Yeah... conditional endorsment. You are deemed by the bank to have accepted their terms by signing your name.
Typically; how this works is the marketer is in cahootz with your bank or credit card company --- deal that allows the 3rd party to market to the bank's customers using the promotional check gag.
The fact you received the promotional check, probably means that the company advertising this service, has the ability to get all your account information from their partner: your bank that your credit card or checking account is with.
You endorse and deposit that.... your bank will share your account information with that third party, so they can instantly withdraw the price from your checking, or charge your CC every month, and you won't really have any recourse (except to cancel in the future)... isn't that nice?
There are plenty telecom providers in Texas. Just work with one to get a contract to build the fiber you want; with a signed
IRU (Indefeasible right of use) for 99 years.
Here in the US, in theory, the physical servers (and their SAN backends) should be blanked, but if not and the data passes through to another party, that party holding the servers owns that data free and clear. A bank's private records could be available as a torrent,
If the bank is adhering to regulations and standards; all the sensitive data such as account numbers should be encrypted at rest.
Preferably; all data in the vault should be stored with a storage layer encryption on top of that, such that only the legitimate client can operate on the data.
For anything that needs to be processed onsite --- hardware security modules should be used to decrypt data on the fly.
The bank should have legal ownership of the authorization tokens required to operate the hardware security modules, and perform decryption tasks on the bank's data.
There should be a third party required to supervise administration of the hardware tokens required to authenticate to the HSM, and ensure that the tokens and HSM units remain secure at all times, and are operated only with continuing approval of the tenants.
The customers received an item that was worth more than what they paid, and are simply being greedy.
That might be true; Tearaway plus Vita is worth more.
Then again... who is to say greed is bad?
The shareholders of most US companies don't think greed is bad. They would happily do just that swap with customers, if they knew they could get away with it.
What if they (reasonably) believed it was a gift from someone else and have already purchased games for it?
Here's a better one... where if they ordered it as a gift for someone else; already wrapped it in pretty paper,
shuffled it around with a bunch of other boxes wrapped in pretty paper, and dropped it in the donation box at
a local charity, shipped it across the country to their nephew's house,
or left it under the tree somewhere.
I didn't realize that it was such a soul-crushing, career destroying endeavor to slap a return label on something and drop it off; or to make a 5-minute phone call to arrange a pickup at a convenient time, which it sounds like Zawi was willing to do
I'm too busy, but in 3 or 4 weeks: i'd be able to do it --- have to take an hour off work, and spend a few bucks worth of gas, then shipping --- Zawi would need to pay me at least $100, for it to be fully compensating for all the trouble.
Yeah... it's almost more trouble than the bloody little piece of gear is worth in the first place.
Meaning if a neighbor offered me $50 to do that for them, it wouldn't be enough for me to go out of my way and do that for them; they would be better off asking for it as a favor.
Thing is these, things were not "unsolicited". The person ordered one thing (a game called Tearaway) and through an obvious database mistake received something of higher value (a PS Vita Tearaway bundle).
Oh... this is even more confusing... they ordered Tearaway, and got Tearaway PLUS something else.
Let's see... by the time the company realizes they've made the error; you've got your Tearaway PLUS something else, you've opened the box -- took out your stuff -- threw away the box; maybe put wear and tear on all the components.....
They're now going to send you a letter, asking you to return it? Really?
Whatever happened to underpromise overdeliver?
"Too late... I already decided it was a bunch of crap... threw it away, or gave it to the neighbor's kids...." or whatever....
At what point does the recipient really become responsible for deciding that there was an error, or that they got something they weren't supposed to
How would you like it if you accidentally mailed an overpayment for an item and the company said "too bad, we're keeping the extra money, you gave it to us"?
People usually pay by credit card. If they refuse to return the overpayment, you can setup a chargeback with the credit card company.
If you mailed a check; and the vendor declined to return the overpayment, you can actually sue for it, but it is unlikely that you are going to write out a check for too large amount -- and be upset when they deposit it; it's a lot harder to make an error there, where you had to write out the amount twice and sign it!
