Unless it is a straight 'money for unrestricted physical item(s)', consumer protection laws will kick in and usually require some sort of signed contract, or at least an explicit oral one.
Implied contracts entered into at stores at point of sales have nowhere near as much latitude as other contracts.
The problem here is that the refiller probably couldn't bring that up, as they themselves didn't purchase the cartridges.
Just asserting that something is an enforcable contract does not, in fact, make it enforcable.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and claim that merely asserting something almost never makes it true.
If it's a contract, when did you enter it? At the poitn of sale?
Nope, can't do that. If a retail sale is anything other than a simple exchange of money for unrestricted goods, consumer protection laws kick in and usually require some sort of signed contract.
When you opened the box?
Nonsense...what did you get in consideration at that point? You already owned everything in your hand, and the contract took away your ownership in return for...what? It's not a valid contract unless both sides get something.
Lexmark offers consumers a choice. They can buy the cartridge at the regular price without any restrictions on what they do with it or they can buy it at a discounted price, in return for which their box will have some different words on the side, which, like all labeling on products, they are free to disregard.
Erm, I don't know in what universe you live in, but old automobiles are in fact one of the best supported 'old things' out there. You can purchase 80 year old vehicles and buy parts for them. Try getting parts for a ten year old TV or a 30 year old fridge.
Granted, sometimes it's not the original manufacturer, but I fail to see why they should have to step in when the aftermarket is doing so well. (Assuming the original manufacturer still exist, that is.)
And one reason people throw away cars in instead of repairing them is that they get better. Use a lot less resources, for one thing. Pollute less. (Do you know that something like 80% of all car pollution is made by 20% of bad cars?) And, no, we can't upgrade existing ones in place. Some parts we can, like radios and seats, but you can't go out and purchase a part that gives you 4 more mpg.
And cars end up in scrapyards, where they are stripped of parts so other cars can remain on the road. They are then crushed, the cubes are shipped and melted down, and the metal used for other purposes. We are not burying cars in landfills. In fact, landfills do not accept cars. As scrapyards will take any broken car for free or the cost of a tow, though, that's not important. (You'd have to have it towed anyway.)
And cell phones aren't 'artificially locked', whatever that means. They aren't 'supported' for repairs, because it's idiotic to have a support market for something that costs 30 dollars and is made of plastic. There isn't 'cheap kitchen chair' support, or 'tennis shoe' support either. It's nothing to do with society, it's the fact many things cost more to repair than they cost to replace.
But cell phones can easily be transfered as long as they are good. I can make my cell account use any phone by filling out a simple field on my provider's web site with the number thingy on the phone. I've had three so far, the second two as upgrades from people who purchased better phones.
Ergo, your two examples are idiotic. There might be a good example of what you are talking about, but neither cell phones or cars are it. Refridgerators might be a good example, do some research there. Or stereos.
I don't mean to be insulting, but, yes, the DMCA did alter rights of first sale. That is, in fact, one of the major problems with it.
It is perfectly legal for, say, DivX (The original) to sell DVDs that can only operate X times, and sue people under the DMCA who crack that.
Likewise, it is pefectly legal for Lexmark to make 'a copyrighted work' that only functions for X times, or X days, or as until the cartridge is empties the first time, and sue people who crack it.
This is called 'circumventing an access control device' and is illegal under the DMCA. It's not quite as bad as 'circumventing a copy control device', but it's still illegal.
The only reason that might not work is that the court might not count it as 'access'. After all, it's staying within Lexmark's printer.
'Contracts of sale' only can have money on one side and material goods on the other.
I quote the 2-106 of the UCC:
(1) In this Article unless the context otherwise requires "contract" and "agreement" are limited to those relating to the present or future sale of goods. "Contract for sale" includes both a present sale of goods and a contract to sell goods at a future time. A "sale" consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price (Section 2-401). A "present sale" means a sale which is accomplished by the making of the contract.
