A common thing for a lawyer to do when beginning a deposition is to ask for the home and business address of the deponent. That's probably what was marked confidential on page 4.
I don't think so. I would expect that the deal would go something like this: while most M$ shareholders will get one share of M$/Windows and one share of M$/everything-else for each share of M$ they own, Gates will get n>1 shares of one type for each M$ share he owns. I think that would be treated as a nontaxable stock dividend. (Bill Gates: if you are reading this, I recommend you obtain your own legal advice on this point.)
In any event, capital gains on positions held for more than one year are tax favored -- I think the rate is 20%. I don't think his bracket would matter.
Certain games, particularly FPSs and the like, could almost be said to constitute a third "kind" of game: If football and basketball are about physical ability, and chess and go are about mental ability, Quake and UT are about "nervous ability." It takes a certain (and I don't mean this disparagingly) "twitchiness" to be really good at these games, which I for one am rapidly losing the closer I get to thirty.
Secondly, the documents seem to be written intentionally so that most people are unable to read them without a couple of years of law school training. They're loaded with legal language and as much fluff text and obscuration as possible, burying the terms of the agreement and making it a burden to read. The textual equivalent of having to travel several hundred miles through difficult terrain in order to retrieve the easy to read version.
I'd agree that the licenses are difficult to read, but not just for non-lawyers -- they're hard for anyone to read. It is not unusual for junior lawyers to be assigned to spend hours summarizing contracts so that lawyers with decades of experience can understand what they mean. They don't give you a secret decoder ring when you pass the bar.
If the termination violates federal or state civil rights laws, then the contract language doesn't matter. (Rights under those laws are "nondisclaimable"; i.e., it's no defense to have a contract term that says, "We reserve our right to terminate you at any time on the ground that you're a member of a minority group.")
In a number of states, a contract for service with no defined term (e.g., "one year") or which purports to be perpetual is deemed terminable at will by either party. If this rule of contract law is applicable, a contract provision explicitly preserving the ISP's right to terminate may not be necessary.
By making such a fuss over illegal MP3s, they're only making them more desirable and intriguing. Rebellious teenagers all across the country hear the uproar over illegal MP3s and Gnutella and other such things and end up looking into them when they never would have heard about them before.
Seriously, I think the overwhelming attraction of MP3 trading is not "the lure of the forbidden" or the like, but the ability to get recorded music at minimal cost.
(Likewise, proponents of legalizing marijuana sometimes argue that marijuana use would drop if it were legalized because it would no longer be "forbidden fruit." Whatever you think of the drug laws, honesty compels the conclusion that the main reason people smoke pot is to get high, and all other reasons come in a distant second.)
Communist. Next you'll be saying we shouldn't use powdered rhinoceros horn to arouse our beloved's desire.
Re:More info -- from one of the deposed
on
DeCSS Update
·
· Score: 3
If you do not want your personal and business data on that disk to be in the public record I suggest doing a low level format of the hard drive this weekend.
If you deliberately destroying evidence in a federal civil case, you may have committed the federal crime of obstruction of justice. (Here's an indictment brought by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York on just those grounds.) Talk to your lawyer about how to protect your interests before you go around destroying anything.
(1) It shouldn't surprise you that a brief is very readable; after all, it's intended to persuade. Some briefs are less readable by non-lawyers because they don't go into detail on concepts that lawyers and judges take for granted (e.g., rudiments of contract law or civil procedure). In general, however, a well-written brief or judicial opinion should be quite comprehensible to the intelligent nonlawyer. An unreadable brief is a bad brief.
(It's not always the case, however, that well-drafted statutes and contracts are readily comprehensible, though there's considerable interest in improving the present state of affairs. If this interests you, I particularly recommend taking a look at the SEC initiative on the use of "plain english" in disclosure documents.)
(2) I agree that the description of linking is a bit verbose. (E.g., instead of saying that HTML "allows Web authors to format text to add emphasis or design layout," why not say that HTML "allows Web authors to specify how their text should appear on the page"?) That's basically nitpicking, though. The real question is whether such a description was necessary, and whether a demonstration or the like wouldn't be preferable. In my view, the description was necessary.
A couple years ago, some lawyers got very excited about the possibility of putting together multimedia briefs, which would supposedly be far more informative than text on paper. The truth is, however, that a 25MB.AVI of a plane bursting into flame conveys far less significant information for legal urposes than a declaratory sentence such as "Because of a design flaw in the frobulator, Flight 123's fuel tanks caught fire, causing the plane to burst into flame on the runaway, killing all passengers and crew." Likewise, persuasive writing strips away nonessential information to focus on key facts. Here, the key fact that hyperlinks -- however implemented -- are nothing more than references to other documents just like citations in legal briefs. You might guess that to be true from seeing a web browser in action, but then again, you might not.
oh oh!! you are dumb canada is the most un-homogeneous country on earth there nimrod 1 out of 10 americans were born outside of the us 1 out of *6* canadians were
I could only get through question #2, so if the interview improves after that, I'm sorry for basing my thoughts on a short review.
