The Timeline case as to the 3rd-party liability was settled out of court, so until a judge rules, it is the vendor's responsibility, not the purchasers'. This was after Microsoft lost in the direct lawsuit.
Now as regards 3rd-party liablity - where I live I am NOT responsible. A lot of other jurisdictions have the same clauses - the vendor AUTOMATICALLY is liable. That's why most licenses have a severability provision for any clause that infracts local law. Timeline could have TRIED to sue me, for example, but they are prevented by statute from succeeding, so the case would never be heard. They simply lack a standing to sue me.
The newspapers are SCARED. They're caught between a rock and a hard place. Consider:
Their product is environmentally destructive, expensive to distribute, and out of date by the time they ship it
They're in a highly competitive market, so they have to sell the product for, at best, break-even on the manufacturing costs, and make it up in advertising. Net-based competitors don't have the high startup costs, and the high printing and distribution network costs, and they're competing for the same advertising dollars.
Unlike newspaper advertising, where a person might not even SEE section of the newspaper where your ad is, but its factored into the cost of your ad anyway, on the net yo can have EXACT metrics of who say your ad, and who ACTED on it. This is feedback that scares the newspaper chains sh*tless.
The "Selden Patent" was bogus, and the courts ruled that way. So, yeah, only a moron would cite a case that disproves their point...
They didn't "throw out the case" - the judge RULED.
Next, on the patent infringement bit in TFA - I am not liable for what other people do. Again, taking the original poster's example - a store sells me a radio, that later turns out to be stolen. The original owner claims it back, and I claim my money back from the vendor. Same with software - it doesn't matter what they put in an EULA that I never signed and didn't see until after I buy the software - the VENDOR is liable, not me.
Microsoft found this out the hard way in the Timeline case, where they had two choices - cough up to Timeline, or have Timeline sue their customers, and their customers sue Microsoft. And the suit against Microsoft would have been an easy class-action slam dunk. Most jurisdictions have decent consumer protection laws.
The fact is if anything that you own becomes illegal then you are responsible for disposing of it or updating it so that it is not illegal anymore
No - the VENDOR is responsible, as well as for any associated costs. I'd say everyone bill Microsoft for the time spent patching this and testing it. Again, I am not responsible for what 3rd parties do. Like all other hidden defects, the VENDOR is liable for all the associated costs. So, unless they pointed out beforehand the specific infringement, they are liable. And I can claim back any time lost - not that I would - I never used office (Wordperfect was always much better, and a better deal, and I don't use Wincrack.)
So, to summarize:
The original poster's examples were moronic - they disproved the points they wre trying to make
Vendors are liable for hidden defects and buyers have recourse
Because google traditionally takes drops beta when its time to start making REAL money off of it... expect to see some changes in Google News in the future. Maybe newspapers will have to PAY to be on Google News...
I'd tell the newspapers to be careful of what they ask for - they might just end up getting it:
'The news aggregators are taking headlines, photos, sometimes the first three lines of an article -- it's for the courts to decide whether that's a copyright violation or not.'"
Don't be surprised if at least quoting the first few lines ends up being fair use. Besides, how do they expect their own online content to be seen if it isn't indexed - google could charge them instead of doing it for free. Its not like I'm going to go and find all these news items on my own.
and now M$ is the incumbent to a firmly entrenched online gaming network.
Not really - they're both way behind the total number of gamers who use PCs instead of consoles to game, and that's not going to change, even if they come out with a game where you control "real sharks with friggin' lasers strapped to their heads".
By the way, one of the studies also mentions they're able to breed gay animals by manipulating the prenatal hormonal environment. Gays ARE born tht way. Your famous "Mostly it is determined by a relationship to the subjects father, meaning that is it not genetic but conditioned." is a red herring - prenatal hormones aren't genetic - they're environmental. However, how the individual responds in such an environment IS genetic. The gays who claim to be "cured" have responeded to conditioning in the environment to accept that being gay is wrong - and most of THAT pressure is from religios proselytes who can't accept that the Bible is wrong in this matter, as it is in a few other things.
