You know who else thinks that's the point? Richard Garriott. The distinction between being fired and quitting is kind of a key theme in his complaint, which I'm guessing you haven't taken the time to peruse.
No. Seriously, no. Pay attention here, this is key. They said "your time here is over", he protested but didn't fight their decision. That's merely not fighting being let go, quitting is much different.
Read paragraphs 43 and 44. There is always the possibility that Richard is just making this up, but if not that is pretty open and shut.
By the end of para 44 Richard has been terminated. Everything after that is irrelevant.
Hah, yes, a letter saying "I quit" has no bearing on whether someone quit. That's just genius.
Are you dumb.
Did Richard write that to his boss? No. His boss had it written as a PR statement - they put those words in there so not only have they got no reason to think they reflect on Richard's desires, but the letter was written after Richard had been let go. Without time travel that letter couldn't be relevant to the events in question.
There are standards for figuring out intent in verbal contracts - NCSoft is pointing out that this PR release is one way, Richard counters that it's a pretty crappy way when he didn't write the letter. He brights up the events leading up to the discussion - for one, who brought it up. It's unlikely NCSoft brought it up if Richard was the one who wanted to go...
And I still say boo fucking hoo. If you don't want to be tricked or treated dubiously then don't do business with any corporation ever.
Strange how I'd want the law to make corporations liable for their agreements.
And so should anyone who runs a real business, one that doesn't survive by changing their name just ahead of the backlash of angry customers complaints rolling in. Criminals and scammers freeloading on an industry's advertising/good-will hurt legit businesses and customers. Only by holding NCSoft to their verbal dealings with Richard can responsible business person have the ability to do anything other than in triplicate with a notary in tow.
It's not clear why he was detained, or if he was arrested, so that's why we want the other side of the story.
If events happened as described, photo -> harassment, there's nothing relevant they could say.
They have as much right to call the police as he has to take a picture.
No, not really. Snapping a picture is pretty harmless, making useless calls to emergency services is a serious crime.
It might seem unreasonable, but maybe they didn't feel safe.
You're right, that would seem unreasonable. Not only is it a lie (if it was they'd have run for the protection of their truck) but they were both armed and by the time they reacted it was clear that he was not.
They might have felt uncomfortably between a rock (his rights) and a hard place (their boss's demand for them to collect ID from photographers) but that doesn't mean their actions became right. Using that as an excuse is craven.
Personally though, I doubt this is a job requirement - a company the size of Loomis surely has lawyers who would tell them they can't demand to see people's IDs. (Except voluntarily, as in before giving them the money.)
It seems like more of the same fear-driven excusism we always hear from security/police/the government - "since 911 terrorists have been kidnapping kids by pictures from cellphones and using them to blow up ATMs, and ponies!!"
It really does matter. That's kind of the entire point actually. That is the foundation of his court filing. You are extremely dense to not see that...
I know NCSoft thinks that's the point... Or wants you to.
Your abstract example is no better than your analogy. [...] This is a case of A transacts with B and then A goes on to ASK FOR PERMISSION [...] EXACTLY WHAT A WILL SAY [...] WITH PERMISSION [...].
Yeah yeah. A and B have it engraved on a commemorative plaque which they send to C's house with a strip-g-gram saying 'B QUIT / Rented the computer!'.
Still doesn't matter. C isn't involved in the deal between A and B.
Richard Garriott making a bad choice for himself
Did he? Do you have the slightest clue what actually happened?
All we can be sure of is that NCSoft didn't just draft that press release for no reason.
If he was really quitting the situation will be obvious. He'll have told them and they'll have notified the appropriate people - there'll be a paper trail from his boss to their boss, to upper management, the PR and legal departments, etc.
If he didn't bring it up it's pretty obvious that they did, and if your boss hands you a resignation letter to sign it's pretty obvious you're being let go, even if the wording (meant for the public) might suggest otherwise.
What "small print" exactly? Did you even read the letter in question? It was all of 221 words long.
His contract. Remember the one you said he should have taken to a lawyer.
This instance is far removed from your example of an elderly victim or person working under unsafe conditions.
Not at all. It's all about an imbalance of power, and obscure contractual loopholes being used to screw people by making them appear to have agreed to something far different that what they obviously expected.
Yes, Richard is better able to fight this than your average senior can fight the abusive thugs these scam artists turn into, but look at the parallels: they get scorned because they "should have known better", much as you say that the company was immoral but right on a technicality, and RG should suck it up for not having gotten a lawyer at the right time.
That's how these scams work, they're technically legal but involve tricking the victims into what it's obvious they least want. They can point to your conflicting initialing of the box on page 13 and say that it means you did want them to proceed with the 'optional' work in section 1, etc.
All the time they're trying to fight this assholes like you are calling them retards for not reading the whole contract and understanding all the legal implications. As if this travesty would be fine if only people would just stop whining about being fleeced by misapplication of the legal system.
That he made the wrong choice is his fault and his alone and doesn't necessitate anyone else paying for his mistake.
No. If he made a mistake.
The US court system does not exist to examine and scrutinize every immoral act one commits towards another.
No, but it does exist to examine disputed contracts.
And if you support the rules that can be so easily misused, or at least care so little for change that you whine about how little one guy can do, then you do deserve your share of the bill for him having to push this through the courts to get some semblance of justice.
That "they got him to sign off on it" is just your spin on the fact that he did, in fact, sign off on it.
No, it's only the whole point. It's irrelevant, he quit or was fired, but that letter has no bearing on which.
As long as you support companies like NCSoft trying to spin shit like that into a valid reason to deny an employee their benefits, be it the word 'experimental', or the technicalities of firing someone, you deserve higher taxes for trying to legislate stupidity and fraud.
You're just making it easier for them to get away with it, and to do the same thing to their salaried employees who won't have Richard's ability to fight this.
How silly, interested in anything except the actual words in the book.
Can I search it? With regexps? Do the 'margin' notes I leave get stored in a standard text file so I can search/aggregate them? Can I select a section and email it to a friend or easily search for it online?
Maybe you should just admit you aren't into it for the reading and start collecting antiques.
Then again, marketers had to rename NMR to MRI because idiots freaked out
That's the story, but MRI is a much better name. It says 'Imaging', which is sort of the whole point. NMR is more of a sentence fragment. And NMRI sounds kind of odd, more like 'An MRI'.