I know what you mean. The other day my doctor was going on and on about how I have a something-or-other deficit disorder, and I tried to listen for a while, but then I got bored and just looked out the window.
What makes this unenforcable isn't the law, or even the illegality of DeCSS (after all, maybe it is the decoy DeCSS program, which is undisputably legal and merely bears a superfical resemblence to DeCSS, in the similarity of their names). [ . . . ]
Even if such a license were enforcable, the RIAA and the MPAA would simply purchase a new law from congress post haste (a relatively inexpensive proposition), which would then make the license unenforcable, probably retroactively.
As to your first point, I don't think your strategy would succeed. If you put up just a link, or a decoy, then either (1) you've disclosed that fact, and no one would click through, or (2) you've concealed that fact, and the contract is unenforceable on the ground of fraud.
As to your second point, there are Fifth Amendment limitations on Congress' power to abridge a person's rights under existing contracts, though I wouldn't dismiss the possibility entirely.
(1) Legal unenforceability: In the example you give, assuming for sake of argument that DeCSS is illegal,(*) you're offering to sell an illegal product, not in exchange for money but for a release. It follows that the contract you propose is unenforceable because it is supported by an illegal consideration.
(* If it's legal, why would they care?)
(2) Practical unenforceability: In the example you give, how do you prove that any given person-who-clicks-through is a person with authority to grant a release on behalf of a studio?
That's not to say this isn't worth pursuing, however.
Developers are free to believe what they want to believe, but if they're hoping to get widespread acceptance for their projects, they should be wary of adopting names that are likely to offend sizable segments of the population, even if they don't mean to cause offense. By these lights, "atheOS" is as poorly chosen a name as "ChristIsKingOS" (or whatever) would be. Donald Knuth and Larry Wall are two practicing Christians who have made indisputably enormous contributions to open source software. Is the pun so irresistible that it is worth causing offense to these people?
Moreover, even if individuals can overlook such things, businesses can't, or won't. By way of example, if you want to convince a business it should abandon Photoshop in favor of the open source alternative, first try to explain how the business will go about telling an employee in a wheelchair that the employee needs to be trained on a program called "the GIMP."
Query, however, whether an act of Congress shortening a copyright term would be an uncompensated taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. (I don't have an answer for this, but I think it's a good question.)
For US citizens, paying a Cuban entity to host your web site is probably a violation of the embargo act. If the point is to avoid legal trouble, I don't think Cuba is the way to go.
At best, this is a dubious reading of the GNU text you cite. What the text says is that if you can make money redistributing free software, go ahead. The text specifically distinguishes the redistribution of free software from the selling of software on a proprietary basis.
Slashdot Mirror
A common thing for a lawyer to do when beginning a deposition is to ask for the home and business address of the deponent. That's probably what was marked confidential on page 4.
In any event, capital gains on positions held for more than one year are tax favored -- I think the rate is 20%. I don't think his bracket would matter.
Certain games, particularly FPSs and the like, could almost be said to constitute a third "kind" of game: If football and basketball are about physical ability, and chess and go are about mental ability, Quake and UT are about "nervous ability." It takes a certain (and I don't mean this disparagingly) "twitchiness" to be really good at these games, which I for one am rapidly losing the closer I get to thirty.
I'd agree that the licenses are difficult to read, but not just for non-lawyers -- they're hard for anyone to read. It is not unusual for junior lawyers to be assigned to spend hours summarizing contracts so that lawyers with decades of experience can understand what they mean. They don't give you a secret decoder ring when you pass the bar.
If the termination violates federal or state civil rights laws, then the contract language doesn't matter. (Rights under those laws are "nondisclaimable"; i.e., it's no defense to have a contract term that says, "We reserve our right to terminate you at any time on the ground that you're a member of a minority group.")
In a number of states, a contract for service with no defined term (e.g., "one year") or which purports to be perpetual is deemed terminable at will by either party. If this rule of contract law is applicable, a contract provision explicitly preserving the ISP's right to terminate may not be necessary.
The right to due process is a right against the government, not against private parties.
Seriously, I think the overwhelming attraction of MP3 trading is not "the lure of the forbidden" or the like, but the ability to get recorded music at minimal cost.