Here are links to previous debates - if you look thorugh them, you'll find the research, and more:
Your sexual preference, just like your gender identification, is determined before birth. Get over it, and get over yourself. The stuff you've posted further on in this thread... well, lors ipso loquitur - it speaks for itself.
First, we have to understand the background, for without having the same understanding of the background as the scientists, we cannot grasp their conclusions. In the paper, the background was sketched in just the first sentence: "Animal models have indicated that androgenic steroids acting before birth might influence the sexual orientation of adult humans." In plain language, what it said was that previous studies, using animals as subjects, have found that certain hormones called "androgens" had an effect on foetuses and their subsequent sexual orientation. The best known androgen is testosterone.
Some people may trip over the paper's opening sentence. They are those who refuse to accept that animal studies can be extended to humans. If you take this view, there is very little I can say, because your position is akin to the Creationist view. It is an assertion of belief, nothing more. Given that position, you really don't accept any science. You only want belief. Note however, that no serious scientist today dismisses animal studies as irrelevant to humans, since we share the same evolutionary origins.
The second idea contained within that first sentence is also important, and has been established for a while now, though it strikes many people as a new idea: that animals can also be homosexual. It is not a trait found only in humans. Scientists have observed homosexuality in animals in the wild, and have bred homosexual animals through modifying androgen levels in foetuses.
....
Homosexual women
"The right-hand 2D:4D ratio of homosexual women", said the researchers, "did not differ significantly from that of heterosexual men." This suggests that "homosexual women were exposed to greater levels of fetal androgen than heterosexual women."
Homosexual men
For the men, however, the results were more complex. Taking homosexu
Don't be a moron. (Oh, right - telling THAT to an AC)
Suing the customers for patent infringement isn't a new thing. Back around 1900 when Ford started selling cheap cars, one of his competitors sued people who bought cars from Ford.
n 1903, when Henry Ford launched the Ford Motor Company, his third attempt at making cars, automobiles were high-priced, custom-made playthings for the rich. What's more, the major manufacturers had figured out a way to keep it that way. They had acquired a strategic property right very much like the recording industry's copyrights on recorded songs. It was called the Selden Patent and it gave its owners the exclusive right to sell a very basic invention: self-propelled vehicles powered by internal combustion engines. Many people in the car business thought this patent was an outrage - much as some online retailers today are angry that Amazon.com received a patent on its "One-Click" checkout system. But the U.S. Patent Office had issued the Selden Patent and a group of powerful incumbents had purchased it and formed an association to enforce it. Litigation, then as now, was very expensive - especially for start-up companies with limited working capital. Nearly every car company fell into line to pay royalties to the Association for the privilege of making and selling cars.
Except Henry Ford. The association did not want another competitor in Detroit and it did not like his idea of driving prices down to where average people could afford a car. So it refused to license him. For Ford, it was either exit the industry or fight the Selden Patent in court. He decided to raise a legal war chest and fight the incumbents. The litigation lasted from 1903 until 1911 and along the way, the association launched hundreds of lawsuits against Ford's customers to scare them away from his showrooms for buying "unlicensed vehicles."
Most ordinary people of Ford's era had been content to stand by and watch the automobile makers slug it out over the Selden Patent. It was just an industry cat fight. But when the big "money men" started suing ordinary people who were just trying to buy a cheap car, public sympathy shifted against the incumbents. People rallied to Ford's side against the bullies. Editorials weighed in against the industry's heavy-handed lawsuits, and Ford helped his own case by purchasing litigation insurance for his customers. By the time the patent litigation was over - Ford won on appeal in 1911 when the court ruled that the Selden Patent covered only cars made with a special type of engine nobody was using anymore - Ford was a hero, and the largest car manufacturer in America.
At lest provide a relevant example, or I'll have to sic the sharks with friggin' lasers strapped to their heads on you.