It's much easier for someone to accidentally stuff the wrong thing in a box.
No, YOU stop. Intentionally being obtuse isn't a defense under any law I've ever seen.
You are cherrypicking answers from a Q&A site put up by the FTC; this is the FTC's consumer-friendly website, not the legal code -- the FTC's job is to enforce the law, not write it. They make this recommendation: the FTC does not say you are obligated to do so.
The very first QA says
Q. Am I obligated to return or pay for merchandise I never ordered?
A. No. If you receive merchandise that you didn’t order, you have a legal right to keep it as a free gift.
Offering to return erroneously received item is a very sensible recommendation, by the way; yes you should offer to return the item sent in error -- it is the right thing to do the law does not require this.
The retailer may also not be inclined to do any more business with you, and it may adversly affect you in other ways; if you won't work with them to correct the error! If the dollar value is high enough, there is also the chance the retailer could seek damages in court, under the sales agreement (Not as theft though).
Placing an order is soliciting a shipment, an incorrect shipment is not unsolicited
The law says nothing about unsolicited shipments.
The law specifically mentionsunordered items and states that the recipient has the
right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender
PERIOD.
The sender's only real chance of arguing otherwise, is with a sales contract completed by the recipient that incorrect items were sent to; spelling out obligations of the recipient, if errors are made.
Again; I would ask you to point out what section of the law says you have to return it if requested. HINT: There is no requirement for you to return the item if requested: the recipient of unordered merchandise may retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender
Now... what's more likely if you ordered something online; You agreed to a sales contract in the process of checking out.
The sales contract probably says something about how errors are to be handled, and you may have some civil liability incurred under the contract, if there is an error, and you under the sales contract you agreed to adhere to at the time of purchase, are expected to assist with correcting the errors, by making the other party whole.
In the United States getting stuff in the mail unsolicited is considered a gift and is not required to be returned...for the exact reason you specified; I can mail everyone on my block an Ubuntu cd and then claim they owe me $10 for accepting it.
You'd be better off making the install screen prompt the user to complete a payment through Paypal before activating it.
it applies in cases where no product was ordered, not cases where the wrong product was sent.
Can you please point out the portion of the law that says it does not apply if the unordered merchandise was sent in error, while attempting to fill a legitimate order?
it states that: (d) For the purposes of this section, “unordered merchandise” means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.
There is no exception in the act for unordered merchandise sent in error; due to sending the wrong item, or sending the right item to the wrong address/recipient.
But the law only applies if somebody is doing it on purpose.
Your assertion is in disagreement with the US Postal services' word on the matter that "finders-keepers" applies unconditionally in the case of receiving any unordered merchandise .
You, the consumer, may only legally be sent two types of merchandise through the mail without your consent or agreement:
Free samples which are clearly and conspicuously marked as such.
Merchandise mailed by a charitable organization that is soliciting contributions.
And in these two cases, you can consider the merchandise a gift if you wish. In all other situations, it is illegal to send merchandise to someone, unless that person has previously ordered or requested it.
If you do not wish to pay for unsolicited merchandise or make a donation to a charity sending such an item, you may do one of three things
If you have not opened the package, you may mark it "Return to Sender,"
If you open the package and don't like what you find, you may throw it away.
If you open the package and like what you find, you may keep it for free. In this instance, "finders-keepers" applies unconditionally.
Furthermore, it is illegal for a company that sends you unordered merchandise to follow the mailing with a bill or dunning communication.
If you are aware of violations of the federal law prohibiting the mailing of unordered merchandise, or if you have personally had difficulty with such items--especially if you are sent statements demanding payment for the merchandise--you should contact you local postmaster or the nearest Postal Inspector.
It is one of the major criteria I look for in good software --- open communication from the developers about updates, and changes;
active recent update history.
Some of the most successful software companies such as Microsoft and VMware post detailed released notes that show bug fixes and improvements.
Detailed changelogs are even better.
If you are concerned about ridicule from a competitor -- you can probably point out the competitor hides their flaws by not posting detailed change logs.
Another thing you can do that's less recommended -- is put the changelogs behind a click-through agreement.
