Here's what I would do — just my thoughts, not legal advice or anything like that. This is based on a number of things:
* I am based in the UK, as my thoughts are based on UK law;
* I bought the product as a consumer, and not a business;
* Apple was the seller — the party from whom I bought the product. If Apple is the manufacturer, but not the seller, because I bought the product from a third party store, O would need to pursue your claim (which is for breach of contract) against that third party instead; and
* It genuinely is a case of a latent fault, not me having broken something and looking for a remedy — for example, that I was poking about inside the machine / trying to take it apart, and, in doing so, caused the problem in question.
I would not cite the legislation, or make it sound all legalistic — in my experience, that just causes problems and gets people nervous, but knowing the position can be helpful, to avoid being fobbed off. I've cited and linked the relevant legislation, for reference, and tried to outline my thinking / methodology, but I would *really* be aiming for it to be a casual exchange rather than one full of legal overtones.
I would go back to the Apple store and explain that under English law, goods sold in the course of business must be "of satisfactory quality" (s14, Sale of Goods Act 1979). This is a requirement which is implied automatically into a contract, and which cannot be excluded in a business to consumer relationship (s6(2), Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977).
With this in mind, would they please fix the product for free, on the basis that, because of this fault, the product was not of satisfactory quality.
If necessary, I would explain that:
* the fault was latent, in that, without abuse, which would be obvious from the outside of the machine, the problem should not have happened, and thus must relate to a defect present at point of purchase;
* the fault is not something which could fall within reasonable wear and tear; and
* it is reasonable to expect the part in question would have an operational lifespan of longer than a year and a bit.
If pushed further, I would explain that:
* because it is a requirement that goods are of satisfactory quality, and that Apple supplied a product which was not of satisfactory quality, Apple is required to provide a remedy and that I was looking for a repair (although, if this would be uneconomical, I would accept a refund (long shot) or a replacement), to put me in the position which I would have been in if I had not been supplied with a faulty machine;
* whilst Apple may only reference a one year warranty, what this means is that Apple has offered additional support, over and above its legal requirements, for a period of a year, but that this does not mean that any right of remedy under the Sale of Goods Act ceases after a year; and
* in the case of a breach of contract, I have six years from the breach to bring a claim (s5, Limitation Act 1980). Since I would be claiming that the contract was breached when the goods were supplied, because the goods which were supplied were not of satisfactory quality, this would give me six years from supply / purchase (if I took the goods away with me from the shop). (This does not mean that the product has to work for six years — it may be reasonable for a given product to only work for, say, a year, or two years, but that, if it should fail within the period of time in which it should reasonably be expected to work, I have six years from the point of supply to make the claim. As above, I would be stating that the nature of the product means that it would be reasonable to expect an operat
If you want to screw off all day and program until 4am, fine with me.
I guess it depends on what the submitter means. I had read his post as meaning that some people were not working efficiently for a prolonged period of time, increasing the onus on others. Screwing off all day, and working from 23:00 until 04:00 may be fine some time — perhaps even most of the time — but when the deadline was 21:00, and everyone else is having to work harder to make up for the fact that one of the team members is screwing off, that's perhaps closer to my understanding of the submitter's dilemma. (And I say this as someone who very much values the ability to work flexibly, and under my own conditions, but I do recognise that there's a time to knuckle down in line with how others are working too.)
Absolutely. I would argue against any attempt to prevent someone from running AdBlock Plus or the like — filtering what you allow onto your computer (whether filtering what you ask for from someone else or, less usefully, asking for it and then not displaying it) is absolutely your prerogative too.
DNT is a slightly challenging use case, to my mind. As I understand it, it means that I request everything on a page, but also send an additional request that some things do not happen with my data. I'm not actually filtering anything, or not requesting certain parts of the page — I'm relying, even trusting, the content owner to behave in accordance with my wishes. Which is partly why I'm not giving up ABP any time soon, just as a promise from everyone on the Internet not to do something I don't want them to do in terms of accessing my server would not lead me to dropping my firewall.
You don't have the right to throw up a pile of shit with ads
I can understand why this sort of activity is disliked — I don't browse without AdBlock Plus, and now will investigate Ghostery too — but, I would have thought that, within the bounds of the law, their webserver, it's their prerogative to host what they want / construct their site how they want?
