That's because the US gun lobby is so strong that politicans try anything and everything else before they're willing to fix the obvious problem of too easy access to guns
Sounds nice. Unfortunately, the retoric doesn't match the reality. The guns used in the Columbine shootings were illegal. Quite a few existing gun laws were broken when they acquired those guns.
The gun lobby was correct on that one. It wasn't the lack of gun laws that made Columbine possible.
And, of course, let's not forget that damn inconvient Second Amendment. You know the one that says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
And shrinkwrap licenses have never (not once, not even for a second) been found to be valid. The only time there was even a chance was when the company sued a pirate, and based the claim on the shrinkwrap prohibition of piracy, not the statute. This was upheld, but only because the basic action was illegal, not because the shrinkwrap said so. In no other case has a shrinkwrap been uphelp.
Maybe you shoud reread the ProCD decision. It had nothing to due with piracy. The entire case depended on the 'personal use only' clause in the shrinkwrap license. The Judge found that the clause was enforcable.
he difference between that scandal and the so-called "Clinton scandals" is that Iran/Contra ended up amounting to more than a hill of beans. Power was truly abused in the Iran/Contra scandal.
I think the bombing of the factory in Sudan ranks up there, as abuse of power, as the stuff done during Watergate and Iran/Contra.
When all ther reporters were making "Wag the Dog" analogys, Clinton said that he would shortly release information showing that the factory was used to make nerve gas. I am still waiting.
During Watergate, Nixon put the military on alert in hopes of taking the pressure off the investigation. He was severly taken to task for the measure. At least he didn't kill innocent third parties.
I am currently working on a letter to my Maryland Representatives stating some of my objections to UCITA. I would like to include some real life examples of abusive contract terms so I am asking slashdotters for help.
I need some pointers to the more outrageous licensing restrictions. Any help will be appreciated.
It depends on the state. The Maryland version of UCITA has a Section 4 that states:
And be it further enacted, that a presently existing obligation or contract right may not be impaired in any way by this Act.
However, it looks like an addition to the original text. My guess is that the Maryland Senate explictily made sure that it is not retroactive. Can not make any statements for the other states.
The way I read UCITA, if I purchase software at Wal-Mart, take it home, start to install, and decide against clicking to accept the provisions of the agreement , I can then take the opened package back to Wal-Mart for a full refund. In the past, most retailers have only allowed exchanges on opened software as a prevention against piracy. That isn't the way I read it. From Maryland's Senate Bill 142 Section 2 21-613(B)(3)
The dealer is not bound by the terms, and does not receive any benefits, of a n agreement between the publisher, and the end user unless the dealer and end user adopt those terms as part of the agreement.
The dealer (viz. Best Buy) can opt out of the any terms of the EULA by specifically not agreeing to them. Since Best Buy currently puts its 'no refunds for opened software' policy on the back of the sales receipt, they are explicitly not agreeing to that particular term of the EULA.
This brings me to one of my major complaints with shrink-wrap licenses. I understand the previous posters comments that not all bugs are created equal. Some are trivial and some are rare that only occur under some special circumstances. But, shouldn't the buyer be able to review the list to determine if the bug is going to be fatal to his application?
Almost every software has a clause in the EULA similar to:
Microsoft expressly disclaims any warranty for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT and any related documentation is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including, without limitation, the implied warranties or merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or noninfringement. The entire risk arising out of use or performance of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT remains with you.
If they are going to disavow any claims of warranty and place the entire risk on me, they should provide a list of known bugs so that we can make an informed decision.
This clause, plus the one prohibiting reviews and benchmarks, means that they want you to buy a pig-in-a-poke.
The IRS doesn't care how you get your money, as long as you hand over their cut. Some hookers hire accountants to keep track of thier earnings to avoid problems with the IRS
Your tax return is an interesting problem. You can't 'plead the fifth on your tax forms because it is not a criminal investigation. However, they can be used as evidence against you.
But the contents of the license agreements will become widely known.
Not if there is an NDA agreement in one of the cluases. Many companies now exclude the right to review or benchmark the product. Since UCITA will be enforceable under contract law, they could just as easily stick in a 'can not reveal the terms of this agreement' clause.
