So, let's assume for a second that the Software Company actually transfers title to the copy when the consumer purchases it? What is the effect of the EULA? Under PRO-CD, the EULA is binding (assuming Pro-CD's conditions are met).
On the other hand, if the Software Company doesn't transfer title, then the EULA is still binding because the recipient doesn't fall under section 117, and the recipient needs some authority (either under the Section 117 or the EULA) to copy the software into his computer.
No court has had a need to treat it both ways, because there haven't been any factual situations which would require that -- either the defendant is in privity with the manufacturer (a la ProCD & Gateway) or they're not (Adobe). Courts have been willing to treat it as both.
You are right that a software company could, conceivably, enter into a contract with each end user. That would be bad for everybody involved -- it would be expensive and would dramatically raise the price of software. And, it also has the problem of the guy buying used software, then suing the manufacturer when there's a serious bug. (The contract, presumably, would prohibit consequential damages.)
It seems to me like we're arguing cross-purposes. You seem to think that Pro-CD was wrongly decided because it didn't adhere strictly to the UCC. I'm arguing that Pro-CD, whether it was wrongly decided or not (which I don't think it was), is generally followed and, as a result, is the law.
There is no statute, just a bunch of cases. But, they're just as binding.
As for the case law, uh... ProCD: "ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir.1996), holds that terms inside a box of software bind consumers who use the software after an opportunity to read the terms and to reject them by returning the product." That quote is from another opinion, Hill v. Gateway 2000, 105 F.3d 1147, written by the same judge.
A EULA is presumably unenforceable if the purchaser did not have a chance to review the terms before the sale and was prohibited from return the software for a refund after the sale if he did not like the EULA. But, I haven't seen any EULA that does not include such a clause. (Returning the product to Best Buy might be hard; it might be necessary to go to the manufacturer instead.)
(1) It's a sale and not a grant of a license -or- (2) It's a grant of a license, and not a sale.
I suggest that (3), it has characteristics of both. So, it's covered by Article 2 AND the manufacturer can impose conditions on downstream purchasers or holders, despite not being in privity of contract.
You can argue that EULAs shoudn't be enforced, but the fact is that they are generally, even if the law isn't completely settled.
Allowing software manufacturers to impose conditions on downstream users makes a lot of sense, as a policy matter. For example, manufacturers can charge different prices for a piece of software depending on how it will be used. It's a whole heck of a lot easier than the software company having to enter into individual contracts with each customer. Heck, even the GPL benefits from this.**
Your sales tax argument is a red herring. The tax treatment of a transaction is often different that how it's treated by any other law. So, transactions which are not technically "sales" under the UCC may still be a sale for tax purposes. In Florida, for example a sales tax is exercised on anybody who "... rents or furnishes any of the things or services taxable under this chapter..." In Texas, a sale is "a transfer of title or possession [for consideration]." In New York, a sale is "Any transfer of title or possession or both, exchange or barter, rental, lease or license to use . .."
**The GPL is generally viewed as a license on distribution, but it contains provisions that apply to users as well (Sections 15-17 of GPLv3).
So ProCD said that the EULA is enforceable as a contract. You can't take ProCD for the proposition that there was a sale, since that wasn't squarely before the court. Instead, it asked whether the EULA is binding even though it's in the box, not printed on the outside.
One Stop's argument goes like this: If you want to know whether you're buying a copy or merely licensing it, you have to look at what the parties intend. And, to figure that out, you look at the language of the contract. If the Contract says it's a license, then it's a license. If the contract says it's a sale, it's a sale. If the contract isn't clear, then you have to look at parole evidence to answer the question.
In that particular case, the court had to look at parole evidence because the contract wasn't clear. So, it looked at what normally happens in the industry, and determined that software is nearly always licensed, very rarely sold. Plus, both parties to the contract said "Yup. This is a license." If the license has clearly said "this is a license, not a sale," (like most such licenses do), then they never would have bothered looking at industry practice.
SoftMan has never been specifically overruled, but the 9th circuit (in which the Softman court sits) said 'Indeed, the first sale doctrine rarely applies in the software world because software is rarely "sold."'
