Google harder - or try LII at Cornell U. Actually 1976 is the effective date of the LATEST VERSION of the Copyright Act (with lots of amendments since). Copyrights have existed for a LONG time.
Also, just because the content is not covered by copyright in Europe, that does not mean you can make the CD in Europe and ship it to the US. You still can't import them into the U.S. as long as a US Copyright is in effect (17 U.S.C. sec. 602).
A trade secret on an obvious idea does not impede my use of that obvious idea. A wrongly issued patent does.
You cannot get any kind of legal protection for ideas. You can only protect the tangible expression of specific ideas. Hope you have a good lawyer if you have any affiliation whatsoever with a company that vigorously protects its trade secrets and you create something similar to what it is seeking to protect. If you think a civil patent suit is bad, try a federal criminal investigation for industrial or electronic espionage.
The problem with the bulk of the software patents issued by the USPTO in recent years (and by bulk I mean 95%+ of those I have read) is that they are completely obvious to anyone who has an understanding of the field.
This is a problem with patent EXAMINATION, not with patents themselves. I acknowledged as much toward the end of my post.
The legal standard of obvious is different - except of course when the USPTO attempts to justify its racket when the 'non-obvious' standard is held up as the guarantee of fairness.
Different? Different from what? To determine obviousness, the PTO looks to the prior art. If a combination of references describes each and every element of the inventlion, it is obvious so long as a person of ordinary skill in the art would have an incentive to combine the references. I have never heard of the PTO holding up anything as a guarantee of fairness.
I have never once read a patent to get a good idea. The only reason I read patents is to make sure that I do not use the technology described by mistake.
Use the technology described all you like - as long as you don't create something that contains all the elements and limitations of something described in the claims. The claims are the description of the invention. Omit just one element called for by a claim from your creation and you don't infringe. And if something is described but not claimed, it is automatically dedicated to the public. Most people think that the protection granted by a patent is much broader than what is actually granted. Most patent grants have a fairly narrow scope.
Yes, I felt strongly enough about this topic to give up my Moderator Points (at least in this thread) today so I could post. Do I feel strongly enough to Mod up my own post? I'm a Karma whore - what do you think? I'll rely on others' mods, TYVM.
There has always been a delicate balance between the open and free exchange of ideas like that which occurs in scientific dialog and the need for those who invest in scientific endeavors to be able to recoup their investment. Patents are the means by which this balance is struck.
This is not a new idea. Article I section 8 of the United States Constitution provides that Congress may "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. . . " (capitalization in original). This clause is the basis of Congress's power to grant patents and copyrights.
The trade-off is simple: Inventors are given a limited time (currently 20 years from date of the filing of a patent application) during which they may recoup their investment and profit from their work with the reassurance that they may sue to stop anyone who tries to get a free ride off their work by copying an invention and thereby trying to profit from the work of another. In exchange, the patent has to contain "a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains . . . to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention." 35 U.S.C. sec. 112, para. 1.
Section 112 is one of the most litigated provisions in the law. Ever. Each and every word has been exhaustively examined by the federal courts and has been found consistently to carry out the policy of ensuring that once the limited time for recouping an investment has passed, that society as a whole has enough information so that anyone in that technical area ("art") can make and use the invention simply by reading the patent.
What are the alternatives to this regime? There are two that readily come to mind. The first is that if you believe that all scientific knowledge should be immediately available without restriction, then by all means, publish the work and make it freely available to anyone who wants it. No one will stop you from doing that (unless of course you are teaching how to build nuclear weapons, etc.,...). The second alternative is to protect your invention by keeping it as a trade secret.
Trade secrets do little to promote the progress of science. They work more of a hindrance. Those who have chosen this route must ensure that their invention truly remains secret or their protection and ability to recoup their investment is lost or greatly diminished. The principal "progress" occurs when someone decides that the invention is too valuable to not have access to, and decides then to reverse-engineer the invention to discover its secrets. Trade secrets potentially last in perpetuity, so it is theoretically possible that no one will ever learn or benefit from the secret scientific advance.
I am not blind - I know there are substantial problems with patent examinations that allow invalid patents to issue. However, the proper remedy for that is to ensure only good patents issue. How? First, by allowing the PTO to hire enough competent examiners to handle the work flow. The PTO is a self-sufficient agency. It is actually a significant profit center for the government. Much of the money paid into the PTO however is immediately diverted by Congress for other purposes instead of being put back into the PTO to improve the agency. Most recently, Congress drastically increased the size of user fees at the PTO to pay for Homeland Security. I am confident in saying the the diversion of user fees from the PTO is among the Top 3 Gripes of every patent attorney in the US.
