LOL, actually I was worried about people calling me a turd.
I didn't expect a mod up for insight, especially with gratuitous use of the word 'Fuck.'
That being said, I agree, the argument of what the advertisers want and don't want plays a huge role in the Web 2.0 economics, of which Facebook is a part. I mention in my post that's the only way I'd find this really persuasive.
That being said, it still feels like a straw man. It still feels like a guise of political correctness, a garb that says people's feelings are the realm of advertisers, web VCs, and politician. Maybe I'm being overly cynical, and if you call me on it, I've got no response, no comeback.
I feel like I'd have more respect for Facebook if they said, "Look, people come and go and do pretty much as they please here. That means stupid stuff comes up...," if it's not 'Fuck Islam' it's something else. There's a whole group on there (139 members) that talks about believing in unicorns. There's another group that says anyone who believes in unicorns is a crackhead. There's hate, we have to deal with. Anyone who see Walmart ads on Facebook, and makes the connection that the White Supremacy facebook group they're looking must be fully endorsed by Walmart is probably a crack head too.
So there, my cynical outlook, my perception that the argument is just a means of telling us AGAIN what is okay/not okay to believe.
I guess I'm just not sensitive to plight of religion.
I really don't see a problem with a "Fuck Islam" group, aside from the fact that it doesn't seem to go far enough. How about a "Fuck believing in Deities" group. And more to the point, what's really wrong with that?
Should child molesters be able to rally against a "Fuck child molesters" group?
I hate KKK members. I can't stand them. Listening to their boring, monotonous, unfounded, uneducated diatribe and rhetoric makes me sick to my stomach. Am I wrong?
Can I not hate?
Damn Baby Boomers, they got the whole world in this 'touchy-feely' vibe. Sorry guys, free speech, ironically, means protecting ideas you don't like, including a person's right to feel however the FUCK they want to feel about any particular subject. It'd be cool if there were an objective standard where 'less hate' made you a better person (a la Star Wars, and the Force), but there's not, and there's really no reason NOT to hate, other than the fact that it, probably is a waste of your time, and your energy and can be an unhealthy source of stress.
I know plenty of people that hate black people, Jews, Muslims, etc. but as long as they don't DO anything about it (like kill/hang/enslave/deny employment & education/conscript) I guess I don't really care.
I'm sure I'll be modded down because the world today tells you that 'hate = suxzorz' but quite frankly, there's nothing wrong with people who hate. We all hate sometimes. Try not to let it effect your actions, and how people perceive you, and try to let it go because it's a personal hangup but don't encourage corporations to begin fiating legislation that tells me what emotions it's okay for me to have and express.
If there's a fiscal argument (a la ads) to be made, I suppose that'd be where I'd find the argument persuasive, but honestly it's a cloak for a moral judgment, and I'm sick and tired of being told how I should feel about things. Facebook, you let me keep in touch with my friends, I'm a big boy. I'll decide how I feel about things.
As for being hated, I'm sure it sucks, but again, if it's not having any actual consequences, don't sweat it. If you're getting turned down for a job because you're Islamic, that seems pretty crappy to me, but if some numbnuts has decided that him and his hater friends wanna circle jerk each other's ideas on FB, screw em. Don't join the group. Don't talk with them.::shrugs::
I just don't see what the big deal is, but, being/. I expect plenty of comments telling me exactly what it is and why I'm such a turd for believing that my feelings and my Facebook groups are mostly MY business.
Thank you for your response. I think I was getting a little snotty with my response, and you had the decency to reply in a positive manner.
So, let me get this straight, the idea that "couldn't be bothered to read it" could actually carry real weight as a legal argument, but the circumstances would have to be right (i.e. something like a cell phone contract where the act of agreement is treated almost like a formality, is engaged in without an attorney present, and is couched in a language that the reader/assenter is unlikely to be familiar with)?
I can definitely understand that. I suppose I would assert that I needed to be more specific with what I was saying (i.e. it cannot be the GENERAL rule upon which contract law is based). I think in the context of the case that certainly could have been a persuasive argument.
As for not being specific in my discussion about signing/agreeing, I'll concede that 100%. I'll choose my words more carefully next time.
Again, I've had to post here repeatedly, and shouldn't have approached your response with hostility. I thank you for doing better than I.
Hrm, you seem to think my argument is more rigid than it actually is.
I'm not saying they require a John Hancock, but rather agreement. I'd be curious to see the precedent where the cell phone was weighted as a necessity. In terms of THIS case, it was the one I read after all, it wasn't considered in such a manner.
