a World of Difference(TM) with most other EULAs. A copyright holder cannot sue you if you exercise your rights as stated by Law, even if the "agreement"

I think it is Oracle whose EULA states that even if you are granted the right by law to reverse-engineer the software (this is the case in my country), you lose this right anyway. Utter Nonsense. Laws precede contracts. Especially non-written, non-signed "agreements".

Re:Monsanto

[gfxguy]

And yet you still do business with this company.

Is it because your company is on the "royalty train?" In other words, if you sold generic seed, then you'd sell less, and not make more money?

If that's the case, then you're part of the problem (like large companies licensing Microsoft products, but then bitching about the licensing).

Re:copyright is wrong licence type, patent maybe

[Doctor7]

The original tool (presumably no artistic work involved in the tool itself) was not one of the statutory 'works of authorship' in US copyright law.

Well, this is the question. The jig is basically a template, which puts it somewhere between being functional enough to patent, and artistic enough to copyright. The question is which (if either) the manufacturer actually has on the design.

How did this get moded up? Wrong wrong wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? How did this post get moded up? Of course the USA has a system for aiding people in legal battles. It's called "being appointed a public attorney if you can not afford one." Sure, people may joke about the quality of these lawyers, but you are allowed to appoint or dismiss a public attorney as you please. Face it: some people can't afford lawyers even IF they had partial government help. With public appointed attornies they pay NOTHING. So you have to ask yourself which system is better.

Re:How did this get moded up? Wrong wrong wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only for criminal cases, not civil ones. Being sued is a civil matter, so how 'bout you go back to civics class mmmmmkay?

Re:How did this get moded up? Wrong wrong wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right to an attorney: Criminal Cases.
No rights to an attorney: Civil cases. Civil cases are what we are discussing here.

Dose that clear it up?

Re:How did this get moded up? Wrong wrong wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, yes. I forgot about that. Thanks for the correction fellow anonies! :o)

What the...

[skebe]

Did Daylight Savings Time kick in & throw us all back to April 1st? Maybe their legal department had their offices moved next to the wood finishing area & they're catching some righteous paint fumes.

In similar news: Novelty Company...

[Anonymous Coward]

A popular novelty company has started using licenses for their products. Users are not allowed to transfer, share, etc their "products" with anyone else. I'm sure this will have many lesbians and their fans worked up.

That's right...

[gfxguy]

Specially made Ford Gasoline is specially formatted for your Ford Car. No one makes better gas for your Ford Vehicle than Ford Motor Co.

Of course, other gas is just as good - just no one makes better. Same tactic is used to sell just about everything.

Short Answer: $$$

[TrollBridge]

"Does anyone know why the US does not have a system for aiding people in legal battles, and why when a motion in court is found to not be enforcable in law, does the person who brought the suit (and therefore a large monetary cost) to someone erroneously, does not have to pay?"

The attorney lobby here is so strong that such a system would be impossible. They oppose, on principle, anything that could possibly take a dime out of a lawyer's pocket. Lawyers have got us by the sack here, and there's not a whole lot we can do about it.

Glad to see that !

[Jesrad]

I'm really glad to see that at least one country has a standing precedent on EULAs. In most other countries EULAs are still a fuzzy issue, with no law or precedent telling exactly how much or how little legal value they have.

I am strongly considering moving to Holland in the near future.

Quite the contrary

[96804896]

The EULA will require that bullets be regularly fired and replaced by the same brand only.

To keep the honest people honest, all new guns and bullets will contain RFIDs so that guns can prevent the customer from accidentally loading uncertified bootleg bullets. This stunning new innovation will also protect from accidentally firing ammunition which is beyond its best before date. And don't mind entries in the national bullet owner database, that is necessary to fight terrorism.

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[Anonymous Coward]

OMg what software conpany replaced the CD for you? I was asked to pony up money, lots o money, too much to afford.

Re:Monsanto

[Anonymous Coward]

It is illegal for companies to implement their own fines. Contact a lawyer NOW@#%

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[willtsmith]

Printer manufacturers are likely next.

Having been defeated one most of their "French Champagne" ink patents, they will start leasing you printers instead of selling them. You will buy licenses with every ink cartridge you buy.

Using their printers with anauthorized or modified cartridges will be a violation of the printer lease.

Tell them what you think

[Chilly Willy]

Stots has a web site, where they describe their product. I couldn't find anything on their site about the EULA, but they do have a feedback form:
http://stots.com/form02.htm or Stots

If you don't like the way they do business, tell them about it.

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[willtsmith]

We need a service whereby illiterate people open all our software for us. In such a case, they cannot claim that we agreed to the license, nor could our agents as they cannot read ;-)

Re:Moot point

[Anonymous Coward]

Most farmers purchase their own seed year after year

Most farmers do not do this. Most farmers live in third worlds countries. Easy mistake.

Re:Monsanto

[schon]

Every customer must sign an agreement (essentially EULA) which establishes that they will not reclaim GMO seeds for planting, farmers must instead go through a seed company, like us, so they pay the royalties.

The difference between this and the "EULA"s in the article is that these are legally binding - they're presented before the sale, and they're signed by the purchaser.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that the Monsanto contracts are legally binding.

This is good news.

[Spazmania]

This is good news. The courts shouldn't have much trouble rejecting this, and it'll help build the precedent necessary to reject eula claims in newer technologies like software.

We can only hope...

[jav1231]

these idiots go out of business and that they didn't breed.

Recursive Dupicity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are the posts now trying to be duplicates of itself?

The tool is licensed, not sold, and customers cannot sell it or lend it to others. Nor can they sell or lend the jigs they make with it. "Shrinkwrap licenses are showing up everywhere," a reader recently wrote.

The master jig contained a license that says I've licensed the master jig, not bought it. The license says I can't lend or sell the master, and furthermore I can't lend or sell the jigs I make with the master."

Free market?

[otis wildflower]

Why not just buy a different tool and vote with your wallet?

Unless they're a monopoly, in which case sue their ass off?

Beta failed against VHS for similar reasons.. Unfavorable/intolerable licensing terms for a 'superior' product vs. Good Enough and better terms.

But guys with 'borrowing neibors' will love this!

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm sorry Bob, I can't loan it to you - I'm not authorized to do so. What about those other tools I've lent you?"

Hey! Mod parent up! :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Really good one! :-) The most funny comment in the whole articel! :-) Moderation: 100% Funny -- I agree here. Why only Score:1 though? Should be Score:5, Funny! :-) Really good one, Sir! I salute you! No questions! :-)

EULA May Be Legal

[Hylander]

There's been a lot of ranting about whether this is legal or not.

Well, it might be, depending on how it is presented. See my EULA FAQ for details.

this is actually needed

[Fratz]

People may think this is extreme, but they've never been on the #tulez channel on IRC. You wouldn't believe how much illegal jig swapping goes on there.

EULA is not a contract

[gr8_phk]

IANAL but if I were ever standing in court for violating a EULA, I would want to ask the plaintif if they even know who they have "licensing agreements" with. For example, can you say weather honorable judge so-and-so here has such an agreement with you? How can you have legally binding agreements without signatures, without acknowledgement, and without even knowing who you have them with? The fact that you don't know/care who you have agreements with points to their one-sided nature. Doesn't a contract have to be mutually beneficial too?

BTW, one should not reasonably expect to make a living selling a product who's purpose is to replicate itself. Get another job, don't be a knob.

Re:EULA is not a contract

[Dogtanian]

one should not reasonably expect to make a living selling a product who's purpose is to replicate itself

I was thinking about dabbling in the slave trade, but you've persuaded me otherwise...

Re:EULA is not a contract

[micq]

Doesn't a contract have to be mutually beneficial too?

No, there just has to be consideration, and in this case I think there is (you get to use the tool, you promise not to replicate it)

However, your first point is interesting, how would they know whether you agreed to the license or not? How do they know, or prove, that someone didn't give the jig to you... then they violated the eula, not you... and if you "can't remember" who gave it to you, well then, what agreement is there?

Re:EULA is not a contract

[fishbowl]

This will not see the inside of the court house, for the simple reason that the plaintiff does not posess the one document needed to press the matter: They do not have any agreement signed by you.

Or do they? What does the sales reciept say? Is your hardware store going to provide this to the manufacturer under a subpoena, or are they going to risk their future in favor of defending your rights?

If you didn't sign anything, there's simply no case. Rather, it becomes a matter of "he said, she said", and that's not going to get anywhere in court. It might even be fun to let the trial go. But the judge won't even let you do voir dire for the jury on a "he said she said" basis of evidence.

If you DID sign any agreement like this, then YOU are the one doing damage to civil liberties, NOT the manufacturer. Shame on you for signing it.

If you didn't sign it, then use it for shitpaper in the outhouse you build with the biscuit pattern.

Not that any woodworker worthy of the appellation is gonna pay money for a goddamned biscuit pattern anyway. The cabinet guys I know do their dovetails freehand, and they do fine work.

Re:EULA is not a contract

[gr8_phk]

"However, your first point is interesting, how would they know whether you agreed to the license or not? How do they know, or prove, that someone didn't give the jig to you... then they violated the eula, not you... and if you "can't remember" who gave it to you, well then, what agreement is there?

I am not a lawyer (IANAL) but the way I see it:
An EULA usually says that some action (like using the product) indicates your acceptance of the terms of the EULA. This is not legally binding. If I reject the EULA, I can still do as I want with the product because I am NOT bound by the EULA to do or not-do anything. Or to put it another way:

Me: I don't like this EULA - into the shitcan it goes.
Other: Hey, don't you have to return that product now?
Me: No, why?
Other: That EULA said so.
Me: I never agreed to that, remember?
Other: But you're using the product, and that indicates your acceptance of the terms of the EULA.
Me: Says who? The EULA? I rejected that, remember?

This goes against your statement that me getting to use the tool has something to do with consideration. I can use the tool all I want, I bought it. Nothing in the EULA applies until I agree to it - not even terms relating to my non-acceptance of the EULA, for they are part of it too. In the software world, you should be safe clicking the "I Accept" button to make the software work - it only means you accept the terms of the EULA if you have already accepted the terms of the EULA - otherwise, it's just something you must do to make the software function. Perhaps I should have been a lawyer :-) but I am not. This post is all just speculation.

It's Official

[Seekerofknowledge]

Now that mankind finally has the power to create inifinite copies of something for practically free, and we decide to screw it six ways from sunday, it's official that the world is going to hell.

And yes, this is a rant about software also. But only now that this completely brain-fucked ideology of eula's has reached into the real, physical world, can we be sure that, indeed, the world is ruined.

Plants have been licensed for years!

[YeOldeGnurd]

Years ago, back in 1990, my wife was an engineering consultant working in an office that had a bunch of potted plants. One of the plants actually had a note stickered to it that read

Asexual reproduction without a license is strictly prohibited

She and her office mate found this so funny that they photocopied and enlarged the message, putting the sign on the door of their office.

Biotech companies have been interested in enforced plant licenses. Monsanto developed Terminator Seed technology which would force farmers to buy new seeds every year, because they are designed to grow sterile plants. Because of global pressure by those damned commie anti-globalism activists, Monsanto has, for now, decided not to bring Terminator seeds to market. I guess they are leaving that to the government in California.

