Every time someone points out how frivilous this case is and was, one of you scum come crawling out of the woodwork to claim it was reasonable. IT ISN'T!!!! If you spill hot liquids on yourself, you will get burned. Really badly burned.
Really? So you go into a restaurant and get a coffee that's so hot it burns the skin off of you.... and you think that's reasonable? Forget the fact she spilled it. If she drank the coffee she would 've burned her tongue and mouth so badly she might have been a lot worse off. Look at this clip I found...
The simple accident caused third-degree burns on more than 6 percent of her body. She was treated in a hospital for a week. McDonald's served coffee 20 or so degrees hotter than the industry standard. The woman, Stella Liebeck, underwent numerous skin-graft surgeries as a result of her third-degree coffee burns to her thighs and groin area. She had permanent scarring on more than 16 percent of her body.
McDonald's had already ignored more than 700 similar claims of coffee burns, many involving children. The company even ignored a request from the Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati to turn down its coffee.
So I guess you're the scum! Skin grafts and a week in the hospital care of McDonalds is not reasonable.
Nice! Now along with commies we'll be HACKERS
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
SCO needs to change the password on their mail server: sco.txt.
Please.. Do you know what that will look like to the rest of the world? Maybe Michael should read the Linux Advocacy FAQ, or at least what not to do!
IANAL. But I'm at least willing to do a Google search rather than spout my opinion on this kind of thing.
But did you read it? The poster said
Most of these Eula's are unenforceable anyway.
Which is true. Both your links talk about having to agree to a license before a transaction is made. It seems he bought the laptop, software and all, before having to click through agreements.
Your second link says:
Some courts have held that shrink-wrap license terms are not enforceable if the contract for sale of the software is formed prior to presentation of the shrink-wrap terms to the licensee.
That spells it out for me. The moment you buy something is when you squabble about terms. If the vender says: "to get this product all you have to do is give me money." That's all the conditions you've agreed to. At that point any conditions the hardware or software try to bind you with are unenforceable.
EULA's are only binding if you license your software. If you bought it over the counter, the exchange of money is all the agreement needed. Once you own the product they can't start adding "conditions".
Have you ever read a EULA? Early on in most of them you 'agree to this license'. That you agree you dont own the software, only a right to use it under certian conditions.
Wrong! I bought the software (with my laptop lets say). I own it. Whether I have to click a EULA button or not, I own it.
Since both parties agree, and there was an exchange of something of value it sure sounds like a binding contract to me. You do have the option of not agreeing, but you dont retain right to use.
Wrong! I already own the software. I don't need to agree to conditions. Microsoft can write anything they want into their EULAs. It doesn't make it legal. You can't force terms upon someone after they own something. Ford can't force me to buy goodyear tires either. Leases may be another story, but sales are sales,not licenses.
Currently most HAVE been upheld.. true not all, but most.
Wrong again!
Check this article out. I know it's linux journal but the quote is from a Judge.
"The Court understands fully why licensing has many advantages for software publishers. However, this preference does not alter the Court's analysis that the substance of the transaction at issue here is a sale and not a license," Judge Pregerson writes. If you put your money down and walked away with a CD, you bought that copy, EULA or no EULA.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5628
Btw you dont own the content of a record either..
Did I say I own the "content" of a record? I said I own a record. I can resell the record just like I can resell the book or movie I bought. I can play it backwards in search of hidden messages or figure out the guitar parts note for note. (reverse engineering:) They can't put conditions on it. I OWN IT!
Record companies tried to change the law. In 1993 they tried to stop stores that sell used CDs. Garth Brooks even went on TV to cry about it. But they failed. Just look it up in copyright law.
While you do currently ( but not much longer i do forsee ) own what hardweare you buy, any firm/soft-ware that came with the device you only have a license to use.. at their terms.
You couldn't be more wrong! You have to agree to a license. It is a contract after all. Agreeing to a contract isn't as simple as a click through button. Terms have to be negotiable.
So far, most of the licenses that are attached to software haven't been upheld in court. Any software that was bought is owned by the person who bought it. Just like a book or a record. Not licensed. Not leased. Bought, sold, period. Unless you sign a contract before you put your money on the table. You own it.
So if you want to use the software, or sell it, you can. Microsoft's EULAs are illusions.
No matter how cool Mac OS X is... no matter how awesome these new G5s will be... if they are three times the cost of a PC, buyers will have a hard time justifiying it. In this economy, Apple will be hard-pressed to sell those $2300-$3000 desktops when people can get an equivalent-or-just-slightly-slower Dell for $800... including a flat-panel monitor.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Do you feel that putting Windows on a fast computer is better? Would you consider a Windows XP vs Mac OS X a equivalent trade off? Are you out of your mind?
Even at twice the price Mac OS-X beats Windows. (and I'm not even a Mac person!) These are the same type of arguments Mac people must have to put up with every day. I would buy a Mac. Just like I would buy a Corvette instead of a Chrysler.
