In the UK, for example, it's illegal for a company to pay its employees below the minimum wage, even if the employees are also the directors and owners of the company.
The separate charge for credit card payments (but which the customer doesn't pay) is a VAT avoidance scheme which accountants have devised for retailers. The idea is that the credit card fee (2% or so of the total) is VAT exempt and so the retailer gains a small but not insignificant boost to their profits (i.e. through not having to account for VAT on the 2%). It doesn't affect the customer at all (although some people have a moral problem with becoming unwittingly part of a tax avoidance scam).
Customs challenged Debenhams' version of the scheme (which was particularly poorly implemented) and won, however Debenhams won on appeal. Customs are now taking the appeal to the Court of Appeal, and legislation is likely if they lose again.
This is quite different to whether an advertised price must be inclusive or exclusive of VAT. You are right that the general rule that prices must be inclusive of VAT is reversed for business-to-business sales. This is of course because most businesses reclaim the VAT so it's not a real cost for them.
But he isn't just "attacking" his own hardware or software; he's logging onto iTunes through his own software in violation of the terms of service which he agreed when he created his account. Most jurisdictions have a criminal offence covering "unauthorised access to computer systems" - does Norway really not?
And he is surely acting in breach of his contract with iTunes, albeit this would be a civil rather than criminal matter. Would Norway not consider this a contract law claim?
By publishing your website, you are granting an (implied) licence to the world to create cached copies of the website. Were this not the case, your web browser's cache and your ISP's proxy server's cache would in constant copyright violation.
The argument Google would use is that they're just going a step further in having a publicly available cache. Whether the implied licence extends to this is arguable: I have no special knowledge of US law but under English copyright law they have a pretty good case.
I thought the reason is that it's not possible to tell from a US telephone number whether or not it's a mobile number, and so it would be unfair to charge more for dialing a mobile.
In the UK (and I think most of Europe) you can tell straight away if a number is a mobile number.
The import laws are irrelevant. When you download a MP3 from the site you are making a copy of the MP3 on your computer in the States. This is a breach of US copyright law - only the copyright holder has the right to make copies and licence the making of copies. There is no grey area - it's clearly illegal.
"nanoceramic material extracted from a natural stone"? How stupid do you have to be to believe this kind of thing?
Their claim that the material "has been tested and documented by several prestigious institutions, laboratories and universities" is as laughable as it is vague.
The whole point of the licence fee is so that the BBC has an independent source of funding, and isn't beholden to government. Charter reviews are infrequent (every ten years or so) and sufficiently high profile that it's difficult for government to manipulate the process.
If the bible is an attempt to describe creation to a pre-industrial society, then why does it get everything the wrong way round (plants before sun, moon and stars; birds before land animals)?
You can't libel a product under English law, and it's a bit of a reach to say that the authors of the product are being libelled. There's no authority suggesting such an approach is possible.
Re:I for one welcome our new SCO overlords.
on
SCO Targets UK Firms
·
· Score: 2, Informative
We don't really have class-action lawsuits in the UK (a number of ongoing lawsuits can be dealt with at the same time if a "group litigation order" is made, but this is rather different).
Re:I for one welcome our new SCO overlords.
on
SCO Targets UK Firms
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Presumably the agreement would be to licence SCO's claimed IP and not to settle ongoing litigation. If it turned out SCO's claims were unfounded then in English law whoever paid could have an action for misrepresentation or perhaps wrongful enrichment. Hardly worth suing for a few hundred quid, though.
Generally, in the UK the loser pays most of the winner's costs (typically about 80% of their costs). It is possible but very unusual for the winner to be required to pay the loser's costs: generally this happens where the judge takes a dim view of the winner's conduct.
Indeed. Hasn't someone already threatened to sue Lavasoft on this basis?
(I have no idea what the merits of such a claim would be; I'm an English and not a US lawyer. Under English law, spyware-style EULA provisions are very unlikely to be enforceable. I understand the position's probably different in the US.)
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt anyone would bother with setting up companies etc to save £5 per hour.
Anyhow, as a legal matter that particular scam wouldn't work; Homer Simpson would still be considered an employee of Burns.
You clearly haven't read the Origin of Species, as it is precisely about how speciation occurs.
(The clue is in the name)
In the UK, for example, it's illegal for a company to pay its employees below the minimum wage, even if the employees are also the directors and owners of the company.
Bit bizarre, really.
