I should also add that all grant of rights require contracts. Otherwise, the grant of rights is unenforceable - this is why you see people paying $1 for companies and stuff like that.
This is just normal contract law. If a grant of right does not have consideration as you suggested, then it is simply not a valid contract under law.
The distinction between a grant of right versus a licence is obscure.
ALL contracts are grants of rights. In essence, they grant the parties a right to sue under contract law if the either doesn't perform - where previously this right would not exist but for the contract.
So what's the deal here? The only difference is perhaps the relevance to property (ie right to use property).. but in any case, it doesn't affect the original discussion relating to why a right to use property, versus a right to sue will affect the existence of consideration?
Am blatantly missing something on contract law or what? I'm in Australia, but the general contract principles are still the same.
Why are you guys differentiating things like licence and contract and so forth?
A licence is a type of contract. The EULA and the GPL are types of licences.
??????????????
Re:Saw something similar about EULAs in general
on
GPL's Strength
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Is there any authority for this at all?
It seems to be established ground that user agreements like EULA is legitimate in contractual terms. The whole idea is that if you don't accept the user agreement, you're supposde to return the software back to the shop (ha).
So, the consideration is clearly the purchase price, and the agreement (ie licence) the quid pro quo for your purchase price.
Applying tort law to computer systems is something that has been emerging recently. There have been similar arguments such as that to the hacker, where there is a trespass to your systems once it is hacked and you may seek damages if hackers damage your stuff (eg delete it). Unfortunately, because tort law is quite old and wasn't designed with computer systems in mind, there have been problems such as the fact that although deleting information may amount to trespass (ie damage to chattels), you need to rely on another legal authority if they don't actually delete stuff - ie if they just hack your system and do nothing (or snoop around).
Given that, we'll have to see how the case will turn out, but the common law precedence so far has had some problems in applying similar tortious concepts to trespass for computer systems.
Note that this is a classic situation where it is a matter for the government to legislate against, and not something you should litigate in court by relying on dodgy authority from 400 years ago.
I doubt any of you are in big a quandary as I am. I am a nerd at heart and skills, but my career is one of a lawyer's.
I have had over three years of experience in law firms of various sorts (firstly in a small law firm, then for a large law firm, now as inhouse legal counsel kinda role) but I still keep in strong touch with technology.
What am I aiming for and how do I sell myself?
I am trying to sell myself to law firms who have large investments in technology. A lot of law firms here in Australia are very focused on technology and what competitive advantages they can offer.
I can also try to get a job with an IT firm that sell to law firms. Companies such as Keystone will be on my radar screen.
I have found that most employers have viewed my experience as very marketable and strong. The problem however is that with law firms, this is partly all talk and no action - so law firms don't necessarily want to hire someone like me and setup a separate role.
Anyway, back to your situation, surely you must have accrued some skills which will allow you to put your foot in the door of another career path? Think about that and how your skills as a software person can complement it well. Then sell it!
these kind of ads have been around for years as I know it. They have been on (in particular) asian portal kind of sites for literally years. Examples would be www.hongkong.com and www.ttyy.net www.sina.com www.netease.com (or at least some of them have the annoying ads) etc...
That's the way the world works. I mean, gee I put 1 buck to play Daytona, if I'm crap I get to play less.. isn't that discriminating against the uncoordinated?
Finally an article where I can reply to without sounding like a retard (I'm not a full nerd unlike most of you).
The difference in corporate culture here is frequently referred to as shareholder primacy versus stakeholder theory. Common law countries are generally based around the shareholder primacy ideology - that is, shareholders are the owners and are the primary interests to be taken into account of. Indeed, they have control of the company through resolutions.
Japan and so forth runs a stakeholder theory where everyone, including employees, directors, the public community, the industry all have relevant interests in the company.
This is relevant I believe because it's not as 'greedy' as all of you US people assume it to be. In US, it's assumed that everything is money grabbing, because of the shareholder primacy crap, but in Japan, it's viewed as preserving the interests of the company as a whole and relevant industry and perhaps the country's employment (ie if a hideously looking employee was headhunted to the US).
Also note that Japan's corporate strucutres are generally 'insider' systems that is, where shareholders have large blocks of shareholdings and thus monitoring is of a much higher standard than the US where lots of small shareholders do jack and can't be bothered to monitor the company. This is relevant once again as companies are under a much more (arguably) stringent management and if they fail, they are shamed by their bosses, and indeed themselves because they have failed to live up to the expectations of the community by affecting it adversely (as per above stakeholder argument).
- Not IANAL.
Slashdot Mirror
I should also add that all grant of rights require contracts. Otherwise, the grant of rights is unenforceable - this is why you see people paying $1 for companies and stuff like that.
This is just normal contract law. If a grant of right does not have consideration as you suggested, then it is simply not a valid contract under law.
that's interesting.
.. but in any case, it doesn't affect the original discussion relating to why a right to use property, versus a right to sue will affect the existence of consideration?