What this settlement reflects is that the Time Warner part of AOL-TW is now firmly in control, and America Online people are not.
I think your right. I'm guessing aol-TW have no idea of Microsofts history concerning collaboration! It's going to be funny when they wake up to the reality of Microsoft's business as usually. Microsoft gets everything they want and you get a lump of coal.
Well.... I have to thank Jim Clark for the free and open browser! It's what really matters in the long run.
Do you need a license to sell or distribute a book? Do you need record company permission to sell a bunch of old CD's you have. Surely they are copyrighted works. I didn't burn copies and try to sell them, they are not fakes. Then why would I need a license to sell them?
Software pirates lack such permission,
So your saying I need a license to sell now? People sell OEM software all the time regardless of what Microsoft says. Microsoft, of course, calls them pirates.
Microsoft does not sell copies of their software. They sell licenses.
Thats what they say. Copyright law says otherwise. Microsoft sells copies of their software. You can buy it in any Staples or Kmart. After you buy it you are under no obligation to LICENSE it. You can use it. Sell it. Give it to your uncle if you want. You OWN IT!
The iMac didn't save Apple. It was the $150 million infusion of Microsoft cash in 1997 that saved Apple. Get your facts straight!
You mean the SETTLEMENT between Microsoft and Apple, due to Microsoft STEALING Quicktime technology? It was part of a cross licensing deal. Microsoft had to pay up.
Death row? Interscope Records distributes records for them. I believe Vivendi Universal owns them. Lets see Death Row get it's records into K-mart.
Calling this a record company is like calling my motorhome a modeling agency.
Lets see.... starting your own record label is a great idea! I'm glad those rappers Metallica did it in 1983 before whitey figured it out.
EVERYONE starts their own label. Their all backed up by the few big record companies. Those record companies rip them off just as much or more as the big boys. Just look at what TLC had to go through.
With thousands of Wi Fi transmitters around, couldn't the military use passive radar technology?
You need to send out a pulse of radio waves to capture the echo off of metal objects. If there are enough transmitters out there you might not need to send a pulse. You might be able to read the echo off of objects using the thousands of transmitters around it. You'd be able to use radar but keep your emissions to zero!
It's a warning. Many people assume that in the future human life and human domination of this planet is a certainty. It's not. There is no guarantee that we will stay at the top of the food chain in the future.
We could cause our own extinction. We might cause a new form of life to arise that could outlive us. We would essentially be the "primordial ooze" where real intelligence springs from. The future life and world at that time wouldn't need us anymore.
Microsoft has more a leg to stand on in this trial than Lindows
I believe Lindows has more hand. Not only was windows a generic term for glass in walls, it was also a generic term for a software interface. It was used by many companies. Microsoft has no rights over that.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? So you go into a restaurant and get a coffee that's so hot it burns the skin off of you.... and you think that's reasonable? Forget the fact she spilled it. If she drank the coffee she would 've burned her tongue and mouth so badly she might have been a lot worse off. Look at this clip I found...
The simple accident caused third-degree burns on more than 6 percent of her body. She was treated in a hospital for a week. McDonald's served coffee 20 or so degrees hotter than the industry standard. The woman, Stella Liebeck, underwent numerous skin-graft surgeries as a result of her third-degree coffee burns to her thighs and groin area. She had permanent scarring on more than 16 percent of her body.
McDonald's had already ignored more than 700 similar claims of coffee burns, many involving children. The company even ignored a request from the Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati to turn down its coffee.
So I guess you're the scum! Skin grafts and a week in the hospital care of McDonalds is not reasonable.
Please.. Do you know what that will look like to the rest of the world? Maybe Michael should read the Linux Advocacy FAQ, or at least what not to do!
But did you read it? The poster said Most of these Eula's are unenforceable anyway. Which is true.
Both your links talk about having to agree to a license before a transaction is made. It seems he bought the laptop, software and all, before having to click through agreements.
Your second link says:
Some courts have held that shrink-wrap license terms are not enforceable if the contract for sale of the software is formed prior to presentation of the shrink-wrap terms to the licensee.
That spells it out for me. The moment you buy something is when you squabble about terms. If the vender says: "to get this product all you have to do is give me money." That's all the conditions you've agreed to. At that point any conditions the hardware or software try to bind you with are unenforceable.
EULA's are only binding if you license your software. If you bought it over the counter, the exchange of money is all the agreement needed. Once you own the product they can't start adding "conditions".
wont hasnt dont
The system uses apostrophes!
Wrong! I bought the software (with my laptop lets say). I own it. Whether I have to click a EULA button or not, I own it.
Since both parties agree, and there was an exchange of something of value it sure sounds like a binding contract to me. You do have the option of not agreeing, but you dont retain right to use.
Wrong! I already own the software. I don't need to agree to conditions. Microsoft can write anything they want into their EULAs. It doesn't make it legal. You can't force terms upon someone after they own something. Ford can't force me to buy goodyear tires either. Leases may be another story, but sales are sales,not licenses.