I'm curious how the contract system can work if every party can simply deny the terms by saying that they 'couldn't be bothered to read the terms.' If I'm missing it, I'm going to need more than your word for it, precedent or at least an explanation about how it'd survive would be okay. I'm pretty sure that AT&T's contract would essentially be worthless if their users weren't bound by ANY of the terms in the agreement because they didn't read it. In fact, I'm pretty sure the ruling at hand doesn't say ANYTHING like that, but rather makes the argument that based on the Discover Bank case, mandatory arbitration clauses can't be enforced when they are designed to prevent users from class action cooperation. If you agree to it, and definitely if you sign it, you're assumed to have read it.
I feel like most of this discussion has been splitting hairs. No, I don't believe you have to physically sign the thing (though doing so is a form of agreement), fine maybe a cell phone is a 'necessity' but there's plenty of alternatives to contracts (MetroPCS, GoPhone, Traditional prepaid), and was NEVER REMOTELY construed as a necessity in precedent.
I'm curious, did you read the case to understand the context my posts were made in, or did you just assume I was saying something that I wasn't and decided to correct the things I didn't say (or at the very least mean, but I definitely don't remember say "NO! It's no good if they don't sign it! It must be a signature, with ink and a pen!"...)
Okay, well following the entirety of this thread, I'm clearly NOT saying contracts require signatures.
I also am trying to point out that a cell phone as a luxury is meant a contrast to the point this guy made about involuntary contracts with regards to medical care. The law isn't going to weight a person's need for a cell phone as much as his need for medical care.
Thirdly, what rigidity are you speaking of? I didn't realize I'd given any indication of believe contract law to be rigid.
As for the idea of only benefiting one party making a clause in a contract moot, talk to the judge, that was the ruling of the court (see the AT&T case that the/. article is about). Based on a California suit against Discover Bank, the court here holds that as AT&T would never file class action suit against its users, the arbitration clause only benefits them, and as such, it's not afforded protection in Sec 2 of the U.S.C. governing arbitration.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=273917&cid=202 93579
Please note the first line.
I'm curious which posts (they're all listed there) where I was rude, arrogant, and ignorant about anything other than the facts of the one case, which while the media has labeled it the poster child for frivolous lawsuits it apparently isn't without merit, it really had no bearing on what I was saying. I simply needed a hypothetical frivolous lawsuit, I picked the wrong one, you used it as a license to be an ass.
You've been rude to me CONSTANTLY, and you don't deny it, simply justify it by saying I deserved it.
Whoops, I wish I had read this before I made my other post.
I actually spent time trying to mend whatever rift exists here, but you're making it clear that you'd prefer to be rude to me about it.
Sorry, I wish I had known that from the beginning.
a.) I'm sorry I didn't meet your research standard. I didn't bother to research the case because I got sucked in by the media machine, and as it wasn't a serious necessity to the point I was making (i.e. it was an EXAMPLE of a frivolous lawsuit, instead of the McD's case, we can acknowledge [maybe] that frivolous lawsuits exist, no? Even if McD's isn't one of them, some lawsuits are frivolous right? we can substitute hypothetical frivolous lawsuit X for McD's if that's really the beef for you.
c.) As to why you'd think I'd do research better later if I didn't do it now? Uh, I dunno, maybe because I'm going to law school where they teach you to research better. If I had all the tools to be an attorney I wouldn't need to pay the tuition.
d.) Dude, I don't wanna throw age into this, but I'm a *law student* I was 10 when the McD's coffee case happened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_ca se). I only heard about it, as the Wiki article notes, through the media as a poster child for frivolous lawsuits. It was an aside (the whole thing was in parenthesis, not in the main thrust of my original point ANYWAYS), and so I, as an unwitting pawn of the media regurgitated what I'd heard.
No, its relevance is that when it comes to luxury items, if the contract is unfair, DON'T AGREE.
Here, let me try and break this down so we can get past whatever impasse we're at (because quite frankly, you're using pretty rude language, or at least I'm taking it the wrong way, and I want to believe you're not here just to make me angry or get under my skin, but that we're having a least a semblance of rational discourse):
1.) Contracts require two parties. No contract signed by only one party is valid. 2.) As a consumer, your money, and subsequently where it goes, matters to the corporations who are trying to get money. 3.) A cell phone is a luxury 4.) Luxury items are, by definition, not necessities
With these points in mind (if these are in question, lets start there), it seems to me that people can give their money to a.) other providers (MetroPCS is contract free) or b.) assume a contract free service (AT&T provides both GoPhones and traditional prepaid service). If polled or surveyed, those customers could claim they opted not to take the contract because the terms were unreasonable. That would provide some measure of revenue loss to AT&T, and they could consider dealing with the loss or adjusting their policies accordingly.
I'm not sure where I've gone wrong. I'm certainly not sure what I did to piss you off, but really man, what's the problem here?
I'm not a corporate shill. I agree with the judges' ruling. Don't you? I think the argument that a 'mandatory arbitration clause' works to serve only one side, and those clauses should only be enforceable in contracts where it benefits both parties (i.e. AT&T isn't ever going to file class action suit against its customers, however, its customers could conceivably file class action against them, therefore only AT&T benefits by mandatory arbitration). Why do you feel the need to say that I'm saying things I've NEVER said (i.e. "it was the workers fault that they simply didn't find another job elsewhere")?