So, first of all, recognize that ProCD had nothing to do with copyright--it was all about whether the bundled license agreement would be enforced under contract. ProCD applies equally to the sale of snow shovels as it does to software.
Adobe v. One Stop Micro, 84 F. Supp. 2d 1086, is more on point. There, a reseller who bought educational version of software (from a software reseller) and resold them as full versions was found liable for infringing the distribution right. Another court reached the opposite answer (Softman Prods v. Adobe, 171 F.supp 2d 1075), but One Stop is better supported and followed. For example, see Adobe v. Stargate Software, 216 F. Supp. 2d 1051, and Meridian Project Sys v. Hardin Construction, 426 F. Supp. 2d 1101 .
Incidentally, Article 2 of the UCC, despite its title, applies to "transactions in goods," not just sales. (See section 2-102).
The counter-argument is that you are buying a license, not a copy of the software, as is spelled out in the EULA.
In any case, I was just responding to the earlier point that there wasn't any consideration supporting the contract, which is clearly false. The whole "Licensed not sold" thing is a bit of a canard, since, as you point out, EULAs are generally enforced under contract law, so you never get to Section 117.
However, there is clearly a license component as well: if you throw out "your" copy of a piece of software and I pick it out of your trash, I am still bound by the EULA even though I was not a party to the original sale, nor am I in privity of contract with you.
Sec. 117 is why EULAs contain the standard "This is licensed, not sold" language. Because you are not the "owner of a copy" (but merely a licensee), you do not have the right to use it absent the license.
Re:I am not handsome enough to be a lawyer
on
UK Report Slams EULAs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That is horrible advice and is worth far less than what I paid for it.
Sure, unconscionable contracts, or unconscionable clauses in contracts are not enforced, but "unconscionable" != "very one-sided". And, penalty clauses are often not enforced. But, there are plenty of very one-sided agreements that are regularly enforced -- your credit card agreement is probably one of them.
Plus, if you sign a contract with no intention of ever following through, you may end up getting hit with punitive damages.
First of all, the classic requirements are offer, acceptance and consideration. "Meeting of the Minds" is just another way of asking the question "did you guys both agree to the same thing?" For example, you agree to buy my car, but I have two cars and you intended to buy the one that I wanted to keep, and not the one I wanted to sell. "Meeting of the Minds" *DOES NOT* mean that the agreement was negotiated.
The consideration requirement is pretty easy: "I give you a limited right to use this software and in return you agree to pay some money and to follow the EULA."
Stocks have historically earned an average annual return of somewhere around 9%. Lotteries, on average, have a return around negative 50%.
It's a risk/reward thing. You could put it in a savings account or a U.S. Government Bond with near-absolute safety (you will never lose anything) and get, say 3%. Or, you can boost your expected return over time by taking on some risk. With rational investments, the more risk you take, the greater the expected return over time.
The licenses really are not suitable for non-software. Consider the MIT license mentioned in the post:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so . . .
If you've attached this to something that isn't 'software' and isn't 'associated documentation', then what does "Software" refer to?
The Open Source licenses, especially the short ones, do a good job at what they're supposed to do *for software*. But, hardware designs have a different set of issues. For one, open source licenses are predominantly *copyright* licenses.** Hardware designs are generally more the realm of patents and mask works, which have somewhat different protections. For example, GPL v2 talks about a "derivative work under copyright law." What does that mean when the thing you're trying to distribute isn't really protected by copyright?
Also, Open Source licenses are, with isolated exceptions, untested in court. Why would you take an untested license, apply it to something that it wasn't originally intended to apply to, and then expect some court to enforce it? Do you really want the first US test of an open source license to be the one where the license is attached to hardware and not to software?
If you want a license that applies to hardware, write a license that applies to hardware.
**There is probably an implied grant of a limited patent license to the extent that using the software would infringe a patent.
17 U.S.C. 105. There are some records which, for public policy reasons, are generally thought to be outside the realm of copyright -- state court decisions, for example. But, there is no general law that exempts all public records. I can't cite to the statute that says "there is no law against . ..", for obvious reasons.