(Likewise, proponents of legalizing marijuana sometimes argue that marijuana use would drop if it were legalized because it would no longer be "forbidden fruit." Whatever you think of the drug laws, honesty compels the conclusion that the main reason people smoke pot is to get high, and all other reasons come in a distant second.)
Communist. Next you'll be saying we shouldn't use powdered rhinoceros horn to arouse our beloved's desire.
If you deliberately destroying evidence in a federal civil case, you may have committed the federal crime of obstruction of justice. (Here's an indictment brought by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York on just those grounds.) Talk to your lawyer about how to protect your interests before you go around destroying anything.
(1) It shouldn't surprise you that a brief is very readable; after all, it's intended to persuade. Some briefs are less readable by non-lawyers because they don't go into detail on concepts that lawyers and judges take for granted (e.g., rudiments of contract law or civil procedure). In general, however, a well-written brief or judicial opinion should be quite comprehensible to the intelligent nonlawyer. An unreadable brief is a bad brief.
(It's not always the case, however, that well-drafted statutes and contracts are readily comprehensible, though there's considerable interest in improving the present state of affairs. If this interests you, I particularly recommend taking a look at the SEC initiative on the use of "plain english" in disclosure documents.)
(2) I agree that the description of linking is a bit verbose. (E.g., instead of saying that HTML "allows Web authors to format text to add emphasis or design layout," why not say that HTML "allows Web authors to specify how their text should appear on the page"?) That's basically nitpicking, though. The real question is whether such a description was necessary, and whether a demonstration or the like wouldn't be preferable. In my view, the description was necessary.
A couple years ago, some lawyers got very excited about the possibility of putting together multimedia briefs, which would supposedly be far more informative than text on paper. The truth is, however, that a 25MB .AVI of a plane bursting into flame conveys far less significant information for legal urposes than a declaratory sentence such as "Because of a design flaw in the frobulator, Flight 123's fuel tanks caught fire, causing the plane to burst into flame on the runaway, killing all passengers and crew." Likewise, persuasive writing strips away nonessential information to focus on key facts. Here, the key fact that hyperlinks -- however implemented -- are nothing more than references to other documents just like citations in legal briefs. You might guess that to be true from seeing a web browser in action, but then again, you might not.
Read again, please. Slowly this time. Move your lips if you find that helps.
canada is the most un-homogeneous country on earth there nimrod
1 out of 10 americans were born outside of the us
1 out of *6* canadians were
(long pause)
Nope, I just can't bring myself to do it.
Prime Minister Jean Poutine.
Checked the exchange rate recently? You may be able to rustle up that sum by turning over the cushions on the sofa. :P
Oh, crap. Will you take a post-dated check?
I know what you mean. The other day my doctor was going on and on about how I have a something-or-other deficit disorder, and I tried to listen for a while, but then I got bored and just looked out the window.
Even if such a license were enforcable, the RIAA and the MPAA would simply purchase a new law from congress post haste (a relatively inexpensive proposition), which would then make the license unenforcable, probably retroactively.
As to your first point, I don't think your strategy would succeed. If you put up just a link, or a decoy, then either (1) you've disclosed that fact, and no one would click through, or (2) you've concealed that fact, and the contract is unenforceable on the ground of fraud.
As to your second point, there are Fifth Amendment limitations on Congress' power to abridge a person's rights under existing contracts, though I wouldn't dismiss the possibility entirely.
(1) Legal unenforceability: In the example you give, assuming for sake of argument that DeCSS is illegal,(*) you're offering to sell an illegal product, not in exchange for money but for a release. It follows that the contract you propose is unenforceable because it is supported by an illegal consideration.
(2) Practical unenforceability: In the example you give, how do you prove that any given person-who-clicks-through is a person with authority to grant a release on behalf of a studio?
That's not to say this isn't worth pursuing, however.
Hey, just got back. Why are you guys all so old?
Moreover, even if individuals can overlook such things, businesses can't, or won't. By way of example, if you want to convince a business it should abandon Photoshop in favor of the open source alternative, first try to explain how the business will go about telling an employee in a wheelchair that the employee needs to be trained on a program called "the GIMP."
Query, however, whether an act of Congress shortening a copyright term would be an uncompensated taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. (I don't have an answer for this, but I think it's a good question.)
For US citizens, paying a Cuban entity to host your web site is probably a violation of the embargo act. If the point is to avoid legal trouble, I don't think Cuba is the way to go.
Cash and cash equivalents $11,997,157
Short-term investments $7,630,705
Total assets (including the foregoing, and a good deal else) $110,297,650
At best, this is a dubious reading of the GNU text you cite. What the text says is that if you can make money redistributing free software, go ahead. The text specifically distinguishes the redistribution of free software from the selling of software on a proprietary basis.