Why all the anger? I'm not criticizing any viewpoint other than the idea that ignorance of a contract (particularly a luxury item), were it to be a valid legal defense, would make the entire subject of contract law a moot point. If you think about it, I bet you'll agree. If anyone who had signed a contract (even good ones) could simply say "I couldn't be bothered to read it, so I didn't know about it, therefore I'm not bound by its terms" there'd be little point to making a contract in the first place.
What's my major failing here? I'm not extending the scope of the discussion beyond the boundaries of cell phone contracts, as that's what the story and the post (and the entirety of my comments) have been about. I'll be happy to have a civilized discussion with you, if you'd like, but that doesn't seem to be on the menu today for some reason.
Yeah, what was I thinking, actually talking about the topic and story at hand instead if following a red herring that had nothing to do A.) with the story I commented on and B.) the initial comment i made that you responded to...
Absolutely!
Don't forget the expensive cost of litigation just in case you actually DO hope to effect meaningful change.
I don't disagree on any particular point; in fact, I agree with most of it. That's why this is such a huge consumer win, being able to redress grievances in a class action is pretty much the only way to make this happen, and that binding arbitration clause was a pretty 'low blow' in the first place.
I support the court's reasoning behind it too. It's not something that makes Contract law essentially a lame duck, but rather allows for consumers to get some equal ground against wireless carriers.
People start busting my balls here on Slashdot, but I am in support of the courts and the striking down of that clause. Read my posts! My only real beef is that people seem to be trying to justify the decision based on the fact that "Ignorance" or "Apathy" or "No time to be bothered to read my contract" is a good defense. It's not. If you subscribe to that school of thought you're walking down a path that renders almost all contracts invalid.
For that matter the advertising dollars of McDonald's don't have much to do with the frivolity of the lawsuit. I still think spilling hot coffee on yourself is NOT grounds for suit against McDonald's in a normative sense.
Perhaps legally its completely justified by that's not really what I was talking about in the context of my post.
Oh, hey nice way to be a dick about "I hope that by the time you pass the bar..." condescension. Really, nothing makes me want to listen to you more than coming off as obnoxious and arrogant (um, and WRONG) when the situation didn't call for it. I hope that when you grow up, you'll spend a bit more time reading posts before you comment on them. Just a suggestion...
Dude, you've got to get it through your head:
Cell phone contract. It's not on par with receiving medical care, or even buying groceries for that matter. Even more so, it's not one of these mystical things that humans 'just expect,' it's something that has, pretty much since its inception REQUIRED a contract to have.
I'm sorry if you can't be bothered to, you know, read the contracts you sign, but ignorance is STILL not a defense. You painted a pretty interesting thought experiment there, but why don't you try mine on for size.
Imagine one where the "I didn't read the contract therefore it's not valid" defense works. What incentive does a company have to provide any services? The good nature of humanity to pay its bills? I certainly would never invest ANY money in a company that couldn't enforce its contracts. And I certainly wouldn't agree to it.
Under duress??? No one held a gun to the head of the AT&T subscribers. Seriously man, WTF are you talking about.
No duress, no necessity of cellphone, and explicitly an industry where the 'contract' is the standard. Not reading your contract, regardless of the urgings of 'other people in line,' in an industry where it's the standard is like playing Russian roulette with your consumer fate.
Again, contract law isn't going the way of speed limits and copyrights (whatever way that is), because contracts are and have always been between to agreeing parties. I realize you've got beef with EULAs, but that's no reason to bust my balls over cell phone contracts.
I support the courts decision, but actually reading the decision no where in it is ANYONE making an argument close to what you people are throwing at me. Ignorance is NOT a defense and neither is APATHY.
;-) And you've got ME there.
I think this win is HUGE! I'm astounded that this was actually able to be brought about, and it probably required considerable effort on the part of the parties involved.
Legally binding arbitration was put in there for one reason and one reason only: to keep class action lawsuits OUT of the picture.
The cell phone companies would argue that this will flood them with frivolous class action suits (a la, McDonald's hot coffee incident), but, of course they would argue that.
Good arguments seemed to win out the day here, and hopefully that's what the American public will be encouraged to do. Voting with the dollar doesn't work if you still pay for stuff you disagree with, i.e. cell phones.
If there ARE contracts that you can be held to without necessarily agreeing to, I certainly hope the people that are taking the brunt of those issues can engage in class action lawsuit (class action to offset the cost of litigation) for an invalid and breached contract. But I'm also guessing that the implied contract of treatment (medical thing you're talking about) doesn't imply a legally binding arbitration clause either.
My advice to you is if you think a contract is unethical, don't agree to it.