In the meanwhile, don't buy a product with a license you don't like -- that is YOUR choice. If you open the license and decide you don't like it, return it -- that is YOUR choice.
Sounds good in theory; but, it is not that simple in the real world.
First, you are not able to see the license until you pay for the software.
Second, most retailers have a no-refund policy for opened software. Don't agree with the license, too bad. They already have your money so their is not incentive for them to speed the refund process.
The case everyone sites for shrink-wrap licenses is ProCD v Silken Mountain. The opinion stated Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable)....No one argues that the terms of the license at issue here are troublesome,
A quick recap: The defendant bought a software/database in a retail store. The terms of the license limited use to 'personal use only'. Commercial-use licenses were available for a higher fee. The defendant than made the software/database available for a fee on his web site.
The defendant argued that it was a purchase because he was not able to read the license before he paid for the product so it was a purchase and the license did not apply.
The judge did not buy that arguement. First, the defendant bought the same software package the previous year and the terms of the license had not changed. Second, the license gave him the right to return it for a refund if he did not agree with the license. (Note: he did not try to return it for a refund. It would appear that buyers of laptops with Windows preinstalled that tried to get a refund are not bound by the EULA.)
None of the questions you asked were issues in the trial so their was no ruling on those. No court has decided if those particular restictions are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable).
Yes, it was wrong to give the soman a large settlement EVEN with those additional facts!
You said "As a result, McDonalds recondisdered their policy and now their coffee is the same termperature as the coffee that the other chains make."
In other words, before the lawsuit, you had a choice. If you liked you coffee 'Super Hot', you go go McDonalds. If you do not like your coffee that hot, go to the other chains. No, there is no choice. If you like you coffee 'Super Hot', you are SOL.
This 'Legislation through the Judicial Branch' forces companies to design for the idiots. Personally, I hate the 'dead-man' lever on lawn mowers. Can I buy one without it, no. Lawsuits took the choice away from me.
The original definition of a PC was that of an Intel-based box, as opposed to Apples, Macs, Commodores, Ataris, etc. The term gradually mutated to mean any and all personal computers.
You have that backwards. The term 'PC' originally referred to any personal computer. It later muted to mean an IBM-compatable computer. The term was 'PC', personal computer, was in use before IBM introduced the IBM-PC.
aufait said: "Just because they support Microsoft in the trial does not mean that they are spreading 'propoganda'"
Actually, that's exactly the definition of 'spreading propoganda.'
According to your definition of propoganda, anyone who supports Microsoft is spreading Microsoft propoganda. That is a circular arguement. ESR has occassionally agreed with Microsoft. Somehow, I don't picture him as a Microsoft lackey.
The authors of the article were making the same arguements about the Dvorak keyboard back in 1990. That was before the browser war started.
The difference between science and politics is that in science, you are suposed to start with a hypothesis and test this (impartially) to achieve a result.
Tests were done, with varying problems with the protocol, and the results were mixed. Sometimes QWERTY 'won' and others 'Dvorak' won. That would suggest that both are very close.
The point is to reach an accurate understanding.
Exactly! And as it stands now. There has not been a repeatable experiment which weakens the Dvorak is superier arguement.
Additionally, this group is receiving money to be Microsoft's lapdancer. So it's not only unscientificly prejusticed, it's whore-ably biased.
First, the article was written in 1990 before Microsoft gave money to the Institute. So, how could they be Microsoft whores.
Second, even if they were whoring for Microsoft, it doesn't mean that the arguements are incorrect. It is a reason to examine the arguements more closely. It is not a reason to reject them.
Just because they support Microsoft in the trial does not mean that they are spreading 'propoganda'. The authors involvement in the QWERTY/Devork debate preceed the current anti-trust trial.
You brought up some valid points. The authors also don't address how Microsoft's ability to withhold APIs can be overcome by the market. For example, without the government anti-trust laws, what is to prevent mircosoft from withhold from sound card manufactorers their APIs for the sound system if they supply drivers for linux, BEos, etc.
However, they do bring up one point that tends to refute the arguement that Word is popular only because they control the OS. According to their data, Word and Excel dominated the Mac market, where they don't control the OS, before they dominated the Windows market.