Ok. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. When Microsoft integrated IE into the operating system, I mean more than "got installed at the same time as the OS." It was actually part of the OS -- if you removed all the components of IE, the rest of the operating system wouldn't work. Microsoft's position as part of its antitrust trial was that there was no way to remove IE from Windows.
I agree that a web browser is a necessary part of any desktop computer. But, if you design the operating system so you can no longer boot if you remove the browser, you've got problems.
Unfortunately, the world has been corrupted by Microsoft's bizarre definition of an "Operating System." The following are applications, not part of the OS:
1. Freecell 2. The web-browser 3. Media player Player 4. e-mail client
Because MS has distributed these things with its operating system and, with a straight face, asked why the web browser wasn't part of the OS***, people now have a kitchen-sink view of the OS. I think Linus takes a minimalist view to the OS.
*** Many of the Windows/IE security issues can be traced back to the integration of IE into the operating system.
You actually have two problems: First, you want to publish the code under an open-source license. And, second, you want to cover your butt in case somebody at the company doesn't like it in the future.
Your best chance for releasing the code as open-source is by convincing the company that there is no way that it could be hurt by the release and that it may benefit. So, make sure it doesn't conflict with any product the company makes or could make. Make sure the code is clean (no comments about the boss) and your best work (if people see the code, you don't want them thinking "man people at company X are idiots.") Come up with reasons why making it open-source would be a good thing. Remember, the company is there to make money.
Does your company have in-house counsel, or does it farm everything out to a law firm? If they farm everything out, there is a very good chance that the company will say no -- they don't want to incur legal fees just so you can publish this software. If they have in-house counsel that's reasonably technically savvy, talk to your boss about it and then approach the company counsel.
The main reason that corporate income taxes are relatively low is because corporations are taxed on their profit, whereas individuals are taxed on their earnings. A company can easily bring in $100M in revenues, but only make $5M profit, which is then taxed at ~35%, yielding $1.75M in taxes. The other $95M is also taxed, just not directly to the corporation. Instead, it shows up as, for example, employee income taxes. It's possible to shift that back to the company, but the employees would end up getting a pay cut.
In the U.S., the dividing line is in a different place. Under US Copyright law, an unauthorized "public performance" constitutes copyright infringement. A private performance doesn't. That's why it's OK to watch a DVD at home, but not in a movie theater when you open it up to the public. "residential" or "commercial" doesn't matter -- it's possible to have a private performance in a movie theater, and a public performance in a home.
A performance is public if it's open to the public (i.e. anybody can come in) or if it's made to "a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances." For example, a small church (~50 people), all of who know each other, could watch the SuperBowl projected on a 20 foot screen, as long as it doesn't invite the public.
The 55" screen thing is just the NFL saying "but, even if you do have a public performance, we won't bother you as long as you use a small screen." If the performance isn't public to begin with, the screen size doesn't matter.
I do agree, though, that the NFL takes an aggressive stand on its rights. That's why you see so many advertisements about "the Big Game" instead of mentioning the SuperBowl itself -- the NFL claims that any commercial use of the "Super Bowl" mark has to be licensed. (The NFL tried to trademark "the Big Game" as well, but was denied.)
I agree with Creepy Crawler on this. We tried Eugenics about 100 years ago and abandoned it because it was morally reprehensible.
Do you know anybody with Downs Syndrome? I do. I don't think he, his parents or his siblings would agree that he should never have lived. And, he's not suffering. If anything, he's happier than most people are.
When science figures this out, maybe it will be caught up with the church.
TFA only mentioned artificial insemination tangentially, where the Pope opposes creating embryos, screening out the ones prone to disease and then choosing from the remainder. It doesn't talk about artificial insemination directly.
I can see how that would be an affront to human dignity -- it basically says that people with, say, Downs Syndrome, are less worthy of living than those without.
The counter-example is this: suppose that sexual orientation has a genetic component; if the right genes are present, a person is more likely to be gay. Would it be acceptable for parents to screen out for that?
If the embryo is just a lump of cells, then what does it matter? It would be about as bad as deciding to remove a rainbow bumper sticker from a used car you just bought.
