Not correct. Only contract that must be in writing is a contract for purchase of real estate; even a verbal agreement to buy a car under certain terms is binding, it doesn't even have to be in writing, let alone witnessed.
What a load of head-in-the-sand idiocy. Force projection is an absolute necessity in order to protect the interests and goals of any particular faction in a civilization. So long as there is a single nation willing and able to exert military influence in another nation's affairs, offensive military capabilities are a requirement for stable relations between nations. Otherwise, there is NO disincentive for any nation to disassociate itself from offensive military action, since there are no consequences for offensive actions. In a perfect world where no-one ever disagrees with any other person, and nations are unnecessary because of a totally unified civilization, sure, you can avoid offensive military operations; that world sure as hell isn't the one we live in.
Liberty is totally incompatible with an absence of standing armies, since the only circumstance that would obviate the need for standing armies would necessarily arise from a lack of individuality and disagreement. Do you honestly want to live in a world where everyone held the same opinions, desires, thoughts and feelings? Because that is the only situation that will ever lead to militaries becoming unnecessary.
Utopia ain't here, it's not going to get here, and nobody would want it, anyways. So long as any person wants a life he or she can enjoy, society has to have people willing to inflict grievous bodily harm on others to exert the desires of that society to live as they choose. Get used to it.
Bet this is pretty much the same concept as the ad-supported version of Opera. Windows will now have a free edition, to compete better with the pirated copies. And you can input an upgrade code to make the ads go away. Whether that will also disable the HD-searching-and-reporting subsystem, well, that's another question. But I bet you won't see this in retail versions of Windows.
It could be held that the onus was on the plaintiff to make himself aware of the terms of the agreements; they were provided to him (electronically and as part of the ownership packet in the box) and it was his duty to read and understand, and if desired, reject the terms. Even if one of the means of delivery was unusable, the second was available for his perusal. Just because he didn't exercise due diligence, doesn't mean he's excused from the terms of the agreement.
Again, this is one of those cases where, regardless of the merits of the case and what's "right" or "wrong", a decision in favor of the plaintiff would have such wide-ranging effects upon the nature of the computer industry, that it's hard to conceive of a court invalidating EULAs or rejecting binding arbitration; courts don't turn entire industries upside-down over cases like this.
Also, the failure of the plaintiff to avail himself of the arbitration may cost him some credibility. Courts have long been very favorable towards arbitrated agreements. It's not like he took his case to arbitration and was dissatisfied with the outcome; he wants to reject the whole step of arbitration. The original reasoning behind arbitration was to provide a less-costly means of settling disputes without tying up courts' time. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry who thinks his case is so important that he's going to skip the formality of arbitration and get right to the court docket is in for a rude awakening; cases with far, far more monetary value at stake have been, and will continue to be, covered by mandatory arbitration clauses. I really don't see the court saying that, in this case, it wouldn't be appropriate.
Wow. Lot of comments keep saying how Gateway has nothing to win here and it would just be a drop in the bucket to pay the guy off. This suit is HUGE for gateway. There's 2 pillars of their business on the line, not just a single defective PC. First, without an enforceable EULA, they have to change their entire business model (as would pretty much every other software and hardware manufacturer in existence); the entire concept of "Licensed" software under different terms than the original contract of sale depends on them. And I don't think that even most Slashdotters really want the severability of hardware and software agreements to go bye-bye. Just the number of comments suggesting installing Linux without ever booting the bundled Windows weighs pretty heavily.
Second, although this is pretty minor considering there is already a Supreme Court decision (CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. V. ADAMS (99-1379) 532 U.S. 105 (2001)), binding arbitration clauses. Binding arbitration saves on the order of billions in litigation costs, even if the arbitrations go against the respondents.
This case will probably never be heard in Small Claims Court. Gateway will appeal the Judge's decision to remand it to SCC, and probably, under terms of the UCC, get a Federal court to assert jurisdiction. Every hardware and software company around will either file amicus curiae briefs, or really want to, in support of Gateway. This remand to SCC is just a diversion, and not a real "win" at all for Sheehan.
Huh. That's funny. According to the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2006-2007, the US has the 6th ranked economy for overall growth worldwide, ahead of the UK, Germany, Japan, Norway, Austria, Belgium, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece. Admittedly, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark and Sweden Ranked higher, But that still seems like pretty much all of Western Europe is markedly behind.
For the love of all that is holy, do not get a Matrix. They are cramped, the controls are stupidly placed (especially the combination of a console mounted gearshift and a set of climate controls that you can't access without moving the gearshift), a total lack of any kind of highway acceleration, steering wheel that won't adjust nearly high enough, the incredible ability to suddenly leap sideways no matter how tiny the crack you drive over, tendency to lose traction completely over any kind of dirt or gravel road, and surprisingly poor gas mileage for such a small, underpowered car. It's worthless. I use one for housecalls for network and DSL installation. I'd give anything for my company to let me use my own Dodge for field calls.