If I want to put up a whole load of flashing banners when you visit my site (I don't, but, if I did...), and that clogs up your bandwidth, that's my prerogative, just as it is your prerogative not to visit the site?
For the site at question here, it's simple — I'm not going to be visiting. But I do think it's their prerogative to serve up poor content with ads, if that's what they choose to put on their webserver.
Indeed, in the United States, typefaces are exempt from copyright protection. Computer fonts, as a specific implementation of that typeface, however, can be protected as computer software. Though even with that in mind, people can still create visually similar work and distribute the fonts for free if they wish.
Thanks for the information — that's really appreciated. Always nice to learn something new.
Is this a particular provision of US law? In the UK, the design of a typeface may be protected by copyright as an artistic work. There are, however, special provisions of copyright law dealing with infringement of artistic copyright in the use of typefaces, in s54, Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988:
(1)It is not an infringement of copyright in an artistic work consisting of the design of a typeface—
(a)to use the typeface in the ordinary course of typing, composing text, typesetting or printing,
(b)to possess an article for the purpose of such use, or
(c)to do anything in relation to material produced by such use;
and this is so notwithstanding that an article is used which is an infringing copy of the work.
Similarly, the font may be protected as a literary work, being a computer program. Given the recent case law within the EU on user interfaces, and the difference (or seeming lack of perceived difference) between copying the code comprising a computer program and copying what a program looks like on screen by writing your own code to achieve the same outcome, which may amount to an infringement in the literary work comprising the font, rather than the artistic work comprising the design of the typeface, which may make things even less clear...
what are the alternatives to sending the password as text in an email?
I am no expert in the field, but I would have thought that the password should be stored in salted and hashed, form. Anyone compromising that database gets a list of encrypted passwords — it does not help them determine the characters which need to be entered into the system to gain access, unless the algorithm and salt is compromised too.
Instead of sending the user a password, the user should be emailed a link to an online portal for creating a new password, which gets salted and hashed, and this resulting hash stored in the password database.
Borrow a Dyson and see how much crap the Roomba leaves behind
Sad to say, we have a Dyson — we had it before the Roomba. The Roomba is great on the wooden/tiled floors downstairs, and only just passable on carpet upstairs. The Dyson is used for the stairs and the skirting boards and behind doors etc. where the Roomba cannot easily go. The Roomba is convenient, and, frankly, fun, but I would not be able to do without a more traditional vacuum cleaner yet.
Running the Roomba every day is no effort, so it gets run a lot more often than I would bother to vacuum, and so, on the whole, everything looks clean enough, but I run the Dyson every so often too. Overall, I'm really pleased with the Roomba, but I was accepting of its limitations before buying it — if it were bought as a vacuum-to-replace-them-all, I would expect disappointment.
Sure, it can't do the stairs, but my second/third/whatever hand Roomba (530, I think), £100 from eBay, is great — press the button, off it goes, and does a more than merely passable job of the downstairs. I would not pay full price for one, but, for the money I spent, I'm more than happy with the product.
It didn't immediately decrease the time spent on vacuuming, though — I'd waste the time previously spent pushing a vacuum around just watching it do its thing. Now, at least, I can just let it run, but I do get a feeling of "wow, that's rather cool" each time I run it...
And designed to be user-repaired, or at least parts replaced, which is always a bonus.
It does not protect anyone's privacy unless the recipients believe it was set by a real human being, with a real preference for privacy over personalization
By being set, it protects my privacy as long as "recipients" abide by it without question — it only becomes an issue when "recipients" qualify when they will abide by it.
If active choice is not an option, a default in favour of not tracking seems a better position to me but, then again, I am not an ad network executive.
its the amount part which makes no damned sense to me
Again pure speculation on my part, but it seems to be down to informed choice — I'd have thought consumers would want to know if their sausages are 99% meat or 10% meat, and whether their fruit juice contains a mostly water, a lot of sugar and a mere hint of apple, or is actually pure pressed apple.