Currently most HAVE been upheld.. true not all, but most.
Wrong again!
Check this article out. I know it's linux journal but the quote is from a Judge.
"The Court understands fully why licensing has many advantages for software publishers. However, this preference does not alter the Court's analysis that the substance of the transaction at issue here is a sale and not a license," Judge Pregerson writes. If you put your money down and walked away with a CD, you bought that copy, EULA or no EULA.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5628
Btw you dont own the content of a record either..
Did I say I own the "content" of a record? I said I own a record. I can resell the record just like I can resell the book or movie I bought. I can play it backwards in search of hidden messages or figure out the guitar parts note for note. (reverse engineering :) They can't put conditions on it. I OWN IT!
Record companies tried to change the law. In 1993 they tried to stop stores that sell used CDs. Garth Brooks even went on TV to cry about it. But they failed. Just look it up in copyright law.
You couldn't be more wrong! You have to agree to a license. It is a contract after all. Agreeing to a contract isn't as simple as a click through button. Terms have to be negotiable.
So far, most of the licenses that are attached to software haven't been upheld in court. Any software that was bought is owned by the person who bought it. Just like a book or a record. Not licensed. Not leased. Bought, sold, period. Unless you sign a contract before you put your money on the table. You own it.
So if you want to use the software, or sell it, you can. Microsoft's EULAs are illusions.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Do you feel that putting Windows on a fast computer is better? Would you consider a Windows XP vs Mac OS X a equivalent trade off? Are you out of your mind?
Even at twice the price Mac OS-X beats Windows. (and I'm not even a Mac person!) These are the same type of arguments Mac people must have to put up with every day. I would buy a Mac. Just like I would buy a Corvette instead of a Chrysler.
And it's also "peanuts", compare that to other companies (e.g. MSFT ehem)
The SEC is going after Martha Stewart for $45,673.
A. You can already run Linux on an unmodified Xbox.
B. Distributed took 250 days to find a 56 bit key. A 64 bit key took 1757 days to find. Now you want to find a key that is 2048 bits long?
Am I missing something? All this just to sign code so it runs with MS crypto? Let Microsoft keep their key.
Then again maybe he's just being... honest?
Life (and the market) can be brutal. Maybe Steve should just be honest and let Dean Kamen deal with his feelings at home!
I think your right. I'm guessing aol-TW have no idea of Microsofts history concerning collaboration! It's going to be funny when they wake up to the reality of Microsoft's business as usually. Microsoft gets everything they want and you get a lump of coal.
Well.... I have to thank Jim Clark for the free and open browser! It's what really matters in the long run.
We don't. Anyone in Science, in the US, uses metric. Like the rest of the world. It's the non-technical folk who don't use it.
I love to say Kilo-meter when they say Killa-matter.
It's called Diplomacy!
When the MACHINES take over, it will be our only hope to defeat them!
Do you need a license to sell or distribute a book? Do you need record company permission to sell a bunch of old CD's you have. Surely they are copyrighted works. I didn't burn copies and try to sell them, they are not fakes. Then why would I need a license to sell them?
Software pirates lack such permission,
So your saying I need a license to sell now? People sell OEM software all the time regardless of what Microsoft says. Microsoft, of course, calls them pirates.
Microsoft does not sell copies of their software. They sell licenses.
Thats what they say. Copyright law says otherwise. Microsoft sells copies of their software. You can buy it in any Staples or Kmart. After you buy it you are under no obligation to LICENSE it. You can use it. Sell it. Give it to your uncle if you want. You OWN IT!
Downloading DVDs isn't illegal.
You mean the SETTLEMENT between Microsoft and Apple, due to Microsoft STEALING Quicktime technology? It was part of a cross licensing deal. Microsoft had to pay up.
Unless you somehow convert Jupiter into a mini sun.
Death row? Interscope Records distributes records for them. I believe Vivendi Universal owns them. Lets see Death Row get it's records into K-mart.
Calling this a record company is like calling my motorhome a modeling agency.
Lets see.... starting your own record label is a great idea! I'm glad those rappers Metallica did it in 1983 before whitey figured it out.
EVERYONE starts their own label. Their all backed up by the few big record companies. Those record companies rip them off just as much or more as the big boys. Just look at what TLC had to go through.
A EULA is a contract. An agreement between two parties. You bet it has an effect on Microsoft.
With thousands of Wi Fi transmitters around, couldn't the military use passive radar technology?
You need to send out a pulse of radio waves to capture the echo off of metal objects. If there are enough transmitters out there you might not need to send a pulse. You might be able to read the echo off of objects using the thousands of transmitters around it. You'd be able to use radar but keep your emissions to zero!
We could cause our own extinction. We might cause a new form of life to arise that could outlive us. We would essentially be the "primordial ooze" where real intelligence springs from. The future life and world at that time wouldn't need us anymore.
I believe Lindows has more hand. Not only was windows a generic term for glass in walls, it was also a generic term for a software interface. It was used by many companies. Microsoft has no rights over that.