The Visual Studio Express editions have been free since mid-2005, originally as a limited free-for-1-year program, that was extended to be free forever in April of this year.
I've heard of "internet time", but calling that "for ages" just seems, well, a bit odd, even so.
The doctrine of laches is only applicable to delay, a promise not to enforce would not raise an issue of laches, though it might raise an issue of promissory estoppel, which might be a bar to enforcement in some cases, and in others the promise might simply limit the available remedies.
The question of whether it raises an estoppel (presumably, here, a promissory estoppel) depends on, among other things, the degree to which the reliance by the unlicensed user of the patent on the pledge to not enforce the patent is "reasonable", as well as consideration of whether injustice can be avoided by any other means than enforcing the promise.
As much as software patents may be a horrible idea, and as much as people here generally hate Microsoft, maybe this is a *good* step? The company has pledged publicly that they won't actually assert their patent rights... and since these are patents we're talking about, it means that noone else can either.
The problem with such a pledge is that, as its not a contract, or even a license, its dubiously enforceable. If they wanted people to be reasonably free to use the patent, they could make an offer of a no-cost license with clear conditions. As it is, it creates a big cloud of uncertainty.
Maybe it's just the sort of protection that the open source movement needs so that we *can* innovate without having to jump through a bunch of hoops or worry about facing legal action?
No, its precisely not the kind of protection that the open-source movement needs to succeed in the enterprise.
Furthermore, IIRC, patents come with an affirmative duty to enforce the patent; failure to do so can lead to loss of the patent. So a pledge not to "assert" (i.e., enforce) the patent (contrary to, say, an open public conditional offer of a free license to use the patent) might well jeopardize the patent itself.
Usually is "preponderance of the evidence", which is considerably stronger than "reasonable belief", though weaker than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in criminal law.
Where did you get the idea that this conduct is illegal? It can be illegal if done by a government agency, but there's nothing illegal about an individual "outing" another individual. You may be able to sue the person who published the information for damages, but that's just a private lawsuit and has nothing to do with criminal law.
Who said anything about criminal law? "Illegal" means against the law, not against criminal law. In order for you to recover damages in a lawsuit, there must be something illegal done. You seem to not understand what "illegal" means: it is not a synonym for "criminal".
But the real decider is whether you prefer to play games sitting up at a desk, or slumped on an armchair. Console controllers aren't ideal in the former position, a keyboard and mouse are impractical in the latter.
Since I'm at home sick today, in my recliner couch, posting this on a laptop with my laser mouse sitting on the arm of the couch beside me, I have to disagree. With the right mouse, keyboard and mouse works fine "slumped in an armchair".
Most don't buy Windows; Windows comes with their new PC. Its 2006. Why is someone running a six year old operating system anyway?
Uh, well, WinXP was released in 2001, so its only about a year and a half newer than Win2K. I really don't see a huge difference between running a 6.5 year old OS and running a 5 year old OS.
Certainly they can if they want, but to expect support from the manufacter is silly. Hell, cars have warranties which expire sooner than that.
So? Cars aren't very much like computer operating systems.
It's not the programmer's job if the programmer's employer has passed that job to someone else. Now, if the programmer is the best person to do that and the programmer's employer has directed that they not do it and that someone else do it, then its the employer's fault for adopting a flawed process.
Except that the decision followed the precedent (and, therefore the Constitution, at least as its historically been interpretted by the courts) on the issue, and was only notable because (unlike the 1950s urban renewal cases that are the precedent most clearly on point), the it involved property in which middle class people were living rather than the poor.
Because civil suits are the only way individuals can vindicate their rights under the law. Only the state can file criminal charges, and criminal law is only indirectly related to protecting individual rights.
There already are specialist browsers like that, particularly ones for the blind and otherwise visually impaired designed for optimal use with screen-readers, etc. Of course, they only work with sites that provide text rather than communicating vital information through pictures without alt-text.
In my experience, usually all ATMs have braille, not only the outdoor ones, and plenty of people either walk up to drive-up ATMs, and they are of course just as usable from the rear left-hand seat as the front left-hand seat, so while it makes a good line for a standup comedian, there is nothing really wrong with drive-up ATMs having braille.
yes exactly - doesn't explain what exactly they did to make their site so 'unaccessible'
What doesn't explain that? The complaint (see allegations 29-37, particularly) seems to lay out the problems the plaintiffs are complaing of pretty clearly.
