Licensing lawsuits (or lawsuits in general) are rarely about right and wrong and are more about which side can afford better lawyers. Even an egregious violation of the GPL by SCO would still come down to this. To some extent, this is why companies don't take the GPL seriously. Under any other circumstances, who is going to cough up the big bucks to challenge some company's higly paid legal team?
The good news:
IBM can afford very good lawyers and has a huge economic incentive to fight SCO "to the death." IBM has been moving to a "services" based business model for some time and free, cross-platform operating systems and software fit into this plan nicely.
The unknown:
So far, IBM has publicly been asserting only that they have a valid license to use System V Unix as per their original license agreement. They have not asserted anything regarding the GPL with regard to either the code in question or SCO's use of GPLed software in SCO Linux. This whole mess could and probably will get settled without the GPL even being brought up in the courtroom.
SCO's action of attempting to stop IBM from shipping AIX by revoking the license is fairly weak since it requires SCO to show that IBM *as a corporation* deliberately assisted Linux development by violating the SCO copyright on certain code. All IBM has to do is say "No we didn't. Prove it." (which they have) and SCO is faced with the task of finding e-mails or memos or whatever that directed some of IBM's kernel contributors to copy code. Barring finding such evidence, SCO would be stuck going after the individual contributors. In this matter, the question of whether or not some Linux code may be lifted from SCO's codebase only proves that their was a violation of the SCO copyright; not that IBM as a corporation is responsible for the copyright violation. More likely, all SCO will "discover" is a memo from IBM's legal department to one or more of the contributors involved stating that it is a copyright violation if you cut and paste but its not if you simply apply techniques learned to the Linux code. Hardly a smoking gun.
SCO could sue the individual contributors involved in which case IBM would probably still foot the bill for their legal defense since IBM would just say they are standing by their employees in a business related matter and chances all SCO could get out of it even if they win is a retraction of the code (chage a few variable names and the indentation and comments and someone else can re-submit it) and maybe a few bucks since chances are we aren't talking milionaires here.
My guess:
This is primarily a FUD campaign on SCO's part to try to derail Linux. They don't have a good case but they sure are making a lot of noise to make up for it and IBM knows it. Unfortunately, there's no good legal way to say, "Put up or shut up!"
Yes, and as long as the author of the article abides by the specific restrictions of the NDA he is doing *nothing* wrong. NDA doesn't mean No Discussion Anytime. It just means that certain specifc things may not be disclosed. From other postings/articles, the SCO NDA seems to only cover divulging the exact code that is supposedly covered by their copyright and the supposedly infringing Linux code. So the author is free to publish his assessment of the infringement claim, he just can't support it by publishing snippets of code.
Rather than post a separate comment...
There is a rather blatant contradiction in SCO's case. SCO claims that incorporation of licensed System V source code in Linux has diminished the value of "Unixware" or whatever they are now calling their semi-unsupported/unmaintained version of Unix that they are no longer able to sell at a profit. However, they have had to mount a FUD campaign against IBM's supported and maintained version of System V Unix that is based on the same licensed code and that IBM continues to sell at a profit. It would seem that the ability to sell a proprietary System V Unix operating system has more to do with keeping it maintained, current, and supported and less on the possible inclusion of some snippet of code in Linux. Otherwise, why is it that IBM can still make money selling AIX? If the infringement were really the reason why a proprietar Linux can't be sold, how is it that AIX (and Solaris, too, for that matter) aren't affected by it but SCO's is?
Here's a link to a CNN article on some games. Sounds like "Xtreme Hopping" and "Xtreme Beach Volleyeball" aren't violent but I'm guessing somebody would complain about them, too.
From what I've heard, "Mountain Bell" was quaint and funky. That was before I moved to Colorado. Then came US West which customers generally called "US Worst". The name changed to Qwest which seems to translate as the "Quintessentially Worst Example of a Stupid Telco". Now, we're all just waiting to see how many Qwest executives go to prison for accounting fraud. The worst part is that the really big players made their money and split. Don't know if they'll ever be able to fit them for an orange suit.
Oh, yeah. The service now isn't quaint and funky. It simply sucks.
Another alternative... replace your unmanaged switch with a used, managed switch. I picked up a Bay Networks BayStack 24T (24 port, autoswitch 10/100, supports VPNs, trunking, spanning, etc.) for $125 from a local company that was also downsizing their network infrastructure. All the docs are on-line (PDF). You can probably find something equivalent (both price and capability) on eBay.