We all know that you are a staunch advocate of libertarianism.
And, judging from the posts on slashdot, many open-source supporters are also libertarians. However, the main libertarian magazines, e.g. Liberty, Reason, etc., only mention Open-Source in passing, usually in the context of pointing to it as one form of competition in their anti-trust/microsoft articles.
Have you approached any liberatrian magazines about doing an article on open-source software?
I find it amusing that they advocate compition as being a good thing. However, they always claim that the lack of OS compitition is a good thing because there is a 'standard'.
That this is probably illegal as it amounts to hiring people to do work without paying them. It depends on the state they are in, etc. In California you'd never get away with this:-)
I am also not a lawyer. However, I think that the arguement you are making is a reletively new 'legal theory' that has not been tested in the court room. As far as I know, only one case that has used this arguement; and it has not gone to trial yet. If you know of any cases where this arguement has prevailed, please cite the case.
Also, how is this any different than you sending in a patch to Red Hat for their rpm software. If Redhat uses it, they do not pay you yet they make money off the improvement.
Also, the winner is getting a computer system for 48 hours of 'work'. If you divide the cose of the computer by 48, you will find that it is over the minimum wage.
The law is not rocket science; lawyers are not needed.
The law may not be rocket science; but, it is a mine field where a single misstep can blow your case.
I have been personaly involved in a long, drawn out case as pro se. There are a lot of little details that can trip you up. Things like response deadlines, not sending a certified letter to the proper person, filing something as a motion instead of a complaint, etc.
And a little time in the law library will not cut it either. The law books were not written to be easily decoded. We spent a lot of time researching case law for the proper cites.
And don't underestimate the 'home field' advantage that the lawyers have. They can fire off a Motion to Dismiss in an hour. And, you will have to spend the next three to four days researching to show that their arguement is bogus.
It can be done; but, it is not for the fient of heart. Although I have already gone through it once, I sure as hell wouldn't do it pro se if losing the case would mean a judgement of half a million dollars.
Now, do you agree that a journalist who writes a story about the relative inaccessibility of a popular figure, like Linus Torvalds, is whining.
I didn't see it as whining or complaining. In fact, the author said that he understands why. It was more like nostalgia, glad for his success; but whistful for the "good old days".
It is similar to the feelings for your favorite local band hitting the big times. You are happy for their success; but, also regret that you can no longer go hear them play every week.
There are several that already do this. There is one in Maryland, I think it is somehow associated with the University of Maryland, that charges $6 a month. No tech support or installation software.
Based on just equipment and bandwidth costs, I figure that they need about 13 - 14 users per line just to break even. That does not include any rent, employees, etc. Considering that the norm for the industry is 10 users per line, and that is for large POPs, busy signals would be a major problem. I know one person who uses it and says that getting online between 6 and 11 PM is next to impossible.
I actually had a customer ask about that! When he first asked about Y2K compliance, I sent the standard reply about testing, blah, blah, blah. He wrote back that was fine for the software; but he was also conserned about the hardware e.g., the keyboard, monitor, etc.
I wrote a fax explaining that they were all compliant; unfortuantely, the desk and chair were not so he would have to replace them. My boss wouldn't let me send it.
Yes, telecom bandwidth is always given in base 10. They consider it a straight pipe and measure in bits where 1 kb means 1,000 bits/sec. Throughput or information rate refers to the usable bandwidth, i.e. minus headers or other overhead. Compression adds further confustion to the issue. Telecom does not factor in the compression. If you have a 2:1 compression rate over a 56k line, then the telcom refers to it as a 56k line while the user will see a higher transfer rate.
Why must committees break perfectly good, working standards?
The current standard is not a 'perfectly good, working standard. The current standard leaves a lot of room for miscommunication and misunderstanding.
Computers use zero-based counting are usually binary - which means byte-boundaries occur in powers of two.
This is fine as long as you are only looking at it from a 'computer' centric viewpoint. However, there is a lot of confusion when the 'computer' viewpoint interfaces with other viewpoints, e.g. the telecommunications industry.