Re:Plants have been licensed for years!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can go to any seed store and find plenty of Terminator tagged seed. It's in use all over the place.

Re:Monsanto

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is exactly what genetic engineering is about: creating seeds that grow plants that don't grow fertile seed.

This is exactly what is wrong with the world. Technology is not used to make new products, but to wrap old products in a layer that makes it possible to make more money of them. You get more or less the same product, but the way you use it is restricted.

When the DVD was invented, the movie studios didn't want it, because it would mess up their scheme of geographic differentiation. But then some clever guy invented region coding and lockable menus and all over sudden it was becoming interesting. With region coding, you can still impede free trade and with lockable menus, you can prevent skipping of commercials.

In the case of these genetically engineered seeds, it's even worse. The big companies are offering these seeds to the third world countries, claiming that crops will grow better. That way, they loose the diversity they have now, making them more susceptible to deceases. So they also have to buy all kind of chemicals to fight them. This way, we give them all our first world problems, while they don't have the monetary stability that is required for first world agriculture.

Slashdotted...

[Thing 1]

The site was working fine up until a few minutes ago; I tried to change the comment view so I could see them (Nested rather than Threaded) and it redisplayed the article, but has been hanging trying to get the comments for 10 minutes now. So I'm posting the text of the article here in case the whole thing goes down.

Use of Stots TemplateMaster Woodworking Tool Limited to One Shop

By Ed Foster, Section UnFairUse
Posted on Wed Oct 22nd, 2003 at 10:19:21 PM PDT

Usage Restrictions -- Nasty EULA Terms - Ban on Resale A small woodworking tool manufacturer, Stots Corporation, includes a license agreement on its TemplateMaster jig tool. The tool is licensed, not sold, and customers cannot sell it or lend it to others. Nor can they sell or lend the jigs they make with it. (Click on "Full Story" link to see details.) Sources: Company Website, Reader Reports

We're all familiar with license agreements on software tools that limit what you can with the product. But what about a license agreement on a real tool limiting what you can with the product and the things you make with it?

"Shrinkwrap licenses are showing up everywhere," a reader recently wrote. "I just bought a jig for making dovetailing jigs -- this is woodworker talk if it's unfamiliar to you. The master jig contained a license that says I've licensed the master jig, not bought it. The license says I can't lend or sell the master, and furthermore I can't lend or sell the jigs I make with the master."

The reader was referring to Stots Corporation of Harrods Creek, KY, and the user agreement for its TemplateMaster product. Sure enough, the Stots license says TemplateMaster may be used "in only one shop by the original purchaser only" and that "you may not allow individuals that did not purchase the original Product (to) use the Product or any templates produced using the Product..."

A FAQ document on the Stots website explains that the license is necessary because "the purpose of the TemplateMaster is to clone itself. Therefore we are verifying your honesty that only you will use the tool and you will not be passing it around to others to use for free. It is exactly the same as the 'shrink wrap' agreement that comes with almost all computer software. Please help us fight 'tool piracy'."

Challenged as I am to even hammer a nail, I certainly can't judge the uniqueness of the TemplateMaster product compared to other woodworking tools. The reader doubts it's particularly novel, in that the template or jig one creates with it will be virtually identical to "Keller" jigs that have been around for many years. "The key difference is that the instructions that came with the Keller jig said, in not so few words 'here, use this jig to make a dovetail joint'," the reader said. "The Stots jig, which is geometrically equivalent, comes with instructions that say 'use a duplicating router bit to copy this jig to make a jig that looks almost exactly the same as me -- and exactly the same as the Keller jig -- then use that jig to make a dovetail joint."

But even assuming the Stots tool is a wonderful innovation, does that give its inventor the right to restrict how you use the tool? The patent law doctrine of exhaustion would seen to overrule such restrictions, but that doctrine took a hit in one recent case. And then what about the idea of restricting how customers use the tools they make with the TemplateMaster? Don't let the software companies hear about that one, or next thing you know there will be usage restrictions on who we can share our data with.

Re:Slashdotted...

[orkysoft]

Looks like it's an -- illegal -- bundle sale of a jig with printed toilet paper!

Bullcrap

[praedor]

That sums it up. If I buy a tool, computer, TV, toaster, car, whatever, I OWN IT LOCK, STOCK, AND BARREL. I get to do ANYTHING I want with it. No matter what the manufacturer says or wants, I bought it, I own it, I am the master of that item's fate. Period.

I do a little woodworking myself. When I first read this crap I thought, "No way I will EVER buy their crap". Now I am rethinking it. I may buy it just so I can use it, lend it to my neighbors, to my father, etc. I may make a nifty template and give it away, make copies of the other templates and give them away. Eat me if you don't like it. I buy my tools or I rent them (big ticket items) as needed. If I buy it, that is the end of the control by the manufacturer.

Re:Bullcrap

[fishbowl]

IF the tool, etc., is covered by a patent, and you live in a jurisdiction where that patent has merit and is enforceable, then you're wrong.

Otherwise IF you signed a contract that states you waived your rights, then you're wrong.

This, however, is simply a company saying what they WISH.

Wishing doesn't make it so. If their patent is ever granted, then they might have a leg to stand on and will not really need this license.

On the other hand, this is not really a tool, it's a pattern. If clothing patterns can be copyrighted, so can woodworking patterns. But then the only thing the consumer needs to be aware of is their rights and responsibilities under copyright law, and that still doesn't stop them from making a dress from the pattern and selling it.

Re:Bullcrap

[Anonymous Coward]

"That sums it up. If I buy a tool, computer, TV, toaster, car, whatever, I OWN IT LOCK, STOCK, AND BARREL. I get to do ANYTHING I want with it. No matter what the manufacturer says or wants, I bought it, I own it, I am the master of that item's fate. Period."

I wish someone would tell Ferrari of North America that. If you are one of the lucky few that Ferrari is willing to take money from to buy a new Enzo they will actively interfere with anything you do that they don't like. That's right - spend nearly $800k on a car plus whatever surcharge the dealer hits you with and you can't sell it without Ferrari of North America's lawyers' blessing Next time someone lists an Enzo on ebay place a bid. Within a few days you'll get an e-mail from ebay saying a Verified Rights Owner has alerted them to the fact that the item you were bidding infringes on someone else's intellectual property rights. They cancel all the bids just because Ferrari of North America doesn't approve of someone not on their lists owning one.
They push other controls on you as well. They require a specific oil available only at the dealer for around $60 a quart (times 12 quarts), try changing the oil yourself or having your preferred mechanic do it and warrantee is void. Have an idiot light on the dash that won't go out? Only the the computer at the ferrari dealer with the correct Ferrari software AND hardware dongle will tell you what the error is.
State Emissions testers can't even get a reading off the federally mandated OBDII diagnostic plug under the dash
Print up T-shirts for your family and crew - not selling them, if it has a picture of the ferrari you bought or their logo- their attorneys will stomp on you fast.
and yes I'm speaking from experience
Chelle

They've got a point

[YouHaveSnail]

I think these folks would have a tough time making their EULA stand up in court, but on the other hand I can see their point. This thing is a template, and as such you're supposed to use it to make copies of itself. Making those copies is not hard, not time consuming, and not expensive. You can even make several at once

So what's to stop you from buying one unit, and then making copies for all your friends?

Nothing, that's what. Copyrights and patents wouldn't seem to help much, because they're explicitly giving you permission to copy the thing as many times as you want. How do you protect your investment in something like that?

I think that if they had to defend it in court, they might try something like: Our product is not a thing, it's a shape. The physical implementation of the template is, in fact, only a medium for transporting the shape to the user. Would you pay $39 for a six ounce piece of plastic? Of course not. But our customers pay $39 for the Dove Tail TemplateMaster all the time, and they do so specifically because of its shape. Our license agreement serves only to protect our investment in developing that shape from those who would unscrupulously purchase a single unit and then sell or give away copies.

Now, I don't know if that would stand up in court, but I don't think that's much problem for them. I think they're goal is to persuade end users not to "pirate" the Dove Tail TemplateMaster, and to give them at least some leg, however shaky, to stand on in court should another company come along and start selling TemplateMaster duplicates.

Re:Monsanto

[Anonymous Coward]

I am gonna have to check the back of the yeast packet at the grocery store. Making sourgough bread may be a violation of their license.

Just one little correction

[Nino the Mind Boggle]

Monsanto does not "manufacture" seeds. The plants do the tricky bits, Monsanto just packages the results.

You're wrong

[EnderWiggnz]

>You can't redistribute copyrighted works without
>the author's permission.

You *can* infact re-sell used books.

You *can* infact re-sell used CD's.

and you sure as hell, can resell a real-world tool, like a hammer, or whatever this gettin'jiggy-with-it thing is.

you can not reproduce copyrighted works, and sell those derivatives.

this manufacturer doesnt have a legal leg to stand on.

level of difficulty

[LuxFX]

This is absurd! Software piracy is an issue because, while designing a piece of software is a definite challenge, copying the software is just about the easiest thing you can do on a computer.

Tools, on the other hand, are physical and immutable. You can't just take one over to the copymat and make another one. In fact, making a tool that can duplicate itself involves an enormous amount of extra work to engineer than a normal tool. Can you imagine a hammer that can clone itself? One stone age man stopped chipping new stone axes with the butts of their existing axes, the age of reproducable tools was virtually over.

So if a company that makes normal, piracy-free, physical objects has gone through the lengths and challenges of making an object that can reproduce itself....well that was just dumb now, wasn't it? That's really asking for it.

The Community Reaction

[twrake]

The obvious reaction to this is the creation of the "Free tool" movement quickly followed by the "Open Tool" movement. There will be agreement that "Skil" and "Craftsman" are dominating the industry. Next the internet site routedrill.com will cover daily news and flame wars between the two camps and featuring funky icons of drills, paper and various types of trees. After several years the majority of the discussion will concern sarcasm related to the posting of duplicate articles and reasons the sites founders "sold out".

EULA - by opening this comment text you agree..

[adeyadey]

To hand over the title deeds of your house to me, and any other financial assets (shares, bank accounts, gold nuggets) or IP assets you may have..

Yeh, that should work..

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[mosch]

You buy it. It's either covered by your regular auto insurance, or else you need to pay the extra money to purchase insurance from Hertz.

Get Jiggy wid it!

[Op7imus_Prim3]

Why nobody seems to have said it before me I'll never know.

Nit pick: No, slavery still isn't unconstitutional

[Ungrounded Lightning]

For example, once we had slavery, the preamble to the constitution cannot have meaning in a country that practices slavery. The argument arose and it was solved by an amendment to the constitution which clarified the argument completely: if all men are created equal, no man can be another's property.

This misrepresents both the logical argument and the amendment.

The logical argument from "all men are created equal [before the law]" does not lead to "No man can be another's property." Instead it leads to "No man can be BORN another's property." Eliminating HEREDITARY slavery is a major step but not a total elimination.