Well, while I'll concede that that is probably an excellent normative argument to make, it's a pretty poor descriptive one.
That's simply not how contracts work in the USA. I realize if you're saying they 'should' work differently, fine, the courts will need to judge the social conditions and work with the legislature to enact these ideas, and you've (we've, I agree, this is a pretty piss-poor idea, and has been for sometime, but lo and behold, no one was 'voting with their dollar' in regards to their cell phone contracts, unless you're going to make the absurd argument that cell phones and their service plans are a 'necessity' on par with hospital care: see above poster) got to NOT AGREE TO IT.
I'm all about this ruling, and man, it's freaking sweet. Other courts can now use this ruling as 'argument by analogy' to help invalidate what is essentially a BS claim inserted into their contracts. However, their argument is NOT the one you make. Read the decision. The court didn't decide this case because 'it's st00pid noobXors to read long contracts' but rather based on a system of authoritative (statutory and precedented) and substantive (normative) values.
I'm not busting this guys balls, but turning to the courts is supposed to be a LAST resort, and by my count Cingular/new AT&T has a ton of people that AGREED to a contract that says precisely that.
Contract law can't be upheld in ANY measure if you can win cases on the idea that 'people can't be bothered to read all that legal nonsense' and it's pretty foolish to rest your case on it. Thankfully the people trying the case for the plaintiff used a combination of precedent (the Discover Bank case, read the decision) and substantive (i.e. binding arbitration, in order to be fair, needs to serve both parties, it's absurd to believe that AT&T needs to be barred from filing a class action suit against its user base, therefore it only serves one party) instead of just going with their gut reaction, like you have.
I agree, again, it's a BS clause, in a BS agreement, but thankfully I read my freaking contract because guess what? It's a freaking contract!!! You're SUPPOSED to read it, and the defense "I couldn't be bothered" won't hold up ANYWHERE!
P.S. Nice try, that sounds pretty Bush-esque... You uphold necessarily valid points of contract law so you hate democracy... Jesus, I thought Slashdot hated stuff like that.
Sorry man, but a contract, by definition, requires a two-party agreement.
It's not just hypothetically true; it's tautologically true.
I'm not sure what point you're making, but any 'contract' agreed to by only one party is just toilet paper. Now, if you're disputing the threshold for agreement, sure, that's a valid legal concern (and has been as far as the twentieth century has been concerned), but your point doesn't provide a unique perspective.
Hey, as a law student, I hate to break it to you, but the only contracts that are enforceable are the ones YOU agree to.
I know it's en vogue to blame the evil faceless corporation for the world's ills, but guess what?
The blind masses who think they can forfeit their rights, with NO problem, in order to gain luxuries are a complicit accomplice.
Contracts have to be signed by TWO parties.
Actually all major wireless carriers contain this clause.
Legally binding arbitration usually results in a carrier-favored decision 99% of the time.
It's why it's in there, so don't be quick to judge, it's an industry standard.
For the people more knowledgeable about this than I am, what about cleaning hard surfaces?
I try and use anti-bacterial soap to clean my boa constrictor's water dish. He has a pesky habit of dragging a dead rat through it before he eats it, so I try and make sure it's clean.
Can I just use ordinary soap instead and get the same properties, or is the argument being predicated on the fact that anti-bacterial soap, though more effective, can have worse long term consequences? I mean, I don't really concern myself with my water dish getting an infection...
Whoa dude, maybe some THC should be in your future...
Seriously, I don't know what wacky psych courses you took, but if you got all that out of what I said maybe you should condsider chilling the fuck out. I didnt mean to piss on your soapbox with sarcasm (have you heard of it?)
You don't have to find it funny, but you don't have to read me the riot act either.
People that smoke pot (you know, with THC in it) tend to have a reputation towards paranoia. In this case paranoia is likely an accurate perception of the world, but nonetheless, the stereotype and the reality intersect somewhere. It's not like it was a significant post in the topic anyways, but far be it from me to interrupt your crusade to save the world one/. reader at a time.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL, actually I was worried about people calling me a turd.
;-)
I didn't expect a mod up for insight, especially with gratuitous use of the word 'Fuck.'
That being said, I agree, the argument of what the advertisers want and don't want plays a huge role in the Web 2.0 economics, of which Facebook is a part. I mention in my post that's the only way I'd find this really persuasive.
That being said, it still feels like a straw man. It still feels like a guise of political correctness, a garb that says people's feelings are the realm of advertisers, web VCs, and politician. Maybe I'm being overly cynical, and if you call me on it, I've got no response, no comeback.
I feel like I'd have more respect for Facebook if they said, "Look, people come and go and do pretty much as they please here. That means stupid stuff comes up...," if it's not 'Fuck Islam' it's something else. There's a whole group on there (139 members) that talks about believing in unicorns. There's another group that says anyone who believes in unicorns is a crackhead. There's hate, we have to deal with. Anyone who see Walmart ads on Facebook, and makes the connection that the White Supremacy facebook group they're looking must be fully endorsed by Walmart is probably a crack head too.