Since the claims allowed to go forward are only those that pertain to the effects of the accessibility of the website on the usability of the physical stores, whether its the only store on the internet would seem pretty irrelevant.
This is about the DUMBEST thing I've seen yet. A VISUAL website must be made ADA complient for a BLIND person?
Yes, just like a visual ATM display must. And for the same reason (not just the same general rationale, but the same law, as well.) And, here's the kicker, only to the extent that such accessibility is related to getting full use out of the a physical facility.
What does this mean for all of the "mom and pop" websites out there that are non-ADA compliant?
If the inaccessibility of the website doesn't affect the accessibility of a physical space, nothing, because the ADA doesn't apply to them, under past rulings or this one.
And this court also restricted the claims allowed to go forward to those advancing the claim that the site design impacted the accessibility of physical spaces (the Target stores), so there is no disagreement here.
Yeah, so if Target's website hasn't been redesigned since before the ADA went into effect, that would be an out. But since the ADA is older than the web, that's not likely to be an available out.
Slashdot Mirror
The Visual Studio Express editions have been free since mid-2005, originally as a limited free-for-1-year program, that was extended to be free forever in April of this year.
I've heard of "internet time", but calling that "for ages" just seems, well, a bit odd, even so.
The doctrine of laches is only applicable to delay, a promise not to enforce would not raise an issue of laches, though it might raise an issue of promissory estoppel, which might be a bar to enforcement in some cases, and in others the promise might simply limit the available remedies.
The question of whether it raises an estoppel (presumably, here, a promissory estoppel) depends on, among other things, the degree to which the reliance by the unlicensed user of the patent on the pledge to not enforce the patent is "reasonable", as well as consideration of whether injustice can be avoided by any other means than enforcing the promise.
Furthermore, IIRC, patents come with an affirmative duty to enforce the patent; failure to do so can lead to loss of the patent. So a pledge not to "assert" (i.e., enforce) the patent (contrary to, say, an open public conditional offer of a free license to use the patent) might well jeopardize the patent itself.
Usually is "preponderance of the evidence", which is considerably stronger than "reasonable belief", though weaker than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in criminal law.
It's not the programmer's job if the programmer's employer has passed that job to someone else. Now, if the programmer is the best person to do that and the programmer's employer has directed that they not do it and that someone else do it, then its the employer's fault for adopting a flawed process.
Except that the decision followed the precedent (and, therefore the Constitution, at least as its historically been interpretted by the courts) on the issue, and was only notable because (unlike the 1950s urban renewal cases that are the precedent most clearly on point), the it involved property in which middle class people were living rather than the poor.
Usually, they have standard headset jacks. They don't have loudspeakers for privacy reasons.
Because civil suits are the only way individuals can vindicate their rights under the law. Only the state can file criminal charges, and criminal law is only indirectly related to protecting individual rights.
There already are specialist browsers like that, particularly ones for the blind and otherwise visually impaired designed for optimal use with screen-readers, etc. Of course, they only work with sites that provide text rather than communicating vital information through pictures without alt-text.
In my experience, usually all ATMs have braille, not only the outdoor ones, and plenty of people either walk up to drive-up ATMs, and they are of course just as usable from the rear left-hand seat as the front left-hand seat, so while it makes a good line for a standup comedian, there is nothing really wrong with drive-up ATMs having braille.
What doesn't explain that? The complaint (see allegations 29-37, particularly) seems to lay out the problems the plaintiffs are complaing of pretty clearly.
Since the claims allowed to go forward are only those that pertain to the effects of the accessibility of the website on the usability of the physical stores, whether its the only store on the internet would seem pretty irrelevant.
And this court also restricted the claims allowed to go forward to those advancing the claim that the site design impacted the accessibility of physical spaces (the Target stores), so there is no disagreement here.
What, under the "Americans with Firefox Act"? I think not.
Yeah, so if Target's website hasn't been redesigned since before the ADA went into effect, that would be an out. But since the ADA is older than the web, that's not likely to be an available out.