I wonder how much influence the Nukular-factor really had.
Consideration for new contract terms cannot be the same consideration that you accepted for your original terms.
But, if that's true then EULAs are worthless...
By which I mean, yes they are, and you are completely right. That's the whole point of a contract, that you can't just make bits up and tack them on later.
Of course, if you'd like to mention that to the courts I'd appreciate it.
Unless he pulled a gun or threatened violence in some other way it was clearly unreasonable to call the police. If they want secrecy they can get the store and bank to provide them with a privacy screen they can deploy.
Otherwise the same rules (roughly) apply to them as to anyone else. If you take a photo of me in a public place and I call the police when you won't delete it, they should haul me away for the groundless complaint and wasting emergency resources, not you for merely exercising your right to photo what you can see.
ATM thieves take notice though, Loomis guards are so untrained you can distract them with a hippie and a cellphone.
Creating a derivative work is another way you can create a copy. As in, the copyright is in more than just the specific words.
But modifying your copy isn't creating anything, it's modifying. That's legit - you don't need special permission to underline in a text-book, comment in the margins of an essay, or clip stories from a newspaper.
You can mostly even distribute these modified copies. It'd be misrepresentation of various sorts if you claimed the marked-up text-book was new and the publisher was selling it that way, etc, but as long as you're up-front about what it is...
Essentially in-browser content modification is legal because they gave that copy to you - you choose to use Adblocker and Greasemonkey to modify it a bit, like some people choose to use their scissors to modify a newspaper before reading it.
Having a proxy do this should be legal if they do it with your general knowledge. If they represent a modified page as the original that's likely something you can pursue with false advertising (if it's your ISP doing this) and the content provider for some sort of harm to their image.
You agree to their terms the moment you access the site.
Hah! How exactly does requesting data from someone's computer bind me to their terms?
It's your site, you have the right to refuse entry.
Yes, refuse entry. It's legal to try.
But if you do not (manage to) block the user, you're giving them a copy of your content and they are free to use it, even if that use is chopping out half (the ads) and reading the rest reformatted to their wishes.
If you want the right to enforce your 'no', password your site.
Yeah, because those blacklisted URLs come from a huge team of Adblock Inc.'s employees.../sarcasm
The users of the open versions would be reporting the ads they see. But I bet there'd be less users willing to help the non-free version all of a sudden. Then they would need a staff to keep up.
If you made it a game where the people who report the regexps that get the best score (most blocks, fewest false positives) get rewards you'd probably even do better than the proprietary programs. Just recognition as ad-fighters and some donated goodies.
Not to mention that decoding a list like that is pretty trivial no matter how they encrypt it because you're running it on your computer and can just watch their software to see what it does.
Um, that's the whole point of the Marketplace - to promote partners and competition.
The only restrictions are you can't submit a [...]
So, which is it? Promote partners and competition, or place arbitrary rules on what they can provide?
... competing marketplace
Yeah, because actual competition would be too painful. That way they couldn't enforce their restrictions.
... VoIP (due to carrier restriction)
Oh yeah, they wanted to give users VOIP, they really did, but the big bad carriers said no to the world's largest software provider.
Or maybe they're just showing who their customers really are...
... shells
Because they just like making rules.
... anything that changes the user's default apps. They want the user to change their settings for themselves.
Nothing that changes the user's defaults apps unasked, like windows update does? Or nothing that lets the user change their own defaults? I'd like the former, but I'm guessing the latter.
I'd bet that explains the no shells rule - nothing that'll actually give the user access to change anything that MS doesn't want changed.
What happened to "Developers, developers, developers"?
So, when did Microsoft start restricting distribution of software or access to the SDK, and why was I not informed?
No restrictions whatsoever, unless you want to get your app in their store, which will only have a hundred-fold effect on sales. Much like putting IE on every computer and insisting netscape/etc not be installed boosted IE's market share far more than its abilities warranted.
And yeah, as long as the SDK is available developers are placated, even if you're driving their target customers to other platforms./sarcasm
It's no single thing. No, the "lock-down" isn't total, or even harsh, or hard to circumvent. It's just that this device isn't for you, even though you paid for it.
If they were giving these away, ad-sponsored, then I'd understand. But to expect people to buy one of these...
He failed to take the simplest of actions to see that his leaving was characterized properly.
You keep saying this like it matters. He could have come out and said, to everyone, 'I quit!' It doesn't change anything - the facts about his departure are dependent on the availability of choices, the party who initiated the departure, etc.
So your computer selling analogy is moot.
Not really, but let's make it more abstract.
Deal between A and B, completed. B mis-characterizes the deal to C.
How does the deal between A and B change? If they shot C and buried the body would the old deal suddenly take effect again?
Yes, thank God the selfless Richard Garriott is here to stand up for me by costing me money...
Oh geez, try again. He's not standing up for you, he's standing up for himself. He's able to because he has money. Yes, this costs you money because the courts are ultimately yours.
I never would have known that our legal system has flaws and that corporations use petty, underhanded tactics to accomplish their goals if it were for pious crusauders like Garriott.
Your ass, close it. Words are escaping.
Pious crusaders? No, simply a man like any other fighting his employer for the deal he thought he agreed to.
Our legal system does indeed have flaws and I do what an individual can (which it turns out, isn't much) to expose them and fix them.
This I highly doubt, given that you hardly recognize the flaws when they're pointed out.
... learn the hard to way to not talk to slimey corporate executives over the phone and always get things in writing.
Like that for example. You don't see a flaw in NCSoft manufacturing a letter that presumably they understood would have a tremendous impact on Richard's settlement and getting him to sign this without telling him why?
I don't suppose you have a problem with people who prey on the elderly either - having them sign a contract that is simply abusive starting around page 57 and counting on the senior being unable to find those sections.
Why should the law reward one party for having a bunch of small print they know the other party hasn't read? Why not simply examine the obvious intents of the parties and ignore the paperwork?
But I still think it's a pretty damn good legal system.
Why, it almost sounds like you'd be okay with tricking an employee into working in unsafe conditions as long as you call their workplace experimental. After all, they should know to consult a lawyer about their contract.
Good enough, in fact, that it doesn't need to be revamped for people like Richard Garriott.
And despite my wishes, nobody is offering to revamp the law over this.
Thankfully, unlike that Texas oil-worker's family, Richard has the means to fight this for himself.