So there, my cynical outlook, my perception that the argument is just a means of telling us AGAIN what is okay/not okay to believe.
MySpace??? AUGH! I *HATE* MySpace
Thanks for a good post man!
I guess I'm just not sensitive to plight of religion.
::shrugs::
/. I expect plenty of comments telling me exactly what it is and why I'm such a turd for believing that my feelings and my Facebook groups are mostly MY business.
I really don't see a problem with a "Fuck Islam" group, aside from the fact that it doesn't seem to go far enough. How about a "Fuck believing in Deities" group. And more to the point, what's really wrong with that?
Should child molesters be able to rally against a "Fuck child molesters" group?
I hate KKK members. I can't stand them. Listening to their boring, monotonous, unfounded, uneducated diatribe and rhetoric makes me sick to my stomach. Am I wrong?
Can I not hate?
Damn Baby Boomers, they got the whole world in this 'touchy-feely' vibe. Sorry guys, free speech, ironically, means protecting ideas you don't like, including a person's right to feel however the FUCK they want to feel about any particular subject. It'd be cool if there were an objective standard where 'less hate' made you a better person (a la Star Wars, and the Force), but there's not, and there's really no reason NOT to hate, other than the fact that it, probably is a waste of your time, and your energy and can be an unhealthy source of stress.
I know plenty of people that hate black people, Jews, Muslims, etc. but as long as they don't DO anything about it (like kill/hang/enslave/deny employment & education/conscript) I guess I don't really care.
I'm sure I'll be modded down because the world today tells you that 'hate = suxzorz' but quite frankly, there's nothing wrong with people who hate. We all hate sometimes. Try not to let it effect your actions, and how people perceive you, and try to let it go because it's a personal hangup but don't encourage corporations to begin fiating legislation that tells me what emotions it's okay for me to have and express.
If there's a fiscal argument (a la ads) to be made, I suppose that'd be where I'd find the argument persuasive, but honestly it's a cloak for a moral judgment, and I'm sick and tired of being told how I should feel about things. Facebook, you let me keep in touch with my friends, I'm a big boy. I'll decide how I feel about things.
As for being hated, I'm sure it sucks, but again, if it's not having any actual consequences, don't sweat it. If you're getting turned down for a job because you're Islamic, that seems pretty crappy to me, but if some numbnuts has decided that him and his hater friends wanna circle jerk each other's ideas on FB, screw em. Don't join the group. Don't talk with them.
I just don't see what the big deal is, but, being
... as long as I got my digital Jesus, riding on the dashboard of my car.
Right on.
Thank you for your response. I think I was getting a little snotty with my response, and you had the decency to reply in a positive manner.
So, let me get this straight, the idea that "couldn't be bothered to read it" could actually carry real weight as a legal argument, but the circumstances would have to be right (i.e. something like a cell phone contract where the act of agreement is treated almost like a formality, is engaged in without an attorney present, and is couched in a language that the reader/assenter is unlikely to be familiar with)?
I can definitely understand that. I suppose I would assert that I needed to be more specific with what I was saying (i.e. it cannot be the GENERAL rule upon which contract law is based). I think in the context of the case that certainly could have been a persuasive argument.
As for not being specific in my discussion about signing/agreeing, I'll concede that 100%. I'll choose my words more carefully next time.
Again, I've had to post here repeatedly, and shouldn't have approached your response with hostility. I thank you for doing better than I.
Hrm, you seem to think my argument is more rigid than it actually is.
I'm not saying they require a John Hancock, but rather agreement.
I'd be curious to see the precedent where the cell phone was weighted as a necessity. In terms of THIS case, it was the one I read after all, it wasn't considered in such a manner.
I'm curious how the contract system can work if every party can simply deny the terms by saying that they 'couldn't be bothered to read the terms.' If I'm missing it, I'm going to need more than your word for it, precedent or at least an explanation about how it'd survive would be okay. I'm pretty sure that AT&T's contract would essentially be worthless if their users weren't bound by ANY of the terms in the agreement because they didn't read it. In fact, I'm pretty sure the ruling at hand doesn't say ANYTHING like that, but rather makes the argument that based on the Discover Bank case, mandatory arbitration clauses can't be enforced when they are designed to prevent users from class action cooperation. If you agree to it, and definitely if you sign it, you're assumed to have read it.
I feel like most of this discussion has been splitting hairs. No, I don't believe you have to physically sign the thing (though doing so is a form of agreement), fine maybe a cell phone is a 'necessity' but there's plenty of alternatives to contracts (MetroPCS, GoPhone, Traditional prepaid), and was NEVER REMOTELY construed as a necessity in precedent.