Isn't there just as much bandwidth between 3Ghz and 4Ghz as there is between 0Ghz and 1Ghz? Why do we carve out larger chunks at higher frequencies? It seems to me that the real answer is finer-grained transmitters and receivers.
Symantec wouldn't be paying up unless they knew it was an un-winnable case.
Phooey. Here's a fairly common scenario:
(1) Company gets questionable patent (2) Company offers a very inexpensive license to a big-name suspected infringer (3) big-name suspected infringer buys the license because it's a lot cheaper than litigating (4) Company goes around to others and says "big-name suspected infringer has a license, so it must be legit. Pay up." Only, this time, Company asks for a lot more money.
The US Patent Office is still poorly equipped to handle software patents, so it lets a lot more through than it should, turning a lot of the job of proving their validity to the courts. But, patent lawsuits are expensive, so most patents are never tested.
In my city, we don't take interstates to get to school. And we have school buses. Besides, nothing says that the parent can't stay in the car with their kid or go outside and let them run around before school starts.
In any case, it's dumb to base a decision on congesting pricing on the tiny number of things where showing up early isn't possible.
So, it's not really a question of forcing people onto other roads, although that would certainly be a side-effect. Instead, it's a question of forcing people into other *times*. If the road isn't congested, you don't pay the congestion toll.
Every person, even rich people, are impacted by prices. Nobody has an endless supply of money. Just like everybody else, the rich have to decide "do I take the road while it's busy and give up spending that money some other way, or do I wake up half an hour earlier and save the money?" Now, there may be a handful of people for whom the tolls are just too insignificant to care about. But, there are so few of such people that worrying about what they do is just plain dumb.
Correction: in a *sane* corporate environment, that would be made at a corporate policy level. Sometimes, however, the IT department does things without running them up the chain of command or talking with their users.
In the early '90s, I worked for a company which was shifting from IBM mainframes to unix workstations. The IT department decided that it would be a good idea to configure a cron job to fsck the disk on these workstations, while the filesystem was mounted.
Slashdot Mirror
So, let's assume for a second that the Software Company actually transfers title to the copy when the consumer purchases it? What is the effect of the EULA? Under PRO-CD, the EULA is binding (assuming Pro-CD's conditions are met).
On the other hand, if the Software Company doesn't transfer title, then the EULA is still binding because the recipient doesn't fall under section 117, and the recipient needs some authority (either under the Section 117 or the EULA) to copy the software into his computer.
No court has had a need to treat it both ways, because there haven't been any factual situations which would require that -- either the defendant is in privity with the manufacturer (a la ProCD & Gateway) or they're not (Adobe). Courts have been willing to treat it as both.
You are right that a software company could, conceivably, enter into a contract with each end user. That would be bad for everybody involved -- it would be expensive and would dramatically raise the price of software. And, it also has the problem of the guy buying used software, then suing the manufacturer when there's a serious bug. (The contract, presumably, would prohibit consequential damages.)
It seems to me like we're arguing cross-purposes. You seem to think that Pro-CD was wrongly decided because it didn't adhere strictly to the UCC. I'm arguing that Pro-CD, whether it was wrongly decided or not (which I don't think it was), is generally followed and, as a result, is the law.
There is no statute, just a bunch of cases. But, they're just as binding.
As for the case law, uh... ProCD: "ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir.1996), holds that terms inside a box of software bind consumers who use the software after an opportunity to read the terms and to reject them by returning the product." That quote is from another opinion, Hill v. Gateway 2000, 105 F.3d 1147, written by the same judge.
A EULA is presumably unenforceable if the purchaser did not have a chance to review the terms before the sale and was prohibited from return the software for a refund after the sale if he did not like the EULA. But, I haven't seen any EULA that does not include such a clause.
(Returning the product to Best Buy might be hard; it might be necessary to go to the manufacturer instead.)
You are setting up a false dichotomy. Either
..." In Texas, a sale is "a transfer of title or possession [for consideration]." In New York, a sale is "Any transfer of title or possession or both, exchange or barter, rental, lease or license to use . . ."
(1) It's a sale and not a grant of a license -or-
(2) It's a grant of a license, and not a sale.
