"Section 3 is where Microsoft promises to provide the documentation that we need. It deals with the timeliness of that documentation, how errors in the documentation will be dealt with, how and when updates will be provided and what type of technical support will be provided."
WSPP Documentation - Updates.
3.2
(a) General. Microsoft will make updated WSPP Documentation for modified and new WSPP
Protocols (that are added to WSPP after Microsoft initially provides WSPP Documentation to Licensee
under Section 3.1) available for license by Licensee under this Agreement:
(i) if applicable, upon release of the First Beta for the relevant Service Pack to the relevant
product, or new version of that product, that includes the modified or new WSPP Protocol (documentation
provided in such instance, a "Preliminary Documentation Update"), or
(ii) if no such First Beta is released, then at least 15 days before the :
(A) commercial release of the Service Pack to the relevant product (i.e., Windows Client
Operating System or Windows Server Operating System), or new version of that product, that includes
the modified or new WSPP Protocol, or
(B) the day on which the final version of any other Update is released.
"First Beta" means the first public beta testing version of the Service Pack or new version of the relevant
Windows operating system product made available by Microsoft via an MSDN (Microsoft Developers
Network) subscription offering or of which 150,000 or more copies are distributed.
Licensee will be given automatic access to the WSPP Documentation for any Licensed Protocol
modifications made available under this Section 3.2, for no additional charge beyond the License Fee.
Licensee will be given access to the WSPP Documentation for any other WSPP Protocol modifications or
any new WSPP Protocols pursuant to the process described in Section 3.1(b)(ii), for no additional
charge beyond the License Fee.
(b) Preliminary Documentation Updates. When a Preliminary Documentation Update is made
available to Licensee, Microsoft will also make the WSPP Documentation for the commercially released
version of the relevant Service Pack or new product version (such documentation, a "Final
Documentation Update") available to Licensee within 15 days after the relevant date production is
authorized for the manufacture of copies of software for commercial availability. THE WARRANTY
PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 3.3(a) AND 6.3 DO NOT APPLY TO PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTATION
UPDATES, BUT DO APPLY TO FINAL DOCUMENTATION UPDATES. SINCE THE FIRST BETA
CODE, FEATURES AND/OR FUNCTIONALITY MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE
CODE, FEATURES AND/OR FUNCTIONALITY OF THE COMMERCIALLY RELEASED VERSION,
LICENSEE IS ADVISED THAT THERE ARE RISKS IN ANY RELIANCE ON PRELIMINARY
DOCUMENTATION UPDATES, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT LICENSEE INCURS ADDITIONAL
DEVELOPMENT OR ANY OTHER COSTS AS A RESULT OF SUCH RELIANCE, IT DOES SO AT ITS
OWN RISK.
(c) Availability. Once a protocol becomes a WSPP Protocol under the WSPP, Microsoft will
continue to make WSPP Documentation for that protocol available during the Term. Subject to the
foregoing, nothing in this Agreement requires Microsoft to (i) deliver any WSPP Documentation for any
modified or new protocol other than as provided in this Section 3.2 or (ii) continue to implement any
WSPP Protocol in any Windows Client Operating System or Windows Server Operating System.
However, Microsoft will provide notice to Licensee in the relevant portion of the WSPP Documentation of
WSPP Protocols that remain available for license but which are no longer used by Microsoft in Windows
Client and Server Operating Systems, generally in accordance with the timeframe in Section 3.2(a)(i).
Could it be they are getting desperate? If they can't sue because they can't prove IP#s, then they have to look to where they *can* prove their music plays. Perhaps this really is all that is left them?
Copyright law is an odd beast. Take music broadcasting, for instance: webcasters, satellite radio, and those music stations transmitted through your cable connection all have to pay performance rights 1) to the composers who wrote the song and 2) to the performers who played it. Terrestrial AM/FM radio stations, though, only pay the composer; the performer allegedly gets "free promotion" and so doesn't see a cent.
I would suggest that perhaps it might be that the summary was accurate (in that it concisely reflected the article's premise), but you disagree with the article's premise. To say the summary is bad is to say that the summary doesn't reflect the contents of the article. The Princess Bride is an *excellent* movie, by the way:-)
You say "if" as though it were a fact not sufficiently recognized. I'd suggest that "extremely distasteful statement to some people", or perhaps "extremely distasteful statement to most of my people", is more correct. However, if you could establish your "if", I think most people would see this differently. Yet most don't, and the onus is on you.