Require site visitors register to review them.
Keep in mind it's not just customers that necessarily want to see documentation, release notes, and changelogs.
When I am considering buying a software product I want, EXPECT, and demand to see on the product vendor's website: (1) Pricing, (2) Release notes, (3) Documentation, (4) Change logs, and (5) A trial version download, before I even talk to a salesperson.
These are signs of a healthy well-marketed product, that will be around for years to come.
If any of these are missing -- warning flags, or alarm bells are going off.
If the software doesn't have readily accessible documentation, or notes on bugs --- does anyone use this software in the real world??
Is the documentation crap??; If I buy this product -- is it going to be a complex pile - have spending hours upon hours on the phone with their support, working out
bugs at every corner just to get the product up and running with basic functionality?
Will I need to make a phone call, to blow my nose with this software?
Bitcoin is not going to be deemed prior art regardless. This thing is claiming priority through a series of applications back to 1999.
We need a law, that any patent application not approved within 3 years of the original application date, can no longer be amended; add, or drop claims, and if not issued within 4 years, will be deemed abandoned.
Even if Bitcoin is never patented, the Patent Office can still (and should) reject the JP Morgan application based on the Bitcoin prior art.
Ah, but the patent filing date is in 1999.
Apparently, the patent hasn't been issued yet, probably because claims the long running application make were overly broad,and the application hadn't fully gone through the system yet, but they are amending the patent claims on an existing application to cover Bitcoin.
The patent will probably be issued with a 1999 filing date, which means that for any prior art to invalidate the patent, it will need to have been before that date, not the date of the last amendment to the application.
Eureka! Interesting hack.... they turn out with a patent covering Bitcoin; or whatever new technology gets invented after their application 10 years later, that they can adjust the claims before patent issuance, to more effectively cover.
Strategic non-completion of the patent issuance process
Let's just take an obvious case (and one that most people agree with) : Don't Kill
It's a poor translation into English. A more accurate representation of what it says would be Thou shalt not commit murder. (malicious killing)
- is it OK to kill one person to save the life of another?
In some cases, that would be an example of justified killing, that the commandment is not an admonishment against.
- is WAR OK?
War is wrong. If war has happened, then there are some offenders --- but, normally not the troops.
The soldier causing deaths because it's their duty, or they must for survival, may be performing justified killing ---
someone up the chain of command may be committing heinous murder.
Students definitely should doubt their teachers ---- who often make errors, and doing so should inspire more learning.
If it gets out of hand, they can always be given a detention for it.
There is a place and time for shoveling as much information into a child's head as it can possibly hold without exploding. This is when we teach multiplication tables, drill grammar into their thick skulls, teach them basic math up through algebra, spelling, penmanship, history, and so on.
These are unnecessary. Strong problem solving and critical thinking are more important in life and should be learned first.
there's a good chance to miss global maximum, and be stuck at a local maximum.
That's a way around that. If you tried something expecting an improvement, and found yourself in a worse situation than before ---- then don't automatically revert to the previous step, until you've ruled out the actual advantage; look for other candidate improvements.
Posting of the ten commandments is not merely a religious message.
It is a way of recognizing culture under which law is based.
For the satanists' monument to be accepted; it (1) must fit somewhere aesthetically appropriate --- not a given; there is only room for so many monuments, and at some point it must be first-come first-served for space, AND
(2) the satanists monument should contain elements from common culture supporting law and justice.
If not... then the message is not rejectable on religious grounds, but is rejectable based on RELEVANCY grounds.
The selection of subjects for monuments is not arbitrary, but the 10 commandments are inspirations of good law; good role models
for legislators in drafting bills ---- simple, protect society, and easily understood.
I don't know... there might be some satanic monuments that could contain a relevant message,
but most probably wouldn't.
On the other hand, the guy who makes a pointy stick and sticks said stick in the side of an animal in attempt to kill and eat it providing more food for his family is being creative but if he picks the wrong animal he ends up rather dead.
Small, incremental improvements.
Making the pointy stick is fine, but don't go rushing to animal killing as a complete replacement for berry gathering.
