Only as long as the contract is entered into in good faith by the person using the automated system. Knowingly taking advantage of an error in the system to obtain something for a lower price than the seller had actually ever agreed to sell it for in the first place violates that. If the buyers did not know that there was a fault, then you'd have a point, but that's not at all what happened here. Even the original post that went viral announcing it used the exact words 'price error' to describe it... it was obvious enough to that person, and it was certainly obvious to anyone who heard about it through that channel.
The time of day can be represented by the hands on a clock, or even the shadow of a sundial, but even a manufactured mechanical clock does not need to compute anything with respect to the passage of time to convey that information. That it can convey such information at all is nothing but an artifact (albeit an intentional one) of how it is physically built, or in the case of a sundial, how it is oriented with respect to the sun after construction. A mechanical orrery is exactly the same. It doesn't "compute" the position of the planets, it simply shows where they are in relation to eachother, in very much the same way as the hands on a clock convey what time of day it is.
Except Microsoft didn't really offer it at that price. The so-called "offer" was actually caused by an error that was obvious even to the buyer. It is no different, in principle, to a banking error that happens to be in your favor that is later corrected.
And we are talking about a mistake that was *KNOWN* to be a mistake by the people who took advantage of this. The post that originally went viral about this even explicitly used the phrase "price error".
If someone wants to argue that they believed that the offer was genuinely being made by Microsoft, I'm not sure how successful they would be at convincing anyone.
This is the key point that people who keep spouting that Microsoft should be on the hook for this error are omitting. The original viral post that alerted people to the $0 price for the game explicitly used the exact phrase "price error" when describing the otherwise so-called "deal". It was known to be a mistake even to the person that caused the error to be widely known, and it would have been no less clear to anyone else who found out about it through that post.
You appear to have missed a key word: obvious. If you know it is a mistake, you don't get to take advantage of it unless you can make a convincing argument that you didn't know (which would be lying, and isn't really possible in this case anyway, since the initial viral post that informed people about it explicitly said it was a "price error").
yes, actually. It was an obvious error.... Or perhaps you didn't bother to rtfa. The original post that went viral suggesting to take advantage of the opportunity even used the exacts phrase "price error"
I sound like someone who knows that anything that is called a "contract" requires two consenting parties, and a computer cannot represent a party in the context of forming a legally binding contract, so if the payment was entirely automated, then you are still liable for their error.
This is exactly the same thing as being legally on the hook for banking errors or tax refund errors that happen to be in your favor.
A contract requires two parties. If a person is buying something via wholly automated or self checkout, there is no second party representing the seller for the contract to the sale.
This might be true if there was a human cashier, but at a self-checkout, things can become a bit more dodgy, particularly if the fact that it was a mistake is somehow self-evident and the customer had every reasonable expectation to have known it was a mistake *before* making the purchase.
But every time we still run against the problem that they compute the state of part of the Solar System
And it is only the point that we are actuallyt disagreeing, you say that it is a computer because you allege that it computes them. Certainly if it did compute them, that would be true... but it does *NOT* compute them. A thermometer can tell you the temperature, but not because it computes the temperature. An old-fashioned mechanical clock can tell you the time, but not because it computes them.
The notion that because it simulates the motion of the planets it must be a computer is flawed because simulations are not inherently computations. A fire drill is a simulation of what one should do in an actual fire. An electric slot car race track is a simulation of a real race track. Absolutely anything that can be utilized to approximate something else, to whatever degree of accuracy is desired for one's purposes, can be said to be a simulation.
Finally, this device was accurate enough for its time... and for the purposes that it was used for, but in relation to what we understand about the solar system today, it was not as accurate as you seem to think it was. Among other things, it assumed that the earth was at the center of everything, which we now know to be false. Copernicus was the first person to posulate the notion that the earth revolved around the sun, and it wasn't until Gallileo that this notion started to become widely accepted as fact.