First of all, the first line merely means that in the 'contract of sales' section, when they mention 'contract', they are only talking about 'contracts of sale' and no other ones. Like, duh.
Second of all, let's not get distracted by the 'future' stuff. The sale is happening when the goods and money change hands. In fact, that is how you are accepting the offer. If you are truly bound by the box, it must be at the sale. (That is, you must be bound, at the sale, to follow the terms of the box, when you open it. Somewhat odd, logically, but works, and that's what the court said.)
So here's the important bit: A "sale" consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price.
It is not a barter of two material goods, it is not a promise to do any action (except possible deliever the goods, which is discussed specifally later on.), it can include nothing but goods on one side and money on the other. Anything else can be a contract, but not under the category of 'contract of sale'.
And, purchasing Lexmark cartridges is now, logically, not a 'contract for sale'. Because it also include your promise to follow the terms on the side of the box when you open it.
I don't know what the circuit court was smoking this time, but their logic does not hold water. Contracts for sale are defined quite specifically in the UCC, and that ain't it.
Why didn't they just declare it another kind of contract? Because, retail purchases without specific agreements have always been 'implied present contract of sales'. If they tried to claim it was any other sort of contract, they'd get shot out of the water by consumer protection laws, which don't allow consumers in stores to enter implied contracts like that.
No, you're actually somewhat correct. Or, at least, the other guy is somewhat wrong with his link.
A 'contract of sale', or as it's called in the UCC, 'contract for sale', is not talking solely about what happens in a store. A contract of sale is when two people agree to a contract, asserting that one of them will provide some goods, and the other some money. It's merely a specific type of contract that has mere money on one side and mere material goods on the other, and nothing else.
A retail purchase is, and can only be, an implied contract for sale. In fact, it has to be a specific type of contract for sale, a 'present sale' one. Anything else has to be explicitly stated.
However, in addition to being covered by those laws, it is also covered under completely different laws, consumer protection laws. These laws are very different. Many things are legal in a contract, even a normal contract for sale, that are not legal in a retail situtation, and sometimes vis versa.
For example, if the cash register rings up values that do not match the listed prices, and purchaser accepts the contract by paying the money and walks away, and then notices, they can get the 'contract' magically retroactively altered to show those those price, and get their money back. No, that's not just store policy, that's the law.
Which is just completely absurd in a normal contract. If I write one that says you'll pay me X money for Y, and we agree, and then you notice that I normally sell them for X/2, you're screwed.
And despite some people thinking otherwise, posting prices on goods in a store is not an 'offer', and that's not why they have to fix errors. The offer in a store is when they tally up the total, for the purposes of contract law.
If purchases were purely normal contracts for sales, vending machines make no sense at all.
Someone needs to come out with 'rent a minor', where you can collect a bunch of stuff that asserts it is 'licensed' and has 'contracts', and a 17 year old comes by with a video camera and records themselves agreeing to EULAs and opening printer cartridges and whatnot.
And, no, that would not count as you doing it. If you hired them as part of a business and they interacted with customers, yes, you'd be bound to what they agreed to.
But you cannot hire someone to sign contracts as you without actually giving them power of attorney, which requires you to file documents and you cannot do to minors anyway. No, they'd be agreeing as themselves, and, as minors, are not legally bound by contracts.
Of course, you don't want to be accused of attempt to defraud anyone, so they should be certain to repeat 'I am a minor, I am not legally bound by this contract', on the video. Maybe they could also wear a bright red hat saying 'Warning: Minor. Not legally bound by contracts.' Then they give the people offering the contract at least 30 seconds to respond or withdraw the completely moot contract.
Which is rather unlikely as those people are not there, but, hey, some things cannot be helped.
It's probably because they got sued because someone assumed there was magical refills inside the box. It's just one of those goofy warning messages, right?;)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, 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. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Of course, that's the kind of stuff that gets non-citizens 'disappeared' nowadays.
