Do you send a letter to the company after purchase saying "my use of this program is subject to included terms and conditions?" If not, you're not talking about the same thing.
You're confusing duress and adhesion. There is nothing per se invalid about contracts of adhesion (ie, you only have one source for a certain thing). In this case I'm not even sure that it would be an adhesion contract- depending on the software, there's usually a competing product that would be (if not ideal) practicable for your purpose.
The real question about EULAs are whether they are preempted by the doctrine of first sale. Generally they are not so long as the packaging contains a notice that there is a contract either in the supplied documentation or digitally on the medium. Courts don't expect publisher to shrink long contracts that are of reasonable length for their purpose down to the size of a box, nor is it their responsibility to have a printed copy in the store, as the publisher does not control the store.
A system on the box akin nutritional facts is a fantastic idea- if it were done properly as a standard, it would clear up a lot of confusion regarding EULAs.
"I think that Lenovo is losing market share. I think it's because people don't trust them. Hold on and I think of some reasons why I think I think that."
Not true. Attorneys take courses in patent search, and the major publishers have tools to aid them in this. While it won't be a sure-fire thing, they would at least tell you what patents (if any) you could possibly be infringing, and if neccissary, defend your patent in court.
To be fair to China, they've had much smaller growth in their pollution compared to other countries who underwent similar industrialization. Not saying they're perfect, but that should be mentioned.
In an attempt to stem the tide of stupid comments about the revolutionary war and everything, I would like to say that I AM a lawyer and we DO use English common law in many cases.
We try to apply newer statutory law first. If that doesn't work, we fall back on the common law. When we go to the common law, we look for cases that are similar, and we apply them, often from other English common law countries AFTER the revolution, because we assume they run the same system and want to see what they did. It works pretty well.
The effect, then, is that some really old cases are still good law in America, and how England has adapated them has some part in it. We don't always keep the old common law rule (seisen, for instance), and often we don't follow subsequent foreign interpretation (equitable servitudes), but there's a whooole lot of contract law that is heavily influenced by what other legal systems within the common law framework are doing.
Not always true. When we have a case of first impression, higher courts will first look to other jurisdictions, then they'll look at the common law. Most jurisdictions consider the later British rulings on older issues to be persuasive authority for common law cases, so yes, it does matter.
That said, frauds is a statutory construction in the US, so chances of this particular ruling applying is small.
Not quite as impressive as the blurb would have us believe, but it a very good start. My only concern is how long it can prevent mitosis, since it seems to just push the cell back through one phase. It seems that you need to saturate the cell in protease inhibitor to stop it... I'm wondering how this would actually turn into a workable cancer treatment, since you can't just dump a load of inhibitors into the person's system and hope they accumulate in the cancer cells... that would lead to problems elsewhere.
Still, very cool.
Re:IE and Firefox only for now
on
Google Calendar
·
· Score: 0
No, actually, it's not. They're not only a market leader, they're also a publicly-traded company. There are a lot of eyes looking at every little thing they do, and while nerds may think it's not important, pretty much everyone else in business does.
As long as it doesn't rely on or copy the other work so much as to be considered a derivative work. Or if the changes that were made were only superficial, purposefully to work around the copyright.
If I hadn't posted here already, you'd get my mod points. Parent hit the nail right on the head: lots of hatred aimed at IP law is based on sensationalist headlines, moralistic pontificating and a shallow understanding of how the system works.
Uh... no it wouldn't. Lucent is claiming that MS's chip infringes on their patented design. Making and selling it is the infringement, not the end user making use of it.
Claim 13 (and therfore 17) both teach an apparatus. Apparatus is a term d'art for a physical system. Were it a claim for a method (aside from likely not being valid) it would be describing a nonphysical system.
I seem to recall Nintendo mentioning that indipendant and small developers could use the Revolution's Virtual Console to create low-budget games and still get the "console-style" exposure. May be marketing, but may be true. Then again, the number of small studios with skills, drive and imagination to make more than a novelty game is rather small, despite/.'s bizzare insistence that the way to market domination is to create a "homebrew" market.
I agree with you completely, and with my fellow child post.
