Instead of looking to an equitable doctrine you could claim just basically through the common law concepts of implied terms.
You would be able to get money basically because you agreed to work for them
You have to show you have a contract first, and there are many reasons why you don't - not the least being that any contract would be void for uncertainty due to the lack of a crucial term (the price).
Close to all the replies so far have been this, I agree... but one has to wonder... Why on earth did he agree to do this at all without an agreement up front for payment?
If somebody asks for your services in a context in which it would be normal to expect payment, and you provide those services, they must pay you whether they promised to do so or not. The amount they must pay you may be smaller than what you could have gotten with a contract - but they must pay "a reasonable sum" given the type of service performed, and in a case like this one, "a reasonable sum" might be calculated by reference to contracting rates for the same service.
In legal terminology, this payment is called a "quantum meruit"
you make an observation at least back it up with some facts. Compare ETT points of failure with aircraft points of failure, or automotive points of failure. Have you ever drove on a 2 lane highway at 60mph or faster?
Your system is a PRT system, which means the comparison should be with other PRT systems, not with existing forms of transport that should be getting phased out. There are numerous other PRT systems which are much safer than vacuum conduit systems. In fact I would be surprised if the developers of other PRT systems (that are ready to go now) didn't already consider and reject vacuum conduit because of safety issues, because vacuum conduit is a blindingly obvious approach for maximum energy efficiency.
The problem with vacuum conduit mass transit is that every airlock is a point of failure. If you lose an external airlock, you lose the vacuum and have to start again. If you lose a vehicle airlock, the occupants die and make quite a mess of the vehicle with leaking bodily fluids.
If propulsion is lost, you can't get anybody out of the transportation system. If somebody has a heart attack while propulsion is lost, they're dead because you can't get them out. At least not without letting air in, but then you have the expensive process of sucking the air out again.
Yes, it offers low cost because of the lack of friction, but non-vacuum maglev with aerodynamic vehicles offers benefits not substantially lower, with much less risk and logistical problems.
It's for this same reason that EULAs on free-of-charge software cannot be enforced, unless you are giving them some consideration (like agreeing to look at their ads).
The promise by the user not to do the things that the EULA promises they won't do is sufficient consideration from the user. The permission given by the author to the user to use the program is sufficient consideration from the author.
There's nothing difficult about an EULA contract being a contract, but the terms in the present contract are of the kind that requires clear independent notice to be given before the terms can be binding. It is not sufficient that the terms are merely present in the EULA.
They want the new Federal law, which would only forbid sending mail with forged headers but not other noxious practices like opt-out only lists- to superceed stronger state laws.
Not only that, but the latest word is that they want the law to say that if you have bought something from the spammer, you can never, ever opt-out. They want you to be stuck with the mindless marketing drivel until you go to the grave.
This is beyond misconceived - it's idiotic. Literally. The DMA is clearly run by idiots.
In a defamation (sp?) action a few years ago, one of the lower courts held that there was an "Implied right of free speach" in the Australian constitution. I can't recall if this was upheld in the Supreme Court. (Free speach regarding complaints against a federal politician). I think that the arguments about reporting spam would fall under this category and there would be a right to report spam to a 3rd part.
It wasn't a lower court, it was the High Court. And it only protects political speech - reporting spam is not political.
Isn't Kazaa owned by a Sydney based company now? This is definitely illegal in Sydney under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). AustLII's misbehaving at the moment so I can't find the links online, but:
s178BA - Obtaining money by deception - 5 years
s178BB - Obtaining money etc by false or misleading statements (it doesn't require the statement to be in writing, false claim as to referrer will definitely count) - 5 years
s180 - Causing payment etc by false pretence etc (the false referrer will count here too) - 5 years
I always pictured Cary Elwes as Arthur Dent and Tony Slattery as Ford Prefect
This is Hollywood we're talking about, making a movie about a book from a country other than the USA. Arthur Dent will be played by Ben Afflec. Ford Prefect will be renamed "Fordita Prefect", and be played by Jennifer Anisten, and the character will be in a long term physical relationship with Arthur Dent. Trillian will become a seductress played by Michelle Pfieffer, with the plot revolving around the love triangle. Zaphod Beeblebrox's name will be Americanised to "Zack Beechman", who will lose the extra arm and leg, and be a former high school quarterback from Cleveland, played by David Boreanaz
The outcome is hardly surprising at common law, but you need to check what statutes are on the books that affect this. Statutes outlawing anti-competitive behaviour will often render a specific provision of this kind void.