After all -- what happens if there are no animals, when you need food?
Presumably this water will need to be accessed via drilling and pumping the water. Imagine the horrors if there were a water spill, contaminating all that ocean water with its freshness!
Imagine a spill of ocean water into the freshwater bed; causing the entire reserve to be ruined.
Slashdot Mirror
Can that really be legally binding?
Yeah... conditional endorsment. You are deemed by the bank to have accepted their terms by signing your name.
Typically; how this works is the marketer is in cahootz with your bank or credit card company --- deal that allows the 3rd party to market to the bank's customers using the promotional check gag.
The fact you received the promotional check, probably means that the company advertising this service, has the ability to get all your account information from their partner: your bank that your credit card or checking account is with.
You endorse and deposit that.... your bank will share your account information with that third party, so they can instantly withdraw the price from your checking, or charge your CC every month, and you won't really have any recourse (except to cancel in the future)... isn't that nice?
There are plenty telecom providers in Texas. Just work with one to get a contract to build the fiber you want; with a signed IRU (Indefeasible right of use) for 99 years.
Here in the US, in theory, the physical servers (and their SAN backends) should be blanked, but if not and the data passes through to another party, that party holding the servers owns that data free and clear. A bank's private records could be available as a torrent,
If the bank is adhering to regulations and standards; all the sensitive data such as account numbers should be encrypted at rest.
Preferably; all data in the vault should be stored with a storage layer encryption on top of that, such that only the legitimate client can operate on the data.
For anything that needs to be processed onsite --- hardware security modules should be used to decrypt data on the fly.
The bank should have legal ownership of the authorization tokens required to operate the hardware security modules, and perform decryption tasks on the bank's data.
There should be a third party required to supervise administration of the hardware tokens required to authenticate to the HSM, and ensure that the tokens and HSM units remain secure at all times, and are operated only with continuing approval of the tenants.
The customers received an item that was worth more than what they paid, and are simply being greedy.
That might be true; Tearaway plus Vita is worth more.
Then again... who is to say greed is bad?
The shareholders of most US companies don't think greed is bad. They would happily do just that swap with customers, if they knew they could get away with it.
What if they (reasonably) believed it was a gift from someone else and have already purchased games for it?
Here's a better one... where if they ordered it as a gift for someone else; already wrapped it in pretty paper, shuffled it around with a bunch of other boxes wrapped in pretty paper, and dropped it in the donation box at a local charity, shipped it across the country to their nephew's house, or left it under the tree somewhere.
The item may be very non-recoverable
I didn't realize that it was such a soul-crushing, career destroying endeavor to slap a return label on something and drop it off; or to make a 5-minute phone call to arrange a pickup at a convenient time, which it sounds like Zawi was willing to do
I'm too busy, but in 3 or 4 weeks: i'd be able to do it --- have to take an hour off work, and spend a few bucks worth of gas, then shipping --- Zawi would need to pay me at least $100, for it to be fully compensating for all the trouble.
Yeah... it's almost more trouble than the bloody little piece of gear is worth in the first place.
Meaning if a neighbor offered me $50 to do that for them, it wouldn't be enough for me to go out of my way and do that for them; they would be better off asking for it as a favor.
Thing is these, things were not "unsolicited". The person ordered one thing (a game called Tearaway) and through an obvious database mistake received something of higher value (a PS Vita Tearaway bundle).
Oh... this is even more confusing... they ordered Tearaway, and got Tearaway PLUS something else.
Let's see... by the time the company realizes they've made the error; you've got your Tearaway PLUS something else, you've opened the box -- took out your stuff -- threw away the box; maybe put wear and tear on all the components.....
They're now going to send you a letter, asking you to return it? Really?
Whatever happened to underpromise overdeliver?
"Too late... I already decided it was a bunch of crap... threw it away, or gave it to the neighbor's kids...." or whatever....
At what point does the recipient really become responsible for deciding that there was an error, or that they got something they weren't supposed to
How would you like it if you accidentally mailed an overpayment for an item and the company said "too bad, we're keeping the extra money, you gave it to us"?