Speaking for fun line from that document, here's one that can't but make me think of this hurricane situtation: [King George] has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
Those labels didn't make it illegal. They are just warning you that you can take the product provided and use it illegally. Legitimate manufactures do not care what you use their product for.
Although that's a bit idiotic. There are plenty of things that it's possible to use illegal, and they not only don't have the warning, they don't even have an indication on the label how you should use them.
I.e., knifes. Nothing on a box of kitchen knifes says not to use them to stab people, or even to use them to cut food. There is no explanation of their use whatsoever.
I suspect those warnings are purely due to the rather stupid drug laws we have in this country that has resulted in teenager purchasing any every day item that kills brain cells and using it for that purpose, instead of just safely boozing it up.
They've been shot down trying to keep other cartridges out of their printers.
However, the precedent that they have a 'copyright program' inside their cartridge stands. If the 'ink empty' detection is a 'access control device' to the program in the cartridge, you can still be in violation of the DMCA if you reset it.
Think of it this way: If DVD players could only play encrypted DVDs, you can argue that making your own DVDs with CSS on it is legal, and not a violation of the DMCA, because you merely need that for interopability.
However, that doesn't make a program, that takes any DVD and resets the region to none, legal. (Pretending you could write to DVDs.)
The ink cartridges, in this example, is the DVD with CSS. It has a program on it that lets the printer operate. Cheating your way around this program is legal for your own stuff, to make them work in Lexmark printers.
It's probably still not legal to go in and tamper with Lexmark's program, though. Tampering with Lexmark's programs to make them work on Lexmark's printer would be seen as circumventing an access control device.
(Of course, Lexmark could get around the DMCA recent court decision easily. All it would need to do is have the, in addition to the printer trying to access a program in the cartridge, the cartridge have a tiny CPU and try to access the printer first. Putting in a non-Lexmark cartridge would require it to circumvent the printer's access control device, instead of just faking the cartridge's access control device, which is now legal.)
I've gone shopping for printers with at least three different people. Each time I said 'Don't get Lexmark, they're suing people who offer cheaper printer ink for their printers.'.
While many of the legal discussions about computers are incomprehensible to normal folk, they tend to understand that one.
As that suit fell through, I've been rather at a loss as to what to say to discourage their purchase, and, here come Lexmark with a gift from heaven. I no longer have to leave out the fact the first suit has been settled against Lexmark, lest people think Lexmark clean up their act.
Now I can just talk about this lawsuit. Let's see...how about 'Lexmark thinks they own your printer cartridges, and that it is illegal for you to have them refilled.'
Lexmark will never under any circumstances ever get a dime of my money, and I absolutely even refuse to accept anyone I'm 'helping shop from computers' get one. I'd probably just walk out of the store on them if insisted, and say 'You're on your own now.'
Almost everything that says 'not for individual sale' is because it would not be legal to sell the product in such conditions. For example, without health information on food.
Of course, now that apparently has the force of law, also.
4. Pray that additional vacancies occur within the Supreme Court.
5. Pray that those who oppose biblical truth would retire from the Supreme Court and be replaced by those who honor God's law.
See, you're right, he's praying that people he opposes retires.
See, people don't voluntarily retire in the Suspreme Court when they are worried about their replacement...
Justices retire whenever they wish to and only if they wish to.
Oh, wait, there isn't one. Judges retire when they wish to. One of the things, obviously, that would make some Justices not wish to retire is the possiblity Bush will appoint someone they do not approve of to fill their shoes.
Robertson must agree with who he thinks Bush will appoint, and therefore must disagree with exactly the Justices unlikely to retire because they don't want their replacement appoint by Bush. Ergo, it must be those Justices he's talking about, even if God misunderstood him and took out Rehnquist.
Ergo, we must conclude that the Justices that Robertson does not approve of are unlike to voluntarily retire. This is an obvious conclusion to anyone but defenders of that asshole.
However, I point you to his own prayer points list:
4. Pray that additional vacancies occur within the Supreme Court.
5. Pray that those who oppose biblical truth would retire from the Supreme Court and be replaced by those who honor God's law.