To argue with myself, even if that were the case, arguably it is something the market could regulate itself — if a consumer were sufficiently unsure, they would not buy, and companies with high percentages of "good" things in products would shout about it from a marketing / competitive advantage purpose. Those which did not shout would be treated as being of low quality, and subject just to the requirement to label composition, not quantity.
if we are gonna force the creators to list the ingredients in order of amount (thus pretty much forcing them to include the recipe) shouldn't they get something for that?
I'm not sure which law forces a company to provide a list of ingredients — some kind of consumer protection / food standards law?
If that's the case — and I speculate completely here — I would have thought that the "something" that the company gets is the ability to sell the product; the trade off is that, in exchange for the ability to sell the product, the company is required to provide a bare minimum of information about its content, so that potential purchasers can make informed decisions about whether they wish to eat/drink it. To justify giving an additional right to the producer, in the form of copyright protection for the list of ingredients, there must be some additional public benefit purpose in doing so.
(I use copyright as an example, but it's a bad example — do I infringe the copyright in that list of ingredients if I make a product up in those quantities, even though I have had to work out the method of combination myself, as it may not be as simple as chucking them all together in a bowl, and then try to sell the product, thereby forcing me to publish the list which, oddly enough, is identical to the one on which I based my product?)
I hate to play devil's advocate
Far better than slavishly following something, never questioning it.
I would agree — it might be clearer in some countries than in others, but the mere list of ingredients, and the process of putting them together, is not capable of being the subject of copyright in itself. Here, there seems to be a greater emphasis on the aspect of transparency, and the publication of something which, for many, probably amounts to a trade secret. As such, irrespective of the copyrightability of the recipe, the real joy for me is that it is the manufacturer publishing the recipe, for others to make, enjoy and modify.
Whether a licence should be placed on that recipe is more of a concern, though, is more of a concern — it attempts to impose protection on something incapable of protection. For those who argue that these licences are contracts, there's perhaps less of an issue, but for those who see them as simple licences, which only work because of the permission to perform an otherwise restricted act, it is perhaps not ideal.
Conversely, could one argue that this is the licensing of a trade secret? Potentially a tough argument, on the basis that it would seem to flaunt one of the core tenets of secrecy, given that it is published, and an argument which could be problematic through an over-extension of copyright, but, in spirit, this seems closer to what is being done here than copyright licensing.
And yet for every person like you there's 100 who only ever use a computer for Facebook and email and gave been waiting for something as simple and useful as the ipad for the past 15 years.
Absolutely — my other half has taken to a tablet over her computer for most, but not all, of her computing needs. For me, it's not there yet, so I'm hoping that the death of the "proper" computer is not for a while...
But what keeps me using a computer over a tablet, at least so far, as the ease of use — navigation, switching between browser tabs or between applications, ability to split screen and have documents side by side and so on. My coding is minimal, but I do a huge amount of research and writing up my thoughts, and, whilst a tablet has worked its way into my life despite me initially pooh-poohing them as pretty much pointless for the way I tend(ed) to use computers, I cannot see it replacing a computer for the time being.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't have to do this. With Stanford's name behind you, you might even have made a fair chunk of cash selling it. But you didn't.
Thank you.
Fair point.
Are you sure this is still the case? I thought Vietnam had signed up to WIPO, and had "pretty standard" copyright laws now?
Not necessarily the best reference source, but here's something which seems to support this, and also "Vietnamese Copyright Laws: Foreign Copyright Owners Beware!" (pdf).
Here's what I would do — just my thoughts, not legal advice or anything like that. This is based on a number of things:
I would not cite the legislation, or make it sound all legalistic — in my experience, that just causes problems and gets people nervous, but knowing the position can be helpful, to avoid being fobbed off. I've cited and linked the relevant legislation, for reference, and tried to outline my thinking / methodology, but I would *really* be aiming for it to be a casual exchange rather than one full of legal overtones.
I would go back to the Apple store and explain that under English law, goods sold in the course of business must be "of satisfactory quality" (s14, Sale of Goods Act 1979). This is a requirement which is implied automatically into a contract, and which cannot be excluded in a business to consumer relationship (s6(2), Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977).
With this in mind, would they please fix the product for free, on the basis that, because of this fault, the product was not of satisfactory quality.