I suggest that (3), it has characteristics of both. So, it's covered by Article 2 AND the manufacturer can impose conditions on downstream purchasers or holders, despite not being in privity of contract.
You can argue that EULAs shoudn't be enforced, but the fact is that they are generally, even if the law isn't completely settled.
Allowing software manufacturers to impose conditions on downstream users makes a lot of sense, as a policy matter. For example, manufacturers can charge different prices for a piece of software depending on how it will be used. It's a whole heck of a lot easier than the software company having to enter into individual contracts with each customer. Heck, even the GPL benefits from this.**
Your sales tax argument is a red herring. The tax treatment of a transaction is often different that how it's treated by any other law. So, transactions which are not technically "sales" under the UCC may still be a sale for tax purposes. In Florida, for example a sales tax is exercised on anybody who "... rents or furnishes any of the things or services taxable under this chapter
**The GPL is generally viewed as a license on distribution, but it contains provisions that apply to users as well (Sections 15-17 of GPLv3).
So ProCD said that the EULA is enforceable as a contract. You can't take ProCD for the proposition that there was a sale, since that wasn't squarely before the court. Instead, it asked whether the EULA is binding even though it's in the box, not printed on the outside.
One Stop's argument goes like this: If you want to know whether you're buying a copy or merely licensing it, you have to look at what the parties intend. And, to figure that out, you look at the language of the contract. If the Contract says it's a license, then it's a license. If the contract says it's a sale, it's a sale. If the contract isn't clear, then you have to look at parole evidence to answer the question.
In that particular case, the court had to look at parole evidence because the contract wasn't clear. So, it looked at what normally happens in the industry, and determined that software is nearly always licensed, very rarely sold. Plus, both parties to the contract said "Yup. This is a license." If the license has clearly said "this is a license, not a sale," (like most such licenses do), then they never would have bothered looking at industry practice.
SoftMan has never been specifically overruled, but the 9th circuit (in which the Softman court sits) said 'Indeed, the first sale doctrine rarely applies in the software world because software is rarely "sold."'
So, first of all, recognize that ProCD had nothing to do with copyright--it was all about whether the bundled license agreement would be enforced under contract. ProCD applies equally to the sale of snow shovels as it does to software.
Adobe v. One Stop Micro, 84 F. Supp. 2d 1086, is more on point. There, a reseller who bought educational version of software (from a software reseller) and resold them as full versions was found liable for infringing the distribution right. Another court reached the opposite answer (Softman Prods v. Adobe, 171 F.supp 2d 1075), but One Stop is better supported and followed. For example, see Adobe v. Stargate Software, 216 F. Supp. 2d 1051, and Meridian Project Sys v. Hardin Construction, 426 F. Supp. 2d 1101 .
Incidentally, Article 2 of the UCC, despite its title, applies to "transactions in goods," not just sales. (See section 2-102).
The counter-argument is that you are buying a license, not a copy of the software, as is spelled out in the EULA.
In any case, I was just responding to the earlier point that there wasn't any consideration supporting the contract, which is clearly false. The whole "Licensed not sold" thing is a bit of a canard, since, as you point out, EULAs are generally enforced under contract law, so you never get to Section 117.
However, there is clearly a license component as well: if you throw out "your" copy of a piece of software and I pick it out of your trash, I am still bound by the EULA even though I was not a party to the original sale, nor am I in privity of contract with you.
Sec. 117 is why EULAs contain the standard "This is licensed, not sold" language. Because you are not the "owner of a copy" (but merely a licensee), you do not have the right to use it absent the license.
That is horrible advice and is worth far less than what I paid for it.
Sure, unconscionable contracts, or unconscionable clauses in contracts are not enforced, but "unconscionable" != "very one-sided". And, penalty clauses are often not enforced. But, there are plenty of very one-sided agreements that are regularly enforced -- your credit card agreement is probably one of them.
Plus, if you sign a contract with no intention of ever following through, you may end up getting hit with punitive damages.