Some people have been suggesting that you could get somebody else to click the agreement, perhaps a child. If they're doing this under your direction, it won't make the slightest bit of difference - it will still amount to you signifying your agreement.
I wanna know what right the US has to grant commercial missions to the moon. Like we are the only country that has rights to the moon as a resource.
Space launches are covered by an international treaty that requires that the launcher be approved not only by the nation they are launching from, but by their own nation. The purpose was presumably to prevent wealthy western corporations from paying poor third world countries to let them launch without the safety requirements imposed under the licensing schemes under treaty implementation laws.
The Philips Pronto is the most popular of the fully programmable universal remote. You can control thousands of devices with the Pronto, including X10 modules to control lamps, fans, and other appliances
Does it handles remotes with two alternating code sets? I recently replaced a DVD player and TV that busted within weeks of eachother, and when I programmed the universal remote for the replacements I found that if I hit the same button twice in a row (or hit one button followed by certain others), the second button would be ignored.
After a little experimentation I discovered that the devices had two sets of codes (call them A and B). When the remote is using the A set, and you hit a button, it sends the code from the A set, then switches itself to the B set. When you hit the button from the B set, and hit a button, it switches itselft to the A set. The devices will not recognise two consecutive codes from the same code set.
The devices were from different manufacturers too, so I'm guessing this is something that is becoming relatively common.
Really - the only way to get my attention is to give me free product, then leave me alone. Assuming the product is a new piece of hardware, UNIX-like operating system (that runs on our environments), or relational database, if you give it to me free as a developer I'll add it to our supported platforms whether we have customers demanding it yet or not, just so I can learn about it. New products need application support to get customers.
On the other hand, if you try to push it further than that, by continuing to stuff marketing material at me, or worse, spamming me (and a pre-existing relationship is not a license to spam - in fact its evidence that you had the opportunity to seek permission), I'll take it off the list.
The difference is that the first (free product) shows you're willing do what it takes to ensure wide support for the product. The second (intrusive push-marketing without genuine consent) shows that you have no idea how to do it, and have no respect for the recipient's time.
This is particularly true of email - while some people might think their time is worth the $0.00 it costs you to send them a spam, the people whose decisions matter value their time much more highly than that, and spamming them is an insult that will have the opposite effect to the one you hoped.
And as for a "long and distinguished record of being a penal colony"...
However not quite long enough to remove the chip from the shoulder obviously
Actually, I always used to respond to Americans who liked to taunt Australia for its history as a penal colony by pointing out that the original United States were also penal colonies. Unfortunately it seems I was wrong. Based on extensive research by reading email in my inbox that has come from America, it seems that in fact America is not and was not a penal colony. Rather it is and was a penile dysfunction colony.
At the time, one of the writings mentioned a thing called "Equitable Estoppel." My interpretation was that if you had a patent that was becoming an industry standard, you had to begin notification "promptly," and to allow it to become a standard and *then* begin notifying/litigating was legally naughty.
Bearing in mind that equitable estoppel is a very new area of law (well, less than a century old anyway) that differs in the different common law jurisdictions, the basic principle behind it is that if:
One party adopts an assumption (in this case that the algorithms were not patented);
That party, in reliance on that assumption, acts or refrains from acting (such as by selecting JPEG over GIF or PNG), in such a way that they would suffer detriment if the assumption were denied (such as by having to pay unexpected royalties, or having to remove functionality that their customers have come to depend on);
The other party with legal rights (such as a patent) has played some role in the adoption of the assumption, either by encouraging it, or acquiescing with knowledge of the other party's actions (such as by sitting on your hands knowing that people are choosing JPEG in the belief that it is patent free) - it isn't necessary for the other party to know of their rights (so not realising they had the patent or that it covered JPEG won't prevent the estopple from arising); and
In all the circumstances it would be unconscionable for the other party to insist on their legal rights.
then the party who has the legal rights can be prevented (estopped) from enforcing them.