A real challenge: the way the world really works (and almost undoubtedly not the way you profs taught you)... "The Road to Serfdom" by Hayek. Just finishing it now. I wish I'd read it back in 1980 when I got my M.Sc. and went to work in the real world.
Some other options:
"Human Action" by Ludwig von Miese "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand "Diplomacy" by Henry Kissinger
I gave up on specific senders. I'm guessing the spammers have run through quite a bit of the address block and that's why they're running out of addresses.
IANAL, but generally someone cannot restrict you from working in your chosen profession. On one extreme, an employer can use a non-compete agreement to make your life difficult if you voluntarily leave and go to work for a direct competitor and take a bunch of clients or IP with you. If they lay you off and the only other suitable employment is with a direct competitor, things get sticky. Make sure your new employer knows about the agreement and, if possible, they should keep you away from specific products and/or projects where questions might arise. If they lay you off and you go to work elsewhere using only "common professional skills" (e.g., you're still writing software), chances are they won't make any noise.
Lots of legalese is just posturing. Non-compete agreements tend to be general matters because putting in specifics would be pointless given the complexity and rate of change of technology. Instead, they say, "Don't do anything that could even be remotely construed as you are working for a competitor" (posture). The company won't try to enforce it unless they have a good idea that that's what you're doing (reality).
The joke that went around a while ago about the government requiring voice data recorders in cars: Most of them picked up prayers, cussing etc. before the crash except those in pickup trucks sold in the south that all seemed to end with, "Y'all watch this."
BTW, you're using a public highway supposedly in compliance with law. The argument that this is an invasion of privacy stinks. If a cop or a whitness sees you doing it, its a legitimate infraction but if you're car records you doing it its an invasion of privacy? I don't think so. How does getting you're speed from your car's data recorder differ from measuring the skid marks you left on the pavement before you hit the other vehicle? Both give the same information although the data recorder will be more accurate.
I would also point out that hacking the recorder either before or after the fact would probably be a very bad idea. If what's recorded by the recorder doesn't match physical reality, I'm guess the recorder will simply be assumed to be damaged. If the alteration is shown to have been made "after the fact", I'm guessing that "tampering with evidence" (a felony) will be added to the list of charges.
all this time thinking its just horrible admins who dont know how to do their job, or are to lazy to do it right
Here is a link to mail-abuse.org with pointers for securing most major mail systems against third party relaying. I think you had it right all along: horrible admins who are too lazy or too incompetent to update their mail server configuration.
Then how about a complaint to the Florida Bar Association regarding filing frivolous, false, and nuisance suits? Also, the tactic of posting one the the SpamHaus folks (and father's) personal information in an effort to intimidate and harass isn't kosher.
Not only does Colorado not tax internet purchases, the Governor has made it a policy that the state won't enact an internet tax with the specific aim being to get companies to relocate here. More people working in high tech, on-line businesses will do lots more for Colorado's long term financial picture than the short term income generated by enacting a sales tax. I'll also quietly point out the Bill Owens isn't in the same political party as Grey Davis.
A few years back when lots of people were moving from California to Colorado a popular bumper sticker was, "Don't Californicate Colorado." I'm glad to see that this sentiment includes not raising taxes.
The main thing these rulings do is establish that the sender doesn't have a constitutional right to spam. Spamers and telemarketers both attack any sort of limits on their behavior as a limitation of "free speech." By finding that spamming is not constitutionally protected free speech, ISPs can apply remedies on their end of the wire and not be afraid they'll get sued.
For large ISPs, (Earthlink, AOL, etc.), detecting spam isn't that hard using blaclists, forbidding address spoofing, etc. They even have the financial incentive to do it since this junk takes up a goodly chunk of disk space and ticks off customers. Then think about how much worse the odds get for a spammer if they can't send to any AOL, Earthlink, Hotmail or Yahoo Mail accounts.
SDI is intended to be a defense against BALLISTIC missiles; not cruise missiles. They call them BALLISTIC missiles because they follow a BALLISTIC TRAJECTORY. We aren't worried about cruise missiles because no other country appears to have anywhere near the technical infrastructure to create and deploy cruise missiles comparable to even the first generation cruise missiles deployed by the U.S. Even if they did, only the Russians currently have the capability to get a cruise missile launch platform within range of the U.S. with some minimal hope that it won't be detected.