People usually pay by credit card. If they refuse to return the overpayment, you can setup a chargeback with the credit card company.
If you mailed a check; and the vendor declined to return the overpayment, you can actually sue for it, but it is unlikely that you are going to write out a check for too large amount -- and be upset when they deposit it; it's a lot harder to make an error there, where you had to write out the amount twice and sign it!
It's much easier for someone to accidentally stuff the wrong thing in a box.
No, YOU stop. Intentionally being obtuse isn't a defense under any law I've ever seen.
You are cherrypicking answers from a Q&A site put up by the FTC; this is the FTC's consumer-friendly website, not the legal code -- the FTC's job is to enforce the law, not write it. They make this recommendation: the FTC does not say you are obligated to do so.
The very first QA says
Offering to return erroneously received item is a very sensible recommendation, by the way; yes you should offer to return the item sent in error -- it is the right thing to do the law does not require this. The retailer may also not be inclined to do any more business with you, and it may adversly affect you in other ways; if you won't work with them to correct the error! If the dollar value is high enough, there is also the chance the retailer could seek damages in court, under the sales agreement (Not as theft though).
Placing an order is soliciting a shipment, an incorrect shipment is not unsolicited
The law says nothing about unsolicited shipments. The law specifically mentions unordered items and states that the recipient has the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender
PERIOD.
The sender's only real chance of arguing otherwise, is with a sales contract completed by the recipient that incorrect items were sent to; spelling out obligations of the recipient, if errors are made.
Again; I would ask you to point out what section of the law says you have to return it if requested. HINT: There is no requirement for you to return the item if requested: the recipient of unordered merchandise may retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender
Now... what's more likely if you ordered something online; You agreed to a sales contract in the process of checking out. The sales contract probably says something about how errors are to be handled, and you may have some civil liability incurred under the contract, if there is an error, and you under the sales contract you agreed to adhere to at the time of purchase, are expected to assist with correcting the errors, by making the other party whole.
In the United States getting stuff in the mail unsolicited is considered a gift and is not required to be returned...for the exact reason you specified; I can mail everyone on my block an Ubuntu cd and then claim they owe me $10 for accepting it.
You'd be better off making the install screen prompt the user to complete a payment through Paypal before activating it.
it applies in cases where no product was ordered, not cases where the wrong product was sent.
Can you please point out the portion of the law that says it does not apply if the unordered merchandise was sent in error, while attempting to fill a legitimate order?
The relevant section is 39 USC 3009.
it states that: (d) For the purposes of this section, “unordered merchandise” means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.
There is no exception in the act for unordered merchandise sent in error; due to sending the wrong item, or sending the right item to the wrong address/recipient.
But the law only applies if somebody is doing it on purpose.
Your assertion is in disagreement with the US Postal services' word on the matter that "finders-keepers" applies unconditionally in the case of receiving any unordered merchandise .
It is one of the major criteria I look for in good software --- open communication from the developers about updates, and changes; active recent update history.
Some of the most successful software companies such as Microsoft and VMware post detailed released notes that show bug fixes and improvements.
Detailed changelogs are even better.
If you are concerned about ridicule from a competitor -- you can probably point out the competitor hides their flaws by not posting detailed change logs.
Another thing you can do that's less recommended -- is put the changelogs behind a click-through agreement. Require site visitors register to review them.
Keep in mind it's not just customers that necessarily want to see documentation, release notes, and changelogs.
When I am considering buying a software product I want, EXPECT, and demand to see on the product vendor's website: (1) Pricing, (2) Release notes, (3) Documentation, (4) Change logs, and (5) A trial version download, before I even talk to a salesperson.
These are signs of a healthy well-marketed product, that will be around for years to come. If any of these are missing -- warning flags, or alarm bells are going off.
If the software doesn't have readily accessible documentation, or notes on bugs --- does anyone use this software in the real world?? Is the documentation crap??; If I buy this product -- is it going to be a complex pile - have spending hours upon hours on the phone with their support, working out bugs at every corner just to get the product up and running with basic functionality?
Will I need to make a phone call, to blow my nose with this software?
so it's entirely fallacious to say our legal system is based on them.