The amendment, as well, doesn't ban slavery either. It bans slavery "except as punishment for a crime". This goes beyond banning hereditary slavery, also banning temporary or permanent voluntary slavery (chosing now to lose ALL choices later) and slavery to repay civil judgements (debtor's prison, indenture). Only a criminal judgement can lead to involuntary servitude.

Of course this puts intstitutions like the draft in an interesting position. Ditto irrevocable powers of attorney. (And certain kinky entertainments, if performed without a bailout mechanism, can lead to both criminal and civil liability if the kinkee doesn't like how the kinker kinked.)

As to the amendment being passed to "solve the argument", it was actually passed for a much different reason: As a tactic by the US Federal Government to weaken the Confederate States of America during the "Civil War/War Between the States". The issue in THAT war was the right to secession (as Linconl made perfectly clear when he said that he'd free all, some, or none of the salves, whichever was necessary to save the Union). Slavery was constitutionally banned (except in limited circumstances) as a byproduct.

(Of course, some states explicitly go beyond the Constitution's provisions.)

Human rights trump property rights.

Property rights ARE human rights - the rights of humans to own and control pieces of property, regardless of the wishes of the non-owners. The constitutional limitation on slavery in the US, along with its current interpretation and the lack of laws establishing marketable slaveownership as a criminal penalty, just says that humans are excluded from the category of "property" over which other (non-governmental) humans can exercise rights.

Slavery is illegal and slave-owners are S.O.L with regard to their property rights pertaining to their slaves.

Yep.

Cookie Piracy

[gcaseye6677]

We at the Betty Crocker corporation would like to announce that our new lines of cookie cutters are licensed, not bought. Please help us fight cookie piracy by not loaning your licensed cookie cutters, or for that matter making cookies for anyone other than yourself.

Purchaser _of the license_

[kahei]

...not purchaser of the tool.

The product being sold here is a license to use the jig, not the actual jig.

Whatever the heck a jig is.

Re:Purchaser _of the license_

[arkanes]

If they advertise a jig and you send them money and they send you a jig, then you bought a jig, post-sale conditions not withstanding - this has been tried lots of times before. It has always, without exception, been struck down. The manufacturer is probably trying to ride the tails of software EULAs, but I suspect this is more likely to have the opposite effect.

If, on the other hand, they advertise the opportunity to license thier new jig design, and you recieve a contract specifying the license terms, which you then agree to and THEN you get the jig, this is a perfectly normal and valid patent licensing scheme.

Re:Purchaser _of the license_

[rizzo420]

a jig is a tool used to help in the wood working process. most woodworkers make custom jigs for their own use for certain types of projects that they do over and over. i'm sure most serious woodworkers have made their own jigs for dove-tailed joints. this product seems like a stupid way to make money off of newer woodworkers so they can save some time. the cost is appalling. it looks like a little piece of crap thing.

Re:Purchaser _of the license_

[ddimas]

A jig is a specialty tool made to do a particular job in a particular setting and manner. A jig to hold dowels so you can drill a hole in them with your drill press for example. A hammer is not a jig, a hammer is a tool. Usually a jig is optimized to work with one particular tool. Some jigs (such as a dovetail jig for a router) are so useful that people have generalized them and started selling them.

Re:Purchaser _of the license_

[Anonymous Coward]

individuals that did not purchase the original Product

So "original Product" refers to the license?

How long before...?

[aaaurgh]

"By opening the lid of this toilet, you accept and agree to the following conditions...

Each member of your family may only use the toilet 3 times per 24 hour period.

You agree not to use the toilet for the disposal of hazardous waste, this include the after effects of curries, chillis and etc.

You will only use colour co-ordinated toilet paper, manufactured to ... standard, a maximum of three sheets per sitting.

No reading while using the toilet. ...

Question about copies

[schroedlzone]

If I burn a CD from AAC/MP3s I own on say iTunes, can I give that CD to someone???? Is that Legal?

This is something I'd like to know, How about if someone loans me their CD, can I make a copy for my personal use?

thanks /. people

Re:copyright is wrong licence type, patent maybe

[willtsmith]

This whole thing seems almost exactly like the music sharing issue. If the music is cool, and it's reasonably priced, then the sharee will likely go out and buy their own copy.

The purpose of having a metal template is to have a durable pattern that wont wear on the equipment. If Cabinet maker A lends the pattern to Cabinet maker B and cabinet maker B LIKES the pattern. Then Cabinet maker B will likely buy their own metal template so they don't have to constantly bother Cabinet maker A, or have to rely on a wooden copy with is more fragile.

So the moral of the story is:

Make good stuff, keep your prices reasonable and people will willingly, gladfully buy your IP.

Make marginal, uncreative stuff, keep prices high, treat customers like dirt and your customers will pirate your stuff since they use it sparingly and don't want to buy your overpriced crap.

Honestly, I think that this license would be more relevant to machining patterns. Producing metal copies of a metal part is far more profound than creating wooden copies of a metal part.

Spam these fools

[Anonymous Coward]

Fire up Roboform and send then email SPAM, postal spam. They deserve no less!!! Sign them up for everything.

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[bracher]

But how does this affect insurance? If it's their stuff and you only license it, they should cover the costs for keeping the jig insured against theft, right?

no. consider a leased automobile. it is your responsibility to insure it against theft, collision, whatever. it is still owned by the dealer, but has been released to your care. you have a responsibility to care for it and return it (in reasonable condition, generally specified in the contract) upon demand.

Getting repaid is not the answer

[just fiddling around]

Try convincing a bank to finance you a hundred grand of lawyer fees, before going to court. Personnal loans cost a lot, and not everyone can afford a loan of this kind of magnitude. Moreover, there is always the possibility that you lose, and you get to pay Mr Corp's 5 lawyers, plus your own. Bankrupcy, anyone?

Is this posting a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this a serious posting?

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[tkg]

If they're really following the software model, it won't be warrenteed against defects. You'll have to pay for the 'upgrade'.

Free market

[pottymouth]

I doubt that Stots has a monopoly on the dove
tail jig marget. Buy from someone else and
tell all your friends to the same.

They're not MS, don't put up with similar
behavior.

What does a business do?

[mikesmind]

If their EULA resticts usage to the one who purchased the jig, what do you do in a larger shop? Someone in purchasing buys the jig for a worker on the shop floor to use. The one using it is not the one who bought it. What about three shifts?

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[arkanes]

The difference here is that, in the US at least, insurance is for operating a car, not for a specific car. The car you own can affect your rates, but it's YOUR insurance, not the cars insurance. Things like taxes and title registration are the responsibility of the owner, in this case the dealership.

Huh?

[siskbc]

Why should this surprise anyone? But it's illegal anyway. You buy something, you own it and you have the right to use it, abuse it, enjoy it and destroy it. It is yours, the receipt says so, and the person who sold it to you has given up all their rights in respect of it. A licence like that will never stand up in court. It would be a total and utter violation of the Sale of Goods Act.

Aside from applying laws from the wrong damned country, you seem to have no grasp of contract law. Transactions are frequently made in which the usual rights of the purchaser are abridged.

Ford

[jeffkjo1]

This brand new Ford Mustang GT can be yours... erm, can be licensced to you for only $399 a month!

You don't own it, and you can't sell it to anyone else, but it's not a lease, cause we don't want it back! Your screwed! Ha ha!

Re:Monsanto

[bigkahunafish]

Let me put this in perspective. We are a small company. Profit margins are VERY thin. A few years ago Monsanto offered Roundup Ready, which is better for farmers especially in soybeans due to superior weed control (as Roundup is a nonselective herbicide). We did NOT offer Roundup Ready right away, and got burned for it. Farmers went else where, as RR ends up cheaper and more effective than conventional Non-GMO soybeans and herbicides. We had to offer Roundup Ready to stay afloat. Its not that we want to sell RR, its that we have to.

AMES did something similar

[TooLazyToLogon]

AMES leased their "bazooka" drywall taping tool for years. This revolutionary tool used by nearly every drywaller was always owned by the maufacturer.

Not so funny, now is it?

[geekoid]

Sure, everybody thinks we're paranoid, and overly concerned aout shrink wrap liscensing. As soon as other industries start getting into it, who do the turn to? us.

Here is an idea, talk to a lawyer(offcially TTAL). Did it say it was a liscense or apurchase when you sent them the money? If it said it was a purchase, then find out if it is enforcable. Try to send it back, and et other people in the trade to not purchase it.

Re:Good Example: Ever had a birthday at a restaura

[BLuP1]

IANAL -- Public performance counts as a "copy" of a copyrighted work whether or not you charge for the performance. Sam French published works carry a rather terse warning to this effect. It's a lot harder to prove damages, but you can still file criminal charges.

OTOH, most schools, etc, who don't charge for performances (or for some performances), frequently don't pay royalties. Some get busted-- it's hard to promote a theatrical production w/o making it publicly known which play you're doing.

Natural event

[macemoneta]

Every few decades, the herds of lawyers overpopulate, and they begin intruding into peoples lives. This is normal growth of the herd, following a bumper crop in the market.

It's at times like this that the only humane thing to do is cull the herd. While many people consider this cruel, it is in fact necessary to prevent over-litigating our lives. Over-litigation can lead to violent confrontations between lawyers in which actual people can be injured.

So please, stop by your local hunting club, pick up a license, and help insure the survival of the lawyers in your area. Remember: the barrister with the biggest belly wins the daily trophy!

legal question.

[LifesABeach]

in order for their to be a conttract, doesn't their have to be a meeting of the minds?

also, where is the 'First Sale Doctrine' at? i'd think i'd like to read it.

I hate paying, but I appreciate it because ...

[royalblue_tom]

Think of it another way. We effectively subsidize a TV company to produce a minimum acceptable standard. It forces the commercial broadcasters to compete, and provide programs with a minimal advertising presence, rather than the American model where you are lucky if you get programs in between the advertising they show.

I'm impressed that someone from a nation that thinks its acceptable to have advertising break directly before and after the credits of a program feels comfortable criticizing the method another country uses to avoid being in that sorry state. I'm also amused that you feel that ensuring that only people who benefit from a service actually pay for it is somewhat less preferable than saddling everyone with the bill (surely this is more of a nanny state - save you having to fill out the form, poor diddums).

And by knowing how much money was collected every year in license fees, it keeps the government honest - otherwise, they could cut the funding at will, and we'd be seeing the American model of consumer eyeball ownership faster than you could say PBS.

Finally, just think. Without the TV license, we wouldn't have had the Monty Python "Fish License Sketch". I've never seen so many bleedin' aerials!

Re: Simple: Value of Limited Use vs. Unlimited Use

[G4from128k]

Why shouldn't companies be able to charge different amounts for different licensing terms? If I am selling a product to a wide range of customers -- from weekend hobbyists to wealthy Fortune 500 companies -- I would like to create a price structure that matches the price to the product's value for each customer. I would like to charge a lower price to the hobbyists and a higher price to the Fortune 500 professionals. Unless I make a low-quality version, the difference between the products sold to these polar-opposite customers will be in the licensing terms. The amateur gets a product with a restrictive "non-professional use only" terms and the big company gets an "unrestricted" or "royalty-per-use" license. In both cases, the customers pay a different price because they get something of different value.