First of all, the classic requirements are offer, acceptance and consideration. "Meeting of the Minds" is just another way of asking the question "did you guys both agree to the same thing?" For example, you agree to buy my car, but I have two cars and you intended to buy the one that I wanted to keep, and not the one I wanted to sell. "Meeting of the Minds" *DOES NOT* mean that the agreement was negotiated.
The consideration requirement is pretty easy: "I give you a limited right to use this software and in return you agree to pay some money and to follow the EULA."
Stocks have historically earned an average annual return of somewhere around 9%. Lotteries, on average, have a return around negative 50%.
It's a risk/reward thing. You could put it in a savings account or a U.S. Government Bond with near-absolute safety (you will never lose anything) and get, say 3%. Or, you can boost your expected return over time by taking on some risk. With rational investments, the more risk you take, the greater the expected return over time.
If you've attached this to something that isn't 'software' and isn't 'associated documentation', then what does "Software" refer to?
The Open Source licenses, especially the short ones, do a good job at what they're supposed to do *for software*. But, hardware designs have a different set of issues. For one, open source licenses are predominantly *copyright* licenses.** Hardware designs are generally more the realm of patents and mask works, which have somewhat different protections. For example, GPL v2 talks about a "derivative work under copyright law." What does that mean when the thing you're trying to distribute isn't really protected by copyright?
Also, Open Source licenses are, with isolated exceptions, untested in court. Why would you take an untested license, apply it to something that it wasn't originally intended to apply to, and then expect some court to enforce it? Do you really want the first US test of an open source license to be the one where the license is attached to hardware and not to software?
If you want a license that applies to hardware, write a license that applies to hardware.
**There is probably an implied grant of a limited patent license to the extent that using the software would infringe a patent.
17 U.S.C. 105. There are some records which, for public policy reasons, are generally thought to be outside the realm of copyright -- state court decisions, for example. But, there is no general law that exempts all public records. I can't cite to the statute that says "there is no law against . . .", for obvious reasons.
Well, they may be. But, there's no law that says that public records can't be copyrighted. US Government works can't be, but this is West Virginia.
Ok. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. When Microsoft integrated IE into the operating system, I mean more than "got installed at the same time as the OS." It was actually part of the OS -- if you removed all the components of IE, the rest of the operating system wouldn't work. Microsoft's position as part of its antitrust trial was that there was no way to remove IE from Windows.
I agree that a web browser is a necessary part of any desktop computer. But, if you design the operating system so you can no longer boot if you remove the browser, you've got problems.
Unfortunately, the world has been corrupted by Microsoft's bizarre definition of an "Operating System." The following are applications, not part of the OS:
1. Freecell
2. The web-browser
3. Media player Player
4. e-mail client
Because MS has distributed these things with its operating system and, with a straight face, asked why the web browser wasn't part of the OS***, people now have a kitchen-sink view of the OS. I think Linus takes a minimalist view to the OS.
*** Many of the Windows/IE security issues can be traced back to the integration of IE into the operating system.
You actually have two problems: First, you want to publish the code under an open-source license. And, second, you want to cover your butt in case somebody at the company doesn't like it in the future.
Your best chance for releasing the code as open-source is by convincing the company that there is no way that it could be hurt by the release and that it may benefit. So, make sure it doesn't conflict with any product the company makes or could make. Make sure the code is clean (no comments about the boss) and your best work (if people see the code, you don't want them thinking "man people at company X are idiots.") Come up with reasons why making it open-source would be a good thing. Remember, the company is there to make money.
Does your company have in-house counsel, or does it farm everything out to a law firm? If they farm everything out, there is a very good chance that the company will say no -- they don't want to incur legal fees just so you can publish this software. If they have in-house counsel that's reasonably technically savvy, talk to your boss about it and then approach the company counsel.
First of all, page 4 of http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/66xx/doc6609/08-15-Slides.pdf shows the 2005 revenues -- corporate income taxes were 13%, individual income taxes were 43%.
The main reason that corporate income taxes are relatively low is because corporations are taxed on their profit, whereas individuals are taxed on their earnings. A company can easily bring in $100M in revenues, but only make $5M profit, which is then taxed at ~35%, yielding $1.75M in taxes. The other $95M is also taxed, just not directly to the corporation. Instead, it shows up as, for example, employee income taxes. It's possible to shift that back to the company, but the employees would end up getting a pay cut.