Since you've devolved to hurling personal insults, I'm not entirely sure it will be productive to debate the matter further. Contrary to what you seem to think, I am not confused by the fact that this thing cannot be programmed... I am asserting that an ordinary orrery does not actually do anything that can be called "computation" and therefore cannot be considered a computer (although orreries exist that are computers... such as what you would may find in a modern science museum, although come to think of it, you will probably find an old fashioned orrery there as well).
Of course it is nonsense... because an orrery doesn't compute anything in the first place. That was my point. A geometric compass can be used to draw a circle with much less effort than what might otherwise be required, but that does not make the compass any kind of tool that computes how to draw a circle. An orrery can be used to tell the position of the celestial bodies that it models, but it definitely does not compute them in any sense of word. Continually asserting that it is a computer will not make it one.
It would be interesting if someone tried that, although they would have to present a fairly convincing argument that they had "purchased" the work for free in good faith that it was a deal that was being deliberately offered by Microsoft. If it was somehow evident that they knew that it was an error and were simply trying to take advantage of it, I suspect that a judge would not be inclined to rule in their favor.
I never disputed that a computation can create a simulation. I suggested only that a simulation does not necessarily involve computation.
An orrery *simulates* the motion of the celestial bodies it deals with, but it does not compute their positions any more than a compass "computes" which way is north.
As I attempted to clarify in a followup, I had made a typo, and accidentally hit "submit" instead of "preview". The rotation of a space station is not a computation.
There are plenty of other simulatiions that are not computations... military training exercises, simulation of medical emergencies when training health personel, and many many others.
My point is that a simulation does not inherently indicate computation is occurring. An orrery simulates certain celestial body movements, but does not compute anything. Any computations are left to the user of the orrery.
In a decent world, the buyer of the incorrectly-priced house releases the seller
True... but this world is not decent, and Microsoft does not actually owe people who took advantage of this error anything. You, as a customer, are entirely free to take your business elsewhere in protest.
Slashdot Mirror
Did netcraft confirm it or something?
OK, it's a computer.
yeah.... barring some incident that drastically affects brain function like a stroke, I can't figure it out either.
Only as long as the contract is entered into in good faith by the person using the automated system. Knowingly taking advantage of an error in the system to obtain something for a lower price than the seller had actually ever agreed to sell it for in the first place violates that. If the buyers did not know that there was a fault, then you'd have a point, but that's not at all what happened here. Even the original post that went viral announcing it used the exact words 'price error' to describe it... it was obvious enough to that person, and it was certainly obvious to anyone who heard about it through that channel.
The time of day can be represented by the hands on a clock, or even the shadow of a sundial, but even a manufactured mechanical clock does not need to compute anything with respect to the passage of time to convey that information. That it can convey such information at all is nothing but an artifact (albeit an intentional one) of how it is physically built, or in the case of a sundial, how it is oriented with respect to the sun after construction. A mechanical orrery is exactly the same. It doesn't "compute" the position of the planets, it simply shows where they are in relation to eachother, in very much the same way as the hands on a clock convey what time of day it is.
Except Microsoft didn't really offer it at that price. The so-called "offer" was actually caused by an error that was obvious even to the buyer. It is no different, in principle, to a banking error that happens to be in your favor that is later corrected.
And we are talking about a mistake that was *KNOWN* to be a mistake by the people who took advantage of this. The post that originally went viral about this even explicitly used the phrase "price error".
If someone wants to argue that they believed that the offer was genuinely being made by Microsoft, I'm not sure how successful they would be at convincing anyone.
This is the key point that people who keep spouting that Microsoft should be on the hook for this error are omitting. The original viral post that alerted people to the $0 price for the game explicitly used the exact phrase "price error" when describing the otherwise so-called "deal". It was known to be a mistake even to the person that caused the error to be widely known, and it would have been no less clear to anyone else who found out about it through that post.