Now, this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and bearing in mind that in the United States there are 50 jurisdictions (or 51 if you count Louisiana, where I don't think this applies at all), some of the details will vary depending on where you are.
But yes, equitable estoppel might be a valid defence to this patent claim, subject to proving that the aggressor knew people were adopting JPEG because of a belief that it was patent free
the Treasury could not be compelled to stop printing "In God We Trust", because the law mandating those words has not itself been struck down.
When a law is struck down for being unconstitutional, it was never valid. As long as it's inevitable that the result, if contested, would be that the law or directive authorising the printing of those words was invalid, it is and was invalid for all time.
The actual decision doesn't change the validity, it merely states it. An action taken for the purpose of compelling the US Treasury to cease the use of those words would be almost certain to succeed, and would in fact be the case in which the declaration of the law would be made.
Pardon my potential ignorance, but wouldn't this simply cause the 1954 legislation to be struck down, meaning that the Pledge in its old form (i.e. without "under God") could still legally be recited?
Yes - if the mandating of the words is unconstitutional, it is the amending Act that is, and always has been, invalid. That means the original Act was never amended and the original words without that phrase are and always have been the correct form. It also means that if the California law requires teachers to lead the pledge according to the wording in the Federal law, they will not be complying unless they lead it in the form without the offending words.
As a side note, the effect on the United States currency would be that the printing of "In God We Trust" on the currency is clearly an endorsement of religion and the legislation requiring that would also be unconstitutional. This would mean that the printing of those words on banknotes is, and always has been, unauthorised. The money's still valid, but it would be possible to compel the US Treasury to cease including those words.
Having just read the rest of the discussion, I noticed that a lot of people are saying "don't talk to a lawyer... this is easy, just do it". This is absolutely not easy. If there's any doubt in the mind of the person asking the question, it's very important to talk to a lawyer on this before just going ahead and doing it. The area of confidential information is in many areas unclear even to lawyers, so non-lawyers claiming it's easy or clear are clearly mistaken.
Other posters have suggested that unless there's a copyright issue, a patent, or a contract, there's no obligation of confidentiality. This is absolutely wrong.
This kind of question really requires Professional Legal Advice and may depend on the context
This is absolutely correct, and cannot be stressed enough. The copyright and patent issues already mentioned are the least of the difficulties involved in this question. Even absent copyright or patents, there's the issue of "confidential information" (also referred to as trade secrets, although this is merely one instance of the broader category). If a court decides you have abused confidential information, they can require you not only to pay damages if any harm comes to the owner of that information (harm isn't even required in the US and UK), but they can require the company to hand over any profits made through the use of that information.
Even a lawyer's not going to be able to give a complete answer on this, but questions to ask are:
Is the information actually confidential?
The question is whether, at any point, it was confidential - the fact that confidentiality was broken by somebody else (other than the owner) doesn't free the information of its confidential status.
Was the information kept confidential? (for example, did they disclose things in product brochures). If it wasn't kept confidential, it's not confidential.
Was it imparted or learned in a situation of confidence? If not, it's probably not confidential
Are you able to find the same information in the public, in the form in which you intend to use it? If so, it is not confidential (but it must be the same form - transformation of common knowledge or combination of two or more pieces of common knowledge may create new confidential knowledge).
In an employment context, some information is and some isn't confidential. It can be difficult to tell which it is. Some things are public at the outset, some are ordinary learning in the course of conducting your trade, some are confidential information. The difference can be very subjective.
Your best bet is to try to find the same thing implemented the same way somewhere in the public domain - if you can do this you're safe from restrictions on confidential information. You could also get the consent of the prior employer, which should be possible if the new employer is not a competitor. Otherwise, if you want to be safe, give the work to another designer/coder and don't tell them how you solved the problem previously.