Hrm. He seems to be praying for retirement and for vacancies to occur. That certainly seems a little telling.
You dumbass. People don't retire from the court when they think a president will appoint someone they disagree with, unless they have to.
Let's check the people who have retired from the Supreme Court in the last fifty years:
Sandra Day O'Connor: Retired now so she'd do it with a republican in office.
Arthur Joseph Goldberg: Resinged at the reqeust of the president to do work in Vietnam.
Abe Fortas: Resigned in scandal, under the threat of impeachment.
Charles Evans Whittaker: Retired from exhaustion.
James F. Byrnes: Left to run the New Deal at president's request.
So, let's strike out the people who were scooped up by the president, as that does not seem incredibly likely to happen to a Justice who does not operate in Bush's world.('Hey, you liberal judge, you want to run Health and Human Services?' 'Are you just trying to get me to retire to appoint a new judge, and will immediately fire me from this new position?' 'Um...no, of course not....damn.')
And O'Connor probably has health reasons, but let's just assume she's retiring so she can have her replacement appointed by a republican. We'll assume that motive is also not open to liberal judges, as that makes no sense.
So we are left with: Death, poor health, and serious scandal.
Which one was Robertson praying for, again?
Not death, you say, so was it some sort of incapacitating illness? Perhaps they could be given cancer, like O'Connor. But God is merciful, after they resign I'm sure he will send it into remission now that they can no longer do Satan's work.
Or should they resign because they took bribes? Which either implies Robertson either thinks they are taking bribes, which a total absurd and libelous posistion for him to be promoting on the air, or he's praying to God that members of the Supreme court should start taking bribes, or he's praying they should be suspected for taking bribes and forced out of office when they aren't. Which one is it?
See, people don't voluntarily retire in the Suspreme Court when they are worried about their replacement, like you seem to think they do. They retire under threat of impeachment, or when they cannot hold the office anymore. Justices do not randomly turn over their seat to presidents they do not like.
Although, you'd have to be pretty damn stupid think otherwise, so I'm not entirely certain you can read and comprehend this post.
What's going on in Canada is that no one will convict people of selling pot seeds. At all. It takes them five minutes to return 'not guilty'..
Jury nullification at its finest.
And they tend to vote against people who push those kinds of cases.
However, it remains illegal. And, because it is illegal, Canada can legally extradite who do it to other countries where it's illegal.
Look at that. Trans-national jury shopping!
You can Blame Canada(TM) but, the fault here is of the politician who thinks sucking up to the US is better than expressing the will of the Canadian people. Blaming the Canadians for this is like blaming Americans for Enron. Nope. It's their bought and sold elected officials.
However, those of us in the US, however, have no one to blame for our drug war but ourselves. Years of the system preaching about the evils of drugs and no politician can fix the drug war, not even ones who want to, because they will be called 'soft on crime' and voted out of office.
Jesus Christ, no one can read what I'm actually saying, can they?
For the record, I live in Georgia, although luckily pretty far from the sea, and I know exactly what a hurricane does, and they do, in fact, take down buildings. I personally saw the results of Hurricane Andrew. There's a town in Mississippi that simply isn't there anymore, either. I gave a link above.
Anything less than that, the hurricane 'missed', for sufficiently damaging values of 'missed', and you just have to cope with surges and flooding for the interval of the hurricane. And random tornados, but you have to cope with those anywhere.
The point I was trying to explain, but really should give up as no one here has the ability to read, is that New Orleans has managed to invent a new category, and their problem wasn't the hurricane at all. The problem in New Orleans isn't 'storm surges' or 'high winds' or 'tornados' or even 'flattened buildings'.
The problem is that the hurricane broke the dikes. That's it, that's the whole problem. The hurricane itself is a non-problem. Yes, it causes storm surges on the 'wrong' side because of the lake, and in fact that's what broke the dikes.