The "everyone-pays-the-same-price-no-restrictions" model is not that good an idea, especialy for the hobbyists. People may gripe about having to pay a different price for what they consider the same product or gripe about stupid licensing terms, but a differentiated price structure provide benefits to the low-end. Without some way to differentiate the product between amateur and professional use, the company would need to charge the same price to everyone. This price would be higher than that charged to the "restricted-use" customers and would make the product less affordable to hobbyists.

I may not like that some products come with restrictions, but I understand why companies do this and how it maximizes the number of people that can afford to buy the product.

Re:Moot point ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seed saving is generally only the norm in third world agricultural economies--like India and Africa--where the retention and sharing of seed is a part of the culture.

They only started saving seeds when the UN started funding programs to help modernize their farming. It's only been a part of their culture for a few decades. The important thing is that WE TOLD THEM TO SAVE THEIR SEEDS to plant the next years crops. That advice has been a staple of farm modernizing programs throughout the last half-century.

Now along comes Monsanto with their genetically engineered Roundup-Ready one time use seeds. With cross-pollination, even if you didn't plant Monsanto's seeds, who knows what will happen to your crops next year?

Jargon watch alert: "tool piracy"

[Uninvited Guest]

The FAQ on the Stots web site (and now Slashdot, of course) is the only place I can find use of the term "tool piracy". In the FAQ, the term is in quotes, as if this term is in common parlance. Is there some group that routinely uses this term? Have we just seen the birth of new jargon?

Re:Jargon watch alert: "tool piracy"

[Krach42]

Quotes do not indicate "common parlance" it means either a direct spoken phrase from a person (such as what I used above)

Or, it means an "iffy" term, that can be considered to be so-called, etc. (As I used it here)

Thus, their use of quotes around "tool piracy" (I guess, I should double quote that probably) is an indication that it is an invented word, and should not be taken entirely serious.

Bot applies for copyright

[t4b00]

Consider when an AI writes/developes code in his OWN name and attempts to copyright it. What then would copyright protection apply?

Is that what you are

Re:Bot applies for copyright

[t4b00]

on my last post I meant to ask "Is that what you are saying?"

Re:Monsanto

[kabocox]

Yes, but this is different. The farmers sign an agreement that they get to see upfront and can take a copy to their lawyer to look it over.

If a farmer wants to use my new handy dandy super magic seeds that produce 10x-100x as much as regular seeds, I'd sure want a legal contract stating that he'd get all his seeds from me or my autorized outlets.

Farmers have long used open sourced seeds to plant in their fields. (God was nice to not require us to pay roylaties. O.k. Maybe God did expect something in return.) They also breed plant varieties to improve strains.

Was there actually a sales contract?

[Sloppy]

I can't figure this out (for sure *) from the article: do they really only make the tool available by license, or is it just an after-the-sale shrinkwrap, fake, for-novelty-purposes-only, fictional license?

I don't have a ethical problem with Stots having complex sales contracts that are heavily weighted against the other party. People can Just Say No if they don't like it, and then everything is fine.

But if they sell this product on a tool-for-money basis (e.g. it's available in retail or web stores), then any pieces of paper that happen to be included in the package, are mere advisory/persuasive, and not really a license, even if it contains that word. In that case, if Stots tries to assert the terms of the license, then that might be a slight case of attempted fraud.

(*) It does looks like it's probably just a fake license, though. He says

I just bought a jig .. The master jig contained a license

So it does seem like something he found in a box after he bought the tool, rather than something he signed as part of the deal.

Opensource alternative?

[LokiFoo]

I searched SourceForge for an alternative project but didn't see anything.

Comming Soon to a Wood Shop near you....

[Adm1n]

Then make your own Dovetail JIG (or JIG master), make it better, modular, faster stronger and more reliable than the liscenced verison, and Liscence it under the new and Improved WLGPL (Wood LGPL), thus all those JIG's produced with your MASTER JIG must be Submitted to you for your approval and thier plans made public.... C'mon It's wood working, how could they patent a jig that's probably existed a centruy or two prior to their birth? and on top of that WHO CARES? Jointery is a skill just like porgramming, you always have the option to do it yourself with your own hands and you'll probably be happier at the end, when you say (I MADE THE JIG THAT MADE THESE FINE DOVE TAILS...)

Re:Monsanto

[gfxguy]

I don't want to condemn you any more than I'd condemn a business for choosing Microsoft (and I don't, you make the choices you think are best for you). There must be something about Monsanto that people want, or there wouldn't be a demand for it.

However, it's the same existential argument one can make about using OSS - the only reason people seem to pursist in using MS products is because it's easier.

In the long run, it doesn't sound as if Monsanto products are better, just easier in the short term. If there are no alternatives, then I see a business opportunity for someone. Not me, however, I know nothing about plants except how to kill them.

There's no contract here.

[Arker]

Obviously you don't know what a contract is.

In order to form a contract, there are several necessary elements that are lacking here. There must be an agreement. From reading the link, and the links beyond that, there seems to be no agreement, only a unilateral statement from the company posing as one. Also consideration - this means that there has to be an exchange of goods or services, both parties must receive something or it is not a contract. In this case, there is no consideration. The person supposedly accepting the contract has already bought the jig, and the contract gives him nothing new - it only takes away things he already had.

To make a contract of this, at minimum the customer would have to indicate assent in some way, after having read the terms of the 'agreement' (and no, keeping and using the item he already paid for does not suffice to show assent) and also to receive some consideration for such assent. They could, for instance, offer a rebate to those who signed the contract and returned it, and then they would have a contract (and also be open to a deceptive advertising charge if they were not clear on the terms upfront.) But this? This is nothing but a piece of paper which makes a lot of unsupported claims. Use it as toiletpaper.

Re:There's no contract here.

[Da VinMan]

You just described the majors problems with EULAs. And yet, somehow, those are supposed to be legit and supported by precedent in a US court of law.

Are you a lawyer? Are you a good one? If so, then please do us all a favor and get software publishers back into the UCC fold and EULAs declared legally to be what we already know they are: toilet paper.

Thanks in advance!

Re:There's no contract here.

[Arker]

Not a lawyer, a psycho-linguist actually. I've always found law fascinating though, and pay a lot of attention to it.

What in particular are the precedents you are worried about? I am not aware of any precedent that really says they are legit, the closest I can think of is one that sidestepped that issue almost entirely.

Re:There's no contract here.

[Da VinMan]

Sorry, I'm no lawyer either. However, I have (admittedly vague) recollection of EULAs already having been tested in court at least once. Do reply if you find what I'm alluding too; I can't research it now because I'm not in the country.

Later!

Re:There's no contract here.

[Arker]

The case I'm thinking of was about reselling shrink-wrap software, and IIRC the judge entirely sidestepped the validity of the EULA which prohibited it by ruling that even if valid it wouldn't apply in this case. Wish I could remember the details, can't seem to find the case searching for it now.

Keep in mind, of course, that with larger organisations and site licenses there are valid contracts, signed sealed and delivered, this is only an issue when you go to the store and buy a copy yourself.

Re:There's no contract here.

[Da VinMan]

Keep in mind, of course, that with larger organisations and site licenses there are valid contracts, signed sealed and delivered, this is only an issue when you go to the store and buy a copy yourself.

Yeah, I'm kind of afraid that companies like Microsoft will finally take radical steps around EULAs. How could you dispute a EULA which you are required to read, intitial each page of, and sign before you can even buy a computer or any other software package? That would be totally above-board and I imagine that once Microsoft bar-arms retailers into the practice that everyone else would get a free ride on the practice. It does represent too much visibility for software publishers current tastes, but once you get the population used to it and make the practice standard, it would be game over. Maybe this violates the UCC, but they seem to have managed to work around that already.

Tool Activation!

[RepublicanFucks]

Next your hammer will have to be activated before you can use it

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[mrscorpio]

That is incorrect. Insurance IS for operating a specific car. The liability portion automatically extends to trailers towed by your vehicle, everything extends to a vehicle for which you trade your current vehicle (i.e. buying a new car, and trading in your old car) for 30 days, and in most cases coverage extends to a rental car - in MOST standard insurance contracts, the PAP (personal auto policy). Depending on state and company, for instance, you may find that coverage only transfers to a rental vehicle when yours is in the shop under a covered claim, or that it does apply to your vacationing vehicle, but only liability.

BTW, IAAIA! (I am an insurance agent)

Chris

OpenJigs

[bbowman0]

Time to start the Open Source Jigs Foundation.

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[Arker]

It doesn't matter. The only thing that says that clicking the button that says 'agree' on it to get the software you bought and paid for to work means you agree to the EULA is the EULA itself. If you don't agree, it means nothing. Even if you do agree, it doesn't look like a valid contract anyway - what consideration is there in it? You lose, lose, lose, you gain nothing. So it's simple. Don't agree. End of story.

Re:Good Example: Ever had a birthday at a restaura

[kuroth]

Nah, you're wrong, and the poster to whom you're replying has it right. Establishments pay a licensing fee to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC in order to host performances of the works in their catalogs. No further payment is necessary.

Re:Monsanto Poison

[MountainLogic]

...make sure RR seed we sold to farmers was in fact sprayed with Round-up...

I though the only reason I bought strictly orgaincs was the quality and taste of the food. You've opened my eyes. Round-up is a poision right? You spray the SEEDS with poison????!! You expect me to eat food from poisoned seeds????? Why would you do that to food? No thanks. Time to get a gnu business model free of Round-up and EULA free food.

Re:Mod Parent Up! License have little legal standi

[nmos]

I don't think EULAs hold any legality whatsoever, at least in my country. The only laws and right restrictions that can be legally enforced on a user installing software are the laws that regulate sales, and all written contracts signed by said user. Nowhere does the EULA fits into this, except in the case of most site-licenses, where there is a written, signed agreement.

I'm not sure what country you are talking about but in most states in the US a contract does NOT need to be written or signed. The purpose of a written and signed contract is to show that both parties understood what they were getting into. If you can do that in some other way the agreement is still binding. For example, verbal contracts are just as legally binding as written ones with the main difference being that they are harder to prove.

It is only legally-binding the author, not the user.

Contracts normally require "consideration" on the part of each party. If someone gives you a car they may be able to sue to get it back, even if they write down on paper that they are giving it to you. If they sell you a car even for a trivial amount of money (or in exchange for something of value) then they would have to prove that you didn't live up to your part of the bargin or find a loophole like maybe they wern't of legal age etc.

quick, easy, simple solution

[The Kow]

If this tool is made to clone itself and you can't sell tools made with it, then make a clone of this tool with the original Product, then sell/lend/trade the tools you then make with the tool made by the original Product.

In other words, don't sell/trade/lend stuff you make with the Product, sell/trade/lend stuff you make WITH THE THINGS YOU MAKE WITH the Product.

At least according to the quotes given, this should work.

hmmmm...what next RJ-45 pirates?

[grocer]

I find this very odd, dovetails were defacto furnituring making practice until the nail...so if Chippendale or whatever has lasped into public domain why hasn't the dovetail pattern used to make it? What happens when someone patents ethernet twisted pair cable 10 years from now or what ever? Do all cable crimpers become tools of RJ-45 pirates?