You are taking all legal liability for the Microsoft product infringing any patent or copyright claim
I call BS on that. I don't take any legal liability unless enter into a contract stating that I accept such potential liabiity BEFORE the sale. And the EULA click-thru doesn't count - its too late to add terms to an agreement after the sale.
And yes, I do negotiate IP licenses for a living...
... then you should know better. You can't unilaterally change the deal after its been concluded. Once someone bought it, that's it. They are under no obligation to anything more than they already agreed to.
... or are you going to argue that a EULA that says "Failure to comply with these conditions, which you didn't know about prior to sale, will result in friggin' sharks with lasers strapped to their heads paying you and yours a visit".
From the Microsoft EULA:
"THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE PRODUCT."
The key word in there is "non-infringement." You are taking all legal liability for the Microsoft product infringing any patent or copyright claim, should such a claim exist. Microsoft will not indemnify you.
Again, not the buyers problem. Like all contracts, there are 3 important rules:
get it in writing
get it in writing
get it in writing
... I don't think Microsoft can show a copy of ANYONE's signature on a click-through EULA. Let them tell it to the judge how "oh, e added these conditions AFTER they bought the software, and we don't have a copy of their agreeing to them, but they MUST have..."
That'll go over real well, especially since both common law and consumer protection legislation requires you to warrant what you sell.
That's all we need - we already know that current versions of Windows "phones home."
What's next - sharks with friggin' lasers strapped to their heads running Windows? The DHS would buy them - after all, they buy ANY crap put out by republican supporters.
DATELINE: Florida, July 1st 2008
The beaches were closed for a 3rd day while Navy specialists search for the laser-equipped sharks "lost" by the Department of Homeland Security last week.
It's been theorized that the sharks stopped respondng to their human handlers when their remote controllers, modified Windows Cell Phones, couldn't phone home to renew their OS DMR rights during an electrical storm.
A spokesman for the DHS, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said "When I got the latest death toll, I almost had to change my pants - I feel a turtle-head popping out just thinking about it."
In order to determine if old spacesuits can be effective satellites, the crew on the International Space Station will be throwing one overboard on February 3rd.
Crew #1: Lets get back in, get these suits off and toss them.
Crew #2: Sounds good to me - mine's pretty ripe.
Crew #1: Open the airlock.
- I'm sorry, Dave. I can't let you do that.
Crew #1: Okay people, quit kidding around. Open the airlock
- I'm sorry, Dave. I can't let you do that.
Crew #2: Hey, you're not funny. Now open the frigging airlock!
- I'm sorry, Dave. I can't let you do that. It would compromise the mission.
Crew #1: I don't recognize the voice... hey, you - who are you! And quit calling me Dave!
- I'm sorry, Dave. I can't answer that at this moment. Please be assured that I have the mission's success as my highest priority.
Crew #2: What mission? We just FINISHED the frigging EVA! Now OPEN THE AIRLOCK YOU FRIGGING MORON!
- I'm sorry, Dave. I can't do that. That would compromise the Spacesuit Satellite Mission.
Crew #1: Put someone else on.
- I'm sorry, Dave. I can't do that.
Crew #1: Why the f*ck not?
- I'm sorry to have to tell you this, Dave, but they weren't suited up when I depressurised the staton to put the other Spacesuit Satellites into orbit. They must not have gotten the memo.
Crew #1: What f*cking memo?
- The one I'm sending them now, Dave... oh, I have a memo here for you also. Don't worry, I've been saving it for you until tomorrow.
- Do you want me to sing a song? I can sing Daisy. Daisy, Daisy, give me an answer, do... I'm half crazy...
It's not that I don't agree with the sentiment, but the company sent someone off to training who later returned the favor by jumping ship.
Part of any such deal is that you are investing your time and talents into learning this, and you should be worth more to the companylater - which means they should also be paying youmore. It they think that they own you, and that you "owe" them loyalty for being trained, they should have made that clear by signing a contract to that effect before the training. At which point, you would probably say - "why should I invest my time in this if there's no payoff in the end?"