But a few small bombs could have done exactly the same thing. New Orleans problem isn't that it got 'hit with a fucking hurricane'.
I'd like to see how you can justify the term 'producing FOSSS' in there.
And 'use the work'.
FOSS always lets anyone use the work. The only licenses that pretend you can't use the work are closed source EULAs, in direct disagreement with copyright law.
BSD and public domain lets anyone copy the work, including, and this is in fact the difference between them and other FOSS licences, people not producing FOSS.
Slashdot Mirror
You dumbass. That's what shrinkwrap is, on the outside of the package.
Why not? It's a piece of software that gets downloaded into the printer and executed, and software is copyrightable last I heard.
Implied contracts entered into at stores at point of sales have nowhere near as much latitude as other contracts.
The problem here is that the refiller probably couldn't bring that up, as they themselves didn't purchase the cartridges.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and claim that merely asserting something almost never makes it true.
If it's a contract, when did you enter it? At the poitn of sale?
Nope, can't do that. If a retail sale is anything other than a simple exchange of money for unrestricted goods, consumer protection laws kick in and usually require some sort of signed contract.
When you opened the box?
Nonsense...what did you get in consideration at that point? You already owned everything in your hand, and the contract took away your ownership in return for...what? It's not a valid contract unless both sides get something.
The 9th circuit court is simply wrong here.
Here is the corrected sentence:
Lexmark offers consumers a choice. They can buy the cartridge at the regular price without any restrictions on what they do with it or they can buy it at a discounted price, in return for which their box will have some different words on the side, which, like all labeling on products, they are free to disregard.
Granted, sometimes it's not the original manufacturer, but I fail to see why they should have to step in when the aftermarket is doing so well. (Assuming the original manufacturer still exist, that is.)
And one reason people throw away cars in instead of repairing them is that they get better. Use a lot less resources, for one thing. Pollute less. (Do you know that something like 80% of all car pollution is made by 20% of bad cars?) And, no, we can't upgrade existing ones in place. Some parts we can, like radios and seats, but you can't go out and purchase a part that gives you 4 more mpg.
And cars end up in scrapyards, where they are stripped of parts so other cars can remain on the road. They are then crushed, the cubes are shipped and melted down, and the metal used for other purposes. We are not burying cars in landfills. In fact, landfills do not accept cars. As scrapyards will take any broken car for free or the cost of a tow, though, that's not important. (You'd have to have it towed anyway.)
And cell phones aren't 'artificially locked', whatever that means. They aren't 'supported' for repairs, because it's idiotic to have a support market for something that costs 30 dollars and is made of plastic. There isn't 'cheap kitchen chair' support, or 'tennis shoe' support either. It's nothing to do with society, it's the fact many things cost more to repair than they cost to replace.
But cell phones can easily be transfered as long as they are good. I can make my cell account use any phone by filling out a simple field on my provider's web site with the number thingy on the phone. I've had three so far, the second two as upgrades from people who purchased better phones.
Ergo, your two examples are idiotic. There might be a good example of what you are talking about, but neither cell phones or cars are it. Refridgerators might be a good example, do some research there. Or stereos.
I thought everyone was already doing this?
I don't mean to be insulting, but, yes, the DMCA did alter rights of first sale. That is, in fact, one of the major problems with it.
It is perfectly legal for, say, DivX (The original) to sell DVDs that can only operate X times, and sue people under the DMCA who crack that.
Likewise, it is pefectly legal for Lexmark to make 'a copyrighted work' that only functions for X times, or X days, or as until the cartridge is empties the first time, and sue people who crack it.
This is called 'circumventing an access control device' and is illegal under the DMCA. It's not quite as bad as 'circumventing a copy control device', but it's still illegal.
The only reason that might not work is that the court might not count it as 'access'. After all, it's staying within Lexmark's printer.