The execution may be flawed at times, but the policy is sound. We have advanced much further as a society by granting patents than we would have otherwise.
Read the original post. The poster was NOT complaining about the lack of support for his OS - he was complaining that he had a verified problem with the HARDWARE (RAM) - supplied by the manufacturer. What software is run on that hardware is irrelevant to the question of whether there is a hardware defect.
I agree - the manufacturer does not have to support other OSes if it doesn't want to - that is the equivalent of asking a car manufacturer to support after-market parts. But the manufacturer is always responsible for its own hardware.
It may "invalidate" a WRITTEN warranty, but it can't do ANYTHING to affect an implied warranty covering the hardware that arises as a matter of law simply because the sale was made.
The whole reason for implied warranties is to give purchasers some reassurance that they are getting what they paid for and that flowery-sounding terms in a written warranty do not make your purchase worthless by placing unreasonable terms/conditions on the purchase.
So long as M$ insists that it is "licensing" the OS and not "selling" it, then you have two separate transactions. It is eminently fair to treat the hardware purchase as the first transaction and the presentation of a EULA as an offer to enter into a second transaction. You are then free to reject the offer and obtain a refund for the amount you paid in advance.
Re:Before you send anything back...
on
Windows Refund Day II
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Sue the bastards then. Unless it explicitly said on the box in clear and conspicuous language that any written warranty was invalid by not using the pre-installed OS, they simply cannot do that.
In any case, there are IMPLIED warranties that arise simply out of the sale which cannot be disclaimed if a written warranty is provided and assuming this was a consumer sale. The most common is the implied warranty of merchantability (Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-314). Every state has a version except LA, and maybe even them by now. Also, breach of warranty is in most states an unfair and deceptive business practice that can get you 3 times your actual damages or a sum set by statute, whichever is greater, plus attorneys fees. You should be able to file this in small claims court abd get a very good result.
Remember - you bought a piece of HARDWARE and it is the hardware that is defective. As a matter of fact, unless that clear and conspicuous language is there, I would put in a separate count claiming that merely telling you that running Linux invalidates a warranty is unfair and deceptive, entitling you to damages. If it is there, I would claim that warranty provision is invalid and itself unfair and deceptive.
Uh... I've been over all the arguments regarding why Linux should be GNU/Linux and all that, but I think the GNU folks need to realize that now they are fooling around with the name of something connected to Apple Computer - a company that does not take such matters lightly.
"Customers tell us the practice of asking them for names and addresses is time consuming and annoying and is not something that endears them to us," Leonard Roberts, chairman and CEO of Fort Worth-based RadioShack, said in a statement.
We all know that there are a ton of metrics out there that can be used to determine the "speed" of a system, the most widely thought-of probably being processor clock speed, and a ton more that have an impact on whatever metric you have chosen.
In my experience, there is only one "true" metric that means anything for system speed and that is response time. I define response time as the elapsed time between the time the user issues a command and the time that the command has completed execution. For most people, this translates into the time between when something is mouse-clicked and the time the associated item opens/closes or similar actions.
All other things being relatively equal, I have found Mac OS X (both Jaguar and 10.1.5) to be very responsive. I'm running a TiBook (800 MHz) with 512 Mb RAM and have no complaints whatsoever. In fact, I've found that my productivity has greatly increased (about 25%) since I made my TiBook my primary computer. The standard issue machine at my office is a laptop with an 850 Mhz Mobile P3 processor and 512 Mb RAM running Win98 SE. In the response-time test, the TiBook wins handily.
I think you either missed my point of don't understand the Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow's Hierarchy is not a western/US concept - it applies to ALL people and is a way of describing the basic needs of being human. The structure is a pyramid with upper layers supported by lower ones. The lower layers relate to "basic" needs. You cannot begin to address upper layers until the lower layers are in place.
For example, if you are starving, i.e., deprived of the basic need for food, will you care of your computer has 512 Mb of RAM vs. 1 Gb? I think you won't even care if you HAVE a computer - you are focused on obtaining food. The same goes for other basic needs like water and oxygen. At the next level, are needs like clothing, shelter, and safety.