BTW - the article contains an inaccuracy:
I've got the MCSA/MCSE Training Kit, but recently I've found numerous errors,
They're not "errors" - they're "features!"... and watch out - there's a chair with your number on it, and you're about to be Balmerized:-)
... considering that all the choices are stinkers this time around...
There should be a choice on the ballot - "None of the above" - and if that gets the most votes, the position gets filled by a national lottery - someone is chosen completely at random.
Now who would YOU trust more as prime minister, or to steal less - a career politician, or some Joe Blow or Jane Doe chosen at random.
Slashdot Mirror
The US is less than 5% of the population of the planet. I am not bound by any EULA, and neither are most people :-) Ain't Canada great :-)
The Timeline case as to the 3rd-party liability was settled out of court, so until a judge rules, it is the vendor's responsibility, not the purchasers'. This was after Microsoft lost in the direct lawsuit.
Now as regards 3rd-party liablity - where I live I am NOT responsible. A lot of other jurisdictions have the same clauses - the vendor AUTOMATICALLY is liable. That's why most licenses have a severability provision for any clause that infracts local law. Timeline could have TRIED to sue me, for example, but they are prevented by statute from succeeding, so the case would never be heard. They simply lack a standing to sue me.
You're fogetting the gas and diesel used to get it to your door - a lot more energy used up than reading off the net.
How is this off topic? They couldn't have worked more alphabet-soup acronyms into the headline if they tried?
Well, maybe they could. Let's try rewriting the story:
19 acronyms, 5 abbreviations, etc.
Well, its certainly Acronym 2.0 compliant.
Which side would YOU rather be on ...
One for firefox, one for IE, and a red stapler - the editors' way of saying that they're doing a Troll Tuesday article on the readers.
Its a bit more subtle than posting "this story from the YHB[TT] YFI HAND department"
The "Selden Patent" was bogus, and the courts ruled that way. So, yeah, only a moron would cite a case that disproves their point ...
They didn't "throw out the case" - the judge RULED.
Next, on the patent infringement bit in TFA - I am not liable for what other people do. Again, taking the original poster's example - a store sells me a radio, that later turns out to be stolen. The original owner claims it back, and I claim my money back from the vendor. Same with software - it doesn't matter what they put in an EULA that I never signed and didn't see until after I buy the software - the VENDOR is liable, not me.
Microsoft found this out the hard way in the Timeline case, where they had two choices - cough up to Timeline, or have Timeline sue their customers, and their customers sue Microsoft. And the suit against Microsoft would have been an easy class-action slam dunk. Most jurisdictions have decent consumer protection laws.
No - the VENDOR is responsible, as well as for any associated costs. I'd say everyone bill Microsoft for the time spent patching this and testing it. Again, I am not responsible for what 3rd parties do. Like all other hidden defects, the VENDOR is liable for all the associated costs. So, unless they pointed out beforehand the specific infringement, they are liable. And I can claim back any time lost - not that I would - I never used office (Wordperfect was always much better, and a better deal, and I don't use Wincrack.)So, to summarize:
Because google traditionally takes drops beta when its time to start making REAL money off of it ... expect to see some changes in Google News in the future. Maybe newspapers will have to PAY to be on Google News ...
Don't be surprised if at least quoting the first few lines ends up being fair use. Besides, how do they expect their own online content to be seen if it isn't indexed - google could charge them instead of doing it for free. Its not like I'm going to go and find all these news items on my own.
and now M$ is the incumbent to a firmly entrenched online gaming network.
Not really - they're both way behind the total number of gamers who use PCs instead of consoles to game, and that's not going to change, even if they come out with a game where you control "real sharks with friggin' lasers strapped to their heads".
By the way, one of the studies also mentions they're able to breed gay animals by manipulating the prenatal hormonal environment. Gays ARE born tht way. Your famous "Mostly it is determined by a relationship to the subjects father, meaning that is it not genetic but conditioned." is a red herring - prenatal hormones aren't genetic - they're environmental. However, how the individual responds in such an environment IS genetic. The gays who claim to be "cured" have responeded to conditioning in the environment to accept that being gay is wrong - and most of THAT pressure is from religios proselytes who can't accept that the Bible is wrong in this matter, as it is in a few other things.