I quote the 2-106 of the UCC:
(1) In this Article unless the context otherwise requires "contract" and "agreement" are limited to those relating to the present or future sale of goods. "Contract for sale" includes both a present sale of goods and a contract to sell goods at a future time. A "sale" consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price (Section 2-401). A "present sale" means a sale which is accomplished by the making of the contract.
First of all, the first line merely means that in the 'contract of sales' section, when they mention 'contract', they are only talking about 'contracts of sale' and no other ones. Like, duh.
Second of all, let's not get distracted by the 'future' stuff. The sale is happening when the goods and money change hands. In fact, that is how you are accepting the offer. If you are truly bound by the box, it must be at the sale. (That is, you must be bound, at the sale, to follow the terms of the box, when you open it. Somewhat odd, logically, but works, and that's what the court said.)
So here's the important bit: A "sale" consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price.
It is not a barter of two material goods, it is not a promise to do any action (except possible deliever the goods, which is discussed specifally later on.), it can include nothing but goods on one side and money on the other. Anything else can be a contract, but not under the category of 'contract of sale'.
And, purchasing Lexmark cartridges is now, logically, not a 'contract for sale'. Because it also include your promise to follow the terms on the side of the box when you open it.
I don't know what the circuit court was smoking this time, but their logic does not hold water. Contracts for sale are defined quite specifically in the UCC, and that ain't it.
Why didn't they just declare it another kind of contract? Because, retail purchases without specific agreements have always been 'implied present contract of sales'. If they tried to claim it was any other sort of contract, they'd get shot out of the water by consumer protection laws, which don't allow consumers in stores to enter implied contracts like that.
A 'contract of sale', or as it's called in the UCC, 'contract for sale', is not talking solely about what happens in a store. A contract of sale is when two people agree to a contract, asserting that one of them will provide some goods, and the other some money. It's merely a specific type of contract that has mere money on one side and mere material goods on the other, and nothing else.
A retail purchase is, and can only be, an implied contract for sale. In fact, it has to be a specific type of contract for sale, a 'present sale' one. Anything else has to be explicitly stated.
However, in addition to being covered by those laws, it is also covered under completely different laws, consumer protection laws. These laws are very different. Many things are legal in a contract, even a normal contract for sale, that are not legal in a retail situtation, and sometimes vis versa.
For example, if the cash register rings up values that do not match the listed prices, and purchaser accepts the contract by paying the money and walks away, and then notices, they can get the 'contract' magically retroactively altered to show those those price, and get their money back. No, that's not just store policy, that's the law.
Which is just completely absurd in a normal contract. If I write one that says you'll pay me X money for Y, and we agree, and then you notice that I normally sell them for X/2, you're screwed.
And despite some people thinking otherwise, posting prices on goods in a store is not an 'offer', and that's not why they have to fix errors. The offer in a store is when they tally up the total, for the purposes of contract law.
If purchases were purely normal contracts for sales, vending machines make no sense at all.
Someone needs to come out with 'rent a minor', where you can collect a bunch of stuff that asserts it is 'licensed' and has 'contracts', and a 17 year old comes by with a video camera and records themselves agreeing to EULAs and opening printer cartridges and whatnot.
And, no, that would not count as you doing it. If you hired them as part of a business and they interacted with customers, yes, you'd be bound to what they agreed to.
But you cannot hire someone to sign contracts as you without actually giving them power of attorney, which requires you to file documents and you cannot do to minors anyway. No, they'd be agreeing as themselves, and, as minors, are not legally bound by contracts.
Of course, you don't want to be accused of attempt to defraud anyone, so they should be certain to repeat 'I am a minor, I am not legally bound by this contract', on the video. Maybe they could also wear a bright red hat saying 'Warning: Minor. Not legally bound by contracts.' Then they give the people offering the contract at least 30 seconds to respond or withdraw the completely moot contract.
Which is rather unlikely as those people are not there, but, hey, some things cannot be helped.