The separate charge for credit card payments (but which the customer doesn't pay) is a VAT avoidance scheme which accountants have devised for retailers. The idea is that the credit card fee (2% or so of the total) is VAT exempt and so the retailer gains a small but not insignificant boost to their profits (i.e. through not having to account for VAT on the 2%). It doesn't affect the customer at all (although some people have a moral problem with becoming unwittingly part of a tax avoidance scam).
Customs challenged Debenhams' version of the scheme (which was particularly poorly implemented) and won, however Debenhams won on appeal. Customs are now taking the appeal to the Court of Appeal, and legislation is likely if they lose again.
This is quite different to whether an advertised price must be inclusive or exclusive of VAT. You are right that the general rule that prices must be inclusive of VAT is reversed for business-to-business sales. This is of course because most businesses reclaim the VAT so it's not a real cost for them.
Wonderful - you get sued and Jon doesn't. What's the advantage of this, other than creating a little more work for the lawyers?
But he isn't just "attacking" his own hardware or software; he's logging onto iTunes through his own software in violation of the terms of service which he agreed when he created his account. Most jurisdictions have a criminal offence covering "unauthorised access to computer systems" - does Norway really not?
And he is surely acting in breach of his contract with iTunes, albeit this would be a civil rather than criminal matter. Would Norway not consider this a contract law claim?
The results of DVD Jon's court case is irrelevant to the likes of you and me, unless we live in Norway.
You are misunderstanding the concept of an implied licence. Try googling.
I don't agree.
By publishing your website, you are granting an (implied) licence to the world to create cached copies of the website. Were this not the case, your web browser's cache and your ISP's proxy server's cache would in constant copyright violation.
The argument Google would use is that they're just going a step further in having a publicly available cache. Whether the implied licence extends to this is arguable: I have no special knowledge of US law but under English copyright law they have a pretty good case.
I thought the reason is that it's not possible to tell from a US telephone number whether or not it's a mobile number, and so it would be unfair to charge more for dialing a mobile.
In the UK (and I think most of Europe) you can tell straight away if a number is a mobile number.
You're correct. Under English law, Apple have at least three causes of action:
- trademark re. the name
- design rights re. the design
- "passing off", i.e. selling a product which people may think is made or endorsed by Apple.
Most of the major jurisdictions have similar laws.
The import laws are irrelevant. When you download a MP3 from the site you are making a copy of the MP3 on your computer in the States. This is a breach of US copyright law - only the copyright holder has the right to make copies and licence the making of copies. There is no grey area - it's clearly illegal.
Hardly. He was trying to build a reactor. Enriching uranium to make a bomb is quite impossible in your toolshed.
Brilliant post.
"nanoceramic material extracted from a natural stone"? How stupid do you have to be to believe this kind of thing?
Their claim that the material "has been tested and documented by several prestigious institutions, laboratories and universities" is as laughable as it is vague.
The whole point of the licence fee is so that the BBC has an independent source of funding, and isn't beholden to government. Charter reviews are infrequent (every ten years or so) and sufficiently high profile that it's difficult for government to manipulate the process.
If the bible is an attempt to describe creation to a pre-industrial society, then why does it get everything the wrong way round (plants before sun, moon and stars; birds before land animals)?
Even as a guess, that's pretty unimpressive.
You can't libel a product under English law, and it's a bit of a reach to say that the authors of the product are being libelled. There's no authority suggesting such an approach is possible.
We don't really have class-action lawsuits in the UK (a number of ongoing lawsuits can be dealt with at the same time if a "group litigation order" is made, but this is rather different).
Presumably the agreement would be to licence SCO's claimed IP and not to settle ongoing litigation. If it turned out SCO's claims were unfounded then in English law whoever paid could have an action for misrepresentation or perhaps wrongful enrichment. Hardly worth suing for a few hundred quid, though.
Hard to see how you can libel Linux, given that it isn't a person or a corporation.
Generally, in the UK the loser pays most of the winner's costs (typically about 80% of their costs). It is possible but very unusual for the winner to be required to pay the loser's costs: generally this happens where the judge takes a dim view of the winner's conduct.
MTV2 plays "fringe"? Pur-lease.
The European Parliament has no ability to propose legislation - it's always the Council of Ministers that does this.
Indeed. Hasn't someone already threatened to sue Lavasoft on this basis?
(I have no idea what the merits of such a claim would be; I'm an English and not a US lawyer. Under English law, spyware-style EULA provisions are very unlikely to be enforceable. I understand the position's probably different in the US.)