If you're talking about manuevering the re-entry vehicle, even on a MIRV (two generations plus beyond what the N. Koreans might be able to flight test), the "impact points" of the warheads are severely constrained by basic orbital mechanics. "Rocket Science" to a huge degree comes down to simple Newtonian physics. You only have so much "delta v" to expend to change the basic balistic trajectory even with a MIRV.
Bottom line: cruise missiles (which are manueverable) are beyond the technical capability of most countries. First generation ballistic missiles are not manueverable and follow a simple ballistic trajectory.
And, yeah, I used to write targeting software for U.S. ICBMs.
The U.S. DoD addressed the problem a long time ago. Like it or not, the Defense Department has been putting computers in unique places long before someone thought of doing the same or analogous thing with a consumer product. As an example, think about how long you have been hearing about this or that fighter or bomber that was "fly by wire." This means it doesn't have the traditional physical control cables but instead relies on computers to actuate movement of the control surfaces. Some planes such as the F-16 and F117A are so aerodynamically unstable that the only way they fly straight and level is by the flight control computer making it happen. (Hint: if the flight control computer crashes, so does the airplane and they ain't cheap.) Same thing with command and control systems. The wrong person can get killed if the system says its OK to shoot when it isn't.
Basically, the DoD kicks in higher levels of quality control as the consequences of something going wrong goes up. Guess what? It costs more and takes longer. Fly by wire commercial aviation goes through a simillar process. You just can't have the captain of a commercial jet say, "Ladies and gentlemen, we're sorry to report that the flight control computer just gave us a BSOD. Been nice knowing you." It still isn't perfect but there are some pretty impressive records for systems running cummulatively tens of thousands of hours without a glitch. But developing the systems took time and the testing took time.
I bet the on-line version doesn't come with the "UNIX Barf Bag" that the treeware edition had! I still have the book (and the barf bag) but I'm using Linux now instead of one the multitudinous versions of UNIX I've used over the years (first affliction 1987).
For a while, the book was actually a quite good reference for those of us who moved from say HP-UX to SunOS to Solaris and back again as different contracts came along. I compare it to the "Oddments" chapter that used to be in the Perl "Camel book". It documented in one place a variety of things that varied between different flavors of UNIX plus a few of the things that didn't vary but we all wished did since some things were consistently abysmal.
Teasea: my (believe it or not) sincere condolences on toasting your backside on a defective heated car seat. Ouch. Has nothing to do with Stella spilling coffee on herself though unless you've got some sort of water heating for you seat. BTW, I drank my share of McDs coffee when its was all I could afford. I liked it the way they served it since it stayed hot enough to be decent while I ate their grease burgers. A friend of mine still specifically likes McDs coffee the way they serve it. I can now afford to go for less quantity and higher quality.
freeweed: See the above. Affordable and tasty is important. I worked graveyard as an undergrad to pay for college: get up at 9:00 pm, go to work at 11:00 pm, work 'til 7:00 am, go to class 'til mid-afternoon, go home and go to bed and then do it all again five days a week. McDs caffeine was the only thing that kept me going and lets just say that every *penny* counted. Get off your high horse and get this, cheap means more people can afford it. Less efficient means fewer people can afford it. Less efficient and paying off the Stellas of the world means a lot of people can't afford it. So Stella wins the booby prize and a bunch of people can't afford something because of it. If that's your idea of a fair world, I hope you enjoy it 'cause its not mine.
Tsu Dho Nimh: The definition of third degree burns I learned quite a few years ago and in a very simplified first aid class included charring as a distinctive characteristic of third degree burns. If this has changed or my class was too simplified then so be it. One thing I do not claim to be is any kind of medical person. See my other comments above with regard to how hot McDs coffee is though.
A minor fact of the case that seems to have been forgotten in elevating Stella to supreme victimhood status is that Stella wasn't driving at the time the coffee spilled. She was a passenger in a car driven by her daughter. Stella didn't sue her daughter or her daughter's insurance company; she sued McDs. Stinks to me of going after the deepest pockets. Ca-Ching.
Slashdot Mirror
As opposed to diddling interns for recreation?
I've found more people who I can trust on a simple handshake who "split wood and ride horses" than anywhere else.
But who wants to serve on a submarine that will only go down?