If necessary, I would explain that:
If pushed further, I would explain that:
I guess it depends on what the submitter means. I had read his post as meaning that some people were not working efficiently for a prolonged period of time, increasing the onus on others. Screwing off all day, and working from 23:00 until 04:00 may be fine some time — perhaps even most of the time — but when the deadline was 21:00, and everyone else is having to work harder to make up for the fact that one of the team members is screwing off, that's perhaps closer to my understanding of the submitter's dilemma. (And I say this as someone who very much values the ability to work flexibly, and under my own conditions, but I do recognise that there's a time to knuckle down in line with how others are working too.)
assuming that pay is fair for the tasks in question. If you know who is "slacking off," is it worth talking to them, and find out why?
Or are they actually have some valuable downtime, breaking up their day and giving them a chance to think and refresh?
Could it be said that the telco provides a service atop that data connection, then, in the form of a voice service?
Absolutely. I would argue against any attempt to prevent someone from running AdBlock Plus or the like — filtering what you allow onto your computer (whether filtering what you ask for from someone else or, less usefully, asking for it and then not displaying it) is absolutely your prerogative too.
DNT is a slightly challenging use case, to my mind. As I understand it, it means that I request everything on a page, but also send an additional request that some things do not happen with my data. I'm not actually filtering anything, or not requesting certain parts of the page — I'm relying, even trusting, the content owner to behave in accordance with my wishes. Which is partly why I'm not giving up ABP any time soon, just as a promise from everyone on the Internet not to do something I don't want them to do in terms of accessing my server would not lead me to dropping my firewall.
I can understand why this sort of activity is disliked — I don't browse without AdBlock Plus, and now will investigate Ghostery too — but, I would have thought that, within the bounds of the law, their webserver, it's their prerogative to host what they want / construct their site how they want?
If I want to put up a whole load of flashing banners when you visit my site (I don't, but, if I did...), and that clogs up your bandwidth, that's my prerogative, just as it is your prerogative not to visit the site?
For the site at question here, it's simple — I'm not going to be visiting. But I do think it's their prerogative to serve up poor content with ads, if that's what they choose to put on their webserver.
Thanks for the information — that's really appreciated. Always nice to learn something new.
Is this a particular provision of US law? In the UK, the design of a typeface may be protected by copyright as an artistic work. There are, however, special provisions of copyright law dealing with infringement of artistic copyright in the use of typefaces, in s54, Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988:
Similarly, the font may be protected as a literary work, being a computer program. Given the recent case law within the EU on user interfaces, and the difference (or seeming lack of perceived difference) between copying the code comprising a computer program and copying what a program looks like on screen by writing your own code to achieve the same outcome, which may amount to an infringement in the literary work comprising the font, rather than the artistic work comprising the design of the typeface, which may make things even less clear...
Or, at least, an offer to come back with the source code at any point in the next three years?
what are the alternatives to sending the password as text in an email?
I am no expert in the field, but I would have thought that the password should be stored in salted and hashed, form. Anyone compromising that database gets a list of encrypted passwords — it does not help them determine the characters which need to be entered into the system to gain access, unless the algorithm and salt is compromised too.
Instead of sending the user a password, the user should be emailed a link to an online portal for creating a new password, which gets salted and hashed, and this resulting hash stored in the password database.
Terms and conditions apply
Borrow a Dyson and see how much crap the Roomba leaves behind
Sad to say, we have a Dyson — we had it before the Roomba. The Roomba is great on the wooden/tiled floors downstairs, and only just passable on carpet upstairs. The Dyson is used for the stairs and the skirting boards and behind doors etc. where the Roomba cannot easily go. The Roomba is convenient, and, frankly, fun, but I would not be able to do without a more traditional vacuum cleaner yet.
Running the Roomba every day is no effort, so it gets run a lot more often than I would bother to vacuum, and so, on the whole, everything looks clean enough, but I run the Dyson every so often too. Overall, I'm really pleased with the Roomba, but I was accepting of its limitations before buying it — if it were bought as a vacuum-to-replace-them-all, I would expect disappointment.