As for the response, no, it wasn't. I submitted a story about it that el reg ran, and it got rejected. That, along with all the predictable responses in this thread, illustrates rather well that people don't give a damn about figuring out what mode is a better solution for information disemination, and rather will simply yell and scream when their golden calf is attacked, regardless of how deserved that attack is.
"The two are neck and neck based entirely on vague numbers given by each company with no context at different times, with no dates given to consider. Because we say so."
That's persuasive!
Trying to compare solds in the US is silly. People tried retailers, then realized that underrepresented Nintendo because Wal*Mart wasn't included. So we went to asking companies, which people think would be accurate. But, uh... companies lie? And not just in one direction or to the same degree-- sometimes it makes business sense to understate things, if you have a marketing strategy.
So, this article really doesn't tell us anything useful, verifiable, or insightful, and mostly just ends up being a sounding board for the author. Go Games Journalism!
Excellent point, but not necissarily true. Simply increasing the number of nodes won't create that much of an added cost. What will increase in that way will be writing- that's that many more nodes to write.
However, from a programming perspective, you can create a set number of "subquest" modules which are sufficiently customizable and flexible so that limited scenario manipulation plus the possibility for widely divergent plots due to writing, depending on the subquest.
Assuming the game will not have voice acting, the extra overhead of creating text for characters can be mitigated by creating several modifying lexicons. You can have a lexicon for regional slang, for intelligence, etc, and then apply these to a few stock lines written for a larger subset of characters. You could have the line:
"Let us break into this building, everyone"
turn into "Let's crash this place, y'all" or "We break in building, guys?" or other things, those were just some transformations off the top of my head.
So you lower the costs of writing for the main plot, because characterization is pushed off into the subquests. You can mitigate programming overhead by making generalized, discrete programatic structures for subquests and modifying and reusing them. You avoid voice acting like the plague.
In the end, you don't end up with a huge extra cost, though it would not be minimal. I think, however, it would be worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you send a letter to the company after purchase saying "my use of this program is subject to included terms and conditions?" If not, you're not talking about the same thing.
You're confusing duress and adhesion. There is nothing per se invalid about contracts of adhesion (ie, you only have one source for a certain thing). In this case I'm not even sure that it would be an adhesion contract- depending on the software, there's usually a competing product that would be (if not ideal) practicable for your purpose.
The real question about EULAs are whether they are preempted by the doctrine of first sale. Generally they are not so long as the packaging contains a notice that there is a contract either in the supplied documentation or digitally on the medium. Courts don't expect publisher to shrink long contracts that are of reasonable length for their purpose down to the size of a box, nor is it their responsibility to have a printed copy in the store, as the publisher does not control the store.
A system on the box akin nutritional facts is a fantastic idea- if it were done properly as a standard, it would clear up a lot of confusion regarding EULAs.
"I'll think of"
"I think that Lenovo is losing market share. I think it's because people don't trust them. Hold on and I think of some reasons why I think I think that."
Come on, guys.
Not true. Attorneys take courses in patent search, and the major publishers have tools to aid them in this. While it won't be a sure-fire thing, they would at least tell you what patents (if any) you could possibly be infringing, and if neccissary, defend your patent in court.
Parent needs to be modded up. IP lawyers spend years learning how to patent search and identify claims and prior art. There is no substitute.
I love how everyone mentions Korea. Completely different culture, different set of values, different entertainment norms.
We're not Korea, guys. Talking about them won't say anything about America or the very america-centric internet.
To be fair to China, they've had much smaller growth in their pollution compared to other countries who underwent similar industrialization. Not saying they're perfect, but that should be mentioned.
Yeah, you totally showed him by talking about an entirely different culture and not responding to his point at all!
In an attempt to stem the tide of stupid comments about the revolutionary war and everything, I would like to say that I AM a lawyer and we DO use English common law in many cases.
We try to apply newer statutory law first. If that doesn't work, we fall back on the common law. When we go to the common law, we look for cases that are similar, and we apply them, often from other English common law countries AFTER the revolution, because we assume they run the same system and want to see what they did. It works pretty well.
The effect, then, is that some really old cases are still good law in America, and how England has adapated them has some part in it. We don't always keep the old common law rule (seisen, for instance), and often we don't follow subsequent foreign interpretation (equitable servitudes), but there's a whooole lot of contract law that is heavily influenced by what other legal systems within the common law framework are doing.
