(and the line from some MS guy along the lines of 'the consumer doesn't know what they want until we show them' really was a perfect example of that company's arrogance)
There is truth in the MS guy's statement, but it's a truth that doesn't reach the conclusion he'd like it to. The industry shows the consumer all sorts of things that we didn't know we wanted until we see them. On the other hand, they show us a ton of crap that we instantly know we *don't* want. People like the MS guy like to sweep the crap under the rug and accentuate the things they got right to make themselves feel smarter than they really are.
So, Mass can get OpenOffice for free and buy computers for underprivileged schools with the savings, or they can spend a gazillion bucks on MS Office and get a few free computers from MS out of the deal.
Now, MS could get their way with suitable campaign contributions, of course. But when you think about it, that's equivalent to taking money away from Massachusetts's citizens and putting it in their political leaders' pockets, albeit through MS as a middleman.
So? What does that have to do with anything? A contract does not require a lawyer for it to be written or valid.
Yes, I could have said "an elite team of ninja hamsters" if that were true and the EULA would still be valid, but they actually have lawyers who write them, so I said lawyers.:P
So no, just "clicking" is not enough to form a contract, perhaps it works in some other country though.
In the United States, clicking is sufficient, barring certain exceptions. If, in your country, clicking is not sufficient to form a legal agreement, then the whole argument is moot, because if you can't agree to the EULA, then you are legally not permitted to use the software at all.
Those are two different things. In the case of you agreeing to Blizzard's EULA as written, they have a team of lawyers that crafts the EULA. When they include the EULA with their product and have their software ask you whether or not to accept it, that constitutes Blizzard accepting the terms of the EULA. Then when you install the software and click "accept", or in the case of TOS agreements, click "accept" when running the game, you're indicating your acceptance of the agreement. Boom, a contract is formed - they agree to supply you with entertainment, and you agree to abide by the rules they set out when consuming that entertainment.
With your scenario, Blizzard writes up an EULA, constituting their agreement to it. You modify the EULA and agree to your new version. Nowhere in there did Blizzard get the opportunity to review your revisions, and so you never agreed to the terms that constitute the only way that Blizzard will agree to your usage of the software. The way you put it, I could edit the copy of the agreement on my computer to include a clause that says, "Blizzard agrees to give me one million dollars American", click agree, and then file a lawsuit against Blizzard when they don't pay up. I'd be laughed out of court if I tried that. You certainly can't do that with paper contracts, and you can't do that with online/electronic contracts either.
A similarly "clever" route is to modify the software or run extra software that clicks the "agree" button for you or prevents you from seeing the EULA. That doesn't work either, for two reasons. One, when a company includes a legally binding EULA with their software, you have two choices: agree to the EULA and use the software, or don't agree to the EULA and don't use the software. If you try to be clever and get someone/something else to agree to the EULA for you, and then you use the software, you're using it unlicensed (without permission). Two, the act of trying to circumvent the EULA is proof of knowledge of its existence, and your circumvention also indicates an unwillingness to read the terms. One could argue that by actively bypassing the EULA, you demonstrate your acceptance of the terms without bothering to read the EULA.
As for your personal opinion, it doesn't matter much in the face of legal opinion. Courts have already ruled numerous times that as long as a license agreement is conspicuous, requires people to view it before going on to install/use the software, and doesn't require the user to pay unrefundable money before having the opportunity to review the license agreement, then that agreement is legal and becomes legally binding once the user clicks "agree".
Building lease and maintenance costs, electric bills, computers for all their programmers/artists/developers.... Things stack up, and profit tends to be a lot less than laypeople think.
So what you get is a temporary price reduction while the big company kills the little one.
That's exactly what Intel is doing by giving Dell and friends deals if they don't install AMD chips. You get a cheaper price on Intel processors, and when AMD finally goes under because of the anticompetitive practices, Intel jacks the prices on its processors sky high.
I'd rather have access to lower prices that arise from market forces rather than coercion. AMD asserts that Intel only gave the lower prices to companies that agreed not to install AMD chips in their machines.
With fair competition, prices would remain just as low, and people would be able to choose between an AMD processor or an Intel processor in their crappy new Dell. Lower prices + choice > lower prices.