Only Mildly Amusing

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the principal reasons for peasant revolt during the transition years from feudalism to central monarchy was the transition from freeman and tenants owning their own seed and the landlords appropriating control.

When the landlords own the seed, everyone becomes their slave. In any case, this is what history has taught.

Too bad.

[pair-a-noyd]

I buy it, I possess it, it's mine.

I'll damn well do with it as I please.
I'll go out and buy one and mail them the "license" back with a nice brown shit stain in the middle of it.

No one, at all, will tell me what I can or can not do with something that I purchased with my own money.

I walk into a store and exchance cash for physical property, not imaginary licenses.
I have never and I will never purchase a license for anything.

Re:Too bad.

[advocate_one]

So what about that license for your copy of ms-windows then... you only own the media that the program comes on... not the program itself. And I think you'll find that's pretty much a standard for most ms-windows software packages...

Re:Too bad.

[pair-a-noyd]

So sorry, I dumped M$ over a year and a half ago. No M$ products in my house or office.

I don't do business with terrorist organisations like M$..

Re:Monsanto Poison

[GeoGreg]

He probably meant that the fields in which the seeds were planted were sprayed with Roundup. Roundup is a weed-killer, so spraying the crop seeds wouldn't be particularly effective.

What if it were horses?

[phorm]

He harvested seeds from the crops so he could continue to benefit from it

The question is, then, if he had harvested seeds previously, or would have harvested them from the current crop anyhow. Yes, maybe he knowingly harvested Monsanto seeds... but would he have done so even if they were not Monsanto?

In different perspective, if farmer A's prized stallion gets into farmer B's yard and "fertilizes" B's mare... should B's be required not to breed from the resulting offspring? The only difference I see now is it is more of a case that A was borrowing C's stallion as a stud, but with the same benefit to B.

Now, you could claim "B" was in violation because he knowingly bred from enhanced offspring due to "contamination" caused by farmer "A" - but isn't that his right... to breed his own stock as if it were not "contaminated" because it is, in fact, his own stock, and the "contamination" was not his fault?

Send it back

[benvec]

Send the thing back and tell 'em to keep it. When enough buyers give some negative feedback on their license scheme, things will change.

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[JohnsonWax]

I've been looking to buy one of these soon, as it turns out.

TemplateMaster isn't a jig in the usual sense. It's a jig to make jigs. The problem with most jigs of this type (dovetailing, etc.) is that you tend to make a lot of passes with a powerful tool (a router) and sooner or later you'll screw up and route the shit out of your jig. When your jig costs $600, you're gonna be pretty pissed.

TemplateMaster lets you build jigs out of cheap materials and then use *those* until they wear out or you screw up. Then build a new one. The likelihood you'll ruin your TemplateMaster is much less since you really don't use it that often.

The problem is that you can use the TemplateMaster to make jigs out of substantial materials like aluminum that are viable for resale. Now, that's generally not a big issue - there are lots of products like that in the world - but if you make a product for production, you charge a hell of a lot of money for it since you know it'll have a limited market. This is designed for consumers and is actually very inexpensive even compared to other consumer jigs.

The mfgr is in a catch-22. He's made a product for consumers, but if it's picked up for production usage, it can seriously undermine his business.

Personally, I think he's going the wrong way with this. He *should* be making his own jigs from the TemplateMaster and selling those (in addition to the TemplateMaster), and use existing laws to block other manufacturers from making and selling identical products. Even if they don't sell, their existance should protect him, and who knows, maybe they will sell...

Two corrections...

[phorm]

A good judge will know that you aren't an attorney, and generally cut you a fair amount of slack.

This is true in two cases. (a) you get a good judge, not a corporate shill. The second is that you don't go LA Law or something similar, trying to act like a TV lawyer.

If you are a John Doe defending yourself, and you make some errors but are obviously doing your best, you probably get some slack and may even get helped/prompted along. If you try to act like the dude you saw on TV you'll probably get shot down a few times, and if you don't smarten up then you'll probably lose.

Research your own case, you don't have to know everything about lawyering, but you do need to know at least something about pertinent details to your case or type of case. Don't act like the dude on TV because it just looks ignorant.

REAL woodworkers make their own jigs

[csoto]

Usually out of scrap left around the floor. Even amateurs make their own.

Please help me fight word piracy.

[mnemotronic]

Obviously, this kind of thinking can go to far ....

LICENSE GRANT --This is a license, not a sales agreement, between you, the end user, and me. I grant to you a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use the Phrase "stick it where the sun don't shine" in accord with the terms set forth in this License Agreement. You may: a. use the Phrase in only one sentence ; b. make one (1) copy of the Phrase or sentence for backup purposes, provided that you reproduce all proprietary notices on the copy.

...etc...

Re: Simple: Value of Limited Use vs. Unlimited Use

[ultranova]

Why should companies be allowed to claim "it's not a sale, it's a license !" and thus be allowed greater power ? After all, nothing's changed but wording...

They might have a case...

[Anonymous Coward]

The EULA for the product, located here, claims that there are mulitple patents pending on the process.

The process doesn't look patentable to me, but you never know with the USPTO. Should they succeed in getting a patent, they can license their patent any way they see fit.

Without a patent, buy the product, take very good notes, return it, and copy it.

No a bad deal, and not so resellable anyway

[switcha]

I'm a fairly avid hack/woodworker myself, so I checked the site and read all the shpiel.

As far as I can tell, one of the neat benefits of this machine is the ability to create your own jigs, project by project, to length, as custom applications.

I have a Porter-Cable dovetail jig, that at times is very simple, but when doing wide joints and when trying to do half-blind dovetails, becomes a major pain in the arse. Lots of ticky-tacky measurements, setups, and adjusting. For strange pieces, it really is faster to get out the pecil, chisel, and backsaw and do it by hand.

If it's as easy as they say (and when is it ever?) to create a project specific jig, I'd say it's worth $40 if the project has more than a handful of joints (a couple drawers and you're already there).

Also, while the jig-jig ownership is a weird/wrong/etc., it sounds like the major use of this is to create a job specific jig, inherently not being very useful for resale, etc.

Nice ... hmmm, not really.

[royalblue_tom]

It's still the same product. You are telling them how they can use the *one* product they *bought* from you. Note that this isn't the same as a software company telling you how *many* instances of the piece of software you can use.

What you are advocating is either:

a) some customers subsidising other customers, or
b) being able to make more money off a specific customer group.

Neither is generally appreciated by the buyer who pays more (but liked by the customer who got the discount). Both are appreciated by the seller. This is generally why most products are sold fixed price, and why the only accepted discount is if you are buying in bulk - no one group of customers percieves that they are being ripped off.

It's interesting that the people who advocate being able to charge customers based on what they think the customer is willing/able to pay, are generally the ones who are against scalpers (who basically do exactly this), as the scalpers cut into *their* profit. This is despite the fact that the scalpers are generally loathed by the customers who find the prices outrageous (but have no other option of acquiring the product).

If you want to make your product available to the hobbyist who doesn't use it often, provide a rental option!

Re:Monsanto

[Anonymous Coward]

The organic movement will give you choice, much in the same way that OSS is giving computer users choice.

Everyone thank the dirty commie hippies, for we are your saviors.

Trespassed? Like the RIAA?

[jabber01]

So the RIAA has a precedent to lean on for snooping inside my computer?

Lovely.

Re:Monsanto Poison

[Anonymous Coward]

The way it works, is that any plant that you spray with Roundup withers and dies, except these modified varieties that can tolerate the herbicide. In the long run it's better because you can spray a smaller amount of a non-selective herbicide (Roundup), which is cheaper (less herbicide), and better for the environment (less herbicide).

Re: Simple: Value of Limited Use vs. Unlimited Use

[DrCode]

What they should do is provide different models for hobbiests and professional users. The cheaper one might be made of alluminum, and might wear out after a few 1000 hours of use (which a hobbiest would be unlikely to do). The 'professional' model would be made if titanium, cost 5 times as much, and would be suitable for 10's of thousands of hours.

+1 Pedantic :-)

[Dr. Evil]

No, we're both wrong!

Slightly more correct is that you can not only resell, redistribute, burn, eat or sodomize copyrighted material such as books, tapes, CDs, newspapers and so forth, but you can pay people to haul it away too!

What I of course meant to say was that you can't copy then redistribute those copies of a copyrighted work without the permission of the author.

Whereas these guys will probably argue that they never actually sold the product, they just 'licensed it out' under some terms which happen to prevent copying.

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[gte910h]

This is correct. I called up AAA trying to find out if I "had insurance that would allow my friend to borrow my car for a week" and they laughed, explaining that they haven't issued a "per person" insurance for over 30 years. All insurance is vehicle based, with rate determined by car type, major drivers, and type of common use.

EULAs for cars -- Rolls Royce!

[aquarian]

Few people know this, but Rolls Royce automobiles have had fairly strict EULAs in the past (I don't know if they still do). If you violate your EULA, Rolls can come take your car! Most of what's in the agreement has to do with protecting the RR brand and image. For example, you're not allowed to paint your Rolls gaudy colors, or stick "dub-deuces" on it, or have it upholstered in leopard skin. A Rolls must always be towed by a Rolls-approved towing company -- ostensibly to avoid damage, but the real reason is that a Rolls must always be covered while being towed -- so no one sees it! After all, a Rolls is the finest car in the world, and presumably never breaks down...

Dunno about Gray Poupon in the glovebox...

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[Thing 1]

Except it isn't your jig, now is it? It's their jig that you just broke and you'll probably have to buy them a new one.

And... if you can only lease the jig, you can't buy them a new one!

So the easiest answer is, once you get one, use it to duplicate itself, and then you've got a backup in case it breaks.

They won't be thrilled about people duplicating their efforts, but they'll have to deal with it. Once we achieve nanotechnology, any physical item will be easily copied. We're already halfway there, in a sense -- any digital item is easily copied, witness Kazaa and suprnova.org with music, movies, books, and software. Soon cars and desks and telephones will go the way of digital goods, you will be able to download plans and have your nano-box create it.

Two Words Come To Mind

[Compulawyer]

1. Completely 2. Unenforceable. In that order.

I'd LOVE to know the legal theory behind this one. Patent? Sorry - exhaustion doctrine. You have no further rights after you sell the patented item. Copyright? First sale / fair use / noncopyrightable material all come to mind. Trade secret? Sorry - you haven't kept anything secret.

From the description, it sounds like a sale to me - not any kind of licensing transaction. Last time I checked, when you bought something, you owned it. When you own it, you are free to do anything you want - including lend it to friends.

Dovetailing algorithms

[DrCode]

Actually, it doesn't take that much skill to make dovetails by hand. Like many other older woodworking procedures, there's a not-so-obvious algorithm that makes it possible, and which you can still learn from older books or articles in Fine Woodworking.