If anyone revamps it for those people it'll be someone fighting a similar battle and setting a precedent they can use - perhaps that tricking a person into saying something without 'WITHOUT PREJUDICE' around it doesn't imply consent.
It wasn't a choice between leaving and staying, it was a choice between quitting and being fired.
Sure, but the issue is that one PR letter that he wrote, supposedly merely signed at their request, isn't the only piece of evidence in the case.
Far more important are the actual conditions of the case. Was there any realistic choice to stay? If not he was fired even if they didn't want to use the label themselves.
If your employer clearly wants you to quit [...]
No. That's just your guess.
Richard's story is more like, NCSoft said "We're letting you go", he agreed, and he thought the issue was settled. But they gave him a PR statement which spun the issue of how he was excited about pursing new things, would miss everyone, etc.
What's the relevant legal contract, between him and his employer and thus satisfied by his communication to them (laid-off), or with the fans making this PR statement, only assumed so far to actually say "I left by choice", a binding legal contract?
They wouldn't have gotten away with this if he didn't quit.
But again, that's their story and the only visible evidence is one PR statement.
They shouldn't be punished by the courts in this instance.
Not unless he can show that they planned the PR statement's slant for the purposes of unduly influencing his stock options. That'd be fraud and they certainly should be punished if it was true.
What should happen is that the actual statements and internal documents communicating the split between RG and NCSoft be examined, their intent probed, and a judgment made on who left who.
Assuming RG's story is true, this is where they're likely liable for quite a bit of his losses, depending on what the longer option would have been worth, as if he'd always had the full option.
If he hadn't approved the letter saying he quit and instead wrote his own letter saying "My employment is being terminated over my objections" then he would still have the right to his stock options.
That's one legal opinion. NCSoft's, I imagine.
But really, ask yourself why it's true? What would make that statement the binding one?
If I sell you a computer (collect your cash, hand over the box, etc.) does the deal suddenly change if you have a slip of the tongue and say to your friend that you just rented a computer? Does this statement, to someone not a party to the contract, override your already completed contract with me and impose terms that you never intended? Do I have a right to demand another payment next month or repossess the computer?
That legal view seems a little... silly.
What NCSoft did was wrong, morally, but not legally.
Maybe legally. If they floated the idea of him leaving and he took it upon himself to follow up, then they're in the clear. Even if they knew he'd lose money one way and didn't tell him.
The morality of that, such as such subjective subjects have any useful meaning in a real conversation, is decided directly by the sort of loyalty they'd have asked for. If they'd be happy with him exploiting some tiny misspelling in the NDA (Tabla instead of Tabula, or such, as the product name) and selling all their secrets to a competitor then I suppose this'd be moral.
But I think that scenario is highly unlikely. I imagine they'd cry bloody murder over that sort of scenario. He'd have been supposed to know which product the contract referred to, etc.
And I, as a taxpayer, do not want him using our court system to simply "[cost] them that much in legal fees, even if he doesn't win - just to keep it from working out for them". Because that also costs me (and everyone else) money as well and drains our courts already over-taxed resources. Trying to bleed them in court also bleeds our courts and our taxpayers.
Because it implies that Microsoft was actually ever really held to any standards that they didn't just break.
And while Microsoft's PR spun the requested sanctions to imply that they'd never be able to add functionality to Windows is any competitor had and potential competition, it simply isn't true.
Microsoft only had problems pre-installing IE because they took specific anti-competitive steps such as disabling the competition's products on update. (Does "your mom/dad" know how to change their default browser back to a safe alternative after the latest update sets IE as the default?)
So it's not really that insightful. They'd have been able to provide anything as long as they didn't actively sabotage the existing players.
My question was, who does MS think they are to want us to buy this crap - no business appeal anymore, no popular appeal, etc. Yes, the iPhone is worse, but Apple isn't delusional at least. They know all the Apple fanboys exist and just how far they can push them. MS seems to be stuck in the Win95 days - when people would line up outside a store to buy their products.
Sure, you can install other apps on the device, but it's a general OS device, it pretty much has to. But MS still goes out of their way to paint it unfriendly battle-ship gray everywhere possible by excluding competitors, lopping off user choice, etc. They could choose to use their app-store to include their strategic partners. They could still sell their own apps, but could build the platform by encouraging others even if their own apps' market was somewhat infringed upon.
Basically, it comes down the MS making a platform, but being so greedy they treat it like the iPhone and try to lock down the app store for it for a few quick dollars in increased market-share - totally oblivious to the long-term joke it makes of them and their products. What happened to "Developers, developers, developers"?
It's not just this, it's MS's entire history of pissing on users/developers/staff/partners and acting like people have no choice because, of course, they didn't. Now every little consumer unfriendly thing stands out because there are competitive products and people are flocking to them in droves.
And I bet nobody there gets it. "But why don't they buy Windows, don't they realize it's a perfect platform for them to buy our other applications?!"
I know several Iraq War veterans, still in the service, [...] set up booths [...] recruitment efforts to [...] malls.
Sure. After all, all recruiters are in the service, right? And presumably they are proud of their service - justifiably so usually.
You have no clue what the protesters were really protesting
I know the type of loonie who shows up at this sort of "protest" quite well.
That's not what I said. You have no idea what the issue is. Luckily you continue to demonstrate...
I also know first-hand the type of person who goes into the military - they're my FRIENDS AND FAMILY.
And they may be fine people, but you're a retard; that's specious. Protesting the actions of the armed forces as a whole does not imply that individual soldiers are bad people.
You're the fucking liar, because you obviously have no fucking clue what the goddamn fuck you are talking about.
Sigh. If I really had no idea what I was talking about it would not BE a lie even if it were wrong, it would merely be a mistake. Please decide if you're accusing me of an error, or a deception. However, what you end up claiming to mean is of little importance because my claim was that you are ignorant of their motives, something which you have since amply demonstrated. After all - you know "their type". Loony.
If you really listened to the issue, it is that the military is sugarcoating war. Video games may be a valid training exercise for some team components, but to present games to kids in a recruiting context seems awfully misleading.
Presumably your friends in the military aren't fond of the draft, contemptuous of any soldier who has to be coerced into fighting. Also I would imagine that, having taken defending freedom seriously, that they'd be against it on constitutional grounds. In that vein, would they think this was a good idea? To recruit dumb kids under false pretenses? Surely this wouldn't produce quality soldiers... Surely it's not healthy for the military, or by extension any of us.