You know, if I were a truly malicious government or industry trade group, I think these guys would just "disappear". Maybe a traffic accident, a domestic squabble, drug overdose. To be ironic, maybe a fire caused by an overloaded surge suppressor in their server room, followed by a halon system that they're unable to escape. I'm just sayin'. If I were really that ruthless, that is.
I'd say that, if the reproduced charts are one of the major points of the article, and depending on the data reported they may well have been, then the blogger would have a responsibility not to reproduce them. Fair use ought to be a means of commenting or reporting on another work, not replacing it. If I can get all the information I need from the secondary source, that exceeds fair use.
I work support for an ISP; our billing page is IE-only. How many complaints do you think we have on file regarding not being able to use Firefox or Safari or another alternative? 2 complaints for the last year. The vast, VAST majority of users, when told that the Ebill function is IE only, just shrug and say, "OK" and click on IE. Even if Firefox is their primary browser. What the heck incentive is there to recode the page when there's just no demand for it? IE's already on 90%+ machines, and most people just plain don't care which browser they're using, even the ones who switched to Firefox.
This is actually a very shrewd legal move. If the defendant could have demonstrated that the email never was on a computer solely under the control of the plaintiff, and that the only source of the email was on the Webmail server, and that the plaintiff voluntarily clicked on the email header to read it, then the anti-spam law might not apply. It wouldn't be spam if it can be demonstrated that the plaintiff took action intentionally to read or view the contents of the mails. I'm not saying that would necessarily be the decision of the court, but it's certainly one possible defense.
It could also be argued that a free webmail account might be considered a public resource, thus the spam laws would, again, not apply.
Thirdly, the defense argument could be based on the availability of anti-spam measures. If the plaintiff was negligent in setting his spam filters, then he could conceivably be viewed as having contributed to his receiving them. Taking reasonable steps to prevent the reception of spam might be viewed as a necessary component to have cause for legal action.
Lastly, if the defendants could demonstrate that other spam was received by the plaintiff, and no legal action was taken as a result, the defense could mitigate damages awarded, or possibly have the suit thrown out entirely, because of the plaintiff's selection of whom to sue based on content of the spam, not its existence.
As I said, that discovery request was a very good idea of the defense. I wouldn't be surprised to see it become a lot more common.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, does that posting not disagree completely with your .sig?
Not correct. Only contract that must be in writing is a contract for purchase of real estate; even a verbal agreement to buy a car under certain terms is binding, it doesn't even have to be in writing, let alone witnessed.
What a load of head-in-the-sand idiocy. Force projection is an absolute necessity in order to protect the interests and goals of any particular faction in a civilization. So long as there is a single nation willing and able to exert military influence in another nation's affairs, offensive military capabilities are a requirement for stable relations between nations. Otherwise, there is NO disincentive for any nation to disassociate itself from offensive military action, since there are no consequences for offensive actions. In a perfect world where no-one ever disagrees with any other person, and nations are unnecessary because of a totally unified civilization, sure, you can avoid offensive military operations; that world sure as hell isn't the one we live in.
Liberty is totally incompatible with an absence of standing armies, since the only circumstance that would obviate the need for standing armies would necessarily arise from a lack of individuality and disagreement. Do you honestly want to live in a world where everyone held the same opinions, desires, thoughts and feelings? Because that is the only situation that will ever lead to militaries becoming unnecessary.
Utopia ain't here, it's not going to get here, and nobody would want it, anyways. So long as any person wants a life he or she can enjoy, society has to have people willing to inflict grievous bodily harm on others to exert the desires of that society to live as they choose. Get used to it.
Bet this is pretty much the same concept as the ad-supported version of Opera. Windows will now have a free edition, to compete better with the pirated copies. And you can input an upgrade code to make the ads go away. Whether that will also disable the HD-searching-and-reporting subsystem, well, that's another question. But I bet you won't see this in retail versions of Windows.
It could be held that the onus was on the plaintiff to make himself aware of the terms of the agreements; they were provided to him (electronically and as part of the ownership packet in the box) and it was his duty to read and understand, and if desired, reject the terms. Even if one of the means of delivery was unusable, the second was available for his perusal. Just because he didn't exercise due diligence, doesn't mean he's excused from the terms of the agreement. Again, this is one of those cases where, regardless of the merits of the case and what's "right" or "wrong", a decision in favor of the plaintiff would have such wide-ranging effects upon the nature of the computer industry, that it's hard to conceive of a court invalidating EULAs or rejecting binding arbitration; courts don't turn entire industries upside-down over cases like this. Also, the failure of the plaintiff to avail himself of the arbitration may cost him some credibility. Courts have long been very favorable towards arbitrated agreements. It's not like he took his case to arbitration and was dissatisfied with the outcome; he wants to reject the whole step of arbitration. The original reasoning behind arbitration was to provide a less-costly means of settling disputes without tying up courts' time. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry who thinks his case is so important that he's going to skip the formality of arbitration and get right to the court docket is in for a rude awakening; cases with far, far more monetary value at stake have been, and will continue to be, covered by mandatory arbitration clauses. I really don't see the court saying that, in this case, it wouldn't be appropriate.