But it is slow and tedious (at least for me).

just sell the company

[patbob]

The tool is licensed, not sold, and customers cannot sell it or lend it to others

Sure only the original purchaser can use the tool. Sure they are not allowed to resell the tool. Of course, who's to stop a company from buying the tool. And I somehow don't think makers of such a tool could hold up the sale of a company over their tool. Well, perhaps a small wholly-owned holding company owned by an individual, but not a large conglomerate :-)

So now you don't sell the tool, you sell the holding company that owns the tool.

Re:Monsanto Poison

[Anonymous Coward]

In the long run it's better because you can spray a smaller amount of a non-selective herbicide (Roundup), which is cheaper (less herbicide), and better for the environment (less herbicide).

1. Wait for Roundup resistance gene to get transferred to weeds. (I believe Monsanto admits this will happen.)

2. Introduce new non-selective herbicide and resistant crop seeds (patented, so no need to worry about generic substitution).

3. Profit! (No ??? needed in this business plan.)

I Ran Accross Something Similar With Trademarks

[CrazyDuke]

I was helping my father refinish some floors the other day. That is his trade and business has been slow so I needed the extra money. While cutting sandpaper so it would be ready for the floor sanders I spotted something interesting. The usual black resonite sandpaper was purple. But that wasn't what bothered me.

On the back it said (approximately), "The color PURPLE is a trademark of the 3M corporation." What the FUCK? Colors are now trademarks? And I thought "Windows" was an overly broad trademark.

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[andcal]

I just got back from their website when I read your question. They won't replace the jig for free, but you might be surprised to find out that they will replace it for 1/2 the price of a new one. I was surprised by this.

Computer...

[Anonymous Coward]

Captain: COMPUTER EARL GREY TEA HOT
Computer: bleeeeeep flash
Captain: *sips*
Captain: mmmm, excellent tea computer
Captain: COMPUTER RECIPE FOR EARL GREY TEA
Computer: I'm sorry sir, that would violate the EULA

DMCA

[dv8ed]

Does this mean it's a DMCA violation to take apart a dovetail joint in a finished product? Couldn't you then reverse engineer the jig?

You got our cold?You will hear from our lawyers!

[andcal]

Moofie, I'm sure that the majority of Slashdot readers agree with you, but these farmers LOST these lawsuits! (at least the ones I heard about)
I heard about it a few YEARS ago, and I can't beleive that no senator or anyone has done anything about it!
I just hope that no company ever genetically develops a VIRUS that spreads among humans. With my luck, I will get the virus, and its DNA will be incorporated into some of my cells (like chicken pox or herpes) forever. Then the company will sue ME for inlicensed copying of its intellectual property.
I hope the virus doesn't attack any part of my body that I hold especially dear. I hear that the court ordered that the farmers' unlicensed crops be destroyed!

Re:Monsanto Poison

[Anonymous Coward]

MountainLogic wrote:

Round-up is a poision right? You spray the SEEDS with poison????!! You expect me to eat food from poisoned seeds????? Why would you do that to food?

Answering rhetorical(?) questions:

Yes, Roundup is a poison.

No, you don't spray the seeds with it. You spray the field with it. It kills almost every kind of plant except the crop, which has been genetically engineered to resist the herbicide.

I don't expect you to eat food from poisoned seeds.

Farmers do this in order to produce food more efficiently.

Re:Monsanto

[symbolic]

This is crazy....open source agriculture, anyone?

Seriously...why do Farmers use Monsanto products if it requires adherence to such a rediculous agreement? Aren't farmers capable of growing crops without Monsanto's help?

Re: Simple: Value of Limited Use vs. Unlimited Use

[Anonymous Coward]

Why shouldn't companies be able to charge different amounts for different licensing terms?

They should, and they do. A lot of high-end electronics test equipment is delivered with tons of capability, and you have to pay to get more circuits/speed turned on. IBM ships (or at least used to--I haven't checked in a while) mainframes fully-loaded with RAM and CPUs and you pay by the month/year for which ones you want turned on.

The thing is, those companies make you sign a contract in advance : a written, signed in ink, enforceable contract. They don't slap a "EULA" in the box that the user finds after delivery, if at all.

Sure, why only Media companies?

[serutan]

I saw this coming. Why should only content producers enjoy the right to control what customers do with their products? It's inevitable that other industries will want to get in on this game. From an Intellectual Property owner's point of view, it would be a big advantage to be able to forbid customers from using any products in ways other than intended, especially loaning them to other people who haven't paid up. And of course we'll all be happy to pay for the needed law enforcement, and to live in a world where we are punished for doing anything without paying somebody for permission.

In the American colonial days, King George forbade the manufacture of metal shovels and other tools so the colonists would have to import them from England. The response of some New Englanders was to make their own shovels out of wood. Twenty years from now, will it be a crime to build your own computer? Or to loan power tools to your neighbor, or watch his tv, or play a radio out the window? Yeah, it probably will, at least in the United States of Intellectual Property.

Pumping up their "asset" value

[AlbieWK]

Somehow I have the feeling all this has nothing to do with protecting a development investment. It probably has to do with their "management's" slick plan to kite an IPO. Much easier if they can show lots of asset value. Next step - float the notion of yearly license renewals! Then the asset value will get really huge.

Re:Monsanto

[srw]

> The difference between this and the "EULA"s in the article is that these are legally binding - they're presented before the sale, and they're signed by the purchaser.

What about people who claim it blew onto their property?

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[ilsa]

[norm_abram]

Be sure to read, understand, and follow all the instructions, safety rules, and EULAs that come with your power tools. Using power tools properly greatly reduces the risk of personal injury. And remember, there is no more important safety rule than to wear these, safety glasses.

[/norm_abram]

Norm, BTW, uses a Macintosh and makes a lot of his own jigs. He'll even sell you plans of how to make your own.

I have no idea whether there is a EULA on his measured drawings.

Re: Simple: Value of Limited Use vs. Unlimited Use

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Why shouldn't companies be able to charge different amounts for different licensing terms?

They are, but this product is not licensed, it is sold.

I would like to create a price structure that matches the price to the product's value for each customer.

Yes you would - this would optimize your revenue. However, you have no right to expect the governemnt to exert special effort to help you do this.

I may not like that some products come with restrictions, but I understand why companies do this and how it maximizes the number of people that can afford to buy the product.

This is only a secondary effect - the main reason for a price structure is to maximise profit.

Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further..." (Vader)

You are quite wrong. You can't change the terms of a contract after the fact without both parties consenting. In the cases you describe, the customer is notified way in advance, and given opportunity to decide if they agree. If they don't, then they have the time to pay up and cash out.

Take your phone bill, for example (land line, not cell phone). Most folks pay per month. In essence, the term of the agreement with the phone company is thus one month, and gets renewed automatically each month. When the company notifies you that they are changing terms, that is for the next and future agreements, to which you don't have to automatically agree.

Hope that clears things up.

Re:Monsanto

[pmz]

What you just described, with some word substitution, would be a good description of organized crime. Am I wrong?

Re:Monsanto

[pmz]

word substitution

And by this, I mean substituting "Monsanto" with any cartel or mafia organization that comes to mind. Rewording the whole thing would be kind of silly.

Re:Monsanto Poison

[pmz]

Round-up is a poision right?

If you look at the ingredients, it's basically a salt solution (not table salt, but similar in effect).

Re:Monsanto

[Rich0]

Except for hte fact that they do grow better.

I'm not saying that a proprietary food supply is the right idea. However, if there weren't something to Monsanto's products then nobody in the USA would be buying them. Most commercial US farms aren't in the business to find more people to pay royalties to for nothing...

Re:Monsanto

[Rich0]

Aren't farmers capable of growing crops without Monsanto's help?

And the answer of course is .... NO!

Suppose you see two packets of bannans in the store. One costs $5 a bunch, and the other $3. They are otherwise identical. You'd buy the $3 one. In reality, the $3 one would really sell for $2.50, except for the $0.50 paid to Monsanto. However, consumers don't mind because it is still cheaper than the $5 bananna that paid nothing to Monsanto.

Farmers buy genetically-enhanced crops because they are cheaper to raise. In this particular case, the crops are resistant to a powerful herbicide. That means the farmer can spray his fields with this herbicide and kill only the weeds - which means he needs less fertilizer since he is only growing crops and not weeds as well.

As far as open source agriculture goes - I'm all for it. But it would never work without substantial funding. This isn't IT - where anyone with a 3-year-old Pentium III that costs $300 can write their own operating system given enough volunteer time. Creating genetically-modified crops requires hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of lab equipment. If you want to be responsible about it you also need to spend millions of dollars to keep your test crops isolated so that you don't spread their seed into the enviroment before they are well-tested.

Volunteer-driven open-source only works for products where the main cost of development is manpower, since volunteer manpower is cheap. If you need machinery, you're out of luck. And anything scientific requires machinery.

That isn't to say you can't have commercial open source. If you gather a hundred million dollars and start up your own company you can maybe give that a try. But keep in mind that farmers tend not to call up tech support as much as programmers do, so selling services won't be easy...

You Know It's Time For Revolt...

[Flwyd]

... when an EULA prevents you from lending your hammer to your neighbor.

With the bad, some good.. but probably just bad.

[freality]

I must say that I see some good in applying the licensing model to traditionally owned physical products. Not for consumer rights, but for productivity and environmental benefit.

Licensed products represent a possible mechanism for "cradle-to-cradle" manufacturing techniques, wherein the products can be taken back by the manufacturer, de-manufactured and materials reused by the company. The book "Crade to Cradle" is a full development of this idea.

This is, of course, trying to make lemonande out of these lemons. A just as likely outcome, if not moreso, is that physical-good EULAs could be used to encourage, and possibly force, more consumption, by artificially limiting the use and or reuse of products. With the additional concern of the restrictions on property ownership, this would be particularly bad.

Pay-per-view sunlight. Bleh.

Re:Monsanto Poison

[pla]

If you look at the ingredients, it's basically a salt solution (not table salt, but similar in effect).

Though a salt, it works quite a lot differently than table salt, which can only kill plants by purely osmotic effects.

Roundup contains glyphosphate as its active ingredient. Glyphosphate gets taken in through the leaves and transported to the roots, where it strongly interferes with EPSP synthase, a fairly important enzyme that allows plants to process nutrients.

The GM soybeans in question contain one of two changes, either a glyphosphate-resistant form of EPSPS, or the ability to make glyphosphate oxidoreductase (an enzyme that breaks down glyphosphate).


Personally, I use glyphosphate when I have weeds that get out of control. As herbicides go, you can't get much more environmentally friendly - It only gets absorbed through the leaves (so it won't leech into the soil and kill plants you don't spray it on), it breaks down within a feaw months, it doesn't hurt humans...

As its only negative point, it takes several applications to kill dandelions. I swear, those things will survive longer than cockroaches! (Actually, I like dandelions, but the place I rent actually says in the rental agreement that I need to take care of excessive weeds). Works great on poinson ivy, though...

into the general gene pool

[kardar]

Is this off topic? Ouch. But it's interesting.

BTW - look for open-pollinated seeds and you are cool. Seeds of Change, etc... don't use hybrids, look for something that is specifically open pollinated, which means the seeds are designed to be saved. Hybrids are often patented and cannot be saved "legally", although some farmers can get hybrids to grow from seed, but it's harder to do. Those snow peas in your stir fry are a good example - those are all patented, I believe.

