What slashdot fails to mention is that the law is ONLY for spam which is selling financial services.
Nope - there were two laws. One for financial services, which was dealt with a couple of weeks back, and one more general one that was passed in the past 24 hours
If they weren't already, their IP ranges will probably be in every other blacklist on earth in the next hour or two. They have put themselves out of business.
They don't actually send spam from those IP addresses. They get numerous dial-up accounts and send spam through those. They don't even refer back to those IP addresses in the spam.
In essence, it's basically just a libel case. Party X says party Y is bad, and no one should have anything to do with them. Party Y suffers because of this. Party Y wants to be compensated for their losses.
Defamation is only one of the possible actions suggested by the pleadings. There are two other causes of action they have attempted to plead - a statutory one for restraint of trade, and a common law one for tortious interference with contractual relations.
Ok, find the email address of the Judge and of his staff and get it on every spamlist you know of. Ditto once we know who the jurors are.
OK, even assuming the latter were possible, it is extremely rare in Australia for a civil trial to involve a jury - usually the parties are content to have it decided by a judge sitting alone
The trespass to chattels law only applies where there is no consent. Consent can be express, as in "You may send me email" or implied, as in "You set up an email server, so you impliedly gave consent to the sending of email."
Consent, including implied consent, may be limited to certain purposes and uses. For example, if you set up a bricks-and-mortar store, you have given implied consent for customers to enter to browse or buy, and those customers are not trespassers. On the other hand, if a thief enters to steal, the implied consent does not extend to that purpose so the thief is a trespasser. Likewise in email, the implied consent has always been acknowledged as extending to personal email, but spam is another question entirely.
Both explicit and implicit consent can be withdrawn. Intel gave notice to Hamidi that he was not permitted to send his messages, thus withdrawing implied consent.
Before you try to post a message claiming some absurd outcome, think about the effect of consent, whether explicit or implied, in your example. Hamidi's lawyers have not done this, and are in for a major smack-down by the court.
Intel can't say 'boo' about what mail is sent to employees on their personal accounts, but it certainly has the right to restrict disruptive mail sent to its employees via the corporate email accounts.
I should have added that this part is correct, but not for the reasons you suggested. Intel owns and has possession of the servers that the email hits, and it is at that point that the trespass complained of occurs.
Employees, on the job, act as agents of their employer and all email received is the property of the company. They are merely agents handling that email on behalf of their employer.
This is not, in the strictest sense, true. Actually, saying that all employees are agents is kind of like using the phrase "the Web" when you're talking about aspects of the Internet other than HTTP and related protocols.
Even to the extent that the acts of the employee can be attributed to the employer, it is only those acts that are in the course of the employee's duty, or are performed incidentally to the duty to the benefit of the employer.
If employees are permitted to make personal use of their equipment and email, their actions in doing so are not in an way attributable to the employer
Employees do not own their email addresses at almost any organization
The question in trespass is not whether they own the equipment, but whether it is in their possession. In Intel v Hamidi, the suit is for trespass against the servers, which are in Intel's possession.
If a salesperson has a laptop and they carry it around with them wherever they go, the laptop is clearly in that salesperson's possession, so a spam that hits that laptop trespasses in a way that allows the salesperson to sue.
If a manager has a computer on their desktop, it is probably in their possession. The question is whether there is exclusive control combined with an intent to manifest exclusive control. Relevant considerations are whether other people can use it without permission when the manager isn't there, whether the manager has any say over the software installed on the system, whether any personal use if permitted, whether there are passwords held only by the manager, whether the office is kept locked...
A desktop computer in a cube farm might be in the possession of a person, as might a desktop in an open plan area.
A shared desktop computer where nobody exhibits an intention to have exclusive control is probably not in anybody's possession, except perhaps that of the company.
The question of whether an email account is a chattel that can be in somebody's possession is another thing entirely, and to my knowledge the question has never been judicially considered. It could go either way, but the longer the time before it's considered by a court, the more the chance of a "yes".
Of course there's more - there doesn't appear at any stage to be a transfer of ownership to MAPS, so it appears unlikely that MAPS *ever* owned the DUL. It appears what they got when they hired Gordon is his services plus the use of the DUL.