The point is, you need to fully address basic needs before you can get people to focus on "needs" (used in the psychological sense - most of the upper level things can be called "wants") that are at upper levels. So, after this long-winded diatribe, my point is that leaders should be working to ensure that basic needs like food, water, clean air, clothing, shelter, and safety are addressed before fooling around with "digital divides." If there is a juggernaut that is interfering with that, then leaders must either fight the juggernaut or ensure that the basic needs are met first so that the juggernaut does not detract from efforts to satisfy those basic needs. From what I see, neither is really happening.
I think it is time for all world leaders to take a crash course in the basics. Someone needs to drill Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs into their heads. Take care of the IMPORTANT things first - First, food, potable water, and clean air. Second, shelter, personal safety and security. When those things are addressed, not only will the world be a MUCH better place, the other things will be easier to address as well. I for one am sick of hearing about a "digital divide" when people are starving and still being victimized by crime.
I am a patent guy, so my licensing experience with the GPL is rather limited (except for using GPL'ed software). However, upon a cursory review, it seems as if this section of the GPL is the cause of most of the concern:
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
I think the keys here are what count as distribution and separate works. Obviously, the GPL was drafted with traditional software in mind and is not tailored toward embedded systems. You have to answer the questions "Is this a work based on the Program [a piece of software covered by the GPL]?" and "Is this an independent and separate work?" Unfortunately, I don't have enough facts about your system, and we don't have an attorney-client relationship, so I can't give you an answer. What I can tell you is that you should make sure your lawyer is familiar with your code development processes and distributions systems and knows enough about software development so that he can draw principled distinctions between different ways of doing things.
Many regulations under state consumer protection acts actually provide that material information must actually be printed in a certain type size, font, etc.
Yes, consumers need to research more. However, the days of "caveat emptor" (let the buyer beware) are over. That is what warranty and unfair business practice laws are all about.
This post is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, you should consult with a competent attorney who is licensed to practice in your state (or other jurisdiction outside the U.S.).
That being said, every state in the US has a version of the Uniform Commercial Code. Section 2-313 deals with Express Warranties. Any affirmation of fact or promise or description of the goods creates an express warranty which is breached if the goods sold and delivered do not conform to the factual affirmation or description or if the promise made is broken. For example, if the processor speed is labeled as 1 GHz, the consumer is entitled to rely on the 1 GHz measure. A split 1 GHz/500 MHz ration when running on AC/battery does not conform to the affirmation of fact (processor speed) made by the merchant and could be said to breach the express warranty.
Section 2-314 is the Implied Warranty of Merchantability. The warranty is created simply by virtue of making the sale. If the goods sold are not such that would pass without objection in the trade then the warranty has been breached. Here, the argument would be that the industry creates mobile versions of chips for laptops because of battery life concerns. If someone wants to depart from that practice and use a speed slowdown to reduce power consumption, then that fact must be disclosed and agreed-to by the consumer prior to the sale. Otherwise, the consumer is entitled to rely on the standard practice when making the purchase. Such undisclosed use of "slowed" desktop processors would not pass without objection in the trade and could be said to breach the implied warranty of merchatability.
Additionally, virtually every state has a "Little FTC Act" or Consumer Protection statute. These statutes outlaw "unfair or deceptive" business practices. Breaches of warranty are usually automatic violations of these statutes. The penalty is usually up to three times your damages (for example, the cost of your laptop times 3) plus attorneys fees if you hire a lawyer.
What about those of us who are lawyers and will just cry for the end of any ability to get meaningful remedies under the antitrust laws instead of posting a shoddy legal analysis?
... that this is just the opening shot of a file format (a la M$ Word) or application-checking scheme (a la AIM) war between M$ and this app's developers. Even if you can force everyone to use your file format, you can't TRULY own the space until everyone has to use your app to read the file as well.
I'd love to get one of those from you - if you care to part with it, email me at compulawyer@NOSPAM.yahoo dot com -- removing the obvious anti-spam measures from the address, of course.
From the Washinton Post - an article that discusses M$'s new marketing blitz for MSN.
Can anyone imagine that there is still a market for people who need their hands held as they walk along the Information Superhighway? Nonetheless, I have GOT to get a clip of Billy G. in the reported "Butterfly Suit."
... is the whining Massa does is his "open letter" that he posted in the discussion thread. Massa says:
Re: PageRank by Judicial Decree? SearchKing Sues Google
by bobking on Sunday, October 20 @ 16:26:58 EDT...
This letter is intended for James Grimmelman, who had the by-line for the SearchKing sues Google article here . It was difficult to find a contact address and if this is not the correct way of reaching him and you have a way, please send it to me or forward this to him.
Thank You
Bob Massa
CEO
SearchKing, Inc.