If Gentleman X can grow GMO ( Genetically Modified Organisms ) with no restrictions just because it falls on his land, is that OK? Should there be no restrictions on GMO? Anyone who wants to can grow GMO and doesn't have to register with anyone or tell their neighbors they are doing it, or anything? Doesn't sound right to me. Gentleman X has a resposiblity to tell his neighbors (who are also farmers) that he is growing GMO crops. GMO needs to be regulated in the sense that it needs to be known where GMO crops are being grown. I think there is reason to suggest that Monsanto is not the best organization to put in charge of the registering of GMO crops, perhaps a government agency should be better.

But anyone who suggests that any individual has the right to grow GMO crops simply because the genes landed on their property is advocating a potenitally serious and devastating technology be let loose in the wild to mess with the general gene pool. This is not just about money, it's about whether GMO enters the general gene pool. Obviously, since the modification of the canola oil plants help the farmers out ( free them up to use Roundup when they want without fear of killing their crop ), they don't mind :) -- but they should at least register somewhere and let their neighbors know they are doing it. GMO crops are still experimental, and they should not be allowed to enter the general gene pool. Monsanto is making sure that doesn't happen right now. So either Monsanto does it, or someone else does it, but someone's gotta do it. Since Monsanto sells the seeds, it makes sense that they keep track of where they are being grown, and that they place controls on those that are growing them. Yes, they ask farmers for money. No, it's not fair. But we are still at a point where we need to keep track of who is growing GMO and who isn't.

umm, WHY did they license it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, the REALLY stupid part of this is...

This is a tool and methd that has been around for a LONG time for marking and creating dovetails. Why the company thinks they have any kind of nifty neato keen idea is beyond me. I have a jig JUST like this one sitting in my dads garage from my grandfather. I have NO idea exactly HOW old it is.... ;-P

Re:Monsanto

[pla]

Hypothetical querstion...

Soybeans exist as the seed itself. To grow soybeans, you plany soybeans, correct?

So, what stops me from buying "food" and simply planting it? Yeah, you mentioned that they make the seeds infertile, but that will have some fallout rate, such that the second gen might only get a few plants, but most of the third gen seeds will remain viable.

In that situation, I have not signed a contract with you, with Monsanto, not even with the farmer (I'll starve to death before I sign a contract for a package of edamame).

So, as the end user, with no contract to restrict my use of the "food" I buy, what stops me from simply using these seeds to grow crops? The way I see it, Monsanto can enforce their terms only because of contracts throughout the entire chain of production. What closes this seemingly trivial loophole?

Ah...You're right. He should burn his crop!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes,
The only "moral" thing to do was for him to burn his crop, and do so every year any pollen blew into his fields...

Funny

[BCW2]

This is even less enforcable than the RIAA's crap. Woodworkers, (yes, I do some of that too) share everything, ideas, plans, tools....... If I loan a tool to a friend how could anyone find out? If I make a jig and give or sell it to someone, how could you show that iused their tool? This is idiocy in action.

Supremes have already passed on this

[jhylkema]

/* DISCLAIMER

This is not legal advice. You are not a client. I'm not even an attorney. If you want legal advice, contact an attorney admitted to the bar in your jurisdiction. What I am saying here is probably 100% wrong and if you do anything based on it, you are a blitering idiot who deserves whatever bad shit is very likely to befall you.

DISCLAIMER */

Now that that's out of the way . . .

The US Supreme Court passed on this issue long ago. In the case of Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'Anza Research International, Inc.. Apparently, Quality King Distributors was re-importing hair care products that were sold by US manufacturers overseas at a deep discount. Quality King got sued, and the US Supreme Court unanimously told them tough shinksi. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Stevens explained that

Indeed, we first endorsed the first sale doctrine in a case involving a claim by a publisher that the resale of its books at discounted prices infringed its copyright on the books. Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908). In that case, the publisher, Bobbs-Merrill, had inserted a notice in its books that any retail sale at a price under $1.00 would constitute an infringement of its copyright. The defendants, who owned Macy's department store, disregarded the notice and sold the books at a lower price without Bobbs-Merrill's consent. We held that the exclusive statutory right to "vend" applied only to the first sale of the copyrighted work . . .

So these guys don't have a leg to stand on and any case brought to enforce it would be laughed out of court. It was probably ginned up by some semi-literate shyster attorney who thought "it work fuh that sofweah, by golly dag gum it'll wuk fuh us!" Sorry.

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[rpillala]

They'll cover those costs by passing them on to you. If your "buying" the jig weren't masquerading as buying the jig, there might be some kind of deal to be worked out. As regards insurance. As it is now, they write the deal. "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

Ravi

Re:Ah...You're right. He should burn his crop!

[clambake]

Yes,
The only "moral" thing to do was for him to burn his crop, and do so every year any pollen blew into his fields...

NO! The "moral" thing to do is patent your own minor gene modification and plant right next to them with large bladed fans blowing pollen onto thier fields all day... Then stand out front of thier offices with a team of lawyers and some large sacks in which to take home your money.

Re:Monsanto Poison

[pmz]

Thanks for the informed reply. The important thing is that Round-up isn't some nasty terrible chemical like the original poster was trying to claim.

Re:Nice ... hmmm, not really. (Value vs. Cost)

[G4from128k]

Re: still the same product:

Actually, the license makes this untrue to the extent that the license is a binding contract. It is said that nobody "wants to buy a drill, they want to buy a set of holes" In the case of this product, the seller is selling the right for one person to make certain wood products for their own use. Perhaps the company should offer two versions of the product, a cheap "single user" model and a more expensive "neighborhood" model. Then people could choose which license made sense and not feel they were unilaterally prohibited from lending the product to their friends.

Re: advocating subsidies or making more money of some people

Yes, those are two ways to look at it. You could also look at it as the high-paying group paying for the up-front capital costs, and the low-paying group only paying the recurring costs (this is what happens in airline revenue management systems). The variable price model seems to create unfair opportunities for the seller to profit. But the fixed price model creates unfair opportunities for customers to profit. I would argue that a professional cabinet-making shop profits more from a jig than does a weekend hobbyist. The difference between the retail price and the value (the higher price one would be willing to pay) is the extra profit the buyer gets if they get it for less.

Re: most products sold at a fixed price:

This is only seems true in the world of consumer retail goods. It is not true with EBay, car dealers, airlines, stock markets, commodities markets, or in industrial sales. It's not even that true around the world -- haggling is still alive and well. Now that I think of it, its not even as true in retail anymore since retailers can quickly change the prices of goods to differentiate between customers willing buy now or wait til later (just watch how gasoline prices vary across the weekdays if you don't believe me). Worldwide and across the economy, I would argue that most products are sold with some value-of-usage differentiation in the final stages of pricing.

Re: scalpers

I have no problem with scalpers since they seem to be an artifact of the flawed fixed-price system. Worse, the illegality of scalping creates a lack of transparency in the market that actually conspires to create those outrageous prices. Personally, I'd advocate a periodic Dutch auction process for primary sales with a bid-ask secondary market, but that's just me.

The real issue is: should prices be determined by the cost-of-production (i.e. fixed profit margins for the seller) or the value-of-usage (i.e. fixed profit margins for the buyer)?

Interesting historical footnote

[Anonymous Coward]

The very first product that Microsoft brought out was a BASIC compiler that compiled TRS-80 Basic(before GW). Microsoft tried to collect a royalty from all sales of the compiled program ... Needless to say this tactic met strong resistance from developers, and was withdrawn.

You nailed it.

[YouHaveSnail]

Obviously they think that their master form is an original pattern, and that copying is is analogous to photocopying a book. That is: they consider the pattern, rather than the metal of the form to be the thing of value.

The sentiment above is quite right. The thing that's interesting about the template is its shape. The plastic from which it's made is, quite arguably, only the medium used to transmit the shape from the company to the user. In this sense, the Dove Tail MasterTemplate is quite like software, which is also carried to the user on bits of plastic, and which is nevertheless distinct from that plastic.

Router templates are susceptible to wear and to damage from a misguided router, so the idea with this template is that you first make one or more copies, and then you use those copies to cut the actual dovetail joints. So long as you're careful with the master, it should last a lot longer than it would if you used it directly to cut dovetails (which you could certainly do). You normally would make the copy from plastic, hardboard, or plywood, but you could also use a soft metal such as aluminum.

I'd have to say it would want to be a pretty amazing form.

It's not all that different from most other dovetail templates, but it is nevertheless different enough that I think they can claim it's original. One nice feature (especially since you can make multiple copies of the master) is that you can place multiple templates end to end to make one long template. Where most dovetail templates have regularly-spaced "fingers" that protrude from a central spine, this one connects the fingers at their ends, presumably for stability.

I think that the real problem for this company is that they're trying to use an EULA in a market where that's not at all expected. You walk into a woodworking store, you pick something off the shelf and pay for it, and you assume that you then own it and can do whatever you like with it. The store owner thinks of himself as a salesman, not a leasing agent. I hope they have the good sense to clearly state the restrictions on the package, and also to be flexible in enforcement (i.e. it should be okay to give or sell your master, so long as you also transfer with it or destroy any copies you've made).

Two words....

[UrGeek]

...the first is a gerand used as an adjective of a vulger verb that violations Slashdot's TOS, so I will not type it here but it is commonly known as the "f-word".
And last word is "INSANE"!

Re:You got our cold?You will hear from our lawyers

[Moofie]

Hmmm, you mean a farmer scratching out a subsistence living from his land lost a lawsuit to a multinational corporation with hot and cold running lawyers? You don't say!

Yes, I've been paying attention to this for some years. We all worry about Microsoft, but Monsanto and their ilk are not going to be happy until they control our food supply. These guys are seriously evil.

And you wondered why?

[theolein]

You were perhaps wondering why people like the agricultural activist Jose Bove in France is so popular for demolishing GM crops and why the whole of Europe is utterly against GM foods and why even starving countries like Ethiopia and Zimbabwe don't want fucking GM flour? They are well aware that if they fall into this trap they are then legal captives of some motherfucking pig corporation which has a pig of a politician in its pocket that has no qualms using his fucking army to invade other fucking countries who don't want to sell their souls to big corporation.

FUCK MONSATO! They are one of the causes of terrorism because poor people have had enough of being abused.

Re:Monsanto

[HaveNoMouth]

This is why I think Monsanto is hands-down the most evil corporation on the planet. Only Monsanto, through their technology and their policies, has the ability to essentially sterilize a good fraction of the planet's food-producing capacity and thereby cause billions to die of starvation. Microsoft is merely a clueless wanna-be when it comes to this degree of evil.

All hail the mighty Monsanto!

Re:Nit pick: No, slavery still isn't unconstitutio

[TygerFish]

Interesting nits and you picked them well. You obviously possess knowledge of the law.

However, do you dissagree with the broader point or principle that clickakable/shrink-wrap EULAs are a retrograde development in the progress of laws towards a greater fairness or a balancing of the powers of the consumer against the producer?

One thing I think I failed to make as clear as I should have is my belief that EULAs are a trick, a device with a set of parts which lead to a planned conclusion.