California is a major (if not the major) agro state. Water, on the other hand, is increasingly scarce. KS was looking at Colorado for water, and Texas is dependent, too. Norcal has water enough for Norcal, but not enough to cover Socal, for sure. The water wars are returning...
IANAL, but "criminal actionable offense" is certainly a phrase in use. Likewise, websters thinks that action means
1: the initiating of a proceeding in a court of justice by which one demands or enforces one's right; also : the proceeding itself
law.com states:
legal action,
n. any lawsuit, petition or prosecution.
legal-dictionary secton of the thefreedictionary says:
prosecute v.
2) to conduct any legal action by a lawyer on behalf of a client, including both civil and criminal cases, but most commonly referring to prosecution for crimes.
So it would seem that when told, "No fruit shall be given to any children" you can't really say, "But I gave Billy an orange, not an apple."
Procescuting a crime is an action, and no action (including procescution) in any court (including criminal) is allowed against any person, including Cheney as well as the telcos. I'd suggest that it certainly looks like it covers a lot more than you suggest. But of course, IANAL.
You misunderstand. Its predicated upon the *woman* being a person. This was hotly debated, yes, but that was awhile ago. They get to vote now, and everything.
You skipped the start: "No action shall lie or be maintained in any court...", which is not "No civil action shall lie or be maintained in any civil court...".
Rather than a mere treaty among the states, which would put the source authority at the state level, I would suggest that the source authority for the government is the will of the people. However, I agree that the purpose of the constitution is to insure that the will of the majority doesn't abuse the rights of a minority. In terms of your second sentence, I never suggested the invention of new powers in my post; but rather the use of powers already existent. That argument is a straw man. I argued further that your philosophical points, while interesting and worthy of merit, aren't constitutionally guaranteed. A vote could go either way.
The rest of your statement seems specious, but honestly I don't see any need to invoke "voiding the treaty" to secede. If Arizona wanted to go it alone, better luck to them. States like California, who have been paying the way for most other states through tax transfers, would probably be far richer today if they had gone it alone, although perhaps less secure. As many people as are standing in line praying to enter the USA, well, if some want to leave, I say "good luck". Economically most states would be worse off, though. California and Texas transfer a lot of cash through the federal government to other states. Hard to imagine Kansas going it alone...
No, I actually have been posting that from what I've seen at school, it wasn't being adopted. My university recently joined the Microsoft Developer Network Academic Allience (MSDNAA) and all CS students could download free copies of Vista Business edition. Many installed, but as I reported, I didn't know of even a single version that lasted. Every single one went back to either WinXP and/or Linux. I didn't go so far as to suggest MS would end up a laughing stock, but I did say it seemed to fail.
It is part of, but not all of, the point. Open, transparent, legal move to make a (bad) law...vs...Closed, covert, illegal actions. When bad laws are put forth, we can respond. When dirty secret things are done covertly, we might never know. These are fundamentally different pursuits. I'd say the system eventually worked in the former, but the system was never given a chance to work in the later. It is the end run around the system that is infuriating to me.
It shields against more than just civil liability:
No action shall lie or be maintained in any court, and no penalty, sanction, or other form of remedy or relief shall be imposed by any court or any other body, against any person for the alleged provision to an element of the intelligence community of any information (including records or other information pertaining to a customer), facilities, or any other form of assistance, during the period of time beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on the date that is the effective date of this Act, in connection with any alleged classified communications intelligence activity that the Attorney General or a designee of the Attorney General certifies, in a manner consistent with the protection of State secrets, is, was, would be, or would have been intended to protect the United States from a terrorist attack.
The picture I use is this: many papers are stacked on a table and one is picked up for consideration. Will we vote on this? No, lets table that and go on to the next one. "Table" thus means to but it back on the stack, and that it didn't make it as far as the active process.
Its called collective bargaining power. Its why US medications are sold to Canada so much cheaper than to hospitals and pharmacies in the USA. Its why the same level of care is cheaper in Canada than in the USA. Part of freedom and liberty is the ability to design our institutions and infrastructure. For some reason the people's right to leverage collective bargaining alludes you. Thankfully, in a free and democratic republic, we can vote and express our will. If we do happen to decide that "better for less" is what we want, who are you to suggest that it goes against your personal philosophy?
Seems hard to compare the open (and failed) legislative attempt "that the FBI have all keys to any crypto system" to this closed, covert system that appears to have be in violation of laws currently already on the books. One I disagreed with, the other looks illegal. Big difference.
Yes, and the supreme court interprets what freedom of speech *means*. Laws mean nothing until they are *used* and precedents are set. Case law *is* law, because specifics are the limiting cases which define the reach of what are otherwise legislative abstract expressions.