*******************
Just a question James.
Did it ever occur to you to maybe ask the person you're writing about for his views BEFORE insinuating I was a parasitic link farm?
If you take your web presence seriously, and accept that the words research.yale.edu means something, doesn't that put a responsibility on you to be open-minded and fair? To at least try to report objectively?
Have you even looked at the site? Read any of the SearchKing forums or tried to contact me for my opinion? If no, then shame on you.
Regardless of whether I'm just a loser who is whining about his placements or an honest businessman who has spent over 6 years building a reputable online presence with a real concern that could have far reaching effects on the further of search engines and maybe even e-commerce, wouldn't your own work be better if you at least tried to hear and present both sides?
Respectfully
Bob Massa
CEO
SearchKing, Inc.
I don't know what is funnier - his rant or the fact that his username to post is "bobking." All Hail King Bob!
Slashdot Mirror
Also, just because the content is not covered by copyright in Europe, that does not mean you can make the CD in Europe and ship it to the US. You still can't import them into the U.S. as long as a US Copyright is in effect (17 U.S.C. sec. 602).
You cannot get any kind of legal protection for ideas. You can only protect the tangible expression of specific ideas. Hope you have a good lawyer if you have any affiliation whatsoever with a company that vigorously protects its trade secrets and you create something similar to what it is seeking to protect. If you think a civil patent suit is bad, try a federal criminal investigation for industrial or electronic espionage.
The problem with the bulk of the software patents issued by the USPTO in recent years (and by bulk I mean 95%+ of those I have read) is that they are completely obvious to anyone who has an understanding of the field.
This is a problem with patent EXAMINATION, not with patents themselves. I acknowledged as much toward the end of my post.
The legal standard of obvious is different - except of course when the USPTO attempts to justify its racket when the 'non-obvious' standard is held up as the guarantee of fairness.
Different? Different from what? To determine obviousness, the PTO looks to the prior art. If a combination of references describes each and every element of the inventlion, it is obvious so long as a person of ordinary skill in the art would have an incentive to combine the references. I have never heard of the PTO holding up anything as a guarantee of fairness.
I have never once read a patent to get a good idea. The only reason I read patents is to make sure that I do not use the technology described by mistake.
Use the technology described all you like - as long as you don't create something that contains all the elements and limitations of something described in the claims. The claims are the description of the invention. Omit just one element called for by a claim from your creation and you don't infringe. And if something is described but not claimed, it is automatically dedicated to the public. Most people think that the protection granted by a patent is much broader than what is actually granted. Most patent grants have a fairly narrow scope.
Yes, I felt strongly enough about this topic to give up my Moderator Points (at least in this thread) today so I could post. Do I feel strongly enough to Mod up my own post? I'm a Karma whore - what do you think? I'll rely on others' mods, TYVM.
This is not a new idea. Article I section 8 of the United States Constitution provides that Congress may "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. . . " (capitalization in original). This clause is the basis of Congress's power to grant patents and copyrights.
The trade-off is simple: Inventors are given a limited time (currently 20 years from date of the filing of a patent application) during which they may recoup their investment and profit from their work with the reassurance that they may sue to stop anyone who tries to get a free ride off their work by copying an invention and thereby trying to profit from the work of another. In exchange, the patent has to contain "a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains . . . to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention." 35 U.S.C. sec. 112, para. 1.
Section 112 is one of the most litigated provisions in the law. Ever. Each and every word has been exhaustively examined by the federal courts and has been found consistently to carry out the policy of ensuring that once the limited time for recouping an investment has passed, that society as a whole has enough information so that anyone in that technical area ("art") can make and use the invention simply by reading the patent.
What are the alternatives to this regime? There are two that readily come to mind. The first is that if you believe that all scientific knowledge should be immediately available without restriction, then by all means, publish the work and make it freely available to anyone who wants it. No one will stop you from doing that (unless of course you are teaching how to build nuclear weapons, etc., ...). The second alternative is to protect your invention by keeping it as a trade secret.
Trade secrets do little to promote the progress of science. They work more of a hindrance. Those who have chosen this route must ensure that their invention truly remains secret or their protection and ability to recoup their investment is lost or greatly diminished. The principal "progress" occurs when someone decides that the invention is too valuable to not have access to, and decides then to reverse-engineer the invention to discover its secrets. Trade secrets potentially last in perpetuity, so it is theoretically possible that no one will ever learn or benefit from the secret scientific advance.