In the U.S., the dividing line is in a different place. Under US Copyright law, an unauthorized "public performance" constitutes copyright infringement. A private performance doesn't. That's why it's OK to watch a DVD at home, but not in a movie theater when you open it up to the public. "residential" or "commercial" doesn't matter -- it's possible to have a private performance in a movie theater, and a public performance in a home.
A performance is public if it's open to the public (i.e. anybody can come in) or if it's made to "a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances." For example, a small church (~50 people), all of who know each other, could watch the SuperBowl projected on a 20 foot screen, as long as it doesn't invite the public.
The 55" screen thing is just the NFL saying "but, even if you do have a public performance, we won't bother you as long as you use a small screen." If the performance isn't public to begin with, the screen size doesn't matter.
I do agree, though, that the NFL takes an aggressive stand on its rights. That's why you see so many advertisements about "the Big Game" instead of mentioning the SuperBowl itself -- the NFL claims that any commercial use of the "Super Bowl" mark has to be licensed. (The NFL tried to trademark "the Big Game" as well, but was denied.)
I agree with Creepy Crawler on this. We tried Eugenics about 100 years ago and abandoned it because it was morally reprehensible.
Do you know anybody with Downs Syndrome? I do. I don't think he, his parents or his siblings would agree that he should never have lived. And, he's not suffering. If anything, he's happier than most people are.
When science figures this out, maybe it will be caught up with the church.
TFA only mentioned artificial insemination tangentially, where the Pope opposes creating embryos, screening out the ones prone to disease and then choosing from the remainder. It doesn't talk about artificial insemination directly.
I can see how that would be an affront to human dignity -- it basically says that people with, say, Downs Syndrome, are less worthy of living than those without.
The counter-example is this: suppose that sexual orientation has a genetic component; if the right genes are present, a person is more likely to be gay. Would it be acceptable for parents to screen out for that?
If the embryo is just a lump of cells, then what does it matter? It would be about as bad as deciding to remove a rainbow bumper sticker from a used car you just bought.
Isn't there just as much bandwidth between 3Ghz and 4Ghz as there is between 0Ghz and 1Ghz? Why do we carve out larger chunks at higher frequencies? It seems to me that the real answer is finer-grained transmitters and receivers.
Phooey. Here's a fairly common scenario:
(1) Company gets questionable patent
(2) Company offers a very inexpensive license to a big-name suspected infringer
(3) big-name suspected infringer buys the license because it's a lot cheaper than litigating
(4) Company goes around to others and says "big-name suspected infringer has a license, so it must be legit. Pay up." Only, this time, Company asks for a lot more money.
The US Patent Office is still poorly equipped to handle software patents, so it lets a lot more through than it should, turning a lot of the job of proving their validity to the courts. But, patent lawsuits are expensive, so most patents are never tested.
In my city, we don't take interstates to get to school. And we have school buses. Besides, nothing says that the parent can't stay in the car with their kid or go outside and let them run around before school starts.
In any case, it's dumb to base a decision on congesting pricing on the tiny number of things where showing up early isn't possible.
So, it's not really a question of forcing people onto other roads, although that would certainly be a side-effect. Instead, it's a question of forcing people into other *times*. If the road isn't congested, you don't pay the congestion toll.
Every person, even rich people, are impacted by prices. Nobody has an endless supply of money. Just like everybody else, the rich have to decide "do I take the road while it's busy and give up spending that money some other way, or do I wake up half an hour earlier and save the money?" Now, there may be a handful of people for whom the tolls are just too insignificant to care about. But, there are so few of such people that worrying about what they do is just plain dumb.
Correction: in a *sane* corporate environment, that would be made at a corporate policy level. Sometimes, however, the IT department does things without running them up the chain of command or talking with their users.
In the early '90s, I worked for a company which was shifting from IBM mainframes to unix workstations. The IT department decided that it would be a good idea to configure a cron job to fsck the disk on these workstations, while the filesystem was mounted.