Did she just say, "Get out", or did she actually evict you (which is a legal proceeding that usually has to be filed with the city where you're renting, and has a wide variety of associated rules)? If she just kicked you out, she most likely violated landlord-tenant law in that city, and you can sue for damages on that alone. You could do that in municipal court without having to get law enforcement involved on the criminal matter of opening your mail.
You can implement a Turing machine in most forms of BASIC. This article describes what is required. The original Dartmouth BASIC supported IF, LET, GOTO, and the array data type, and a Turing machine can be constructed from that.
We get hundreds of thousands of undocumented Mexicans entering the US illegally every year, any number of which could be drug dealers, terrorists, or spies. A few Venezuelan spies infiltrating a group of relief workers would be a drop in the ocean in comparison.
They've been working on the game for a while, but it might have been after 2000. I guess the point is that the implications of this patent aren't merely academic - rather, there's a game company actively trying to implement their own insanity system, and if Nintendo tries to enforce their patent rather than license it at a reasonable (or even zero) price, it could shelve years of work (at least in terms of a US release) and possibly even ruin the developer.
Q. What is the 'Sanity' system? A. The 'Sanity' system is a representation of Jack's sanity in the game. This can be unbalanced by what Jack sees, hears and reads as he explores Innsmouth, and can be restored through finding areas of sanctuary or destroying evil creatures. A loss of sanity can be represented in many ways -- such as hearing mysterious voices, hallucinating or suffering visual impairments (double vision and inability to focus).
Slashdot Mirror
The license agreement says otherwise, and as I linked a few posts back, the courts in the U.S. agree.
(and the line from some MS guy along the lines of 'the consumer doesn't know what they want until we show them' really was a perfect example of that company's arrogance)
There is truth in the MS guy's statement, but it's a truth that doesn't reach the conclusion he'd like it to. The industry shows the consumer all sorts of things that we didn't know we wanted until we see them. On the other hand, they show us a ton of crap that we instantly know we *don't* want. People like the MS guy like to sweep the crap under the rug and accentuate the things they got right to make themselves feel smarter than they really are.
So, Mass can get OpenOffice for free and buy computers for underprivileged schools with the savings, or they can spend a gazillion bucks on MS Office and get a few free computers from MS out of the deal.
Now, MS could get their way with suitable campaign contributions, of course. But when you think about it, that's equivalent to taking money away from Massachusetts's citizens and putting it in their political leaders' pockets, albeit through MS as a middleman.
If you disagree with him then maybe you should consider making a reasoned reply.
Pardon me, but you must have forgotten what site you're reading. This is Slashdot.
fuck all the politics , lets remember the man..
Judging from the rest of the posts under this article, your message came through loud and clear.
Or something.
Not to mention the entire series of Stargate SG-1.
So? What does that have to do with anything? A contract does not require a lawyer for it to be written or valid.
:P
Yes, I could have said "an elite team of ninja hamsters" if that were true and the EULA would still be valid, but they actually have lawyers who write them, so I said lawyers.
So no, just "clicking" is not enough to form a contract, perhaps it works in some other country though.
In the United States, clicking is sufficient, barring certain exceptions. If, in your country, clicking is not sufficient to form a legal agreement, then the whole argument is moot, because if you can't agree to the EULA, then you are legally not permitted to use the software at all.
No, it was Freddy from Scooby Doo. Or Hefty Smurf, or Megatron, or the Gremlins, or just about every animal voice you've ever heard in a cartoon....
Those are two different things. In the case of you agreeing to Blizzard's EULA as written, they have a team of lawyers that crafts the EULA. When they include the EULA with their product and have their software ask you whether or not to accept it, that constitutes Blizzard accepting the terms of the EULA. Then when you install the software and click "accept", or in the case of TOS agreements, click "accept" when running the game, you're indicating your acceptance of the agreement. Boom, a contract is formed - they agree to supply you with entertainment, and you agree to abide by the rules they set out when consuming that entertainment.
