Your title wouldn't perhaps be referring to US sugar tariffs, which artificially inflate the price of suger to protect domestic producers, at the expense of making sugar and sugar related products more expensive in the US by up to a factor of 10, not to mention destroying other countries local economies, and denying the laws of economics that state the most efficient solution is to produce goods in places that enjoy a relative (key word) advantage?
The patent office has the power to sua sponte (on the PTO's own decision, without any lawsuits being filed) reexamine patents for validity. In principle, this power is usually used in cases where a significant piece of prior art is overlooked.
It is ralely used however, unless the patent office takes signiciant notice of the problem, the patent is likely to be asserted, lawsuits to determine the patents validity are unlikely, and the patent is blatantly invalid. In short, the PTO would rather the courts and affected parties handle the issue, and keep their own hands clean.
Different types of pop-ups handling methods deserve special distinction and treatment by the law. I find judges that want to make blanket statements to the effect of "the user/WhenU/Gator can do whatever he wants to his computer" ignorant.
Allow the pop-up normally: Just fine, this is the choice of the publisher to include ads.
Block the pop-up completely: Just fine, this is the choice of user.
Replacing one pop-up with another:The potential to create confusion of endorsment or affiliation that the publisher does not intend. Trademark law protects everyone and should apply similarly.
Adding a pop-up when none would normally exist:Again, the possibility of confusion is great. In addition, (for example) publishers might want to develop and maintain a reputation for not having any pop-ups.
Any transaction that looks like a sale, is described as a sale, and is generally regarded as a sale, most courts are very likely to treat as a sale.
Merely stating that "this is not a sale" is not enough. Courts can and will look beyond mere form and look to the substance of a particular transaction. Here, like most "licensed" music and software, the substance of the transaction is very similar to a sale. Moreover, the law heavily favors sales as opposed to licenses, unless it is very clear to all parties that it is not a sale. Lets look at the evidence in this case:
The service is called "BUYmusic.com", implying that you can BUY music there. The term "buy" commonly mean to purchase and thereby take ownership.
The "Terms of Sale" agreement itself calls the transaction a sale in its title.
Although I have nothing to prove this, I'm sure the service is advertised as a sale.
The use of words like sell, purchase, order and buy, which the TOS admit to being sprinkled throughout their site indictate a sale, unless they are always attached to "of a license".
Although not binding, the belief of the purchasing party is relevant, if it is incorrect, fostered by buymusic.com. Contracts after all, require a mutual understandind and assent, which is lacking if the parties have such disperate ideas that one considers it a sale and the other a license (and a very restrictive one at that).
Again, I have no evidence, having never used the buymusic.com service. The user must normally presented with this agreement and asked to approve it beforehand, for each transaction. Even if done, seeing "Terms of Sale" only reinforces the weight of the sale concept.
It seems clear that Buymusic.com's intent is to obfuscate the form of transaction to the average comsumer, thus making one think it is a sale, while Buymusic considers it a license. Not withstanding this provision in the TOS agreement, the substance of the transaction dramatically favors it being designated a sale. At best, the confusion it creates probably runs afoul a number of state's consumer protection laws.
I suggest Buymusic.com reconsider its policies in this regard.
This analogy might work, if you only had to worry about contract law. Contract law requires both parties to, at least implicitly, agree. Therefore a one-way message usually would not be binding on the recipient. However, in this case, the notice is simply referencing prohibitions automatic to all recipients of copyrighted content (and all content is automatically copyrighted by default).
There is a huge difference between driving down prices (legal) and giving away your product for free (illegal). This legal rule captures the more general principal that price discrimination (charging different prices according to the purchasers ability or desire to pay) is highly economically inefficient and should be avoided.
Slashdot Mirror
Your title wouldn't perhaps be referring to US sugar tariffs, which artificially inflate the price of suger to protect domestic producers, at the expense of making sugar and sugar related products more expensive in the US by up to a factor of 10, not to mention destroying other countries local economies, and denying the laws of economics that state the most efficient solution is to produce goods in places that enjoy a relative (key word) advantage?
It is ralely used however, unless the patent office takes signiciant notice of the problem, the patent is likely to be asserted, lawsuits to determine the patents validity are unlikely, and the patent is blatantly invalid. In short, the PTO would rather the courts and affected parties handle the issue, and keep their own hands clean.
That's my passion as well, with the matching mechanical pencil. I dread losing it and having to buy the non-knurled grip version.
FYI...a less expensive alternative is made by Koh-i-Nor (~$10, plastic)
Different types of pop-ups handling methods deserve special distinction and treatment by the law. I find judges that want to make blanket statements to the effect of "the user/WhenU/Gator can do whatever he wants to his computer" ignorant.
Just my 4 cents (mostly due to inflation)
I read the article on the off chance I'd learn something, but it felt like my IQ just dropped 100 elephants.
The matrix exists to turn people into batteries.
Any transaction that looks like a sale, is described as a sale, and is generally regarded as a sale, most courts are very likely to treat as a sale.
Merely stating that "this is not a sale" is not enough. Courts can and will look beyond mere form and look to the substance of a particular transaction. Here, like most "licensed" music and software, the substance of the transaction is very similar to a sale. Moreover, the law heavily favors sales as opposed to licenses, unless it is very clear to all parties that it is not a sale. Lets look at the evidence in this case:
It seems clear that Buymusic.com's intent is to obfuscate the form of transaction to the average comsumer, thus making one think it is a sale, while Buymusic considers it a license. Not withstanding this provision in the TOS agreement, the substance of the transaction dramatically favors it being designated a sale. At best, the confusion it creates probably runs afoul a number of state's consumer protection laws.
I suggest Buymusic.com reconsider its policies in this regard.
This analogy might work, if you only had to worry about contract law. Contract law requires both parties to, at least implicitly, agree. Therefore a one-way message usually would not be binding on the recipient. However, in this case, the notice is simply referencing prohibitions automatic to all recipients of copyrighted content (and all content is automatically copyrighted by default).
since you don't have to read as critically to find out the editorial spin here as you would on, say, FoxNews.
You don't really need to read critically to see FoxNews is biased.
There is a huge difference between driving down prices (legal) and giving away your product for free (illegal). This legal rule captures the more general principal that price discrimination (charging different prices according to the purchasers ability or desire to pay) is highly economically inefficient and should be avoided.