I certainly don't think the issue of the government, using our tax dollars, investing in coercive technologies - things which by definition convince people who wouldn't have been through reasoned discourse alone into joining the military - is so clear-cut that you can say the protesters are wrong. Given the potential seriousness I don't think a mall protest is all that unreasonable.
It appears that he merely did not object to how NCSoft tried to spin his leaving - fairly reasonable, no need to feed rumors or anything. The statement had nothing to do with the conditions surrounding his actual termination and any pressure that he might have been under.
He should have had the balls to say "No, I'm not leaving"
You think he should have stayed where he wasn't wanted? This isn't really the wizard image he'd be trying for. Willing to step down without causing a circus isn't the same as leaving of his own choice.
No, he should deal honorably and assume that others do the same. He should also use his tremendous fortune to destroy those who cross him. Life is too short to run around in fear, vetting every response through lawyers.
Assuming that this case hangs on the tone of 'his' message, then it seems only fair that he not be held to the parts that weren't written by him.
NCSoft did what all corporations do.
And this means they shouldn't be punished for it? Perhaps they wouldn't all do it if it didn't work all the time. Unlike most of us he could afford to make sure it doesn't, and he has everything to gain from trying. He should commit to at least costing them that much in legal fees, even if he doesn't win - just to keep it from working out for them.
Why would the marketplace accept a crippled device from company A when company B doesn't restrict their app store?
I mean, who does MS think they are? Apple? Do they think they have any star power?
Business types, MS's traditional cash cow, switched to Blackberries, and since Vista, people *have* gotten fired for buying Microsoft. They aren't really hip and cool. They don't appeal to kids...
Don't they realize they're the LG of the market now? They're now the crap you whine about getting at work because the macbooks are gone and decent smartphones were already taken.
So, um, no. They don't have to "enable rival services" - their rivals are doing fine without them (see iPhone and Crackberry). But if they didn't try to trap us in their walled garden, the crappiest of all, they might manage to hang onto some of their remaining customers.
Who said they did. But until they do it's a fatal flaw with their device. Who needs more cellphone style lock-in when there are open platforms where people don't have to pay $5 for a "flashlight" app. This isn't some GNU-based pipe dream, there are simply unlocked phones and providers who don't feel the need to strip the manufacturer supplied goodies.
This is just a big WTF over yet another company playing these stupid games and then asking "Why do all of our customers hate us?!"
So buy whatever you want. And if you don't have anything I guess these gizmos appear nice, but everyone else who has a phone/pda and recognizes the limitations is here collectively WTFing as yet another established company throws money away and Google, who seemingly hardly touches Android, seemingly captures the hearts and minds of users and developers alike - precisely through playing less of these games.
Do they really think the MP3 generation will be locked into one overpriced company-run app store? Oh please they say, sign this years-long contract that penalizes you if you try to shop around.
(the same military, might I add, that goes and fights and dies for their freedom to express their opinion and peacefully protest in the first place).
You're either a fucking imbecile or a liar. There's a big difference between the soldiers who actually put their asses on the line and the commanders who decide the hand-wave the realities of war with a video game for recruitment purposes. To think that the protesters can't tell the difference is ridiculous.
A bunch of fucking loonies decided they hate the military today
But this makes it obvious, you're a liar. You have no clue what the protesters were really protesting for but you hate them.
I wonder what the opinion of a veteran would be to someone like you, lamely ra-ra'ing everything into a "think of the troops". That sort of knee-jerk objectification of a soldier as this hero-object you send overseas and who dies gloriously for freedom, even if they're sent into an unjust war under false pretenses, seems pretty offensive to me. It's the same kind of handwavism towards the reality of war that the protesters were protesting.
The mall has the right to evict anyone... What is so hard to understand about this?... police arrested them under the law for trespassing.
Isn't that convenient. The only relevant place to protest and it's private property. But how about outside? Oh, the whole area near the entryway is private, the sidewalk can't be blocked by groups, and the nearby park is private too. Guess there just can't be a protest because everywhere is private...
Yes, the government can. The people have the right to "peaceful assembly" and "petition the government for redress of grievances." These rights are not Absolute
The courts, supreme or otherwise, are far from unbiased on this, being the ultimate 'tool' of 'justice' in the land they have far to much faith in quietly following the rules and protesting inside the lines. Sorry, but their opinion is just as irrelevant as that of the most radicalized protester.
The truth is that protest MUST be done where it is relevant and will be seen. A public park six miles away might be more convenient for mall management but they rented space to a government propaganda centre and can't simply dismiss this issue as one of troublesome trespassers or they themselves become a legitimate target for protest. Removing protesters for violence, preventing other legitimate access through the area, and so forth would be reasonable, yes. But to remove them for expressing a reasonable opinion against the government, in a very relevant manner and location, simply because it's private property - that is unreasonable.
It's fairly well established that the government has the right of eminent domain, and the current US gov claims it has the right to draft its citizens. To think that this doesn't afford the people (the government) the reasonable expectation of a right to assemble and protest the activities going on in that location is silly. The USA seceded, in part after people boarded private ships to throw privately owned tea into the harbour as part of a tax protest against the government. Considering the issue at hand is pro-war brainwashing materials being passed off as games by the government I think a mere protest in a mall is a pretty reasonable thing.
Perhaps the mall should rent to less controversial customers if it doesn't want the fallout.
Apple decided to keep the Appstore at PG-13 rating. Is that draconian control?
Um, yes. Considering they lock the phone down so that you can't go anywhere else.
If they just didn't want to sell certain apps then more power to them, but when they set themselves up as the monopoly dealer things that would otherwise be acceptable aren't. Now it's not that the iPhone is a cool device and Apple is just a family-friendly place to get one, but that the iPhone is itself crippled because of Apple's excessive market control.
Slashdot Mirror
You know who else thinks that's the point? Richard Garriott. The distinction between being fired and quitting is kind of a key theme in his complaint, which I'm guessing you haven't taken the time to peruse.
No. Seriously, no. Pay attention here, this is key. They said "your time here is over", he protested but didn't fight their decision. That's merely not fighting being let go, quitting is much different.
Read paragraphs 43 and 44. There is always the possibility that Richard is just making this up, but if not that is pretty open and shut.
