Sony isn't changing the hardware you own, they are changing the software you license. If you dont agree to the new terms, don't download the update. Simple.
I see nothing wrong with a company removing a feature that very few people use, is questionably useful and probably costs them a fair amount to maintain.
I can';t tell if you're a moron, or just a troll. Either way I'm not spending any more time telling you that you are wrong when it is so clear you are. It's like me saying the sky is blue and you saying it's yellow. A pointless discussion.
Its clear you cannot read English. Please take some lessons in the subject.
The law I referenced clearly states that found object must be turned over to the police in a reasonable period of time. Selling the item for $5000 does not fall into 'turning it over to the police in a reasonable period of time'. I cannot make this more clear. Maybe a 'hooked on phonics' course would help?
And if both parties knew it was just a bricked old phone not worth $100 (show me where you can buy an iPhone for $100), why did Gizmodo pay $5000 for it?
I'm not an Apply fanboi - I own no Apple products. But it's clear you hate Apple for some reason. Stop being an unreasonable idiot.
How can you possibly say that when the law states "if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county" ??
So, what's a used iPhone worth? I can get a new one for $99.00 So, what's a used one worth?
It's not used. Its a prototype with thousands and the parties involved knew it, given that Gizmodo reportedly paid $5000 for it. And $99 for a new iPhone is more bullshit. The price on TigerDirect for a new unlocked iPhone is $850. There is no way they are that far off the price point.
So again, common law applies, not your statute, which only applies to items with an apparent worth of $100 or more.
You really don't know what you are talking about do you? Common law only applies if there is no local law. Since California (and 20 other states) have specific laws covering found property, those laws prevail, not common law.
BTW - The guy contacted Apple. Apple blew him off. At that point it is no longer mislaid property - it is abandoned property.
Give me a break. Do you really think phoning a random number at apple will give you someone who knows about the whereabouts of some guys phone? Did they actually get in contact with the guy who lost it? NO. Lets say I find your phone which happens to be a Blackberry. I phone up RIM and say, 'hey I found one of your phones, you want it back?' Do you really think they would give me the time of day or care about a phone? Lets say I then say 'Hey, its your top secret new Curve Extreme! Come and get it!' They would probably not believe me.
The only correct thing to do BY LAW is to TURN IT OVER TO THE POLICE. There is no room for interpretation. The guy did not have the right to sell the phone, and Gizmodo is guilty of buying knowingly stolen property.
Stop getting your laws off of Wikipedia. California state law is as follows:
Section 2080: Duties of finder.
Section 2080.1 Delivery to police or sheriff; affidavit; charges
f the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it.
What would hold up in court? Wiki or actual California state law?? The law states EXACTLY what I stated, which is clearly contrary to what you state.
Also, the car title example is used in law schools all over the country, so quit saying it's bullshit.
The law goes further to state that you only get to keep found property if it is not claimed within 90 days, and the value is less than $250. The car title example, especially when you say it was 'abandoned' in a parking spot is complete bullshit and contrary to the laws of California. As the link you cited clearly states, only certain people can state that it is abandoned, and if that were the case in California, thew police would simply impound it.
As for housing titles - there are now several cities helping people enforce adverse possession claims to abandoned homes
Were talking property that was actually left behind somewhere and lost. Are you saying it is possible to lose a house? This analogy does not apply here - completely different situation.
So, to quote you - "You do realize the law is based on more than just what you think it should be, don't you?" Look in a mirror. All you've provided is what YOU think the law should say. No citations. Your claims are, in your own words, "utter bullshit."
I've actually cited California law, whereas you cite Wiki. Give me a break. It seems you are the feeb who can't look anything up properly.
Items found inside a business are to be turned over to the owner of the place, not the police, on the assumption that the owner will retrace their steps. If they don't, it becomes the property of the owner of the premises;
Thats not what the law states, unless of course you can provide a reference to back that up.
The price is irrelevant, since the owner REFUSED to take it back.
Again, not what the law states. And he didn't contact the owner. He contacted someone at Apple that didn't believe his story and didn't know what he was talking about. At no point did they ever contact the guy who lost the phone and him state he didn't want it.
If I find your phone, offer it back to you, and you say "No", then it's now MY phone. You have knowingly abandoned it. You don't get a "do-over."
Thats not an exact analogy since neither the guy who found it or Gizmodo contacted the guy who lost it - they just got someone at Apple who didn't know what they were talking about. A better analogy would be you find my lost phone. You contact my third cousin twice removed or my grade 5 teacher, neither of which knows I even had a phone. They refuse to take my phone back so you assume I abandoned it and keep it.
Same applies to your car or home - I can, with proper proof that this actually happened, get a judge to transfer title to me.
Bullshit - would never happen.
Example - you're parking in X's spot... X goes to court and the judge orders the car transferred to their name.
Again, utter bullshit - would never happen.
You do realize the law is based on more than just what you think it should be, don't you?