It's probably because they got sued because someone assumed there was magical refills inside the box. It's just one of those goofy warning messages, right? ;)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, 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. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Of course, that's the kind of stuff that gets non-citizens 'disappeared' nowadays.
Speaking for fun line from that document, here's one that can't but make me think of this hurricane situtation: [King George] has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
Although that's a bit idiotic. There are plenty of things that it's possible to use illegal, and they not only don't have the warning, they don't even have an indication on the label how you should use them.
I.e., knifes. Nothing on a box of kitchen knifes says not to use them to stab people, or even to use them to cut food. There is no explanation of their use whatsoever.
I suspect those warnings are purely due to the rather stupid drug laws we have in this country that has resulted in teenager purchasing any every day item that kills brain cells and using it for that purpose, instead of just safely boozing it up.
However, the precedent that they have a 'copyright program' inside their cartridge stands. If the 'ink empty' detection is a 'access control device' to the program in the cartridge, you can still be in violation of the DMCA if you reset it.
Think of it this way: If DVD players could only play encrypted DVDs, you can argue that making your own DVDs with CSS on it is legal, and not a violation of the DMCA, because you merely need that for interopability.
However, that doesn't make a program, that takes any DVD and resets the region to none, legal. (Pretending you could write to DVDs.)
The ink cartridges, in this example, is the DVD with CSS. It has a program on it that lets the printer operate. Cheating your way around this program is legal for your own stuff, to make them work in Lexmark printers.
It's probably still not legal to go in and tamper with Lexmark's program, though. Tampering with Lexmark's programs to make them work on Lexmark's printer would be seen as circumventing an access control device.
(Of course, Lexmark could get around the DMCA recent court decision easily. All it would need to do is have the, in addition to the printer trying to access a program in the cartridge, the cartridge have a tiny CPU and try to access the printer first. Putting in a non-Lexmark cartridge would require it to circumvent the printer's access control device, instead of just faking the cartridge's access control device, which is now legal.)
While many of the legal discussions about computers are incomprehensible to normal folk, they tend to understand that one.
As that suit fell through, I've been rather at a loss as to what to say to discourage their purchase, and, here come Lexmark with a gift from heaven. I no longer have to leave out the fact the first suit has been settled against Lexmark, lest people think Lexmark clean up their act.
Now I can just talk about this lawsuit. Let's see...how about 'Lexmark thinks they own your printer cartridges, and that it is illegal for you to have them refilled.'
Lexmark will never under any circumstances ever get a dime of my money, and I absolutely even refuse to accept anyone I'm 'helping shop from computers' get one. I'd probably just walk out of the store on them if insisted, and say 'You're on your own now.'
Everyone who 'bought' this need to run down to the retailer they got it from and demand their sales tax back.
Of course, now that apparently has the force of law, also.
4. Pray that additional vacancies occur within the Supreme Court.
5. Pray that those who oppose biblical truth would retire from the Supreme Court and be replaced by those who honor God's law.
See, you're right, he's praying that people he opposes retires.
He's also praying for 'vacancies'.
See, people don't voluntarily retire in the Suspreme Court when they are worried about their replacement...
Justices retire whenever they wish to and only if they wish to.Oh, wait, there isn't one. Judges retire when they wish to. One of the things, obviously, that would make some Justices not wish to retire is the possiblity Bush will appoint someone they do not approve of to fill their shoes.
Robertson must agree with who he thinks Bush will appoint, and therefore must disagree with exactly the Justices unlikely to retire because they don't want their replacement appoint by Bush. Ergo, it must be those Justices he's talking about, even if God misunderstood him and took out Rehnquist.
Ergo, we must conclude that the Justices that Robertson does not approve of are unlike to voluntarily retire. This is an obvious conclusion to anyone but defenders of that asshole.
However, I point you to his own prayer points list:
4. Pray that additional vacancies occur within the Supreme Court.
5. Pray that those who oppose biblical truth would retire from the Supreme Court and be replaced by those who honor God's law.
Hrm. He seems to be praying for retirement and for vacancies to occur. That certainly seems a little telling.
