Based on script interpretation of contract law you are right. However most jurisdictions criminal codes prohibit advertising of false prices. It is very hard in this case for best buy to escape liability because of a mistake as they confirmed the price to many people before changing their mind.
Re:Best Buy = Best Fraud
on
Worst Buy
·
· Score: 2
This is illegal if your state has adopted the uniform commercial code which required that stores make refunds (not exchanges) of defective goods that the customer wasn't able to test before leaving the store - even if it is software.
Best buy doesn't give a S*** about customers
on
Worst Buy
·
· Score: 2
I have a number of bad experiences with best buy from refusing to honor any kind of warranty of defective goods to bait & switch scams with sales. And even on thanksgiving trying to avoid giving me the sale price on an item because the 45 minuts I spent in line took me past the end of the sale (at noon). The attitude of the management seems to be "Yes we know we're wrong - but you don't have the time or money to sue us".
Re:Microsoft blames hype for .net woes
on
Web Services
·
· Score: 2
Hilary rosen speaks about her love of money and desire to roll around naked in a big pile of money... (as said in a previous/. article).
I don't believe that anybody thinks that the record industry has the best interests of the artists at heart - if they did they'd incorporate as non-profit corporations and divide the profits among the artists.
The industry is there to make money - why can't they just be honest about it instead of claiming to be the best friend of the recording artist?
Microsoft blames hype for .net woes
on
Web Services
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Microsoft is blaming industry hype for the general lack of consumer interest in.net services. Their decision to delay the launch of My Services was apparently because of some kind of consumer backlash against over-hyped web services. read the register article
1) The purchase price is payable to the retailer not the publisher so the publisher wouldn't be considered a party to the contract at that level.
2) The publisher tries to insert themselves into the contract with the EULA at the time you install the software. They tell you that if you don't agree with the EULA to return the product to the place you bought it for a refund. This is lame as most stores flat refuse to take back opened software - evebn if you point out that they're legally required to (because you couldn't inspect the goods in store).
3) What is the publisher giving you in exchange for accepting the EULA - nothing apparently as you already bought the software from the retailer. Granting you a right to use something you already bought the right to use is giving you nothing. Not to mention the manufacturers disclaimer of warranties makes it clear the software isnt intended to do anything anyway.
Not only that but remember the great windows charity controversy - where they pointed the EULA saying windows licenses are not transferable from one person to another in order to scare charities into buying new copies of windows for PC's that were donated.
Sure. The point of the (now overturned law) was to turn the act of creating child porn, even simulated, into a crime. Since regular child porn is already illegal, the idea here was to extend it. (For example, photoshopping a child's head onto the picture of a naked grownup would be illegal even though no child was harmed.) The court didn't overturn that portion of the act. Read the decision
I hate child pornographers as much as the next man - but the language in the act was so broad as to make teen movies like American Pie possible targets for example.
I understand the difficulty of proving that an actual child was involved in making a picture / movie / whatever - but isn't it always necessary to prove that a crime has been committed before you can get a conviction ?
Everybody gets a break every four hours - it's a matter of federal law. The reson the day ends at 5.30 is because they don't pay you for your lunch break.
Why can't people admit it - when they saw the original StarWars they loved it because they were kids at the time. Today's kids loved "The Phantom Menace" and will no doubt love "Attack of the Clones" but for those of us who saw the original as kids the magic isn't going to be there because we're not kids any more.
The take down notice seems to be invalid as it doesn't provide any specifics of the alleged violation. Misuse of the DMCA in this case could be grounds to toss the whole suit as it's pretty hard to convice a judge that you should be entitled to protection under a law which you just improperly used against the other party.
(bear in mind the DMCA amends the copyright act - it's not a free standing law).
This seems to be a matter of extraordinary bad faith by VUG - if I followed this correctly:
VUG : You are in violation of the DMCA take down your site.
BNETD : Ok - the site is down - we have checked our compliance with the DMCA and will reinstate the site in 10 days unless you sue under the DMCA to prevent that.
VUG Files lawsuit claiming violation of some other part of the copyright code.
Re:This is just flat out *wrong*
on
Lineo near Death
·
· Score: 2
I'm betting that the canopy group was dragging their feet on some promised funding - Lineo management probably expected the money to be there when they printed the checks - Note that canopy agreed very quickly to underwrite the paychecks to avoid labor law violation lawsuits. Why would canopy care if they were wanting to shut Lineo down anyway ?????
The FCC has made it pretty clear that they will not allow enrcyption on local broadcast HDTV channels - Their argument being the spectrum is a public resource and as many people as possible should have access to the signal.
Congress has also made it plain in the past that they won't go for systems that prevent time shift recording of tv programs.
Most of this assumes that Mr Holling's bill doesn't pass - I don't see it passing as a simple matter of economics - the electronics industry is worth much much more than the entertainment industry - they just haven't got their lobbying effort organized yet - but they will if they see a serious threat to their business.
Let's not follow microsoft here - publish our own "Samba" specification as an open specification available to everybody and prohibit microsoft from using it.
Time to start our own embrace & extend operation here:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Based on script interpretation of contract law you are right. However most jurisdictions criminal codes prohibit advertising of false prices. It is very hard in this case for best buy to escape liability because of a mistake as they confirmed the price to many people before changing their mind.