So here's what needs to be shown: (1) by MAPS, an unequivocal statement by Gordon assigning ownership of the DUL to MAPS; (2) by Gordon (but only if MAPS can show (1)), a contract granting him the option to buy back.
Neither of these things appears to have been shown.
I think Gordon should make a counter-claim for the $10 as money paid under a material mistake of fact.
It's also worth noting that the DUL is the most valuable part of the MAPS services in that it blocks more spam than the other parts. Without it, MAPS will almost certainly lose customers.
It's quite clearly a pre-contractual negotiation. It clearly doesn't even contemplate acceptance in those terms. If there's no written contract, the thing Gordon points to as a contract would be evidence of what the terms are, but not conclusive evidence. If there's a written contract somewhere else, then unless those terms are in it, Gordon's out of luck.
On a PRT system, you don't own the cars, but you use them privately and individually. I suggest you and the other respondent actually read the web sites that I pointed to.
I have read up on PRT in detail. There is nothing whatsoever to prevent private ownership of vehicles on a PRT system alongside the publicly owned ones - it's just a matter of implementation - and the PRT companies promote this possibility because with the option of private vehicle ownership the PRT system could be given a monopoly in the new cities.
Wrongful imprisonment too
on
Worst Buy
·
· Score: 2
Assuming what you said is true, then best buy did break the law.
If they do what this store did, there would be an excellent case against the store for wrongful imprisonment - courts (and juries) tend to award huge damages for that - tens of thousands of dollars and more.
The wrongful imprisonment here appears to be present in two places - it looks like the store held the guy for a while, and it looks like they pressured the cops to take him downtown (you can still sue the store for this even though it's not the store doing it, if they pressured the cops to do it)
I can't figure out why hotels south of the MGM Grand (including Excalibur, Luxor and Mandalay Bay - 3 of the biggest hotels in town) aren't covered
Maybe they lost the brown-paper-bag bidding system?
The other problem is that it runs on the back-street between the Sahara and the MGM Grand. Now in the Northern half of the skipped range there may be little worth visiting (although isn't the Stratosphere in that area?), but they bypass a not insignificant number of places in the southern half of the skipped range.
Well, then let's get rid of the personal automobile immediately! After all, the personal automobile is even more dangerous.
The original poster was talking about shared vehicles on a PRT system, but as you have (obliquely) pointed out, a communal PRT system can always allow private ownership of vehicles to run on that system, although the system would have to cover the entire city to make that desirable.
On the other hand, use of smart cards as a payment mechanism, combined with suitable privacy protection, would allow for people who encounter a vandalised communal pod to hit a button that sends it off for cleaning, and the most recent users smart cards get flagged for monitoring or even arrest.
In other news, a bunch of SlashDot readers have obtained a patent on "A Method For Simultaneous Perambulatory Motion and Masticating a Pliable Sticky Artificially Colored and Flavored Confection"
Distribution is not defined. That is one of the problems with the GPL.
The ordinary English meaning applies. What they are doing is distribution. It may be limited, but it's still distribution. Excessive use of inline definition in contracts and legislation is actually a bigger source of unexpected results than simple reliance on natural language.
However, when attempting to run an open-source-based business, some semblance of order is required. If the guy says he'll release the code, give him a chance. These dirty-laundry-in-public attacks damage open-source credibility, and that is not a good thing.
This, plus almost every single thing in the LindowsOS' guy's response to the question, is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The question they have been asked is "why have you not released source code for these versions as required by the GPL".
His only response that had the remotest bearing on this was "we'll reslease source code for a later version." But that's not what the GPL asks for - if you make a version available to others, you must make the source code for that version available to others.
There's no ambiguity here - if they withhold source code for a version that they make available to others, they break the GPL. It doesn't matter if they've made lots of other things available with source code, or whatever other wonderful community-oriented things they have done. They've broken the GPL, period, and to comply they must now release their source code.
Incidentally, while the GPL says "you are not required to accept this license as you have not signed it", this is incorrect. Signatures on a contract are evidential, they are not a requirement for agreement or enforceability.
The GPL also provides for the remedy for a breach - somebody who breaches the GPL is forbidden from using or modifying the projects for which they have breached the GPL. I'm sure the last thing LindowsOS want to see is somebody taking out an injunction to forbid them from undertaking any further development, but as there are thousands of people who have undertaken development on the projects LindowsOS have used, there are thousands of parties to the contract represented by the license, any one of whom could seek an injunction to prevent their further development. They could avoid this by releasing source code for the versions affected immediately, but if they stick to their current position any one person who has contributed to GPL projects they have used could kill their entire business.