Let's check the people who have retired from the Supreme Court in the last fifty years:
Sandra Day O'Connor: Retired now so she'd do it with a republican in office.
Arthur Joseph Goldberg: Resinged at the reqeust of the president to do work in Vietnam.
Abe Fortas: Resigned in scandal, under the threat of impeachment.
Charles Evans Whittaker: Retired from exhaustion.
James F. Byrnes: Left to run the New Deal at president's request.
So, let's strike out the people who were scooped up by the president, as that does not seem incredibly likely to happen to a Justice who does not operate in Bush's world.('Hey, you liberal judge, you want to run Health and Human Services?' 'Are you just trying to get me to retire to appoint a new judge, and will immediately fire me from this new position?' 'Um...no, of course not....damn.')
And O'Connor probably has health reasons, but let's just assume she's retiring so she can have her replacement appointed by a republican. We'll assume that motive is also not open to liberal judges, as that makes no sense.
So we are left with: Death, poor health, and serious scandal.
Which one was Robertson praying for, again?
Not death, you say, so was it some sort of incapacitating illness? Perhaps they could be given cancer, like O'Connor. But God is merciful, after they resign I'm sure he will send it into remission now that they can no longer do Satan's work.
Or should they resign because they took bribes? Which either implies Robertson either thinks they are taking bribes, which a total absurd and libelous posistion for him to be promoting on the air, or he's praying to God that members of the Supreme court should start taking bribes, or he's praying they should be suspected for taking bribes and forced out of office when they aren't. Which one is it?
See, people don't voluntarily retire in the Suspreme Court when they are worried about their replacement, like you seem to think they do. They retire under threat of impeachment, or when they cannot hold the office anymore. Justices do not randomly turn over their seat to presidents they do not like.
Although, you'd have to be pretty damn stupid think otherwise, so I'm not entirely certain you can read and comprehend this post.
Jury nullification at its finest.
And they tend to vote against people who push those kinds of cases.
However, it remains illegal. And, because it is illegal, Canada can legally extradite who do it to other countries where it's illegal.
Look at that. Trans-national jury shopping!
You can Blame Canada(TM) but, the fault here is of the politician who thinks sucking up to the US is better than expressing the will of the Canadian people. Blaming the Canadians for this is like blaming Americans for Enron. Nope. It's their bought and sold elected officials.
However, those of us in the US, however, have no one to blame for our drug war but ourselves. Years of the system preaching about the evils of drugs and no politician can fix the drug war, not even ones who want to, because they will be called 'soft on crime' and voted out of office.
For the record, I live in Georgia, although luckily pretty far from the sea, and I know exactly what a hurricane does, and they do, in fact, take down buildings. I personally saw the results of Hurricane Andrew. There's a town in Mississippi that simply isn't there anymore, either. I gave a link above.
Anything less than that, the hurricane 'missed', for sufficiently damaging values of 'missed', and you just have to cope with surges and flooding for the interval of the hurricane. And random tornados, but you have to cope with those anywhere.
The point I was trying to explain, but really should give up as no one here has the ability to read, is that New Orleans has managed to invent a new category, and their problem wasn't the hurricane at all. The problem in New Orleans isn't 'storm surges' or 'high winds' or 'tornados' or even 'flattened buildings'.
The problem is that the hurricane broke the dikes. That's it, that's the whole problem. The hurricane itself is a non-problem. Yes, it causes storm surges on the 'wrong' side because of the lake, and in fact that's what broke the dikes.
But a few small bombs could have done exactly the same thing. New Orleans problem isn't that it got 'hit with a fucking hurricane'.
You just cannot distribute them.
And 'use the work'.
FOSS always lets anyone use the work. The only licenses that pretend you can't use the work are closed source EULAs, in direct disagreement with copyright law.
BSD and public domain lets anyone copy the work, including, and this is in fact the difference between them and other FOSS licences, people not producing FOSS.