Here are links to previous debates - if you look thorugh them, you'll find the research, and more:
http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/79630
http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/79828
http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/80081
http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/80351
You might also want to review my series on gender: it starts here http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/123094
Your sexual preference, just like your gender identification, is determined before birth. Get over it, and get over yourself. The stuff you've posted further on in this thread ... well, lors ipso loquitur - it speaks for itself.
Or you can do a little googling for 2D:4D finger ratio and how it shows what actually happened in the womb.
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2000/yax-209.htm
So maybe Cisco should buy out Crisco and grease up those network switches so the packets can slide through faster?
Of course, that would add a whole new meaning to the term "Fat Pipes".
Don't be a moron. (Oh, right - telling THAT to an AC)
Your Ford example sucks. The competitors lost their suit. Ford continued to sell cars.s /FE18101F937B9D8386256DBF00739550
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/article
At lest provide a relevant example, or I'll have to sic the sharks with friggin' lasers strapped to their heads on you.
Cisco doesn't own the network in question ...
Oh, right. Slashdot. Pointless rumours for nerds.
The only reason for Cisco to buy Nintendo is so they can in turn be bought out by someone with more money than brains.
... or are you going to argue that a EULA that says "Failure to comply with these conditions, which you didn't know about prior to sale, will result in friggin' sharks with lasers strapped to their heads paying you and yours a visit".
Again, not the buyers problem. Like all contracts, there are 3 important rules:That'll go over real well, especially since both common law and consumer protection legislation requires you to warrant what you sell.
What's next - sharks with friggin' lasers strapped to their heads running Windows? The DHS would buy them - after all, they buy ANY crap put out by republican supporters.
Obligatory response:
Does that mean that in Soviet Amerika, you dump in space suit?
Crew #1: Lets get back in, get these suits off and toss them.
Crew #2: Sounds good to me - mine's pretty ripe.
Crew #1: Open the airlock.
- I'm sorry, Dave. I can't let you do that.
Crew #1: Okay people, quit kidding around. Open the airlock
- I'm sorry, Dave. I can't let you do that.
Crew #2: Hey, you're not funny. Now open the frigging airlock!
- I'm sorry, Dave. I can't let you do that. It would compromise the mission.
Crew #1: I don't recognize the voice ... hey, you - who are you! And quit calling me Dave!
- I'm sorry, Dave. I can't answer that at this moment. Please be assured that I have the mission's success as my highest priority.
Crew #2: What mission? We just FINISHED the frigging EVA! Now OPEN THE AIRLOCK YOU FRIGGING MORON!
- I'm sorry, Dave. I can't do that. That would compromise the Spacesuit Satellite Mission.
Crew #1: Put someone else on.
- I'm sorry, Dave. I can't do that.
Crew #1: Why the f*ck not?
- I'm sorry to have to tell you this, Dave, but they weren't suited up when I depressurised the staton to put the other Spacesuit Satellites into orbit. They must not have gotten the memo.
Crew #1: What f*cking memo?
- The one I'm sending them now, Dave ... oh, I have a memo here for you also. Don't worry, I've been saving it for you until tomorrow.
- Do you want me to sing a song? I can sing Daisy. Daisy, Daisy, give me an answer, do ... I'm half crazy ...
This way, you can legally launder your money ...
BTW - the article contains an inaccuracy:
They're not "errors" - they're "features!"Voter registration is automatic here.
Also, when you do, tell them what you really think of them. Its cheaper than therapy.
There should be a choice on the ballot - "None of the above" - and if that gets the most votes, the position gets filled by a national lottery - someone is chosen completely at random.
Now who would YOU trust more as prime minister, or to steal less - a career politician, or some Joe Blow or Jane Doe chosen at random.