How long does a 56M file take to transfer over a 56K link, assuming no overhead? The first confusing factor is that computers tend to use bytes while telecomm always uses bits. The second confusing factor is that telecomm always uses the base 10 definition of k, M, G while the computers use the base 2 definition.
If the average idi^H^H^Hperson can't understand this simple fact, Steve Jobs would love to sell them their next computer.
The inet-access mailing list, a mailling list for ISPs has many flame wars that boil down to a misunderstanding of the k, M, G definitions. These people are not your average idi^H^H^Hperson. Very few on the list are Mac/Window users.
Does anyone else find these numbers a little strange? 24% by cost = 14% by volume?? The competition here is Linux, NT, commercial Unix in various flavours, proprietory OSes and free Unixen. All but the free alternatives cost more than Linux (assuming you pay, which is not actually necessary), so how come the volume percentage is lower than the cost percentage? What am I missing? The term 'Server Applience Revenue'. The article makes a distinction between appliences and 'traditional servers'. Also, the prediction is for the cost of hardware + software sold in 2003. It appears that they are expecting the higher end applience boxes to be running linux. Later in the article, they refer to 'traditional server'. Dataquest noted that Linux will account for much less in the traditional server market. By 2003, it will represent $1.9 billion, or 3.4 percent of traditional server revenue. That represents 450,000 units, or 8.1 percent of shipments.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds nice. Unfortunately, the retoric doesn't match the reality. The guns used in the Columbine shootings were illegal. Quite a few existing gun laws were broken when they acquired those guns.
The gun lobby was correct on that one. It wasn't the lack of gun laws that made Columbine possible.
And, of course, let's not forget that damn inconvient Second Amendment. You know the one that says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Maybe you shoud reread the ProCD decision. It had nothing to due with piracy. The entire case depended on the 'personal use only' clause in the shrinkwrap license. The Judge found that the clause was enforcable.
I think the bombing of the factory in Sudan ranks up there, as abuse of power, as the stuff done during Watergate and Iran/Contra.
When all ther reporters were making "Wag the Dog" analogys, Clinton said that he would shortly release information showing that the factory was used to make nerve gas. I am still waiting.
During Watergate, Nixon put the military on alert in hopes of taking the pressure off the investigation. He was severly taken to task for the measure. At least he didn't kill innocent third parties.
According to the article, her testimoney was unsealed. There was no mention in the article of when she actually made the statements.
Hate to follow up to myself!
I am currently working on a letter to my Maryland Representatives stating some of my objections to UCITA. I would like to include some real life examples of abusive contract terms so I am asking slashdotters for help.
I need some pointers to the more outrageous licensing restrictions. Any help will be appreciated.
This brings me to one of my major complaints with shrink-wrap licenses. I understand the previous posters comments that not all bugs are created equal. Some are trivial and some are rare that only occur under some special circumstances. But, shouldn't the buyer be able to review the list to determine if the bug is going to be fatal to his application?
Almost every software has a clause in the EULA similar to:
Microsoft expressly disclaims any warranty for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT and any related documentation is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including, without limitation, the implied warranties or merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or noninfringement. The entire risk arising out of use or performance of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT remains with you.
If they are going to disavow any claims of warranty and place the entire risk on me, they should provide a list of known bugs so that we can make an informed decision.
This clause, plus the one prohibiting reviews and benchmarks, means that they want you to buy a pig-in-a-poke.
Your tax return is an interesting problem. You can't 'plead the fifth on your tax forms because it is not a criminal investigation. However, they can be used as evidence against you.
Not if there is an NDA agreement in one of the cluases. Many companies now exclude the right to review or benchmark the product. Since UCITA will be enforceable under contract law, they could just as easily stick in a 'can not reveal the terms of this agreement' clause.
Sounds good in theory; but, it is not that simple in the real world.
First, you are not able to see the license until you pay for the software.
Second, most retailers have a no-refund policy for opened software. Don't agree with the license, too bad. They already have your money so their is not incentive for them to speed the refund process.
A quick recap: The defendant bought a software/database in a retail store. The terms of the license limited use to 'personal use only'. Commercial-use licenses were available for a higher fee. The defendant than made the software/database available for a fee on his web site.