Just as a lathe is a device used to shave matter into a desired shape, a EULA, reshapes the provisions of product liability and other laws to reduce the rights of the consumer.

Any thoughts.

You can make a viola with a jig. Or a cello.

[jonskerr]

"... to make a jig, and viola, no stupid restrictions."

For some reason many slashdotters reverse the vowels in Voila.

Re:You can make a viola with a jig. Or a cello.

[TechnoSpud_001010000]

And, unfortunately, many Slashdotters don't give a flying fuck. Have a nice day! 8)

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of like those anti-spam ads I get in my email.

Ummm...

[alexo]

EULAs on physical objects?
I wonder what happend to the First Sale Doctrine.

Tool piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone stole my tool once. I was not pleased.

Well, maybe a little bit.

If it's hardware . . .

[Bagheera]

If it's a hardware, physical, device, I'm not sure how their licensing scheme can apply. It's a THING, not a piece of code. Worse, the "can't lend, sell, etc.," won't fly. If I have the physical object I CAN bloody well sell it if I want to. Even the idiot software EULA's usually state I can sell the software as long as I remove it from my system. In this case, if I sell the physical object, I certainly don't have it any more.

These clowns could learn a lot from the folks who wrote Poser. They have a "Like a book" license. You can't have it -running- on more than one system at a time, but you can use it, install it, loan it, whatever, as long as you "treat it like a book." ie. Only one person can be reading it at a time.

Now, without delving into their hardware itself, and the insanity of putting a EULA on a physical object, I'll say this even conceptually is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. It's almost as bad as SCO's "derivitave works" crap. Or the RIAA trying desperately to piss off their users.

"If you use our jig to make a jig, you can't let anyone else use that jig."

Fuck you very much. I made it. I'll do whatever I want to with the stuff I MAKE. Like, say, make more jigs . . .

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[smiff]

but if you make a product for production, you charge a hell of a lot of money for it since you know it'll have a limited market. This is designed for consumers and is actually very inexpensive even compared to other consumer jigs.

Market share is irrelavent. The company's real expense is production, not design. People have been making dove-tail joints for centuries. For all we know, they could have used someone else's jig to make theirs.

The reason for restrictions on copying, is that it tends to cost a fortune to design the original. The creator must be able to control the supply in order to recoup the cost of creating the original. That isn't the case with a dove-tail jig.

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[Anonymous Coward]

Just use children. They can not legally be bound by any contract.

Way offtopic history nitpick.

[jmorris42]

> As to the amendment being passed to "solve the argument", it was
> actually passed for a much different reason: As a tactic by the US
> Federal Government to weaken the Confederate States of America during
> the "Civil War/War Between the States".

Please don't refer to it as the "Civil War". That is Yankee propaganda. A Civil war is when two or more factions engage in a war over the machinery of government. The CSA had zero designs on Washington DC or any of the northern nation-states. Personally I prefer "War of Northern Aggression" but "Failed War for Southern Independence" also works. :) Both have an implied slight against the Damned Yankee conquerers.

But more seriously, you have a factual error in there. You have the Emancipation Proclamation confused with an actual Constituitional Amenment. The Emancipation Proclamation was a legally void propaganda piece designed to disuade France (always an unreliable ally) from extending diplomatic recognition to the CSA and thereby ratcheting the blockade of Southern ports to a whole new level of difficulty. (The French navy of the time would have been a formidible foe to the Union fleet.) Go re-read it sometime! It only freed slaves in states "in rebellion", i.e. places where US law held no sway. The actual Amendment was passed AFTER the war, during "Reconstruction" where the subject states were forced at gunpoint to pass the amendment so that it would have enough votes to be ratified, seeing as not enough Northern states had any interest in passing it.

Lincoln was a monster. Booth's only problem was not shooting the bastard a few years earlier when it would have done some good. Anybody who thinks Clinton getting blown in the Oval Office stained the dignity of the office simply doesn't know enough history to know what sort of dubious characters preceeded him.

Re:Monsanto

[TechnoSpud_001010000]

Hear, hear. Ever heard of the Monsanto links with the Nazis in WWII? Well, maybe not exactly the company as it is today, but one of its founders did have links with the 3rd Reich. And they made the commercially-acceptable neuropoison Nutrasweet, aka Aspartame. Corporate America: Just Say No!

Just had to be a company in Ky...

[Terrawatt]

I just wanted to let everyone know that not everyone in KY is an idiot. Some of us are quite intelligent. The idiots are just really dumb. :(

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[richie2000]

And... if you can only lease the jig, you can't buy them a new one! So the easiest answer is, once you get one, use it to duplicate itself, and then you've got a backup in case it breaks.

Point. So, make a backup and if the original gets lost/stolen/broken or they revoke your license for some other reason, you can return the copy to them. :-)

Well thought out response, thank you!

[royalblue_tom]

Haggling:

This seems to be wherever the business you are dealing with actively employs an empowered salesperson. I've never found airline/broker/industrial sales that would offer me money off, unless a competitor was cheaper, or I was buying in bulk (the good customer discount) - in short, not really haggling, but price matching (not quite the same).

It comes down to whether the seller can afford to change prices on the fly - usually it requires high ticket items to justify the cost of a salesperson. Any small value object is going to be fixed cost - imagine a supermarket where everyone haggled over the price of every object. Lines at the counter would be unending.

Who profits more:

Neither the cabinet shop or the hobbyist gets more from the jig (they both have a jig, for the same amount of time). Rather the cabinet shop makes more advantage of the product they bought. If I buy a car, but I'm not going to drive it that often, should I pay less for the car than someone who will drive more miles?

As I said, if the hobbyist only uses the product infrequently, a rental model would be better. But artificially limiting the use of something, that you are in possession of at all times has never been a winner in the consumer sweepstakes (look at divx (not the format, the product)).

cost-of-production vs. value of usage:

Again, this is a buyer versus seller issue. The country was sold on capitalism - "let the market decide", and force the sellers to compete in their offerings - thus, the price is based on how cheaply the good can be offered, and not how much can be extracted from the buyer. Only through collusion (monopoly, cartel) and price fixing (dumping, regulatory) is this strategy sidestepped (Oil a good example).

Where an informed customer *can* be charged more than other customers based solely on their individual circumstances (other than location, and required quantity) implies that the sellers are conspiring to increase the price for that customer, since another seller should in theory compete for the business at a lower price. Note that this does assume that the customer makes an effort to find the best price.

Re:Well thought out response, thank you!

[G4from128k]

You, too, raise very good points.

Yes, the cost of the salesperson/volume-of-sales issue drives the economics of haggling and makes fixed-price consumer retail the norm. What is interesting, if offtopic, is the role of technology in dropping the cost of haggling. Currently it takes a skilled salesperson to eyeball the customer and try to hold the price at a high level if the customer looks well dressed and acts unconcerned about price. But in the future more companies might tap into face recognition/callerID and past purchasing records or credit reports to automatically decide how to treat each customer (some call centers already do this).

I did not mean to suggest that airlines haggle. But airlines are the posterchild for the type of same-product different price schemes that this thread seems to be talking about. The entire 14-day advance purchase, non-refundable, Saturday night stay stuff is all about trying to segment price-sensitive holiday travellers from deep-pocketted business travellers. Although not as bad now, in the past there was as much as a 10:1 ratio in the pricing of otherwise indentical sets in coach.

Re: Who profits more.

Imagine two for-profit woodworking companies, a 3 person one and a 30-person one. Both need one of these jigs, yet the 30-person shop gets 10-times the use from it. Looking at profitability, the 3-person shop has to take the cost of the jig out of a much smaller number of sold products and is less profitable as a result.

I guess what I am try to say is that the profit associated with an item is the difference between its cost and its value. If it costs $100 to make a jig that is worth $200 (I can sell it for that), then I get $100 profit. If a $200 jig lets me make a bunch of furniture that is profitable, then I would ascribe part of the profit to that jig. A bigger workshop gets more value from the jig and thus it ascribes greater total profit to buying that well-used jig.

Re: buyer vs. seller issue.

Exactly right! What I would add is that sometimes (more often than one might think) it is the buyers who are competing. This is a competition based on value - the buyer who can find the most value for a scare commodity is willing to pay the highest price. Its usually a great system (in the invisible hand sense) for allocating resources to uses. The only sucky sides are that sometimes rich SOBs buy up all of a public resource (e.g., the tickets to cultural events) and that sometimes the dynamics of price setting get screwed up by emotion and we get nasty price bubbles or hyperinflation.

All in all, I think that you and I agree on many of the issues. As a matter of good customer service, these EULAs don't seem like a winner. Unilateral restrictions on a product that I have bought and consider mine seem more likely to enrage customers that create loyal customers. Perhaps we only disagree on the rights of a sellers to sell a given products on different contractual terms that differentiate among buyers who ascribe different value to the product.

Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion!

Re:Nit pick: No, slavery still isn't unconstitutio

[Loki_1929]

"The logical argument from "all men are created equal [before the law]" does not lead to "No man can be another's property." Instead it leads to "No man can be BORN another's property."

You forget how that line continues,

"...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Ergo, it is understood that no man is created better than another, that they are given rights by their creator which cannot be surrendered (such as the right to live, the right to liberty, and the right to persue happiness), and that the purpose of government is to ensure these rights remain secure. The purpose of government is to ensure the life and liberty of all Men which it governs. Liberty is freedom within a social context, which basically means your freedoms are restricted only insofar as they do not interfere with the rights or liberties of others. Thus, we conclude that the purpose of government is to end slavery, which is intrinsically counter to the principles of liberty.

"also banning temporary or permanent voluntary slavery "

Voluntary servitude is most certainly allowed under this amendment. Within the phrase 'voluntary servitude' is the idea that the individual is choosing to do as their dominant, master, etc orders them to do. What this amendment states is that the master, dominant, etc cannot use force or coercion to cause their will to be carried out by the 'slave'. If I order you to do something, you can make the choice to either do it or not do it. If you choose to do it, the government cannot step in and stop you on the grounds that it would constitute a violation of your 13th amendment rights. That much deals with the wording of what you said, but we must also look towards the meaning.

The military is a perfect example of proof that your statement is false. Forget about the draft for a moment, and let's simply look at the armed forces we currently have. As of right now, all US military personnel are engaged in a bit of temporary 'voluntary' slavery (as in they volunteered to become 'slaves' inasmuch as they take orders which they are forced to follow). If they do not follow the orders they're given in peacetime or in a peaceful area, they may face a court martial and jail time, along with loss of pay and benefits. If they fail to follow orders on the battlefield, they may find themselves being shot on site. Yet this is all perfectly legal and acceptable to virtually every American. Rather amazing, isn't it?

"Ditto irrevocable powers of attorney."

I assure you that any such 'irrevocable' powers of attorney can be dealt with rather swiftly in a courtroom. One must merely prove that one is of sound mind to revoke the powers.

Re:Don't you get protections with a licensed produ

[Anonymous Coward]

STate Farm disagrees.
They tell me that My auto coverage lets me drive my fathers POS and he can drive my POS and be covered by his company.