I studied criminal law in California in college. There is no crime without intent. If you do not intend to deprive someone of their property indefinitely, then you are not committing a crime. If I find your wallet and contact you, twice, and you REFUSE to accept it back, how am I now a thief?
You obviously didn't do very well in college law since California law (and many other states btw) say that if you find something of value (over $250) you must turn it over to the police. They did not. It is also illegal to purchase stolen goods, which Gizmodo did.
He did his due dilligence, and got no response whatsoever. So nothing illegal happened here.
Really? What about purchasing a knowingly stolen device? What about not turning over 'found' merchandise? Gizmodo, and the guy they bought this off are both guilty.
You really think a large company like McAfee wouldn't have these controls in place? This is clearly a case of someone skirting the rules and not following process.
A director of quality that proposed/allowed a quality control methodology that didn't include a single check between the engineers coding and the public receiving a new version.
ditto. too many times middle managers cut on qa costs to increase their bonus and then pass the blame of defects to developers
How about software prima donnas that think they are too good to make mistakes and say QA just gets in their way? I would say this is far more likely due to a software guy skirting the checks rather than there be no checks in place for an established company like McAfee
And haven't software licences since the beginning of time stated that (I'm paraphrasing) this software is useless, not guaranteed to do anything useful, including function, noones responsible for losses and specifically, YOU DO NOT OWN THE SOFTWARE ?
Nature is a business and they chose to set it up with a paid subscription model. What's wrong with that? Why do people insist on this communist 'everything should be free for everyone' attitude? If some other journal wants to provide content for free, let them and let them compete. That's what a free business model is all about.
You're dying. Six weeks to live.
What do you care of side effects?
This is the major problem with FDA interference with medicines that can control or cure life-ending diseases.
If that were truly the case and you knew of an experimental treatment, you can ask your doctor to prescribe it. FDA would not interfere and would actually be interested in the results if you so wanted to be a guinea pig.
Slashdot Mirror
Sony isn't changing the hardware you own, they are changing the software you license. If you dont agree to the new terms, don't download the update. Simple.
I see nothing wrong with a company removing a feature that very few people use, is questionably useful and probably costs them a fair amount to maintain.
so you just made some stupid shit up
kinda like this lawsuit
If you like the old software, then don't upgrade it. Simple.
The statute does aplly, since its the law.
I can';t tell if you're a moron, or just a troll. Either way I'm not spending any more time telling you that you are wrong when it is so clear you are. It's like me saying the sky is blue and you saying it's yellow. A pointless discussion.
They stopped supporting OS/2. Obviously they are evil, dont care about their customers and deserve a class action lawsuit.
Its clear you cannot read English. Please take some lessons in the subject.
The law I referenced clearly states that found object must be turned over to the police in a reasonable period of time. Selling the item for $5000 does not fall into 'turning it over to the police in a reasonable period of time'. I cannot make this more clear. Maybe a 'hooked on phonics' course would help?
And if both parties knew it was just a bricked old phone not worth $100 (show me where you can buy an iPhone for $100), why did Gizmodo pay $5000 for it?
I'm not an Apply fanboi - I own no Apple products. But it's clear you hate Apple for some reason. Stop being an unreasonable idiot.
Oh please. This is a ridiculous lawsuit that should immediately get thrown out of court.
I might as well try and sue Dell because I can no longer run OS/2 on their systems.
There is NO duty to turn it over to the cops.
How can you possibly say that when the law states "if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county" ??
So, what's a used iPhone worth? I can get a new one for $99.00 So, what's a used one worth?
It's not used. Its a prototype with thousands and the parties involved knew it, given that Gizmodo reportedly paid $5000 for it. And $99 for a new iPhone is more bullshit. The price on TigerDirect for a new unlocked iPhone is $850. There is no way they are that far off the price point.
So again, common law applies, not your statute, which only applies to items with an apparent worth of $100 or more.
You really don't know what you are talking about do you? Common law only applies if there is no local law. Since California (and 20 other states) have specific laws covering found property, those laws prevail, not common law.
BTW - The guy contacted Apple. Apple blew him off. At that point it is no longer mislaid property - it is abandoned property.
Give me a break. Do you really think phoning a random number at apple will give you someone who knows about the whereabouts of some guys phone? Did they actually get in contact with the guy who lost it? NO. Lets say I find your phone which happens to be a Blackberry. I phone up RIM and say, 'hey I found one of your phones, you want it back?' Do you really think they would give me the time of day or care about a phone? Lets say I then say 'Hey, its your top secret new Curve Extreme! Come and get it!' They would probably not believe me.
The only correct thing to do BY LAW is to TURN IT OVER TO THE POLICE. There is no room for interpretation. The guy did not have the right to sell the phone, and Gizmodo is guilty of buying knowingly stolen property.
So, quit saying that the law doesn't say that ...
Stop getting your laws off of Wikipedia. California state law is as follows:
Section 2080: Duties of finder.
Section 2080.1 Delivery to police or sheriff; affidavit; charges
f the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it.