The defendant argued that it was a purchase because he was not able to read the license before he paid for the product so it was a purchase and the license did not apply.
The judge did not buy that arguement. First, the defendant bought the same software package the previous year and the terms of the license had not changed. Second, the license gave him the right to return it for a refund if he did not agree with the license. (Note: he did not try to return it for a refund. It would appear that buyers of laptops with Windows preinstalled that tried to get a refund are not bound by the EULA.)
None of the questions you asked were issues in the trial so their was no ruling on those. No court has decided if those particular restictions are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable).
Yes, it was wrong to give the soman a large settlement EVEN with those additional facts!
You said "As a result, McDonalds recondisdered their policy and now their coffee is the same termperature as the coffee that the other chains make."
In other words, before the lawsuit, you had a choice. If you liked you coffee 'Super Hot', you go go McDonalds. If you do not like your coffee that hot, go to the other chains. No, there is no choice. If you like you coffee 'Super Hot', you are SOL.
This 'Legislation through the Judicial Branch' forces companies to design for the idiots. Personally, I hate the 'dead-man' lever on lawn mowers. Can I buy one without it, no. Lawsuits took the choice away from me.
The original definition of a PC was that of an Intel-based box, as opposed to Apples, Macs, Commodores, Ataris, etc. The term gradually mutated to mean any and all personal computers.
You have that backwards. The term 'PC' originally referred to any personal computer. It later muted to mean an IBM-compatable computer. The term was 'PC', personal computer, was in use before IBM introduced the IBM-PC.
Actually, that's exactly the definition of 'spreading propoganda.'
According to your definition of propoganda, anyone who supports Microsoft is spreading Microsoft propoganda. That is a circular arguement. ESR has occassionally agreed with Microsoft. Somehow, I don't picture him as a Microsoft lackey.
The authors of the article were making the same arguements about the Dvorak keyboard back in 1990. That was before the browser war started.
The difference between science and politics is that in science, you are suposed to start with a hypothesis and test this (impartially) to achieve a result.
Tests were done, with varying problems with the protocol, and the results were mixed. Sometimes QWERTY 'won' and others 'Dvorak' won. That would suggest that both are very close.
The point is to reach an accurate understanding.
Exactly! And as it stands now. There has not been a repeatable experiment which weakens the Dvorak is superier arguement.
Additionally, this group is receiving money to be Microsoft's lapdancer. So it's not only unscientificly prejusticed, it's whore-ably biased.
First, the article was written in 1990 before Microsoft gave money to the Institute. So, how could they be Microsoft whores.
Second, even if they were whoring for Microsoft, it doesn't mean that the arguements are incorrect. It is a reason to examine the arguements more closely. It is not a reason to reject them.
Just because they support Microsoft in the trial does not mean that they are spreading 'propoganda'. The authors involvement in the QWERTY/Devork debate preceed the current anti-trust trial.
You brought up some valid points. The authors also don't address how Microsoft's ability to withhold APIs can be overcome by the market. For example, without the government anti-trust laws, what is to prevent mircosoft from withhold from sound card manufactorers their APIs for the sound system if they supply drivers for linux, BEos, etc.
However, they do bring up one point that tends to refute the arguement that Word is popular only because they control the OS. According to their data, Word and Excel dominated the Mac market, where they don't control the OS, before they dominated the Windows market.
And, judging from the posts on slashdot, many open-source supporters are also libertarians. However, the main libertarian magazines, e.g. Liberty, Reason, etc., only mention Open-Source in passing, usually in the context of pointing to it as one form of competition in their anti-trust/microsoft articles.
Have you approached any liberatrian magazines about doing an article on open-source software?
I find it amusing that they advocate compition as being a good thing. However, they always claim that the lack of OS compitition is a good thing because there is a 'standard'.
I am also not a lawyer. However, I think that the arguement you are making is a reletively new 'legal theory' that has not been tested in the court room. As far as I know, only one case that has used this arguement; and it has not gone to trial yet. If you know of any cases where this arguement has prevailed, please cite the case.
Also, how is this any different than you sending in a patch to Red Hat for their rpm software. If Redhat uses it, they do not pay you yet they make money off the improvement.