Slashdot Mirror
Could it be they are getting desperate? If they can't sue because they can't prove IP#s, then they have to look to where they *can* prove their music plays. Perhaps this really is all that is left them?
What would seem to be simple words... This is why lawyers drive such nice cars :-)
I would suggest that perhaps it might be that the summary was accurate (in that it concisely reflected the article's premise), but you disagree with the article's premise. To say the summary is bad is to say that the summary doesn't reflect the contents of the article. The Princess Bride is an *excellent* movie, by the way :-)
Talking about the coast as a whole, I would be to differ on food, oil, & water.
You say "if" as though it were a fact not sufficiently recognized. I'd suggest that "extremely distasteful statement to some people", or perhaps "extremely distasteful statement to most of my people", is more correct. However, if you could establish your "if", I think most people would see this differently. Yet most don't, and the onus is on you.
California is a major (if not the major) agro state. Water, on the other hand, is increasingly scarce. KS was looking at Colorado for water, and Texas is dependent, too. Norcal has water enough for Norcal, but not enough to cover Socal, for sure. The water wars are returning...
You misunderstand. Its predicated upon the *woman* being a person. This was hotly debated, yes, but that was awhile ago. They get to vote now, and everything.
You skipped the start: "No action shall lie or be maintained in any court...", which is not "No civil action shall lie or be maintained in any civil court...".
Rather than a mere treaty among the states, which would put the source authority at the state level, I would suggest that the source authority for the government is the will of the people. However, I agree that the purpose of the constitution is to insure that the will of the majority doesn't abuse the rights of a minority. In terms of your second sentence, I never suggested the invention of new powers in my post; but rather the use of powers already existent. That argument is a straw man. I argued further that your philosophical points, while interesting and worthy of merit, aren't constitutionally guaranteed. A vote could go either way.
The rest of your statement seems specious, but honestly I don't see any need to invoke "voiding the treaty" to secede. If Arizona wanted to go it alone, better luck to them. States like California, who have been paying the way for most other states through tax transfers, would probably be far richer today if they had gone it alone, although perhaps less secure. As many people as are standing in line praying to enter the USA, well, if some want to leave, I say "good luck". Economically most states would be worse off, though. California and Texas transfer a lot of cash through the federal government to other states. Hard to imagine Kansas going it alone...
OK, I have to admit that I'd like to manage even just one "disappointment" like iPhone even once in my life.
Maybe because other "more secure" OSes are faster?
No, I actually have been posting that from what I've seen at school, it wasn't being adopted. My university recently joined the Microsoft Developer Network Academic Allience (MSDNAA) and all CS students could download free copies of Vista Business edition. Many installed, but as I reported, I didn't know of even a single version that lasted. Every single one went back to either WinXP and/or Linux. I didn't go so far as to suggest MS would end up a laughing stock, but I did say it seemed to fail.
It is part of, but not all of, the point. Open, transparent, legal move to make a (bad) law...vs...Closed, covert, illegal actions. When bad laws are put forth, we can respond. When dirty secret things are done covertly, we might never know. These are fundamentally different pursuits. I'd say the system eventually worked in the former, but the system was never given a chance to work in the later. It is the end run around the system that is infuriating to me.
The picture I use is this: many papers are stacked on a table and one is picked up for consideration. Will we vote on this? No, lets table that and go on to the next one. "Table" thus means to but it back on the stack, and that it didn't make it as far as the active process.
Specifically, "constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment".
Its called collective bargaining power. Its why US medications are sold to Canada so much cheaper than to hospitals and pharmacies in the USA. Its why the same level of care is cheaper in Canada than in the USA. Part of freedom and liberty is the ability to design our institutions and infrastructure. For some reason the people's right to leverage collective bargaining alludes you. Thankfully, in a free and democratic republic, we can vote and express our will. If we do happen to decide that "better for less" is what we want, who are you to suggest that it goes against your personal philosophy?
Seems hard to compare the open (and failed) legislative attempt "that the FBI have all keys to any crypto system" to this closed, covert system that appears to have be in violation of laws currently already on the books. One I disagreed with, the other looks illegal. Big difference.
its about a bunch of lawyers wanting to cash in and sue the people that did it
I suppose you felt the same way about Watergate? With all due respect, sir or madam, your signature seems to say it all.
Yes, and the supreme court interprets what freedom of speech *means*. Laws mean nothing until they are *used* and precedents are set. Case law *is* law, because specifics are the limiting cases which define the reach of what are otherwise legislative abstract expressions.