The distinction between a grant of right versus a licence is obscure.
ALL contracts are grants of rights. In essence, they grant the parties a right to sue under contract law if the either doesn't perform - where previously this right would not exist but for the contract.
So what's the deal here? The only difference is perhaps the relevance to property (ie right to use property)
Am blatantly missing something on contract law or what? I'm in Australia, but the general contract principles are still the same.
Why are you guys differentiating things like licence and contract and so forth?
A licence is a type of contract. The EULA and the GPL are types of licences.
??????????????
Is there any authority for this at all?
It seems to be established ground that user agreements like EULA is legitimate in contractual terms. The whole idea is that if you don't accept the user agreement, you're supposde to return the software back to the shop (ha).
So, the consideration is clearly the purchase price, and the agreement (ie licence) the quid pro quo for your purchase price.
Sounds like a really dodgy argument to me.
Remember in that movie, apparently you can melt the ice to produce oxygen or something?
If I remember correctly back from high school, electrolysis breaks it into oxygen and hydrogen.
I wonder if that's gonna be useful at all?
Applying tort law to computer systems is something that has been emerging recently. There have been similar arguments such as that to the hacker, where there is a trespass to your systems once it is hacked and you may seek damages if hackers damage your stuff (eg delete it). Unfortunately, because tort law is quite old and wasn't designed with computer systems in mind, there have been problems such as the fact that although deleting information may amount to trespass (ie damage to chattels), you need to rely on another legal authority if they don't actually delete stuff - ie if they just hack your system and do nothing (or snoop around).
Given that, we'll have to see how the case will turn out, but the common law precedence so far has had some problems in applying similar tortious concepts to trespass for computer systems.
Note that this is a classic situation where it is a matter for the government to legislate against, and not something you should litigate in court by relying on dodgy authority from 400 years ago.
I doubt any of you are in big a quandary as I am. I am a nerd at heart and skills, but my career is one of a lawyer's.
I have had over three years of experience in law firms of various sorts (firstly in a small law firm, then for a large law firm, now as inhouse legal counsel kinda role) but I still keep in strong touch with technology.
What am I aiming for and how do I sell myself?
I am trying to sell myself to law firms who have large investments in technology. A lot of law firms here in Australia are very focused on technology and what competitive advantages they can offer.
I can also try to get a job with an IT firm that sell to law firms. Companies such as Keystone will be on my radar screen.
I have found that most employers have viewed my experience as very marketable and strong. The problem however is that with law firms, this is partly all talk and no action - so law firms don't necessarily want to hire someone like me and setup a separate role.
Anyway, back to your situation, surely you must have accrued some skills which will allow you to put your foot in the door of another career path? Think about that and how your skills as a software person can complement it well. Then sell it!
Does anyone know the updated story to Cavedog and Taylor (the gamespot article is probably 3 years old at least).
I remember that they released TA Kingdoms and so forth, but what's happened to all the people? Where do they work now?
I'm not familiar with US Tax laws, but I'm guessing that if you offer your software for free, shouldn't you get either:
- an immediate write off (probably less likely)
- or the depreciation still, because depreciation is based on book value..?
these kind of ads have been around for years as I know it. They have been on (in particular) asian portal kind of sites for literally years. Examples would be www.hongkong.com and www.ttyy.net www.sina.com www.netease.com (or at least some of them have the annoying ads) etc...
and set up a site for download?
:P
There are other semi-computer illiterate people here, such as lawyers
What's the role of SMART in this whole discussion? I thought SMART was supposed to prevent this kind of stuff?
It's a joint venture between Optus and Excite@Home apparently.. Will Optus buy it out?
That's the way the world works. I mean, gee I put 1 buck to play Daytona, if I'm crap I get to play less.. isn't that discriminating against the uncoordinated?
Finally an article where I can reply to without sounding like a retard (I'm not a full nerd unlike most of you). The difference in corporate culture here is frequently referred to as shareholder primacy versus stakeholder theory. Common law countries are generally based around the shareholder primacy ideology - that is, shareholders are the owners and are the primary interests to be taken into account of. Indeed, they have control of the company through resolutions. Japan and so forth runs a stakeholder theory where everyone, including employees, directors, the public community, the industry all have relevant interests in the company. This is relevant I believe because it's not as 'greedy' as all of you US people assume it to be. In US, it's assumed that everything is money grabbing, because of the shareholder primacy crap, but in Japan, it's viewed as preserving the interests of the company as a whole and relevant industry and perhaps the country's employment (ie if a hideously looking employee was headhunted to the US). Also note that Japan's corporate strucutres are generally 'insider' systems that is, where shareholders have large blocks of shareholdings and thus monitoring is of a much higher standard than the US where lots of small shareholders do jack and can't be bothered to monitor the company. This is relevant once again as companies are under a much more (arguably) stringent management and if they fail, they are shamed by their bosses, and indeed themselves because they have failed to live up to the expectations of the community by affecting it adversely (as per above stakeholder argument). - Not IANAL.