Even when you talk to a lawyer, you're not likely to get an unequivocal answer.
It is ironic that one of the sleaziest, untrustworthy companies on the internet expects people to buy "trust" in the form of digital certification from them. I suggest people remember that next time they need a certificate and instead turn to one of their competitors.
Tried that, they bought the competitor, and the SEC and FTC didn't do a damned thing to stop them. In Australia the competition rules wouldn't have allowed this to happen so quickly, and the competition watchdog wouldn't allow it to happen at all. But the US authorities let it happen within the space of a couple of weeks.
If you know of somebody not owned by Verisign who offers ActiveX and Netscape code signing certificates who has their root certificates in all major browsers, I'd switch again, but there doesn't appear to be such an animal. There are organisations that have the root certificates there, but they don't sell the code signing certificates.
The problem here is that wiretapping is 100% moral and ethical -- in the context of law enforcement and a court order.
The law does not define either moral or ethical - it defines the law, and nothing else. Usually we hope that the law reflects morals and ethics, but there are certain laws that do not.
On the other hand, expecting Verisign to behave either morally or ethically is misguided. Verisign has repeatedly demonstrated that they don't give a damn about morals and ethics - I would rate them as far more morally corrupt than Microsoft. They do not care about the value of their services to society, and have actively set out to thwart that value in order to rake in larger profits for themselves.
This latest move is hardly newsworthy - it's just more of the same from a company that has become corrupt, greedy and deserves no place in civilised society.
Slashdot Mirror
They crash and destroy the ship again? These guys are never going to be able to get insurance now.
You have to show you have a contract first, and there are many reasons why you don't - not the least being that any contract would be void for uncertainty due to the lack of a crucial term (the price).
If somebody asks for your services in a context in which it would be normal to expect payment, and you provide those services, they must pay you whether they promised to do so or not. The amount they must pay you may be smaller than what you could have gotten with a contract - but they must pay "a reasonable sum" given the type of service performed, and in a case like this one, "a reasonable sum" might be calculated by reference to contracting rates for the same service.
In legal terminology, this payment is called a "quantum meruit"
IANALY,TINLA
Your system is a PRT system, which means the comparison should be with other PRT systems, not with existing forms of transport that should be getting phased out. There are numerous other PRT systems which are much safer than vacuum conduit systems. In fact I would be surprised if the developers of other PRT systems (that are ready to go now) didn't already consider and reject vacuum conduit because of safety issues, because vacuum conduit is a blindingly obvious approach for maximum energy efficiency.
If propulsion is lost, you can't get anybody out of the transportation system. If somebody has a heart attack while propulsion is lost, they're dead because you can't get them out. At least not without letting air in, but then you have the expensive process of sucking the air out again. Yes, it offers low cost because of the lack of friction, but non-vacuum maglev with aerodynamic vehicles offers benefits not substantially lower, with much less risk and logistical problems.
The promise by the user not to do the things that the EULA promises they won't do is sufficient consideration from the user. The permission given by the author to the user to use the program is sufficient consideration from the author.
There's nothing difficult about an EULA contract being a contract, but the terms in the present contract are of the kind that requires clear independent notice to be given before the terms can be binding. It is not sufficient that the terms are merely present in the EULA.
Not only that, but the latest word is that they want the law to say that if you have bought something from the spammer, you can never, ever opt-out. They want you to be stuck with the mindless marketing drivel until you go to the grave.
This is beyond misconceived - it's idiotic. Literally. The DMA is clearly run by idiots.
It wasn't a lower court, it was the High Court. And it only protects political speech - reporting spam is not political.
I guess that's what you get when you let Te'oc name it.
s178BA - Obtaining money by deception - 5 years
s178BB - Obtaining money etc by false or misleading statements (it doesn't require the statement to be in writing, false claim as to referrer will definitely count) - 5 years
s180 - Causing payment etc by false pretence etc (the false referrer will count here too) - 5 years
This could be prosecuted under any one of these.