What would hold up in court? Wiki or actual California state law?? The law states EXACTLY what I stated, which is clearly contrary to what you state.
Also, the car title example is used in law schools all over the country, so quit saying it's bullshit.
The law goes further to state that you only get to keep found property if it is not claimed within 90 days, and the value is less than $250. The car title example, especially when you say it was 'abandoned' in a parking spot is complete bullshit and contrary to the laws of California. As the link you cited clearly states, only certain people can state that it is abandoned, and if that were the case in California, thew police would simply impound it.
As for housing titles - there are now several cities helping people enforce adverse possession claims to abandoned homes
Were talking property that was actually left behind somewhere and lost. Are you saying it is possible to lose a house? This analogy does not apply here - completely different situation.
So, to quote you - "You do realize the law is based on more than just what you think it should be, don't you?" Look in a mirror. All you've provided is what YOU think the law should say. No citations. Your claims are, in your own words, "utter bullshit."
I've actually cited California law, whereas you cite Wiki. Give me a break. It seems you are the feeb who can't look anything up properly.
Items found inside a business are to be turned over to the owner of the place, not the police, on the assumption that the owner will retrace their steps. If they don't, it becomes the property of the owner of the premises;
Thats not what the law states, unless of course you can provide a reference to back that up.
The price is irrelevant, since the owner REFUSED to take it back.
Again, not what the law states. And he didn't contact the owner. He contacted someone at Apple that didn't believe his story and didn't know what he was talking about. At no point did they ever contact the guy who lost the phone and him state he didn't want it.
If I find your phone, offer it back to you, and you say "No", then it's now MY phone. You have knowingly abandoned it. You don't get a "do-over."
Thats not an exact analogy since neither the guy who found it or Gizmodo contacted the guy who lost it - they just got someone at Apple who didn't know what they were talking about. A better analogy would be you find my lost phone. You contact my third cousin twice removed or my grade 5 teacher, neither of which knows I even had a phone. They refuse to take my phone back so you assume I abandoned it and keep it.
Same applies to your car or home - I can, with proper proof that this actually happened, get a judge to transfer title to me.
Bullshit - would never happen.
Example - you're parking in X's spot ... X goes to court and the judge orders the car transferred to their name.
Again, utter bullshit - would never happen.
You do realize the law is based on more than just what you think it should be, don't you?
I studied criminal law in California in college. There is no crime without intent. If you do not intend to deprive someone of their property indefinitely, then you are not committing a crime. If I find your wallet and contact you, twice, and you REFUSE to accept it back, how am I now a thief?
You obviously didn't do very well in college law since California law (and many other states btw) say that if you find something of value (over $250) you must turn it over to the police. They did not. It is also illegal to purchase stolen goods, which Gizmodo did.
Gizmodos actions were clearly illegal.
He did his due dilligence, and got no response whatsoever. So nothing illegal happened here.
Really? What about purchasing a knowingly stolen device? What about not turning over 'found' merchandise? Gizmodo, and the guy they bought this off are both guilty.
Who sets up a dev shop like that? Dev hands code to QA; QA hands code to production.
Do companies still set up such a 'throw it over the wall' approach? Seems pretty archaic.
I didn't say the coder dictated QA policy - I said he skirted the rules. Big difference.
You really think a large company like McAfee wouldn't have these controls in place? This is clearly a case of someone skirting the rules and not following process.
A director of quality that proposed/allowed a quality control methodology that didn't include a single check between the engineers coding and the public receiving a new version.
ditto. too many times middle managers cut on qa costs to increase their bonus and then pass the blame of defects to developers
How about software prima donnas that think they are too good to make mistakes and say QA just gets in their way? I would say this is far more likely due to a software guy skirting the checks rather than there be no checks in place for an established company like McAfee
I think you assume I live in the US which I don't. As such I have no idea what politics you are talking about.
Yes, you can override in Ontario if needed. And you get better rates on off peak hours, instead of a higher flat rate.
It really is a good idea.
Then stop complaining about others business practices. Companies shouldn't be forced to supply free services if they don't want to.
Because he just up and abandoned the Hermits. Abandoned them!
Islam is not violent, no more than Christianity is. Its peoples twisted interpretation of it that is violent.
Agreed.
And haven't software licences since the beginning of time stated that (I'm paraphrasing) this software is useless, not guaranteed to do anything useful, including function, noones responsible for losses and specifically, YOU DO NOT OWN THE SOFTWARE ?
1980's politics?? What the hell are you talking about???
Nature is a business and they chose to set it up with a paid subscription model. What's wrong with that? Why do people insist on this communist 'everything should be free for everyone' attitude? If some other journal wants to provide content for free, let them and let them compete. That's what a free business model is all about.
You're dying. Six weeks to live. What do you care of side effects? This is the major problem with FDA interference with medicines that can control or cure life-ending diseases.
If that were truly the case and you knew of an experimental treatment, you can ask your doctor to prescribe it. FDA would not interfere and would actually be interested in the results if you so wanted to be a guinea pig.