Not always true. When we have a case of first impression, higher courts will first look to other jurisdictions, then they'll look at the common law. Most jurisdictions consider the later British rulings on older issues to be persuasive authority for common law cases, so yes, it does matter.
That said, frauds is a statutory construction in the US, so chances of this particular ruling applying is small.
Not quite as impressive as the blurb would have us believe, but it a very good start. My only concern is how long it can prevent mitosis, since it seems to just push the cell back through one phase. It seems that you need to saturate the cell in protease inhibitor to stop it... I'm wondering how this would actually turn into a workable cancer treatment, since you can't just dump a load of inhibitors into the person's system and hope they accumulate in the cancer cells... that would lead to problems elsewhere.
Still, very cool.
No, actually, it's not. They're not only a market leader, they're also a publicly-traded company. There are a lot of eyes looking at every little thing they do, and while nerds may think it's not important, pretty much everyone else in business does.
I'll be amazed when the "male circuit" becomes something that more than some nerds on the internet and the country of Korea actually cares about.
As long as it doesn't rely on or copy the other work so much as to be considered a derivative work. Or if the changes that were made were only superficial, purposefully to work around the copyright.
If I hadn't posted here already, you'd get my mod points. Parent hit the nail right on the head: lots of hatred aimed at IP law is based on sensationalist headlines, moralistic pontificating and a shallow understanding of how the system works.
Uh... no it wouldn't. Lucent is claiming that MS's chip infringes on their patented design. Making and selling it is the infringement, not the end user making use of it.
Claim 13 (and therfore 17) both teach an apparatus. Apparatus is a term d'art for a physical system. Were it a claim for a method (aside from likely not being valid) it would be describing a nonphysical system.
This just in! Anti-regulatory group against regulation! Film at 11!
Dear Troll,
Can't make games without money!
Love,
Rydia
I seem to recall Nintendo mentioning that indipendant and small developers could use the Revolution's Virtual Console to create low-budget games and still get the "console-style" exposure. May be marketing, but may be true. Then again, the number of small studios with skills, drive and imagination to make more than a novelty game is rather small, despite /.'s bizzare insistence that the way to market domination is to create a "homebrew" market.
I agree with you completely, and with my fellow child post.
As for the response, no, it wasn't. I submitted a story about it that el reg ran, and it got rejected. That, along with all the predictable responses in this thread, illustrates rather well that people don't give a damn about figuring out what mode is a better solution for information disemination, and rather will simply yell and scream when their golden calf is attacked, regardless of how deserved that attack is.
"The two are neck and neck based entirely on vague numbers given by each company with no context at different times, with no dates given to consider. Because we say so."
That's persuasive!
Trying to compare solds in the US is silly. People tried retailers, then realized that underrepresented Nintendo because Wal*Mart wasn't included. So we went to asking companies, which people think would be accurate. But, uh... companies lie? And not just in one direction or to the same degree-- sometimes it makes business sense to understate things, if you have a marketing strategy.
So, this article really doesn't tell us anything useful, verifiable, or insightful, and mostly just ends up being a sounding board for the author. Go Games Journalism!
Excellent point, but not necissarily true. Simply increasing the number of nodes won't create that much of an added cost. What will increase in that way will be writing- that's that many more nodes to write.
However, from a programming perspective, you can create a set number of "subquest" modules which are sufficiently customizable and flexible so that limited scenario manipulation plus the possibility for widely divergent plots due to writing, depending on the subquest.
Assuming the game will not have voice acting, the extra overhead of creating text for characters can be mitigated by creating several modifying lexicons. You can have a lexicon for regional slang, for intelligence, etc, and then apply these to a few stock lines written for a larger subset of characters. You could have the line:
"Let us break into this building, everyone"
turn into
"Let's crash this place, y'all"
or
"We break in building, guys?"
or other things, those were just some transformations off the top of my head.
So you lower the costs of writing for the main plot, because characterization is pushed off into the subquests. You can mitigate programming overhead by making generalized, discrete programatic structures for subquests and modifying and reusing them. You avoid voice acting like the plague.
In the end, you don't end up with a huge extra cost, though it would not be minimal. I think, however, it would be worth it.
Excellent game, yes, but still not broad enough in either category to satisfy what I'm thinking of.