Damnit. "extra arm and head", not "extra arm and leg".
This is Hollywood we're talking about, making a movie about a book from a country other than the USA. Arthur Dent will be played by Ben Afflec. Ford Prefect will be renamed "Fordita Prefect", and be played by Jennifer Anisten, and the character will be in a long term physical relationship with Arthur Dent. Trillian will become a seductress played by Michelle Pfieffer, with the plot revolving around the love triangle. Zaphod Beeblebrox's name will be Americanised to "Zack Beechman", who will lose the extra arm and leg, and be a former high school quarterback from Cleveland, played by David Boreanaz
The outcome is hardly surprising at common law, but you need to check what statutes are on the books that affect this. Statutes outlawing anti-competitive behaviour will often render a specific provision of this kind void.
Some people have been suggesting that you could get somebody else to click the agreement, perhaps a child. If they're doing this under your direction, it won't make the slightest bit of difference - it will still amount to you signifying your agreement.
Space launches are covered by an international treaty that requires that the launcher be approved not only by the nation they are launching from, but by their own nation. The purpose was presumably to prevent wealthy western corporations from paying poor third world countries to let them launch without the safety requirements imposed under the licensing schemes under treaty implementation laws.
Does it handles remotes with two alternating code sets? I recently replaced a DVD player and TV that busted within weeks of eachother, and when I programmed the universal remote for the replacements I found that if I hit the same button twice in a row (or hit one button followed by certain others), the second button would be ignored.
After a little experimentation I discovered that the devices had two sets of codes (call them A and B). When the remote is using the A set, and you hit a button, it sends the code from the A set, then switches itself to the B set. When you hit the button from the B set, and hit a button, it switches itselft to the A set. The devices will not recognise two consecutive codes from the same code set.
The devices were from different manufacturers too, so I'm guessing this is something that is becoming relatively common.
Really - the only way to get my attention is to give me free product, then leave me alone. Assuming the product is a new piece of hardware, UNIX-like operating system (that runs on our environments), or relational database, if you give it to me free as a developer I'll add it to our supported platforms whether we have customers demanding it yet or not, just so I can learn about it. New products need application support to get customers.
On the other hand, if you try to push it further than that, by continuing to stuff marketing material at me, or worse, spamming me (and a pre-existing relationship is not a license to spam - in fact its evidence that you had the opportunity to seek permission), I'll take it off the list.
The difference is that the first (free product) shows you're willing do what it takes to ensure wide support for the product. The second (intrusive push-marketing without genuine consent) shows that you have no idea how to do it, and have no respect for the recipient's time.
This is particularly true of email - while some people might think their time is worth the $0.00 it costs you to send them a spam, the people whose decisions matter value their time much more highly than that, and spamming them is an insult that will have the opposite effect to the one you hoped.
And as for a "long and distinguished record of being a penal colony"...
However not quite long enough to remove the chip from the shoulder obviously
Actually, I always used to respond to Americans who liked to taunt Australia for its history as a penal colony by pointing out that the original United States were also penal colonies. Unfortunately it seems I was wrong. Based on extensive research by reading email in my inbox that has come from America, it seems that in fact America is not and was not a penal colony. Rather it is and was a penile dysfunction colony.
At the time, one of the writings mentioned a thing called "Equitable Estoppel." My interpretation was that if you had a patent that was becoming an industry standard, you had to begin notification "promptly," and to allow it to become a standard and *then* begin notifying/litigating was legally naughty.
Bearing in mind that equitable estoppel is a very new area of law (well, less than a century old anyway) that differs in the different common law jurisdictions, the basic principle behind it is that if:
then the party who has the legal rights can be prevented (estopped) from enforcing them.
Now, this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and bearing in mind that in the United States there are 50 jurisdictions (or 51 if you count Louisiana, where I don't think this applies at all), some of the details will vary depending on where you are.