Wow. Lot of comments keep saying how Gateway has nothing to win here and it would just be a drop in the bucket to pay the guy off. This suit is HUGE for gateway. There's 2 pillars of their business on the line, not just a single defective PC. First, without an enforceable EULA, they have to change their entire business model (as would pretty much every other software and hardware manufacturer in existence); the entire concept of "Licensed" software under different terms than the original contract of sale depends on them. And I don't think that even most Slashdotters really want the severability of hardware and software agreements to go bye-bye. Just the number of comments suggesting installing Linux without ever booting the bundled Windows weighs pretty heavily. Second, although this is pretty minor considering there is already a Supreme Court decision (CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. V. ADAMS (99-1379) 532 U.S. 105 (2001)), binding arbitration clauses. Binding arbitration saves on the order of billions in litigation costs, even if the arbitrations go against the respondents. This case will probably never be heard in Small Claims Court. Gateway will appeal the Judge's decision to remand it to SCC, and probably, under terms of the UCC, get a Federal court to assert jurisdiction. Every hardware and software company around will either file amicus curiae briefs, or really want to, in support of Gateway. This remand to SCC is just a diversion, and not a real "win" at all for Sheehan.
Huh. That's funny. According to the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2006-2007, the US has the 6th ranked economy for overall growth worldwide, ahead of the UK, Germany, Japan, Norway, Austria, Belgium, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece. Admittedly, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark and Sweden Ranked higher, But that still seems like pretty much all of Western Europe is markedly behind.
For the love of all that is holy, do not get a Matrix. They are cramped, the controls are stupidly placed (especially the combination of a console mounted gearshift and a set of climate controls that you can't access without moving the gearshift), a total lack of any kind of highway acceleration, steering wheel that won't adjust nearly high enough, the incredible ability to suddenly leap sideways no matter how tiny the crack you drive over, tendency to lose traction completely over any kind of dirt or gravel road, and surprisingly poor gas mileage for such a small, underpowered car. It's worthless. I use one for housecalls for network and DSL installation. I'd give anything for my company to let me use my own Dodge for field calls.
You know, if I were a truly malicious government or industry trade group, I think these guys would just "disappear". Maybe a traffic accident, a domestic squabble, drug overdose. To be ironic, maybe a fire caused by an overloaded surge suppressor in their server room, followed by a halon system that they're unable to escape. I'm just sayin'. If I were really that ruthless, that is.
I'd say that, if the reproduced charts are one of the major points of the article, and depending on the data reported they may well have been, then the blogger would have a responsibility not to reproduce them. Fair use ought to be a means of commenting or reporting on another work, not replacing it. If I can get all the information I need from the secondary source, that exceeds fair use.
I work support for an ISP; our billing page is IE-only. How many complaints do you think we have on file regarding not being able to use Firefox or Safari or another alternative? 2 complaints for the last year. The vast, VAST majority of users, when told that the Ebill function is IE only, just shrug and say, "OK" and click on IE. Even if Firefox is their primary browser. What the heck incentive is there to recode the page when there's just no demand for it? IE's already on 90%+ machines, and most people just plain don't care which browser they're using, even the ones who switched to Firefox.
This is actually a very shrewd legal move. If the defendant could have demonstrated that the email never was on a computer solely under the control of the plaintiff, and that the only source of the email was on the Webmail server, and that the plaintiff voluntarily clicked on the email header to read it, then the anti-spam law might not apply. It wouldn't be spam if it can be demonstrated that the plaintiff took action intentionally to read or view the contents of the mails. I'm not saying that would necessarily be the decision of the court, but it's certainly one possible defense.
It could also be argued that a free webmail account might be considered a public resource, thus the spam laws would, again, not apply.
Thirdly, the defense argument could be based on the availability of anti-spam measures. If the plaintiff was negligent in setting his spam filters, then he could conceivably be viewed as having contributed to his receiving them. Taking reasonable steps to prevent the reception of spam might be viewed as a necessary component to have cause for legal action.
Lastly, if the defendants could demonstrate that other spam was received by the plaintiff, and no legal action was taken as a result, the defense could mitigate damages awarded, or possibly have the suit thrown out entirely, because of the plaintiff's selection of whom to sue based on content of the spam, not its existence.
As I said, that discovery request was a very good idea of the defense. I wouldn't be surprised to see it become a lot more common.