New sig so you get the honor of having it posted with a reponse. Aren't you lucky? I guess it fits for a redundant post.
The bad news:
Licensing lawsuits (or lawsuits in general) are rarely about right and wrong and are more about which side can afford better lawyers. Even an egregious violation of the GPL by SCO would still come down to this. To some extent, this is why companies don't take the GPL seriously. Under any other circumstances, who is going to cough up the big bucks to challenge some company's higly paid legal team?
The good news:
IBM can afford very good lawyers and has a huge economic incentive to fight SCO "to the death." IBM has been moving to a "services" based business model for some time and free, cross-platform operating systems and software fit into this plan nicely.
The unknown:
So far, IBM has publicly been asserting only that they have a valid license to use System V Unix as per their original license agreement. They have not asserted anything regarding the GPL with regard to either the code in question or SCO's use of GPLed software in SCO Linux. This whole mess could and probably will get settled without the GPL even being brought up in the courtroom.
SCO's action of attempting to stop IBM from shipping AIX by revoking the license is fairly weak since it requires SCO to show that IBM *as a corporation* deliberately assisted Linux development by violating the SCO copyright on certain code. All IBM has to do is say "No we didn't. Prove it." (which they have) and SCO is faced with the task of finding e-mails or memos or whatever that directed some of IBM's kernel contributors to copy code. Barring finding such evidence, SCO would be stuck going after the individual contributors. In this matter, the question of whether or not some Linux code may be lifted from SCO's codebase only proves that their was a violation of the SCO copyright; not that IBM as a corporation is responsible for the copyright violation. More likely, all SCO will "discover" is a memo from IBM's legal department to one or more of the contributors involved stating that it is a copyright violation if you cut and paste but its not if you simply apply techniques learned to the Linux code. Hardly a smoking gun.
SCO could sue the individual contributors involved in which case IBM would probably still foot the bill for their legal defense since IBM would just say they are standing by their employees in a business related matter and chances all SCO could get out of it even if they win is a retraction of the code (chage a few variable names and the indentation and comments and someone else can re-submit it) and maybe a few bucks since chances are we aren't talking milionaires here.
My guess:
This is primarily a FUD campaign on SCO's part to try to derail Linux. They don't have a good case but they sure are making a lot of noise to make up for it and IBM knows it. Unfortunately, there's no good legal way to say, "Put up or shut up!"
Yes, and as long as the author of the article abides by the specific restrictions of the NDA he is doing *nothing* wrong. NDA doesn't mean No Discussion Anytime. It just means that certain specifc things may not be disclosed. From other postings/articles, the SCO NDA seems to only cover divulging the exact code that is supposedly covered by their copyright and the supposedly infringing Linux code. So the author is free to publish his assessment of the infringement claim, he just can't support it by publishing snippets of code.
Rather than post a separate comment...
There is a rather blatant contradiction in SCO's case. SCO claims that incorporation of licensed System V source code in Linux has diminished the value of "Unixware" or whatever they are now calling their semi-unsupported/unmaintained version of Unix that they are no longer able to sell at a profit. However, they have had to mount a FUD campaign against IBM's supported and maintained version of System V Unix that is based on the same licensed code and that IBM continues to sell at a profit. It would seem that the ability to sell a proprietary System V Unix operating system has more to do with keeping it maintained, current, and supported and less on the possible inclusion of some snippet of code in Linux. Otherwise, why is it that IBM can still make money selling AIX? If the infringement were really the reason why a proprietar Linux can't be sold, how is it that AIX (and Solaris, too, for that matter) aren't affected by it but SCO's is?
Yes, but since somebody still has to say it, "Just imagine a beowulf cluster of these!"
Here's a link to a CNN article on some games. Sounds like "Xtreme Hopping" and "Xtreme Beach Volleyeball" aren't violent but I'm guessing somebody would complain about them, too.
From what I've heard, "Mountain Bell" was quaint and funky. That was before I moved to Colorado. Then came US West which customers generally called "US Worst". The name changed to Qwest which seems to translate as the "Quintessentially Worst Example of a Stupid Telco". Now, we're all just waiting to see how many Qwest executives go to prison for accounting fraud. The worst part is that the really big players made their money and split. Don't know if they'll ever be able to fit them for an orange suit.
Oh, yeah. The service now isn't quaint and funky. It simply sucks.