You appear to have missed a key word: obvious. If you know it is a mistake, you don't get to take advantage of it unless you can make a convincing argument that you didn't know (which would be lying, and isn't really possible in this case anyway, since the initial viral post that informed people about it explicitly said it was a "price error").
yes, actually. It was an obvious error.... Or perhaps you didn't bother to rtfa. The original post that went viral suggesting to take advantage of the opportunity even used the exacts phrase "price error"
I'm sorry to say that you would probably lose that bet if you were to actually take it.
This is exactly the same thing as being legally on the hook for banking errors or tax refund errors that happen to be in your favor.
A contract requires two parties. If a person is buying something via wholly automated or self checkout, there is no second party representing the seller for the contract to the sale.
This might be true if there was a human cashier, but at a self-checkout, things can become a bit more dodgy, particularly if the fact that it was a mistake is somehow self-evident and the customer had every reasonable expectation to have known it was a mistake *before* making the purchase.
Even it the mistake is is *obviously* a mistake?
And it is only the point that we are actuallyt disagreeing, you say that it is a computer because you allege that it computes them. Certainly if it did compute them, that would be true... but it does *NOT* compute them. A thermometer can tell you the temperature, but not because it computes the temperature. An old-fashioned mechanical clock can tell you the time, but not because it computes them.
The notion that because it simulates the motion of the planets it must be a computer is flawed because simulations are not inherently computations. A fire drill is a simulation of what one should do in an actual fire. An electric slot car race track is a simulation of a real race track. Absolutely anything that can be utilized to approximate something else, to whatever degree of accuracy is desired for one's purposes, can be said to be a simulation.
Finally, this device was accurate enough for its time... and for the purposes that it was used for, but in relation to what we understand about the solar system today, it was not as accurate as you seem to think it was. Among other things, it assumed that the earth was at the center of everything, which we now know to be false. Copernicus was the first person to posulate the notion that the earth revolved around the sun, and it wasn't until Gallileo that this notion started to become widely accepted as fact.
Since you've devolved to hurling personal insults, I'm not entirely sure it will be productive to debate the matter further. Contrary to what you seem to think, I am not confused by the fact that this thing cannot be programmed... I am asserting that an ordinary orrery does not actually do anything that can be called "computation" and therefore cannot be considered a computer (although orreries exist that are computers... such as what you would may find in a modern science museum, although come to think of it, you will probably find an old fashioned orrery there as well).
Of course it is nonsense... because an orrery doesn't compute anything in the first place. That was my point. A geometric compass can be used to draw a circle with much less effort than what might otherwise be required, but that does not make the compass any kind of tool that computes how to draw a circle. An orrery can be used to tell the position of the celestial bodies that it models, but it definitely does not compute them in any sense of word. Continually asserting that it is a computer will not make it one.
It would be interesting if someone tried that, although they would have to present a fairly convincing argument that they had "purchased" the work for free in good faith that it was a deal that was being deliberately offered by Microsoft. If it was somehow evident that they knew that it was an error and were simply trying to take advantage of it, I suspect that a judge would not be inclined to rule in their favor.
An orrery *simulates* the motion of the celestial bodies it deals with, but it does not compute their positions any more than a compass "computes" which way is north.
As I attempted to clarify in a followup, I had made a typo, and accidentally hit "submit" instead of "preview". The rotation of a space station is not a computation.
There are plenty of other simulatiions that are not computations... military training exercises, simulation of medical emergencies when training health personel, and many many others.
My point is that a simulation does not inherently indicate computation is occurring. An orrery simulates certain celestial body movements, but does not compute anything. Any computations are left to the user of the orrery.
True... but this world is not decent, and Microsoft does not actually owe people who took advantage of this error anything. You, as a customer, are entirely free to take your business elsewhere in protest.
Only if you never had any evidence that it was ever their intention to give away the game in the first place.
Please tell me where you get the idea that anyone who actually paid for their license would be affected by this?
In what way is it a consumer right to get something for free that was not meant to be free?
Why are you comparing revoking a license to something that was never paid for in the first place to something that would represent a serious loss?