I am not blind - I know there are substantial problems with patent examinations that allow invalid patents to issue. However, the proper remedy for that is to ensure only good patents issue. How? First, by allowing the PTO to hire enough competent examiners to handle the work flow. The PTO is a self-sufficient agency. It is actually a significant profit center for the government. Much of the money paid into the PTO however is immediately diverted by Congress for other purposes instead of being put back into the PTO to improve the agency. Most recently, Congress drastically increased the size of user fees at the PTO to pay for Homeland Security. I am confident in saying the the diversion of user fees from the PTO is among the Top 3 Gripes of every patent attorney in the US.
The execution may be flawed at times, but the policy is sound. We have advanced much further as a society by granting patents than we would have otherwise.
I agree - the manufacturer does not have to support other OSes if it doesn't want to - that is the equivalent of asking a car manufacturer to support after-market parts. But the manufacturer is always responsible for its own hardware.
The whole reason for implied warranties is to give purchasers some reassurance that they are getting what they paid for and that flowery-sounding terms in a written warranty do not make your purchase worthless by placing unreasonable terms/conditions on the purchase.
So long as M$ insists that it is "licensing" the OS and not "selling" it, then you have two separate transactions. It is eminently fair to treat the hardware purchase as the first transaction and the presentation of a EULA as an offer to enter into a second transaction. You are then free to reject the offer and obtain a refund for the amount you paid in advance.
In any case, there are IMPLIED warranties that arise simply out of the sale which cannot be disclaimed if a written warranty is provided and assuming this was a consumer sale. The most common is the implied warranty of merchantability (Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-314). Every state has a version except LA, and maybe even them by now. Also, breach of warranty is in most states an unfair and deceptive business practice that can get you 3 times your actual damages or a sum set by statute, whichever is greater, plus attorneys fees. You should be able to file this in small claims court abd get a very good result.
Remember - you bought a piece of HARDWARE and it is the hardware that is defective. As a matter of fact, unless that clear and conspicuous language is there, I would put in a separate count claiming that merely telling you that running Linux invalidates a warranty is unfair and deceptive, entitling you to damages. If it is there, I would claim that warranty provision is invalid and itself unfair and deceptive.
Uh ... I've been over all the arguments regarding why Linux should be GNU/Linux and all that, but I think the GNU folks need to realize that now they are fooling around with the name of something connected to Apple Computer - a company that does not take such matters lightly.
at least in the concept. REGISTER your copyright in the code with the Copyright Office. License the code to the party with appropriate restrictions.
"Customers tell us the practice of asking them for names and addresses is time consuming and annoying and is not something that endears them to us," Leonard Roberts, chairman and CEO of Fort Worth-based RadioShack, said in a statement.
DUH!
In my experience, there is only one "true" metric that means anything for system speed and that is response time. I define response time as the elapsed time between the time the user issues a command and the time that the command has completed execution. For most people, this translates into the time between when something is mouse-clicked and the time the associated item opens/closes or similar actions.
All other things being relatively equal, I have found Mac OS X (both Jaguar and 10.1.5) to be very responsive. I'm running a TiBook (800 MHz) with 512 Mb RAM and have no complaints whatsoever. In fact, I've found that my productivity has greatly increased (about 25%) since I made my TiBook my primary computer. The standard issue machine at my office is a laptop with an 850 Mhz Mobile P3 processor and 512 Mb RAM running Win98 SE. In the response-time test, the TiBook wins handily.
For example, if you are starving, i.e., deprived of the basic need for food, will you care of your computer has 512 Mb of RAM vs. 1 Gb? I think you won't even care if you HAVE a computer - you are focused on obtaining food. The same goes for other basic needs like water and oxygen. At the next level, are needs like clothing, shelter, and safety.
The point is, you need to fully address basic needs before you can get people to focus on "needs" (used in the psychological sense - most of the upper level things can be called "wants") that are at upper levels. So, after this long-winded diatribe, my point is that leaders should be working to ensure that basic needs like food, water, clean air, clothing, shelter, and safety are addressed before fooling around with "digital divides." If there is a juggernaut that is interfering with that, then leaders must either fight the juggernaut or ensure that the basic needs are met first so that the juggernaut does not detract from efforts to satisfy those basic needs. From what I see, neither is really happening.
I think it is time for all world leaders to take a crash course in the basics. Someone needs to drill Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs into their heads. Take care of the IMPORTANT things first - First, food, potable water, and clean air. Second, shelter, personal safety and security. When those things are addressed, not only will the world be a MUCH better place, the other things will be easier to address as well. I for one am sick of hearing about a "digital divide" when people are starving and still being victimized by crime.