By the end of para 44 Richard has been terminated. Everything after that is irrelevant.
Hah, yes, a letter saying "I quit" has no bearing on whether someone quit. That's just genius.
Are you dumb.
Did Richard write that to his boss? No. His boss had it written as a PR statement - they put those words in there so not only have they got no reason to think they reflect on Richard's desires, but the letter was written after Richard had been let go. Without time travel that letter couldn't be relevant to the events in question.
There are standards for figuring out intent in verbal contracts - NCSoft is pointing out that this PR release is one way, Richard counters that it's a pretty crappy way when he didn't write the letter. He brights up the events leading up to the discussion - for one, who brought it up. It's unlikely NCSoft brought it up if Richard was the one who wanted to go...
And I still say boo fucking hoo. If you don't want to be tricked or treated dubiously then don't do business with any corporation ever.
Strange how I'd want the law to make corporations liable for their agreements.
And so should anyone who runs a real business, one that doesn't survive by changing their name just ahead of the backlash of angry customers complaints rolling in. Criminals and scammers freeloading on an industry's advertising/good-will hurt legit businesses and customers. Only by holding NCSoft to their verbal dealings with Richard can responsible business person have the ability to do anything other than in triplicate with a notary in tow.
It's not clear why he was detained, or if he was arrested, so that's why we want the other side of the story.
If events happened as described, photo -> harassment, there's nothing relevant they could say.
They have as much right to call the police as he has to take a picture.
No, not really. Snapping a picture is pretty harmless, making useless calls to emergency services is a serious crime.
It might seem unreasonable, but maybe they didn't feel safe.
You're right, that would seem unreasonable. Not only is it a lie (if it was they'd have run for the protection of their truck) but they were both armed and by the time they reacted it was clear that he was not.
They might have felt uncomfortably between a rock (his rights) and a hard place (their boss's demand for them to collect ID from photographers) but that doesn't mean their actions became right. Using that as an excuse is craven.
Personally though, I doubt this is a job requirement - a company the size of Loomis surely has lawyers who would tell them they can't demand to see people's IDs. (Except voluntarily, as in before giving them the money.)
It seems like more of the same fear-driven excusism we always hear from security/police/the government - "since 911 terrorists have been kidnapping kids by pictures from cellphones and using them to blow up ATMs, and ponies!!"
It really does matter. That's kind of the entire point actually. That is the foundation of his court filing. You are extremely dense to not see that...
I know NCSoft thinks that's the point... Or wants you to.
Your abstract example is no better than your analogy. [...] This is a case of A transacts with B and then A goes on to ASK FOR PERMISSION [...] EXACTLY WHAT A WILL SAY [...] WITH PERMISSION [...].
Yeah yeah. A and B have it engraved on a commemorative plaque which they send to C's house with a strip-g-gram saying 'B QUIT / Rented the computer!'.
Still doesn't matter. C isn't involved in the deal between A and B.
Richard Garriott making a bad choice for himself
Did he? Do you have the slightest clue what actually happened?
All we can be sure of is that NCSoft didn't just draft that press release for no reason.
If he was really quitting the situation will be obvious. He'll have told them and they'll have notified the appropriate people - there'll be a paper trail from his boss to their boss, to upper management, the PR and legal departments, etc.
If he didn't bring it up it's pretty obvious that they did, and if your boss hands you a resignation letter to sign it's pretty obvious you're being let go, even if the wording (meant for the public) might suggest otherwise.
What "small print" exactly? Did you even read the letter in question? It was all of 221 words long.
His contract. Remember the one you said he should have taken to a lawyer.
This instance is far removed from your example of an elderly victim or person working under unsafe conditions.
Not at all. It's all about an imbalance of power, and obscure contractual loopholes being used to screw people by making them appear to have agreed to something far different that what they obviously expected.
Yes, Richard is better able to fight this than your average senior can fight the abusive thugs these scam artists turn into, but look at the parallels: they get scorned because they "should have known better", much as you say that the company was immoral but right on a technicality, and RG should suck it up for not having gotten a lawyer at the right time.
That's how these scams work, they're technically legal but involve tricking the victims into what it's obvious they least want. They can point to your conflicting initialing of the box on page 13 and say that it means you did want them to proceed with the 'optional' work in section 1, etc.
All the time they're trying to fight this assholes like you are calling them retards for not reading the whole contract and understanding all the legal implications. As if this travesty would be fine if only people would just stop whining about being fleeced by misapplication of the legal system.
That he made the wrong choice is his fault and his alone and doesn't necessitate anyone else paying for his mistake.
No. If he made a mistake.
The US court system does not exist to examine and scrutinize every immoral act one commits towards another.
No, but it does exist to examine disputed contracts.
And if you support the rules that can be so easily misused, or at least care so little for change that you whine about how little one guy can do, then you do deserve your share of the bill for him having to push this through the courts to get some semblance of justice.
That "they got him to sign off on it" is just your spin on the fact that he did, in fact, sign off on it.
No, it's only the whole point. It's irrelevant, he quit or was fired, but that letter has no bearing on which.
As long as you support companies like NCSoft trying to spin shit like that into a valid reason to deny an employee their benefits, be it the word 'experimental', or the technicalities of firing someone, you deserve higher taxes for trying to legislate stupidity and fraud.
You're just making it easier for them to get away with it, and to do the same thing to their salaried employees who won't have Richard's ability to fight this.
How silly, interested in anything except the actual words in the book.
Can I search it? With regexps? Do the 'margin' notes I leave get stored in a standard text file so I can search/aggregate them? Can I select a section and email it to a friend or easily search for it online?
Maybe you should just admit you aren't into it for the reading and start collecting antiques.
Not in any conceivable sense. That the SC agrees with you just shows that they're intellectually on the level of a /. troll.
In the context of a human life, the only one most of us really give a shit about, life+ is unlimited.
Then again, marketers had to rename NMR to MRI because idiots freaked out
That's the story, but MRI is a much better name. It says 'Imaging', which is sort of the whole point. NMR is more of a sentence fragment. And NMRI sounds kind of odd, more like 'An MRI'.
I wonder how much influence the Nukular-factor really had.
Consideration for new contract terms cannot be the same consideration that you accepted for your original terms.
But, if that's true then EULAs are worthless...
By which I mean, yes they are, and you are completely right. That's the whole point of a contract, that you can't just make bits up and tack them on later.