Based on does not mean our legal system is a subset or superset of the 10 commandments.
The 10 commandments are historically, one of the earliest examples you have of written law. other relevant examples would be Hammurabi's Code of Laws.
I agree the 10 commandments command things that are not legally required, and forbid things that are not legally prohibited; in today's legal system.
Really? They're going to sue a protocol?
For BTC to ever become mainstream; there will have to be point of sale equipment, and E-commerce players using it.
They can just sue point of sale equipment manufacturers, retailers, etc, dealing in Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is not going to be deemed prior art regardless. This thing is claiming priority through a series of applications back to 1999.
We need a law, that any patent application not approved within 3 years of the original application date, can no longer be amended; add, or drop claims, and if not issued within 4 years, will be deemed abandoned.
Even if Bitcoin is never patented, the Patent Office can still (and should) reject the JP Morgan application based on the Bitcoin prior art.
Ah, but the patent filing date is in 1999. Apparently, the patent hasn't been issued yet, probably because claims the long running application make were overly broad,and the application hadn't fully gone through the system yet, but they are amending the patent claims on an existing application to cover Bitcoin.
The patent will probably be issued with a 1999 filing date, which means that for any prior art to invalidate the patent, it will need to have been before that date, not the date of the last amendment to the application.
Eureka! Interesting hack.... they turn out with a patent covering Bitcoin; or whatever new technology gets invented after their application 10 years later, that they can adjust the claims before patent issuance, to more effectively cover.
Strategic non-completion of the patent issuance process
Let's just take an obvious case (and one that most people agree with) : Don't Kill
It's a poor translation into English. A more accurate representation of what it says would be Thou shalt not commit murder. (malicious killing)
- is it OK to kill one person to save the life of another?
In some cases, that would be an example of justified killing, that the commandment is not an admonishment against.
- is WAR OK?
War is wrong. If war has happened, then there are some offenders --- but, normally not the troops. The soldier causing deaths because it's their duty, or they must for survival, may be performing justified killing --- someone up the chain of command may be committing heinous murder.
Students definitely should doubt their teachers ---- who often make errors, and doing so should inspire more learning. If it gets out of hand, they can always be given a detention for it.
There is a place and time for shoveling as much information into a child's head as it can possibly hold without exploding. This is when we teach multiplication tables, drill grammar into their thick skulls, teach them basic math up through algebra, spelling, penmanship, history, and so on.
These are unnecessary. Strong problem solving and critical thinking are more important in life and should be learned first.
there's a good chance to miss global maximum, and be stuck at a local maximum.
That's a way around that. If you tried something expecting an improvement, and found yourself in a worse situation than before ---- then don't automatically revert to the previous step, until you've ruled out the actual advantage; look for other candidate improvements.
Posting of the ten commandments is not merely a religious message.
It is a way of recognizing culture under which law is based.
For the satanists' monument to be accepted; it (1) must fit somewhere aesthetically appropriate --- not a given; there is only room for so many monuments, and at some point it must be first-come first-served for space, AND
(2) the satanists monument should contain elements from common culture supporting law and justice.
If not... then the message is not rejectable on religious grounds, but is rejectable based on RELEVANCY grounds.
The selection of subjects for monuments is not arbitrary, but the 10 commandments are inspirations of good law; good role models for legislators in drafting bills ---- simple, protect society, and easily understood.
I don't know... there might be some satanic monuments that could contain a relevant message, but most probably wouldn't.
On the other hand, the guy who makes a pointy stick and sticks said stick in the side of an animal in attempt to kill and eat it providing more food for his family is being creative but if he picks the wrong animal he ends up rather dead.
Small, incremental improvements.
Making the pointy stick is fine, but don't go rushing to animal killing as a complete replacement for berry gathering.
After all -- what happens if there are no animals, when you need food?
Presumably this water will need to be accessed via drilling and pumping the water. Imagine the horrors if there were a water spill, contaminating all that ocean water with its freshness!
Imagine a spill of ocean water into the freshwater bed; causing the entire reserve to be ruined.