It didn't immediately decrease the time spent on vacuuming, though — I'd waste the time previously spent pushing a vacuum around just watching it do its thing. Now, at least, I can just let it run, but I do get a feeling of "wow, that's rather cool" each time I run it...
And designed to be user-repaired, or at least parts replaced, which is always a bonus.
Interesting points — thanks!
It does not protect anyone's privacy unless the recipients believe it was set by a real human being, with a real preference for privacy over personalization
By being set, it protects my privacy as long as "recipients" abide by it without question — it only becomes an issue when "recipients" qualify when they will abide by it.
If active choice is not an option, a default in favour of not tracking seems a better position to me but, then again, I am not an ad network executive.
its the amount part which makes no damned sense to me
Again pure speculation on my part, but it seems to be down to informed choice — I'd have thought consumers would want to know if their sausages are 99% meat or 10% meat, and whether their fruit juice contains a mostly water, a lot of sugar and a mere hint of apple, or is actually pure pressed apple.
To argue with myself, even if that were the case, arguably it is something the market could regulate itself — if a consumer were sufficiently unsure, they would not buy, and companies with high percentages of "good" things in products would shout about it from a marketing / competitive advantage purpose. Those which did not shout would be treated as being of low quality, and subject just to the requirement to label composition, not quantity.
Interesting discussion!
if we are gonna force the creators to list the ingredients in order of amount (thus pretty much forcing them to include the recipe) shouldn't they get something for that?
I'm not sure which law forces a company to provide a list of ingredients — some kind of consumer protection / food standards law?
If that's the case — and I speculate completely here — I would have thought that the "something" that the company gets is the ability to sell the product; the trade off is that, in exchange for the ability to sell the product, the company is required to provide a bare minimum of information about its content, so that potential purchasers can make informed decisions about whether they wish to eat/drink it. To justify giving an additional right to the producer, in the form of copyright protection for the list of ingredients, there must be some additional public benefit purpose in doing so.
(I use copyright as an example, but it's a bad example — do I infringe the copyright in that list of ingredients if I make a product up in those quantities, even though I have had to work out the method of combination myself, as it may not be as simple as chucking them all together in a bowl, and then try to sell the product, thereby forcing me to publish the list which, oddly enough, is identical to the one on which I based my product?)
I hate to play devil's advocate
Far better than slavishly following something, never questioning it.
Uniform Trade Secrets Act ... The law concerning recipies is clear and settled. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 is your friend.
Thanks — particularly for those of you in the US, those two things are worth knowing.
Can't it be both?
Quantum beer — my favourite!
I would agree — it might be clearer in some countries than in others, but the mere list of ingredients, and the process of putting them together, is not capable of being the subject of copyright in itself. Here, there seems to be a greater emphasis on the aspect of transparency, and the publication of something which, for many, probably amounts to a trade secret. As such, irrespective of the copyrightability of the recipe, the real joy for me is that it is the manufacturer publishing the recipe, for others to make, enjoy and modify.
Whether a licence should be placed on that recipe is more of a concern, though, is more of a concern — it attempts to impose protection on something incapable of protection. For those who argue that these licences are contracts, there's perhaps less of an issue, but for those who see them as simple licences, which only work because of the permission to perform an otherwise restricted act, it is perhaps not ideal.
Conversely, could one argue that this is the licensing of a trade secret? Potentially a tough argument, on the basis that it would seem to flaunt one of the core tenets of secrecy, given that it is published, and an argument which could be problematic through an over-extension of copyright, but, in spirit, this seems closer to what is being done here than copyright licensing.
And yet for every person like you there's 100 who only ever use a computer for Facebook and email and gave been waiting for something as simple and useful as the ipad for the past 15 years.
Absolutely — my other half has taken to a tablet over her computer for most, but not all, of her computing needs. For me, it's not there yet, so I'm hoping that the death of the "proper" computer is not for a while...
But what keeps me using a computer over a tablet, at least so far, as the ease of use — navigation, switching between browser tabs or between applications, ability to split screen and have documents side by side and so on. My coding is minimal, but I do a huge amount of research and writing up my thoughts, and, whilst a tablet has worked its way into my life despite me initially pooh-poohing them as pretty much pointless for the way I tend(ed) to use computers, I cannot see it replacing a computer for the time being.