Of course, if you'd like to mention that to the courts I'd appreciate it.
What would we want their story for?
Unless he pulled a gun or threatened violence in some other way it was clearly unreasonable to call the police. If they want secrecy they can get the store and bank to provide them with a privacy screen they can deploy.
Otherwise the same rules (roughly) apply to them as to anyone else. If you take a photo of me in a public place and I call the police when you won't delete it, they should haul me away for the groundless complaint and wasting emergency resources, not you for merely exercising your right to photo what you can see.
ATM thieves take notice though, Loomis guards are so untrained you can distract them with a hippie and a cellphone.
But neither can your signature really be used to link you, handwriting analysis is only so good after all...
That's why people witness other people's signatures, because otherwise there really isn't any reason to trust even well-formed marks on paper.
But ultimately, it's just even-more marked-up paper.
Creating a derivative work is another way you can create a copy. As in, the copyright is in more than just the specific words.
But modifying your copy isn't creating anything, it's modifying. That's legit - you don't need special permission to underline in a text-book, comment in the margins of an essay, or clip stories from a newspaper.
You can mostly even distribute these modified copies. It'd be misrepresentation of various sorts if you claimed the marked-up text-book was new and the publisher was selling it that way, etc, but as long as you're up-front about what it is...
Essentially in-browser content modification is legal because they gave that copy to you - you choose to use Adblocker and Greasemonkey to modify it a bit, like some people choose to use their scissors to modify a newspaper before reading it.
Having a proxy do this should be legal if they do it with your general knowledge. If they represent a modified page as the original that's likely something you can pursue with false advertising (if it's your ISP doing this) and the content provider for some sort of harm to their image.
You agree to their terms the moment you access the site.
Hah! How exactly does requesting data from someone's computer bind me to their terms?
It's your site, you have the right to refuse entry.
Yes, refuse entry. It's legal to try.
But if you do not (manage to) block the user, you're giving them a copy of your content and they are free to use it, even if that use is chopping out half (the ads) and reading the rest reformatted to their wishes.
If you want the right to enforce your 'no', password your site.
Yeah, because those blacklisted URLs come from a huge team of Adblock Inc.'s employees... /sarcasm
The users of the open versions would be reporting the ads they see. But I bet there'd be less users willing to help the non-free version all of a sudden. Then they would need a staff to keep up.
If you made it a game where the people who report the regexps that get the best score (most blocks, fewest false positives) get rewards you'd probably even do better than the proprietary programs. Just recognition as ad-fighters and some donated goodies.
Not to mention that decoding a list like that is pretty trivial no matter how they encrypt it because you're running it on your computer and can just watch their software to see what it does.
Anyone who believes in some superior being is by definition unintelligent?
Yes. It's stupid to believe in something without proof. If you keep acting stupid...
Asshole, you've just described [them] as idiots, just because you don't agree with them.
No, you idiot, because they play make-believe.
more than half the earth's population
It's fallacious to assume a view is right simply because many people share it.
Um, that's the whole point of the Marketplace - to promote partners and competition.
The only restrictions are you can't submit a [...]
So, which is it? Promote partners and competition, or place arbitrary rules on what they can provide?
... competing marketplace
Yeah, because actual competition would be too painful. That way they couldn't enforce their restrictions.
... VoIP (due to carrier restriction)
Oh yeah, they wanted to give users VOIP, they really did, but the big bad carriers said no to the world's largest software provider.
Or maybe they're just showing who their customers really are...
... shells
Because they just like making rules.
... anything that changes the user's default apps. They want the user to change their settings for themselves.
Nothing that changes the user's defaults apps unasked, like windows update does? Or nothing that lets the user change their own defaults? I'd like the former, but I'm guessing the latter.
I'd bet that explains the no shells rule - nothing that'll actually give the user access to change anything that MS doesn't want changed.
What happened to "Developers, developers, developers"?
So, when did Microsoft start restricting distribution of software or access to the SDK, and why was I not informed?
No restrictions whatsoever, unless you want to get your app in their store, which will only have a hundred-fold effect on sales. Much like putting IE on every computer and insisting netscape/etc not be installed boosted IE's market share far more than its abilities warranted.
And yeah, as long as the SDK is available developers are placated, even if you're driving their target customers to other platforms. /sarcasm
It's no single thing. No, the "lock-down" isn't total, or even harsh, or hard to circumvent. It's just that this device isn't for you, even though you paid for it.
If they were giving these away, ad-sponsored, then I'd understand. But to expect people to buy one of these...
He failed to take the simplest of actions to see that his leaving was characterized properly.
You keep saying this like it matters. He could have come out and said, to everyone, 'I quit!' It doesn't change anything - the facts about his departure are dependent on the availability of choices, the party who initiated the departure, etc.
So your computer selling analogy is moot.
Not really, but let's make it more abstract.
Deal between A and B, completed. B mis-characterizes the deal to C.
How does the deal between A and B change? If they shot C and buried the body would the old deal suddenly take effect again?
Yes, thank God the selfless Richard Garriott is here to stand up for me by costing me money...
Oh geez, try again. He's not standing up for you, he's standing up for himself. He's able to because he has money. Yes, this costs you money because the courts are ultimately yours.
I never would have known that our legal system has flaws and that corporations use petty, underhanded tactics to accomplish their goals if it were for pious crusauders like Garriott.
Your ass, close it. Words are escaping.
Pious crusaders? No, simply a man like any other fighting his employer for the deal he thought he agreed to.
Our legal system does indeed have flaws and I do what an individual can (which it turns out, isn't much) to expose them and fix them.
This I highly doubt, given that you hardly recognize the flaws when they're pointed out.
... learn the hard to way to not talk to slimey corporate executives over the phone and always get things in writing.
Like that for example. You don't see a flaw in NCSoft manufacturing a letter that presumably they understood would have a tremendous impact on Richard's settlement and getting him to sign this without telling him why?
I don't suppose you have a problem with people who prey on the elderly either - having them sign a contract that is simply abusive starting around page 57 and counting on the senior being unable to find those sections.
Why should the law reward one party for having a bunch of small print they know the other party hasn't read? Why not simply examine the obvious intents of the parties and ignore the paperwork?
But I still think it's a pretty damn good legal system.