My brother-in-law was looking for a new fishing boat. I figure I'll tell him about it. He'd have room for lots of salmon on this baby.
Another alternative... replace your unmanaged switch with a used, managed switch. I picked up a Bay Networks BayStack 24T (24 port, autoswitch 10/100, supports VPNs, trunking, spanning, etc.) for $125 from a local company that was also downsizing their network infrastructure. All the docs are on-line (PDF). You can probably find something equivalent (both price and capability) on eBay.
A real challenge: the way the world really works (and almost undoubtedly not the way you profs taught you)... "The Road to Serfdom" by Hayek. Just finishing it now. I wish I'd read it back in 1980 when I got my M.Sc. and went to work in the real world.
Some other options:
"Human Action" by Ludwig von Miese
"Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand
"Diplomacy" by Henry Kissinger
IANAL, but generally someone cannot restrict you from working in your chosen profession. On one extreme, an employer can use a non-compete agreement to make your life difficult if you voluntarily leave and go to work for a direct competitor and take a bunch of clients or IP with you. If they lay you off and the only other suitable employment is with a direct competitor, things get sticky. Make sure your new employer knows about the agreement and, if possible, they should keep you away from specific products and/or projects where questions might arise. If they lay you off and you go to work elsewhere using only "common professional skills" (e.g., you're still writing software), chances are they won't make any noise.
Lots of legalese is just posturing. Non-compete agreements tend to be general matters because putting in specifics would be pointless given the complexity and rate of change of technology. Instead, they say, "Don't do anything that could even be remotely construed as you are working for a competitor" (posture). The company won't try to enforce it unless they have a good idea that that's what you're doing (reality).
Once you can accept the universe as being something expanding into an infinite nothing which is something, wearing stripes with plaid is easy.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
--Einstein
The man had a real sense of humor.
The joke that went around a while ago about the government requiring voice data recorders in cars: Most of them picked up prayers, cussing etc. before the crash except those in pickup trucks sold in the south that all seemed to end with, "Y'all watch this."
BTW, you're using a public highway supposedly in compliance with law. The argument that this is an invasion of privacy stinks. If a cop or a whitness sees you doing it, its a legitimate infraction but if you're car records you doing it its an invasion of privacy? I don't think so. How does getting you're speed from your car's data recorder differ from measuring the skid marks you left on the pavement before you hit the other vehicle? Both give the same information although the data recorder will be more accurate.
I would also point out that hacking the recorder either before or after the fact would probably be a very bad idea. If what's recorded by the recorder doesn't match physical reality, I'm guess the recorder will simply be assumed to be damaged. If the alteration is shown to have been made "after the fact", I'm guessing that "tampering with evidence" (a felony) will be added to the list of charges.
Then how about a complaint to the Florida Bar Association regarding filing frivolous, false, and nuisance suits? Also, the tactic of posting one the the SpamHaus folks (and father's) personal information in an effort to intimidate and harass isn't kosher.
I'm hurt. Get busy and add me to your "feaks" list. I would be honored. My credentials are in my current sig.
Not only does Colorado not tax internet purchases, the Governor has made it a policy that the state won't enact an internet tax with the specific aim being to get companies to relocate here. More people working in high tech, on-line businesses will do lots more for Colorado's long term financial picture than the short term income generated by enacting a sales tax. I'll also quietly point out the Bill Owens isn't in the same political party as Grey Davis.
A few years back when lots of people were moving from California to Colorado a popular bumper sticker was, "Don't Californicate Colorado." I'm glad to see that this sentiment includes not raising taxes.
The main thing these rulings do is establish that the sender doesn't have a constitutional right to spam. Spamers and telemarketers both attack any sort of limits on their behavior as a limitation of "free speech." By finding that spamming is not constitutionally protected free speech, ISPs can apply remedies on their end of the wire and not be afraid they'll get sued.
For large ISPs, (Earthlink, AOL, etc.), detecting spam isn't that hard using blaclists, forbidding address spoofing, etc. They even have the financial incentive to do it since this junk takes up a goodly chunk of disk space and ticks off customers. Then think about how much worse the odds get for a spammer if they can't send to any AOL, Earthlink, Hotmail or Yahoo Mail accounts.