Slashdot Mirror
What slashdot fails to mention is that the law is ONLY for spam which is selling financial services.
Nope - there were two laws. One for financial services, which was dealt with a couple of weeks back, and one more general one that was passed in the past 24 hours
nd, I admit, it would be pretty hard to find an email address if all you know is a name.
It's also illegal to reveal the identity of a juror.
If they weren't already, their IP ranges will probably be in every other blacklist on earth in the next hour or two. They have put themselves out of business.
They don't actually send spam from those IP addresses. They get numerous dial-up accounts and send spam through those. They don't even refer back to those IP addresses in the spam.
In essence, it's basically just a libel case. Party X says party Y is bad, and no one should have anything to do with them. Party Y suffers because of this. Party Y wants to be compensated for their losses.
Defamation is only one of the possible actions suggested by the pleadings. There are two other causes of action they have attempted to plead - a statutory one for restraint of trade, and a common law one for tortious interference with contractual relations.
http://www.fission-chips.com/t3direct/mcnicol/
Ok, find the email address of the Judge and of his staff and get it on every spamlist you know of. Ditto once we know who the jurors are.
OK, even assuming the latter were possible, it is extremely rare in Australia for a civil trial to involve a jury - usually the parties are content to have it decided by a judge sitting alone
The official web site of the defence is at http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/ (Mirror). There are also plans to set up a defence fund.
to which cybermage replied:
Hi. Now you have...I decided to return to school and become a lawyer...I figure I can do more from within the system than from outside.
Me too.
This does not apply to chattels.
Consent, including implied consent, may be limited to certain purposes and uses. For example, if you set up a bricks-and-mortar store, you have given implied consent for customers to enter to browse or buy, and those customers are not trespassers. On the other hand, if a thief enters to steal, the implied consent does not extend to that purpose so the thief is a trespasser. Likewise in email, the implied consent has always been acknowledged as extending to personal email, but spam is another question entirely.
Both explicit and implicit consent can be withdrawn. Intel gave notice to Hamidi that he was not permitted to send his messages, thus withdrawing implied consent.
Before you try to post a message claiming some absurd outcome, think about the effect of consent, whether explicit or implied, in your example. Hamidi's lawyers have not done this, and are in for a major smack-down by the court.
I should have added that this part is correct, but not for the reasons you suggested. Intel owns and has possession of the servers that the email hits, and it is at that point that the trespass complained of occurs.
This is not, in the strictest sense, true. Actually, saying that all employees are agents is kind of like using the phrase "the Web" when you're talking about aspects of the Internet other than HTTP and related protocols.
Even to the extent that the acts of the employee can be attributed to the employer, it is only those acts that are in the course of the employee's duty, or are performed incidentally to the duty to the benefit of the employer.
If employees are permitted to make personal use of their equipment and email, their actions in doing so are not in an way attributable to the employer
The question in trespass is not whether they own the equipment, but whether it is in their possession. In Intel v Hamidi, the suit is for trespass against the servers, which are in Intel's possession.
If a salesperson has a laptop and they carry it around with them wherever they go, the laptop is clearly in that salesperson's possession, so a spam that hits that laptop trespasses in a way that allows the salesperson to sue.
If a manager has a computer on their desktop, it is probably in their possession. The question is whether there is exclusive control combined with an intent to manifest exclusive control. Relevant considerations are whether other people can use it without permission when the manager isn't there, whether the manager has any say over the software installed on the system, whether any personal use if permitted, whether there are passwords held only by the manager, whether the office is kept locked...
A desktop computer in a cube farm might be in the possession of a person, as might a desktop in an open plan area.
A shared desktop computer where nobody exhibits an intention to have exclusive control is probably not in anybody's possession, except perhaps that of the company.
The question of whether an email account is a chattel that can be in somebody's possession is another thing entirely, and to my knowledge the question has never been judicially considered. It could go either way, but the longer the time before it's considered by a court, the more the chance of a "yes".
Having seen the code for Mozilla, I'd have to go with "scrambled code".