Why, it almost sounds like you'd be okay with tricking an employee into working in unsafe conditions as long as you call their workplace experimental. After all, they should know to consult a lawyer about their contract.
Good enough, in fact, that it doesn't need to be revamped for people like Richard Garriott.
And despite my wishes, nobody is offering to revamp the law over this.
Thankfully, unlike that Texas oil-worker's family, Richard has the means to fight this for himself.
If anyone revamps it for those people it'll be someone fighting a similar battle and setting a precedent they can use - perhaps that tricking a person into saying something without 'WITHOUT PREJUDICE' around it doesn't imply consent.
It wasn't a choice between leaving and staying, it was a choice between quitting and being fired.
Sure, but the issue is that one PR letter that he wrote, supposedly merely signed at their request, isn't the only piece of evidence in the case.
Far more important are the actual conditions of the case. Was there any realistic choice to stay? If not he was fired even if they didn't want to use the label themselves.
If your employer clearly wants you to quit [...]
No. That's just your guess.
Richard's story is more like, NCSoft said "We're letting you go", he agreed, and he thought the issue was settled. But they gave him a PR statement which spun the issue of how he was excited about pursing new things, would miss everyone, etc.
What's the relevant legal contract, between him and his employer and thus satisfied by his communication to them (laid-off), or with the fans making this PR statement, only assumed so far to actually say "I left by choice", a binding legal contract?
They wouldn't have gotten away with this if he didn't quit.
But again, that's their story and the only visible evidence is one PR statement.
They shouldn't be punished by the courts in this instance.
Not unless he can show that they planned the PR statement's slant for the purposes of unduly influencing his stock options. That'd be fraud and they certainly should be punished if it was true.
What should happen is that the actual statements and internal documents communicating the split between RG and NCSoft be examined, their intent probed, and a judgment made on who left who.
Assuming RG's story is true, this is where they're likely liable for quite a bit of his losses, depending on what the longer option would have been worth, as if he'd always had the full option.
If he hadn't approved the letter saying he quit and instead wrote his own letter saying "My employment is being terminated over my objections" then he would still have the right to his stock options.
That's one legal opinion. NCSoft's, I imagine.
But really, ask yourself why it's true? What would make that statement the binding one?
If I sell you a computer (collect your cash, hand over the box, etc.) does the deal suddenly change if you have a slip of the tongue and say to your friend that you just rented a computer? Does this statement, to someone not a party to the contract, override your already completed contract with me and impose terms that you never intended? Do I have a right to demand another payment next month or repossess the computer?
That legal view seems a little... silly.
What NCSoft did was wrong, morally, but not legally.
Maybe legally. If they floated the idea of him leaving and he took it upon himself to follow up, then they're in the clear. Even if they knew he'd lose money one way and didn't tell him.
The morality of that, such as such subjective subjects have any useful meaning in a real conversation, is decided directly by the sort of loyalty they'd have asked for. If they'd be happy with him exploiting some tiny misspelling in the NDA (Tabla instead of Tabula, or such, as the product name) and selling all their secrets to a competitor then I suppose this'd be moral.
But I think that scenario is highly unlikely. I imagine they'd cry bloody murder over that sort of scenario. He'd have been supposed to know which product the contract referred to, etc.
And I, as a taxpayer, do not want him using our court system to simply "[cost] them that much in legal fees, even if he doesn't win - just to keep it from working out for them". Because that also costs me (and everyone else) money as well and drains our courts already over-taxed resources. Trying to bleed them in court also bleeds our courts and our taxpayers.
Wah. If the country's legal syste
Because it implies that Microsoft was actually ever really held to any standards that they didn't just break.
And while Microsoft's PR spun the requested sanctions to imply that they'd never be able to add functionality to Windows is any competitor had and potential competition, it simply isn't true.
Microsoft only had problems pre-installing IE because they took specific anti-competitive steps such as disabling the competition's products on update. (Does "your mom/dad" know how to change their default browser back to a safe alternative after the latest update sets IE as the default?)
So it's not really that insightful. They'd have been able to provide anything as long as they didn't actively sabotage the existing players.
My question was, who does MS think they are to want us to buy this crap - no business appeal anymore, no popular appeal, etc. Yes, the iPhone is worse, but Apple isn't delusional at least. They know all the Apple fanboys exist and just how far they can push them. MS seems to be stuck in the Win95 days - when people would line up outside a store to buy their products.
Sure, you can install other apps on the device, but it's a general OS device, it pretty much has to. But MS still goes out of their way to paint it unfriendly battle-ship gray everywhere possible by excluding competitors, lopping off user choice, etc. They could choose to use their app-store to include their strategic partners. They could still sell their own apps, but could build the platform by encouraging others even if their own apps' market was somewhat infringed upon.
Basically, it comes down the MS making a platform, but being so greedy they treat it like the iPhone and try to lock down the app store for it for a few quick dollars in increased market-share - totally oblivious to the long-term joke it makes of them and their products. What happened to "Developers, developers, developers"?
It's not just this, it's MS's entire history of pissing on users/developers/staff/partners and acting like people have no choice because, of course, they didn't. Now every little consumer unfriendly thing stands out because there are competitive products and people are flocking to them in droves.
And I bet nobody there gets it. "But why don't they buy Windows, don't they realize it's a perfect platform for them to buy our other applications?!"
I know several Iraq War veterans, still in the service, [...] set up booths [...] recruitment efforts to [...] malls.
Sure. After all, all recruiters are in the service, right? And presumably they are proud of their service - justifiably so usually.
You have no clue what the protesters were really protesting
I know the type of loonie who shows up at this sort of "protest" quite well.
That's not what I said. You have no idea what the issue is. Luckily you continue to demonstrate...
I also know first-hand the type of person who goes into the military - they're my FRIENDS AND FAMILY.
And they may be fine people, but you're a retard; that's specious. Protesting the actions of the armed forces as a whole does not imply that individual soldiers are bad people.
You're the fucking liar, because you obviously have no fucking clue what the goddamn fuck you are talking about.
Sigh. If I really had no idea what I was talking about it would not BE a lie even if it were wrong, it would merely be a mistake. Please decide if you're accusing me of an error, or a deception. However, what you end up claiming to mean is of little importance because my claim was that you are ignorant of their motives, something which you have since amply demonstrated. After all - you know "their type". Loony.