With your scenario, Blizzard writes up an EULA, constituting their agreement to it. You modify the EULA and agree to your new version. Nowhere in there did Blizzard get the opportunity to review your revisions, and so you never agreed to the terms that constitute the only way that Blizzard will agree to your usage of the software. The way you put it, I could edit the copy of the agreement on my computer to include a clause that says, "Blizzard agrees to give me one million dollars American", click agree, and then file a lawsuit against Blizzard when they don't pay up. I'd be laughed out of court if I tried that. You certainly can't do that with paper contracts, and you can't do that with online/electronic contracts either.
A similarly "clever" route is to modify the software or run extra software that clicks the "agree" button for you or prevents you from seeing the EULA. That doesn't work either, for two reasons. One, when a company includes a legally binding EULA with their software, you have two choices: agree to the EULA and use the software, or don't agree to the EULA and don't use the software. If you try to be clever and get someone/something else to agree to the EULA for you, and then you use the software, you're using it unlicensed (without permission). Two, the act of trying to circumvent the EULA is proof of knowledge of its existence, and your circumvention also indicates an unwillingness to read the terms. One could argue that by actively bypassing the EULA, you demonstrate your acceptance of the terms without bothering to read the EULA.
As for your personal opinion, it doesn't matter much in the face of legal opinion. Courts have already ruled numerous times that as long as a license agreement is conspicuous, requires people to view it before going on to install/use the software, and doesn't require the user to pay unrefundable money before having the opportunity to review the license agreement, then that agreement is legal and becomes legally binding once the user clicks "agree".
The brains approach the Brain Sphere carrying information on placards, which the Sphere scans and reads aloud:
Brain Sphere: "11 > 4... Beavers mate for life... For quality carpets, visit Kaplan's Carpet Warehouse!!"
Building lease and maintenance costs, electric bills, computers for all their programmers/artists/developers.... Things stack up, and profit tends to be a lot less than laypeople think.
World of Warcraft doesn't have any expansions out yet - only free content patches.
So what you get is a temporary price reduction while the big company kills the little one.
That's exactly what Intel is doing by giving Dell and friends deals if they don't install AMD chips. You get a cheaper price on Intel processors, and when AMD finally goes under because of the anticompetitive practices, Intel jacks the prices on its processors sky high.
Presented it to whom? Nobody at Blizzard was able to accept the changes you made, therefore it's not a legal contract.
I'd rather have access to lower prices that arise from market forces rather than coercion. AMD asserts that Intel only gave the lower prices to companies that agreed not to install AMD chips in their machines.
With fair competition, prices would remain just as low, and people would be able to choose between an AMD processor or an Intel processor in their crappy new Dell. Lower prices + choice > lower prices.
I call shenanigans, since even God can't cram 4,569,770,000 into a 32-bit register.
If you did edit the EULA before "agreeing" with it, then you obtained the ability to use their software and their service under false pretenses.
I ANAL, but....
Did she just say, "Get out", or did she actually evict you (which is a legal proceeding that usually has to be filed with the city where you're renting, and has a wide variety of associated rules)? If she just kicked you out, she most likely violated landlord-tenant law in that city, and you can sue for damages on that alone. You could do that in municipal court without having to get law enforcement involved on the criminal matter of opening your mail.
You can implement a Turing machine in most forms of BASIC. This article describes what is required. The original Dartmouth BASIC supported IF, LET, GOTO, and the array data type, and a Turing machine can be constructed from that.
An amusing prospect, but Headfirst/Bethesda would never agree to such terms, since they're shooting for a PC/Xbox release.
The problem is rendering Word formatting using the conventions of other word processors.
;)
Considering how difficult it is getting Word to properly render complicated documents that you're working on, I'd say that problem is unsolvable.
polarbeerdisorder, I presume?
We get hundreds of thousands of undocumented Mexicans entering the US illegally every year, any number of which could be drug dealers, terrorists, or spies. A few Venezuelan spies infiltrating a group of relief workers would be a drop in the ocean in comparison.
They've been working on the game for a while, but it might have been after 2000. I guess the point is that the implications of this patent aren't merely academic - rather, there's a game company actively trying to implement their own insanity system, and if Nintendo tries to enforce their patent rather than license it at a reasonable (or even zero) price, it could shelve years of work (at least in terms of a US release) and possibly even ruin the developer.