But yes, equitable estoppel might be a valid defence to this patent claim, subject to proving that the aggressor knew people were adopting JPEG because of a belief that it was patent free
IANALY,TINLA
the Treasury could not be compelled to stop printing "In God We Trust", because the law mandating those words has not itself been struck down.
When a law is struck down for being unconstitutional, it was never valid. As long as it's inevitable that the result, if contested, would be that the law or directive authorising the printing of those words was invalid, it is and was invalid for all time.
The actual decision doesn't change the validity, it merely states it. An action taken for the purpose of compelling the US Treasury to cease the use of those words would be almost certain to succeed, and would in fact be the case in which the declaration of the law would be made.
Pardon my potential ignorance, but wouldn't this simply cause the 1954 legislation to be struck down, meaning that the Pledge in its old form (i.e. without "under God") could still legally be recited?
Yes - if the mandating of the words is unconstitutional, it is the amending Act that is, and always has been, invalid. That means the original Act was never amended and the original words without that phrase are and always have been the correct form. It also means that if the California law requires teachers to lead the pledge according to the wording in the Federal law, they will not be complying unless they lead it in the form without the offending words.
As a side note, the effect on the United States currency would be that the printing of "In God We Trust" on the currency is clearly an endorsement of religion and the legislation requiring that would also be unconstitutional. This would mean that the printing of those words on banknotes is, and always has been, unauthorised. The money's still valid, but it would be possible to compel the US Treasury to cease including those words.
Having just read the rest of the discussion, I noticed that a lot of people are saying "don't talk to a lawyer... this is easy, just do it". This is absolutely not easy. If there's any doubt in the mind of the person asking the question, it's very important to talk to a lawyer on this before just going ahead and doing it. The area of confidential information is in many areas unclear even to lawyers, so non-lawyers claiming it's easy or clear are clearly mistaken.
Other posters have suggested that unless there's a copyright issue, a patent, or a contract, there's no obligation of confidentiality. This is absolutely wrong.
This kind of question really requires Professional Legal Advice and may depend on the context
This is absolutely correct, and cannot be stressed enough. The copyright and patent issues already mentioned are the least of the difficulties involved in this question. Even absent copyright or patents, there's the issue of "confidential information" (also referred to as trade secrets, although this is merely one instance of the broader category). If a court decides you have abused confidential information, they can require you not only to pay damages if any harm comes to the owner of that information (harm isn't even required in the US and UK), but they can require the company to hand over any profits made through the use of that information.
Even a lawyer's not going to be able to give a complete answer on this, but questions to ask are:
Your best bet is to try to find the same thing implemented the same way somewhere in the public domain - if you can do this you're safe from restrictions on confidential information. You could also get the consent of the prior employer, which should be possible if the new employer is not a competitor. Otherwise, if you want to be safe, give the work to another designer/coder and don't tell them how you solved the problem previously.
Even when you talk to a lawyer, you're not likely to get an unequivocal answer.
I decided to take a look, and here's the info I found:
Those figures appear to be for fatalities involving level crossings, not for railway fatalities in general.
Tried that, they bought the competitor, and the SEC and FTC didn't do a damned thing to stop them. In Australia the competition rules wouldn't have allowed this to happen so quickly, and the competition watchdog wouldn't allow it to happen at all. But the US authorities let it happen within the space of a couple of weeks.
If you know of somebody not owned by Verisign who offers ActiveX and Netscape code signing certificates who has their root certificates in all major browsers, I'd switch again, but there doesn't appear to be such an animal. There are organisations that have the root certificates there, but they don't sell the code signing certificates.
The law does not define either moral or ethical - it defines the law, and nothing else. Usually we hope that the law reflects morals and ethics, but there are certain laws that do not.
On the other hand, expecting Verisign to behave either morally or ethically is misguided. Verisign has repeatedly demonstrated that they don't give a damn about morals and ethics - I would rate them as far more morally corrupt than Microsoft. They do not care about the value of their services to society, and have actively set out to thwart that value in order to rake in larger profits for themselves.
This latest move is hardly newsworthy - it's just more of the same from a company that has become corrupt, greedy and deserves no place in civilised society.