If you really listened to the issue, it is that the military is sugarcoating war. Video games may be a valid training exercise for some team components, but to present games to kids in a recruiting context seems awfully misleading.
Presumably your friends in the military aren't fond of the draft, contemptuous of any soldier who has to be coerced into fighting. Also I would imagine that, having taken defending freedom seriously, that they'd be against it on constitutional grounds. In that vein, would they think this was a good idea? To recruit dumb kids under false pretenses? Surely this wouldn't produce quality soldiers... Surely it's not healthy for the military, or by extension any of us.
I certainly don't think the issue of the government, using our tax dollars, investing in coercive technologies - things which by definition convince people who wouldn't have been through reasoned discourse alone into joining the military - is so clear-cut that you can say the protesters are wrong. Given the potential seriousness I don't think a mall protest is all that unreasonable.
It appears that he merely did not object to how NCSoft tried to spin his leaving - fairly reasonable, no need to feed rumors or anything. The statement had nothing to do with the conditions surrounding his actual termination and any pressure that he might have been under.
He should have had the balls to say "No, I'm not leaving"
You think he should have stayed where he wasn't wanted? This isn't really the wizard image he'd be trying for. Willing to step down without causing a circus isn't the same as leaving of his own choice.
No, he should deal honorably and assume that others do the same. He should also use his tremendous fortune to destroy those who cross him. Life is too short to run around in fear, vetting every response through lawyers.
Assuming that this case hangs on the tone of 'his' message, then it seems only fair that he not be held to the parts that weren't written by him.
NCSoft did what all corporations do.
And this means they shouldn't be punished for it? Perhaps they wouldn't all do it if it didn't work all the time. Unlike most of us he could afford to make sure it doesn't, and he has everything to gain from trying. He should commit to at least costing them that much in legal fees, even if he doesn't win - just to keep it from working out for them.
Should be fun to watch.
Wrong question?
Why would the marketplace accept a crippled device from company A when company B doesn't restrict their app store?
I mean, who does MS think they are? Apple? Do they think they have any star power?
Business types, MS's traditional cash cow, switched to Blackberries, and since Vista, people *have* gotten fired for buying Microsoft. They aren't really hip and cool. They don't appeal to kids...
Don't they realize they're the LG of the market now? They're now the crap you whine about getting at work because the macbooks are gone and decent smartphones were already taken.
So, um, no. They don't have to "enable rival services" - their rivals are doing fine without them (see iPhone and Crackberry). But if they didn't try to trap us in their walled garden, the crappiest of all, they might manage to hang onto some of their remaining customers.
Why exactly should they have to
Who said they did. But until they do it's a fatal flaw with their device. Who needs more cellphone style lock-in when there are open platforms where people don't have to pay $5 for a "flashlight" app. This isn't some GNU-based pipe dream, there are simply unlocked phones and providers who don't feel the need to strip the manufacturer supplied goodies.
This is just a big WTF over yet another company playing these stupid games and then asking "Why do all of our customers hate us?!"
So buy whatever you want. And if you don't have anything I guess these gizmos appear nice, but everyone else who has a phone/pda and recognizes the limitations is here collectively WTFing as yet another established company throws money away and Google, who seemingly hardly touches Android, seemingly captures the hearts and minds of users and developers alike - precisely through playing less of these games.
Do they really think the MP3 generation will be locked into one overpriced company-run app store? Oh please they say, sign this years-long contract that penalizes you if you try to shop around.
... which has just as much buying power.
(the same military, might I add, that goes and fights and dies for their freedom to express their opinion and peacefully protest in the first place).
You're either a fucking imbecile or a liar. There's a big difference between the soldiers who actually put their asses on the line and the commanders who decide the hand-wave the realities of war with a video game for recruitment purposes. To think that the protesters can't tell the difference is ridiculous.
A bunch of fucking loonies decided they hate the military today
But this makes it obvious, you're a liar. You have no clue what the protesters were really protesting for but you hate them.
I wonder what the opinion of a veteran would be to someone like you, lamely ra-ra'ing everything into a "think of the troops". That sort of knee-jerk objectification of a soldier as this hero-object you send overseas and who dies gloriously for freedom, even if they're sent into an unjust war under false pretenses, seems pretty offensive to me. It's the same kind of handwavism towards the reality of war that the protesters were protesting.
The mall has the right to evict anyone ... What is so hard to understand about this? ... police arrested them under the law for trespassing.
Isn't that convenient. The only relevant place to protest and it's private property. But how about outside? Oh, the whole area near the entryway is private, the sidewalk can't be blocked by groups, and the nearby park is private too. Guess there just can't be a protest because everywhere is private...
Yes, the government can. The people have the right to "peaceful assembly" and "petition the government for redress of grievances." These rights are not Absolute
The courts, supreme or otherwise, are far from unbiased on this, being the ultimate 'tool' of 'justice' in the land they have far to much faith in quietly following the rules and protesting inside the lines. Sorry, but their opinion is just as irrelevant as that of the most radicalized protester.
The truth is that protest MUST be done where it is relevant and will be seen. A public park six miles away might be more convenient for mall management but they rented space to a government propaganda centre and can't simply dismiss this issue as one of troublesome trespassers or they themselves become a legitimate target for protest. Removing protesters for violence, preventing other legitimate access through the area, and so forth would be reasonable, yes. But to remove them for expressing a reasonable opinion against the government, in a very relevant manner and location, simply because it's private property - that is unreasonable.
It's fairly well established that the government has the right of eminent domain, and the current US gov claims it has the right to draft its citizens. To think that this doesn't afford the people (the government) the reasonable expectation of a right to assemble and protest the activities going on in that location is silly. The USA seceded, in part after people boarded private ships to throw privately owned tea into the harbour as part of a tax protest against the government. Considering the issue at hand is pro-war brainwashing materials being passed off as games by the government I think a mere protest in a mall is a pretty reasonable thing.
Perhaps the mall should rent to less controversial customers if it doesn't want the fallout.
Apple decided to keep the Appstore at PG-13 rating. Is that draconian control?
Um, yes. Considering they lock the phone down so that you can't go anywhere else.
If they just didn't want to sell certain apps then more power to them, but when they set themselves up as the monopoly dealer things that would otherwise be acceptable aren't. Now it's not that the iPhone is a cool device and Apple is just a family-friendly place to get one, but that the iPhone is itself crippled because of Apple's excessive market control.