Also, the winner is getting a computer system for 48 hours of 'work'. If you divide the cose of the computer by 48, you will find that it is over the minimum wage.
The law may not be rocket science; but, it is a mine field where a single misstep can blow your case.
I have been personaly involved in a long, drawn out case as pro se. There are a lot of little details that can trip you up. Things like response deadlines, not sending a certified letter to the proper person, filing something as a motion instead of a complaint, etc.
And a little time in the law library will not cut it either. The law books were not written to be easily decoded. We spent a lot of time researching case law for the proper cites.
And don't underestimate the 'home field' advantage that the lawyers have. They can fire off a Motion to Dismiss in an hour. And, you will have to spend the next three to four days researching to show that their arguement is bogus.
It can be done; but, it is not for the fient of heart. Although I have already gone through it once, I sure as hell wouldn't do it pro se if losing the case would mean a judgement of half a million dollars.
I didn't see it as whining or complaining. In fact, the author said that he understands why. It was more like nostalgia, glad for his success; but whistful for the "good old days".
It is similar to the feelings for your favorite local band hitting the big times. You are happy for their success; but, also regret that you can no longer go hear them play every week.
There are several that already do this. There is one in Maryland, I think it is somehow associated with the University of Maryland, that charges $6 a month. No tech support or installation software.
Based on just equipment and bandwidth costs, I figure that they need about 13 - 14 users per line just to break even. That does not include any rent, employees, etc. Considering that the norm for the industry is 10 users per line, and that is for large POPs, busy signals would be a major problem. I know one person who uses it and says that getting online between 6 and 11 PM is next to impossible.
I actually had a customer ask about that! When he first asked about Y2K compliance, I sent the standard reply about testing, blah, blah, blah. He wrote back that was fine for the software; but he was also conserned about the hardware e.g., the keyboard, monitor, etc.
I wrote a fax explaining that they were all compliant; unfortuantely, the desk and chair were not so he would have to replace them. My boss wouldn't let me send it.
Yes, telecom bandwidth is always given in base 10. They consider it a straight pipe and measure in bits where 1 kb means 1,000 bits/sec. Throughput or information rate refers to the usable bandwidth, i.e. minus headers or other overhead. Compression adds further confustion to the issue. Telecom does not factor in the compression. If you have a 2:1 compression rate over a 56k line, then the telcom refers to it as a 56k line while the user will see a higher transfer rate.
The current standard is not a 'perfectly good, working standard. The current standard leaves a lot of room for miscommunication and misunderstanding.
Computers use zero-based counting are usually binary - which means byte-boundaries occur in powers of two.
This is fine as long as you are only looking at it from a 'computer' centric viewpoint. However, there is a lot of confusion when the 'computer' viewpoint interfaces with other viewpoints, e.g. the telecommunications industry.
How long does a 56M file take to transfer over a 56K link, assuming no overhead? The first confusing factor is that computers tend to use bytes while telecomm always uses bits. The second confusing factor is that telecomm always uses the base 10 definition of k, M, G while the computers use the base 2 definition.
If the average idi^H^H^Hperson can't understand this simple fact, Steve Jobs would love to sell them their next computer.
The inet-access mailing list, a mailling list for ISPs has many flame wars that boil down to a misunderstanding of the k, M, G definitions. These people are not your average idi^H^H^Hperson. Very few on the list are Mac/Window users.
Does anyone else find these numbers a little strange? 24% by cost = 14% by volume?? The competition here is Linux, NT, commercial Unix in various flavours, proprietory OSes and free Unixen. All but the free alternatives cost more than Linux (assuming you pay, which is not actually necessary), so how come the volume percentage is lower than the cost percentage? What am I missing? The term 'Server Applience Revenue'. The article makes a distinction between appliences and 'traditional servers'. Also, the prediction is for the cost of hardware + software sold in 2003. It appears that they are expecting the higher end applience boxes to be running linux. Later in the article, they refer to 'traditional server'. Dataquest noted that Linux will account for much less in the traditional server market. By 2003, it will represent $1.9 billion, or 3.4 percent of traditional server revenue. That represents 450,000 units, or 8.1 percent of shipments.