This is illegal if your state has adopted the uniform commercial code which required that stores make refunds (not exchanges) of defective goods that the customer wasn't able to test before leaving the store - even if it is software.
I have a number of bad experiences with best buy from refusing to honor any kind of warranty of defective goods to bait & switch scams with sales. And even on thanksgiving trying to avoid giving me the sale price on an item because the 45 minuts I spent in line took me past the end of the sale (at noon). The attitude of the management seems to be "Yes we know we're wrong - but you don't have the time or money to sue us".
Not my analogy, Microsoft said it !!!
Hilary rosen speaks about her love of money and desire to roll around naked in a big pile of money ... (as said in a previous /. article).
I don't believe that anybody thinks that the record industry has the best interests of the artists at heart - if they did they'd incorporate as non-profit corporations and divide the profits among the artists.
The industry is there to make money - why can't they just be honest about it instead of claiming to be the best friend of the recording artist?
Microsoft is blaming industry hype for the general lack of consumer interest in .net services. Their decision to delay the launch of My Services was apparently because of some kind of consumer backlash against over-hyped web services. read the register article
1) The purchase price is payable to the retailer not the publisher so the publisher wouldn't be considered a party to the contract at that level.
2) The publisher tries to insert themselves into the contract with the EULA at the time you install the software. They tell you that if you don't agree with the EULA to return the product to the place you bought it for a refund. This is lame as most stores flat refuse to take back opened software - evebn if you point out that they're legally required to (because you couldn't inspect the goods in store).
3) What is the publisher giving you in exchange for accepting the EULA - nothing apparently as you already bought the software from the retailer. Granting you a right to use something you already bought the right to use is giving you nothing. Not to mention the manufacturers disclaimer of warranties makes it clear the software isnt intended to do anything anyway.
Not only that but remember the great windows charity controversy - where they pointed the EULA saying windows licenses are not transferable from one person to another in order to scare charities into buying new copies of windows for PC's that were donated.
YES :-)
Sure. The point of the (now overturned law) was to turn the act of creating child porn, even simulated, into a crime. Since regular child porn is already illegal, the idea here was to extend it. (For example, photoshopping a child's head onto the picture of a naked grownup would be illegal even though no child was harmed.)
The court didn't overturn that portion of the act. Read the decision
I hate child pornographers as much as the next man - but the language in the act was so broad as to make teen movies like American Pie possible targets for example.
I understand the difficulty of proving that an actual child was involved in making a picture / movie / whatever - but isn't it always necessary to prove that a crime has been committed before you can get a conviction ?
Can this be an attempt to prove that linux is effective competition to windows to placate the judge ? seems weird that it's on an MS affiliated site.
Call 1-888-134-2442
Everybody gets a break every four hours - it's a matter of federal law. The reson the day ends at 5.30 is because they don't pay you for your lunch break.
Why can't people admit it - when they saw the original StarWars they loved it because they were kids at the time. Today's kids loved "The Phantom Menace" and will no doubt love "Attack of the Clones" but for those of us who saw the original as kids the magic isn't going to be there because we're not kids any more.
The take down notice seems to be invalid as it doesn't provide any specifics of the alleged violation. Misuse of the DMCA in this case could be grounds to toss the whole suit as it's pretty hard to convice a judge that you should be entitled to protection under a law which you just improperly used against the other party.
(bear in mind the DMCA amends the copyright act - it's not a free standing law).
This seems to be a matter of extraordinary bad faith by VUG - if I followed this correctly :
VUG : You are in violation of the DMCA take down your site.
BNETD : Ok - the site is down - we have checked our compliance with the DMCA and will reinstate the site in 10 days unless you sue under the DMCA to prevent that.
VUG Files lawsuit claiming violation of some other part of the copyright code.
This looks like a classic example of SLAP - they have no case but hope to scare everybody into submission by filing frivolous lawsuits.
Oddly enough NiCd batteries were used - makes sense really industry standard rechargable batteries along with solar panels.
Yes - I realised that mistake after I hit the submit button - the difference in mass won't make much difference if it hits you in the head though.
It Works great on this site :-)
I'm betting that the canopy group was dragging their feet on some promised funding - Lineo management probably expected the money to be there when they printed the checks - Note that canopy agreed very quickly to underwrite the paychecks to avoid labor law violation lawsuits. Why would canopy care if they were wanting to shut Lineo down anyway ?????
This is exactly what microsoft does - remmeber the whole Charity Controversy. To quote:
The terms of Microsoft's Original Equipment Maker (OEM) licence state that Windows cannot be transferred with a PC, making it useless.
The FCC has made it pretty clear that they will not allow enrcyption on local broadcast HDTV channels - Their argument being the spectrum is a public resource and as many people as possible should have access to the signal.
Congress has also made it plain in the past that they won't go for systems that prevent time shift recording of tv programs.
Most of this assumes that Mr Holling's bill doesn't pass - I don't see it passing as a simple matter of economics - the electronics industry is worth much much more than the entertainment industry - they just haven't got their lobbying effort organized yet - but they will if they see a serious threat to their business.
Let's not follow microsoft here - publish our own "Samba" specification as an open specification available to everybody and prohibit microsoft from using it.
:-)
Time to start our own embrace & extend operation here