I'm curious, did you read the case to understand the context my posts were made in, or did you just assume I was saying something that I wasn't and decided to correct the things I didn't say (or at the very least mean, but I definitely don't remember say "NO! It's no good if they don't sign it! It must be a signature, with ink and a pen!"...)
Okay, well following the entirety of this thread, I'm clearly NOT saying contracts require signatures. I also am trying to point out that a cell phone as a luxury is meant a contrast to the point this guy made about involuntary contracts with regards to medical care. The law isn't going to weight a person's need for a cell phone as much as his need for medical care. Thirdly, what rigidity are you speaking of? I didn't realize I'd given any indication of believe contract law to be rigid. As for the idea of only benefiting one party making a clause in a contract moot, talk to the judge, that was the ruling of the court (see the AT&T case that the /. article is about). Based on a California suit against Discover Bank, the court here holds that as AT&T would never file class action suit against its users, the arbitration clause only benefits them, and as such, it's not afforded protection in Sec 2 of the U.S.C. governing arbitration.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=273917&cid=202 93579
Please note the first line.
I'm curious which posts (they're all listed there) where I was rude, arrogant, and ignorant about anything other than the facts of the one case, which while the media has labeled it the poster child for frivolous lawsuits it apparently isn't without merit, it really had no bearing on what I was saying. I simply needed a hypothetical frivolous lawsuit, I picked the wrong one, you used it as a license to be an ass.
You've been rude to me CONSTANTLY, and you don't deny it, simply justify it by saying I deserved it.
Whoops, I wish I had read this before I made my other post. I actually spent time trying to mend whatever rift exists here, but you're making it clear that you'd prefer to be rude to me about it. Sorry, I wish I had known that from the beginning.
Look,
2 883872 896032 89617 This one's actually a compliment no less!!2 899252 902512 903052 904032 916492 916672 918532 923632 92639 This is where I called you a dick, sorry.
a se). I only heard about it, as the Wiki article notes, through the media as a poster child for frivolous lawsuits. It was an aside (the whole thing was in parenthesis, not in the main thrust of my original point ANYWAYS), and so I, as an unwitting pawn of the media regurgitated what I'd heard.
a.) I'm sorry I didn't meet your research standard. I didn't bother to research the case because I got sucked in by the media machine, and as it wasn't a serious necessity to the point I was making (i.e. it was an EXAMPLE of a frivolous lawsuit, instead of the McD's case, we can acknowledge [maybe] that frivolous lawsuits exist, no? Even if McD's isn't one of them, some lawsuits are frivolous right? we can substitute hypothetical frivolous lawsuit X for McD's if that's really the beef for you.
b.) Name calling??? Here are the URLs for every single post I've made on this topic. Read them. The worst name-calling I engage in is calling people a dick (twice), and that's usually following some flippant sarcastic remark about how bad a lawyer I'm going to be or about how I'll never pass the bar (one of them was an AC anyways). I'm sorry but people that make snap judgments on me like that are going to get the 'dick' label in my mind. Other than that, I'm curious what name-calling I'm accused of here.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=273917&cid=20
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=273917&cid=20
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=273917&cid=20
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=273917&cid=20
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=273917&cid=20
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=273917&cid=20
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=273917&cid=20
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=273917&cid=20
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=273917&cid=20
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=273917&cid=20
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=273917&cid=20
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=273917&cid=20
I think you might me mixed up with other posters.
c.) As to why you'd think I'd do research better later if I didn't do it now? Uh, I dunno, maybe because I'm going to law school where they teach you to research better. If I had all the tools to be an attorney I wouldn't need to pay the tuition.
d.) Dude, I don't wanna throw age into this, but I'm a *law student* I was 10 when the McD's coffee case happened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_c
Now, can we please try and be civil again?
No, its relevance is that when it comes to luxury items, if the contract is unfair, DON'T AGREE.
Here, let me try and break this down so we can get past whatever impasse we're at (because quite frankly, you're using pretty rude language, or at least I'm taking it the wrong way, and I want to believe you're not here just to make me angry or get under my skin, but that we're having a least a semblance of rational discourse):
1.) Contracts require two parties. No contract signed by only one party is valid.
2.) As a consumer, your money, and subsequently where it goes, matters to the corporations who are trying to get money.
3.) A cell phone is a luxury
4.) Luxury items are, by definition, not necessities
With these points in mind (if these are in question, lets start there), it seems to me that people can give their money to a.) other providers (MetroPCS is contract free) or b.) assume a contract free service (AT&T provides both GoPhones and traditional prepaid service). If polled or surveyed, those customers could claim they opted not to take the contract because the terms were unreasonable. That would provide some measure of revenue loss to AT&T, and they could consider dealing with the loss or adjusting their policies accordingly.
I'm not sure where I've gone wrong. I'm certainly not sure what I did to piss you off, but really man, what's the problem here?