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
I think the keys here are what count as distribution and separate works. Obviously, the GPL was drafted with traditional software in mind and is not tailored toward embedded systems. You have to answer the questions "Is this a work based on the Program [a piece of software covered by the GPL]?" and "Is this an independent and separate work?" Unfortunately, I don't have enough facts about your system, and we don't have an attorney-client relationship, so I can't give you an answer. What I can tell you is that you should make sure your lawyer is familiar with your code development processes and distributions systems and knows enough about software development so that he can draw principled distinctions between different ways of doing things.
Many regulations under state consumer protection acts actually provide that material information must actually be printed in a certain type size, font, etc.
Yes, consumers need to research more. However, the days of "caveat emptor" (let the buyer beware) are over. That is what warranty and unfair business practice laws are all about.
That being said, every state in the US has a version of the Uniform Commercial Code. Section 2-313 deals with Express Warranties. Any affirmation of fact or promise or description of the goods creates an express warranty which is breached if the goods sold and delivered do not conform to the factual affirmation or description or if the promise made is broken. For example, if the processor speed is labeled as 1 GHz, the consumer is entitled to rely on the 1 GHz measure. A split 1 GHz/500 MHz ration when running on AC/battery does not conform to the affirmation of fact (processor speed) made by the merchant and could be said to breach the express warranty.
Section 2-314 is the Implied Warranty of Merchantability. The warranty is created simply by virtue of making the sale. If the goods sold are not such that would pass without objection in the trade then the warranty has been breached. Here, the argument would be that the industry creates mobile versions of chips for laptops because of battery life concerns. If someone wants to depart from that practice and use a speed slowdown to reduce power consumption, then that fact must be disclosed and agreed-to by the consumer prior to the sale. Otherwise, the consumer is entitled to rely on the standard practice when making the purchase. Such undisclosed use of "slowed" desktop processors would not pass without objection in the trade and could be said to breach the implied warranty of merchatability.
Additionally, virtually every state has a "Little FTC Act" or Consumer Protection statute. These statutes outlaw "unfair or deceptive" business practices. Breaches of warranty are usually automatic violations of these statutes. The penalty is usually up to three times your damages (for example, the cost of your laptop times 3) plus attorneys fees if you hire a lawyer.
What about those of us who are lawyers and will just cry for the end of any ability to get meaningful remedies under the antitrust laws instead of posting a shoddy legal analysis?
After all, they're MIT. MITRE stands for MIT Research. For the uninitiated, MIT is Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
... that this is just the opening shot of a file format (a la M$ Word) or application-checking scheme (a la AIM) war between M$ and this app's developers. Even if you can force everyone to use your file format, you can't TRULY own the space until everyone has to use your app to read the file as well.
Interesting idea. Perhaps you could even get lawyers to "distill" the EULA terms into short summaries. You caught my attention.
I'd love to get one of those from you - if you care to part with it, email me at compulawyer@NOSPAM.yahoo dot com -- removing the obvious anti-spam measures from the address, of course.
Can anyone imagine that there is still a market for people who need their hands held as they walk along the Information Superhighway? Nonetheless, I have GOT to get a clip of Billy G. in the reported "Butterfly Suit."
Re: PageRank by Judicial Decree? SearchKing Sues Google
by bobking on Sunday, October 20 @ 16:26:58 EDT ...
This letter is intended for James Grimmelman, who had the by-line for the SearchKing sues Google article here . It was difficult to find a contact address and if this is not the correct way of reaching him and you have a way, please send it to me or forward this to him.
Thank You Bob Massa CEO SearchKing, Inc. *******************
Just a question James.
Did it ever occur to you to maybe ask the person you're writing about for his views BEFORE insinuating I was a parasitic link farm?
If you take your web presence seriously, and accept that the words research.yale.edu means something, doesn't that put a responsibility on you to be open-minded and fair? To at least try to report objectively?
Have you even looked at the site? Read any of the SearchKing forums or tried to contact me for my opinion? If no, then shame on you.
Regardless of whether I'm just a loser who is whining about his placements or an honest businessman who has spent over 6 years building a reputable online presence with a real concern that could have far reaching effects on the further of search engines and maybe even e-commerce, wouldn't your own work be better if you at least tried to hear and present both sides?
Respectfully
Bob Massa CEO SearchKing, Inc.
I don't know what is funnier - his rant or the fact that his username to post is "bobking." All Hail King Bob!