SDI is intended to be a defense against BALLISTIC missiles; not cruise missiles. They call them BALLISTIC missiles because they follow a BALLISTIC TRAJECTORY. We aren't worried about cruise missiles because no other country appears to have anywhere near the technical infrastructure to create and deploy cruise missiles comparable to even the first generation cruise missiles deployed by the U.S. Even if they did, only the Russians currently have the capability to get a cruise missile launch platform within range of the U.S. with some minimal hope that it won't be detected.
If you're talking about manuevering the re-entry vehicle, even on a MIRV (two generations plus beyond what the N. Koreans might be able to flight test), the "impact points" of the warheads are severely constrained by basic orbital mechanics. "Rocket Science" to a huge degree comes down to simple Newtonian physics. You only have so much "delta v" to expend to change the basic balistic trajectory even with a MIRV.
Bottom line: cruise missiles (which are manueverable) are beyond the technical capability of most countries. First generation ballistic missiles are not manueverable and follow a simple ballistic trajectory.
And, yeah, I used to write targeting software for U.S. ICBMs.
The U.S. DoD addressed the problem a long time ago. Like it or not, the Defense Department has been putting computers in unique places long before someone thought of doing the same or analogous thing with a consumer product. As an example, think about how long you have been hearing about this or that fighter or bomber that was "fly by wire." This means it doesn't have the traditional physical control cables but instead relies on computers to actuate movement of the control surfaces. Some planes such as the F-16 and F117A are so aerodynamically unstable that the only way they fly straight and level is by the flight control computer making it happen. (Hint: if the flight control computer crashes, so does the airplane and they ain't cheap.) Same thing with command and control systems. The wrong person can get killed if the system says its OK to shoot when it isn't.
Basically, the DoD kicks in higher levels of quality control as the consequences of something going wrong goes up. Guess what? It costs more and takes longer. Fly by wire commercial aviation goes through a simillar process. You just can't have the captain of a commercial jet say, "Ladies and gentlemen, we're sorry to report that the flight control computer just gave us a BSOD. Been nice knowing you." It still isn't perfect but there are some pretty impressive records for systems running cummulatively tens of thousands of hours without a glitch. But developing the systems took time and the testing took time.
I bet the on-line version doesn't come with the "UNIX Barf Bag" that the treeware edition had! I still have the book (and the barf bag) but I'm using Linux now instead of one the multitudinous versions of UNIX I've used over the years (first affliction 1987).
For a while, the book was actually a quite good reference for those of us who moved from say HP-UX to SunOS to Solaris and back again as different contracts came along. I compare it to the "Oddments" chapter that used to be in the Perl "Camel book". It documented in one place a variety of things that varied between different flavors of UNIX plus a few of the things that didn't vary but we all wished did since some things were consistently abysmal.
Teasea: my (believe it or not) sincere condolences on toasting your backside on a defective heated car seat. Ouch. Has nothing to do with Stella spilling coffee on herself though unless you've got some sort of water heating for you seat. BTW, I drank my share of McDs coffee when its was all I could afford. I liked it the way they served it since it stayed hot enough to be decent while I ate their grease burgers. A friend of mine still specifically likes McDs coffee the way they serve it. I can now afford to go for less quantity and higher quality.
freeweed: See the above. Affordable and tasty is important. I worked graveyard as an undergrad to pay for college: get up at 9:00 pm, go to work at 11:00 pm, work 'til 7:00 am, go to class 'til mid-afternoon, go home and go to bed and then do it all again five days a week. McDs caffeine was the only thing that kept me going and lets just say that every *penny* counted. Get off your high horse and get this, cheap means more people can afford it. Less efficient means fewer people can afford it. Less efficient and paying off the Stellas of the world means a lot of people can't afford it. So Stella wins the booby prize and a bunch of people can't afford something because of it. If that's your idea of a fair world, I hope you enjoy it 'cause its not mine.
Tsu Dho Nimh: The definition of third degree burns I learned quite a few years ago and in a very simplified first aid class included charring as a distinctive characteristic of third degree burns. If this has changed or my class was too simplified then so be it. One thing I do not claim to be is any kind of medical person. See my other comments above with regard to how hot McDs coffee is though.
A minor fact of the case that seems to have been forgotten in elevating Stella to supreme victimhood status is that Stella wasn't driving at the time the coffee spilled. She was a passenger in a car driven by her daughter. Stella didn't sue her daughter or her daughter's insurance company; she sued McDs. Stinks to me of going after the deepest pockets. Ca-Ching.