I'm not a corporate shill. I agree with the judges' ruling. Don't you? I think the argument that a 'mandatory arbitration clause' works to serve only one side, and those clauses should only be enforceable in contracts where it benefits both parties (i.e. AT&T isn't ever going to file class action suit against its customers, however, its customers could conceivably file class action against them, therefore only AT&T benefits by mandatory arbitration). Why do you feel the need to say that I'm saying things I've NEVER said (i.e. "it was the workers fault that they simply didn't find another job elsewhere")?
Why all the anger? I'm not criticizing any viewpoint other than the idea that ignorance of a contract (particularly a luxury item), were it to be a valid legal defense, would make the entire subject of contract law a moot point. If you think about it, I bet you'll agree. If anyone who had signed a contract (even good ones) could simply say "I couldn't be bothered to read it, so I didn't know about it, therefore I'm not bound by its terms" there'd be little point to making a contract in the first place.
What's my major failing here? I'm not extending the scope of the discussion beyond the boundaries of cell phone contracts, as that's what the story and the post (and the entirety of my comments) have been about. I'll be happy to have a civilized discussion with you, if you'd like, but that doesn't seem to be on the menu today for some reason.
Hey dude, good news, I'm not a lawyer.
I'm a student.
Glad you were a dick about it though. I don't think I'd want you as a fellow human being.
Yeah, what was I thinking, actually talking about the topic and story at hand instead if following a red herring that had nothing to do A.) with the story I commented on and B.) the initial comment i made that you responded to...
Silly me.
Absolutely! Don't forget the expensive cost of litigation just in case you actually DO hope to effect meaningful change. I don't disagree on any particular point; in fact, I agree with most of it. That's why this is such a huge consumer win, being able to redress grievances in a class action is pretty much the only way to make this happen, and that binding arbitration clause was a pretty 'low blow' in the first place. I support the court's reasoning behind it too. It's not something that makes Contract law essentially a lame duck, but rather allows for consumers to get some equal ground against wireless carriers. People start busting my balls here on Slashdot, but I am in support of the courts and the striking down of that clause. Read my posts! My only real beef is that people seem to be trying to justify the decision based on the fact that "Ignorance" or "Apathy" or "No time to be bothered to read my contract" is a good defense. It's not. If you subscribe to that school of thought you're walking down a path that renders almost all contracts invalid.
Holy crap dude, I didn't cite a case.
For that matter the advertising dollars of McDonald's don't have much to do with the frivolity of the lawsuit. I still think spilling hot coffee on yourself is NOT grounds for suit against McDonald's in a normative sense.
Perhaps legally its completely justified by that's not really what I was talking about in the context of my post.
Oh, hey nice way to be a dick about "I hope that by the time you pass the bar..." condescension. Really, nothing makes me want to listen to you more than coming off as obnoxious and arrogant (um, and WRONG) when the situation didn't call for it. I hope that when you grow up, you'll spend a bit more time reading posts before you comment on them. Just a suggestion...
Dude, you've got to get it through your head: Cell phone contract. It's not on par with receiving medical care, or even buying groceries for that matter. Even more so, it's not one of these mystical things that humans 'just expect,' it's something that has, pretty much since its inception REQUIRED a contract to have. I'm sorry if you can't be bothered to, you know, read the contracts you sign, but ignorance is STILL not a defense. You painted a pretty interesting thought experiment there, but why don't you try mine on for size. Imagine one where the "I didn't read the contract therefore it's not valid" defense works. What incentive does a company have to provide any services? The good nature of humanity to pay its bills? I certainly would never invest ANY money in a company that couldn't enforce its contracts. And I certainly wouldn't agree to it. Under duress??? No one held a gun to the head of the AT&T subscribers. Seriously man, WTF are you talking about. No duress, no necessity of cellphone, and explicitly an industry where the 'contract' is the standard. Not reading your contract, regardless of the urgings of 'other people in line,' in an industry where it's the standard is like playing Russian roulette with your consumer fate. Again, contract law isn't going the way of speed limits and copyrights (whatever way that is), because contracts are and have always been between to agreeing parties. I realize you've got beef with EULAs, but that's no reason to bust my balls over cell phone contracts. I support the courts decision, but actually reading the decision no where in it is ANYONE making an argument close to what you people are throwing at me. Ignorance is NOT a defense and neither is APATHY.