So here's what needs to be shown: (1) by MAPS, an unequivocal statement by Gordon assigning ownership of the DUL to MAPS; (2) by Gordon (but only if MAPS can show (1)), a contract granting him the option to buy back.
Neither of these things appears to have been shown.
I think Gordon should make a counter-claim for the $10 as money paid under a material mistake of fact.
It's also worth noting that the DUL is the most valuable part of the MAPS services in that it blocks more spam than the other parts. Without it, MAPS will almost certainly lose customers.
It's quite clearly a pre-contractual negotiation. It clearly doesn't even contemplate acceptance in those terms. If there's no written contract, the thing Gordon points to as a contract would be evidence of what the terms are, but not conclusive evidence. If there's a written contract somewhere else, then unless those terms are in it, Gordon's out of luck.
I have read up on PRT in detail. There is nothing whatsoever to prevent private ownership of vehicles on a PRT system alongside the publicly owned ones - it's just a matter of implementation - and the PRT companies promote this possibility because with the option of private vehicle ownership the PRT system could be given a monopoly in the new cities.
If they do what this store did, there would be an excellent case against the store for wrongful imprisonment - courts (and juries) tend to award huge damages for that - tens of thousands of dollars and more.
The wrongful imprisonment here appears to be present in two places - it looks like the store held the guy for a while, and it looks like they pressured the cops to take him downtown (you can still sue the store for this even though it's not the store doing it, if they pressured the cops to do it)
IANALY,TINLA
Maybe they lost the brown-paper-bag bidding system?
The other problem is that it runs on the back-street between the Sahara and the MGM Grand. Now in the Northern half of the skipped range there may be little worth visiting (although isn't the Stratosphere in that area?), but they bypass a not insignificant number of places in the southern half of the skipped range.
The original poster was talking about shared vehicles on a PRT system, but as you have (obliquely) pointed out, a communal PRT system can always allow private ownership of vehicles to run on that system, although the system would have to cover the entire city to make that desirable.
On the other hand, use of smart cards as a payment mechanism, combined with suitable privacy protection, would allow for people who encounter a vandalised communal pod to hit a button that sends it off for cleaning, and the most recent users smart cards get flagged for monitoring or even arrest.
In other news, a bunch of SlashDot readers have obtained a patent on "A Method For Simultaneous Perambulatory Motion and Masticating a Pliable Sticky Artificially Colored and Flavored Confection"
The ordinary English meaning applies. What they are doing is distribution. It may be limited, but it's still distribution. Excessive use of inline definition in contracts and legislation is actually a bigger source of unexpected results than simple reliance on natural language.
This, plus almost every single thing in the LindowsOS' guy's response to the question, is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The question they have been asked is "why have you not released source code for these versions as required by the GPL".
His only response that had the remotest bearing on this was "we'll reslease source code for a later version." But that's not what the GPL asks for - if you make a version available to others, you must make the source code for that version available to others.
There's no ambiguity here - if they withhold source code for a version that they make available to others, they break the GPL. It doesn't matter if they've made lots of other things available with source code, or whatever other wonderful community-oriented things they have done. They've broken the GPL, period, and to comply they must now release their source code.
Incidentally, while the GPL says "you are not required to accept this license as you have not signed it", this is incorrect. Signatures on a contract are evidential, they are not a requirement for agreement or enforceability.
The GPL also provides for the remedy for a breach - somebody who breaches the GPL is forbidden from using or modifying the projects for which they have breached the GPL. I'm sure the last thing LindowsOS want to see is somebody taking out an injunction to forbid them from undertaking any further development, but as there are thousands of people who have undertaken development on the projects LindowsOS have used, there are thousands of parties to the contract represented by the license, any one of whom could seek an injunction to prevent their further development. They could avoid this by releasing source code for the versions affected immediately, but if they stick to their current position any one person who has contributed to GPL projects they have used could kill their entire business.
Gee, you think?
"No Luke, I am your father."
"To keep you safe from the emporer, your twin sister [who you french-kissed in an earlier episode] was separated from you at birth".
And how about those droids that just keep coming back to the same circle, over and over again, by coincidence.
Finally SOMEONE is realizing this...In other news, somebody finally realised the world was round, the Sun rises in the east, and the oceans are rather wet.