;-) And you've got ME there. I think this win is HUGE! I'm astounded that this was actually able to be brought about, and it probably required considerable effort on the part of the parties involved. Legally binding arbitration was put in there for one reason and one reason only: to keep class action lawsuits OUT of the picture. The cell phone companies would argue that this will flood them with frivolous class action suits (a la, McDonald's hot coffee incident), but, of course they would argue that. Good arguments seemed to win out the day here, and hopefully that's what the American public will be encouraged to do. Voting with the dollar doesn't work if you still pay for stuff you disagree with, i.e. cell phones. If there ARE contracts that you can be held to without necessarily agreeing to, I certainly hope the people that are taking the brunt of those issues can engage in class action lawsuit (class action to offset the cost of litigation) for an invalid and breached contract. But I'm also guessing that the implied contract of treatment (medical thing you're talking about) doesn't imply a legally binding arbitration clause either. My advice to you is if you think a contract is unethical, don't agree to it.
Well, while I'll concede that that is probably an excellent normative argument to make, it's a pretty poor descriptive one.
That's simply not how contracts work in the USA. I realize if you're saying they 'should' work differently, fine, the courts will need to judge the social conditions and work with the legislature to enact these ideas, and you've (we've, I agree, this is a pretty piss-poor idea, and has been for sometime, but lo and behold, no one was 'voting with their dollar' in regards to their cell phone contracts, unless you're going to make the absurd argument that cell phones and their service plans are a 'necessity' on par with hospital care: see above poster) got to NOT AGREE TO IT.
I'm all about this ruling, and man, it's freaking sweet. Other courts can now use this ruling as 'argument by analogy' to help invalidate what is essentially a BS claim inserted into their contracts. However, their argument is NOT the one you make. Read the decision. The court didn't decide this case because 'it's st00pid noobXors to read long contracts' but rather based on a system of authoritative (statutory and precedented) and substantive (normative) values.
I'm not busting this guys balls, but turning to the courts is supposed to be a LAST resort, and by my count Cingular/new AT&T has a ton of people that AGREED to a contract that says precisely that.
Contract law can't be upheld in ANY measure if you can win cases on the idea that 'people can't be bothered to read all that legal nonsense' and it's pretty foolish to rest your case on it. Thankfully the people trying the case for the plaintiff used a combination of precedent (the Discover Bank case, read the decision) and substantive (i.e. binding arbitration, in order to be fair, needs to serve both parties, it's absurd to believe that AT&T needs to be barred from filing a class action suit against its user base, therefore it only serves one party) instead of just going with their gut reaction, like you have.
I agree, again, it's a BS clause, in a BS agreement, but thankfully I read my freaking contract because guess what? It's a freaking contract!!! You're SUPPOSED to read it, and the defense "I couldn't be bothered" won't hold up ANYWHERE!
P.S. Nice try, that sounds pretty Bush-esque... You uphold necessarily valid points of contract law so you hate democracy... Jesus, I thought Slashdot hated stuff like that.
There's no way you're going to make a convincing argument for a cell phone as not just a luxury, but a necessity.
Sorry man, but a contract, by definition, requires a two-party agreement.
It's not just hypothetically true; it's tautologically true.
I'm not sure what point you're making, but any 'contract' agreed to by only one party is just toilet paper. Now, if you're disputing the threshold for agreement, sure, that's a valid legal concern (and has been as far as the twentieth century has been concerned), but your point doesn't provide a unique perspective.
Jeez it's almost like you read the decision. Well put, and thanks for being a seemingly conscionable /. poster.
Hey, as a law student, I hate to break it to you, but the only contracts that are enforceable are the ones YOU agree to. I know it's en vogue to blame the evil faceless corporation for the world's ills, but guess what? The blind masses who think they can forfeit their rights, with NO problem, in order to gain luxuries are a complicit accomplice. Contracts have to be signed by TWO parties.
Actually all major wireless carriers contain this clause. Legally binding arbitration usually results in a carrier-favored decision 99% of the time. It's why it's in there, so don't be quick to judge, it's an industry standard.
For the people more knowledgeable about this than I am, what about cleaning hard surfaces?
I try and use anti-bacterial soap to clean my boa constrictor's water dish. He has a pesky habit of dragging a dead rat through it before he eats it, so I try and make sure it's clean.
Can I just use ordinary soap instead and get the same properties, or is the argument being predicated on the fact that anti-bacterial soap, though more effective, can have worse long term consequences? I mean, I don't really concern myself with my water dish getting an infection...
Whoa dude, maybe some THC should be in your future...
/. reader at a time.
Seriously, I don't know what wacky psych courses you took, but if you got all that out of what I said maybe you should condsider chilling the fuck out. I didnt mean to piss on your soapbox with sarcasm (have you heard of it?)
You don't have to find it funny, but you don't have to read me the riot act either.
People that smoke pot (you know, with THC in it) tend to have a reputation towards paranoia. In this case paranoia is likely an accurate perception of the world, but nonetheless, the stereotype and the reality intersect somewhere. It's not like it was a significant post in the topic anyways, but far be it from me to interrupt your crusade to save the world one
Jesus, dude, seriously, chill the fuck out.
Ya know, you can always count on a guy named DragonTHC to give you a reasonable, balanced viewpoint free of paranoia...