Although I agree with many posters that these EULA may be unenforceable as a whole or in part under sone unconscionability or contract of adhesion theory, this is not a completely untested area of law. A case involving a customer suing Gateway under fraud (RICO based) gave the United States Court of Appeals a chance to review a consumer contract. See Hill v. Gateway 2000, 105 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997). This contract was mailed with the computer at the time of shipment. The terms were not discussed on the phone at the time of purchase. Even though this contract had some of the characteristics of EULA, such as adhesion qualities, the court found the agreement enforceable. I have listed some other cases below that may be on point, but I don't ahve time to review them right now. SOFTMAN PRODUCTS COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ADOBE SYSTEMS INC, 171 F. Supp. 2d 1075
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, vs. SOFTWARE WHOLESALE CLUB, INC. and GLENN YOUNG, 129 F. Supp. 2d 995
I believe your logic behind weather prediction is somewhat flawed. Short term weather prediction is extremely flawed through chaos theory (sensitive dependent on initial condiitons). It is impossible to absolutely predict what will happen tomorrow, but using sophisticated mathematical models general trends can be established. The difference between being able to predict snow in winter and being able to predict the amount of snow in a given winter is an example of this. Although long range climate forecasting is by no means perfect, advanced mathematical models and computing power allow it to be much more accurate than the nightly news.
This article makes way to many assumptions about future advances. Most of the evidence I've heard points to a decline in the rate at which computing power will increase. Not only that, but research into neuroscience is very much a new field. Even if we do have the computing capacity, how can we be sure that we can transalate the neurotransmitter levels and synapse information into something useable? This article makes way too many claims without the scientific proof needed.
A patent like this one truly scares me. Patenting mathematics could set a horrible precedent that would severely hinder future advances in all areas of science. Computer technology could be cribled the most severely. The cost of many products would also predictable increase. After having to pay licensing fees, companies would have no choice to pass the cost on to consumers. Where would the hard drive industry be today without Pharoah's Theorem?
Treating HIV by this method would doubtfully be useful. Rather than giving the immune system a "boost" it would be necessary to fundamentally change the CD4+ T-cells' structure to cure HIV using this method. HIV infects cells by exploiting certain surface proteins of the T-cells. Although in the distant future this technology me be clinically useful, diseases like HIV will probably be treated with different technology.
"The human body is riddled with what, if it was engineered rather than evolved, could only be called kludge." The human body may contain "kludge", but we can not even attempt to design many of the bodies elaborate systems. While recent advances have made it possible for the blind to have partial vision, look at the techniques used. The equipment is cumbersome and not nearly as effective as the human body. The most powerful computers cannot begin to model the folding of proteins that naturally occurs. The bottom line is that nature is excellent at finding optimum solutions to the point current technology only begins to rival nature.
I do not know all the specifics, but I would say that protein and other materials would adhere to the implant (for information, see Vrohman effect (sp?). These adhesions probably will not cause a degradation on the device itself, but may cause other complications. These complications may include inflamation, calcification, and scar tissue. As far as lasting 22 years, some vascular implants last 15 years with 99% success. It is quite possible to create a complex implant with a life expectancy of 30 years or more.
Slashdot Mirror
Although I agree with many posters that these EULA may be unenforceable as a whole or in part under sone unconscionability or contract of adhesion theory, this is not a completely untested area of law. A case involving a customer suing Gateway under fraud (RICO based) gave the United States Court of Appeals a chance to review a consumer contract. See Hill v. Gateway 2000, 105 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997). This contract was mailed with the computer at the time of shipment. The terms were not discussed on the phone at the time of purchase. Even though this contract had some of the characteristics of EULA, such as adhesion qualities, the court found the agreement enforceable. I have listed some other cases below that may be on point, but I don't ahve time to review them right now.
SOFTMAN PRODUCTS COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ADOBE SYSTEMS INC, 171 F. Supp. 2d 1075
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, vs. SOFTWARE WHOLESALE CLUB, INC. and GLENN YOUNG, 129 F. Supp. 2d 995
Actually, Al Gore invented the internet. Didn't you know?
I believe your logic behind weather prediction is somewhat flawed. Short term weather prediction is extremely flawed through chaos theory (sensitive dependent on initial condiitons). It is impossible to absolutely predict what will happen tomorrow, but using sophisticated mathematical models general trends can be established. The difference between being able to predict snow in winter and being able to predict the amount of snow in a given winter is an example of this. Although long range climate forecasting is by no means perfect, advanced mathematical models and computing power allow it to be much more accurate than the nightly news.
This article makes way to many assumptions about future advances. Most of the evidence I've heard points to a decline in the rate at which computing power will increase. Not only that, but research into neuroscience is very much a new field. Even if we do have the computing capacity, how can we be sure that we can transalate the neurotransmitter levels and synapse information into something useable? This article makes way too many claims without the scientific proof needed.
A patent like this one truly scares me. Patenting mathematics could set a horrible precedent that would severely hinder future advances in all areas of science. Computer technology could be cribled the most severely. The cost of many products would also predictable increase. After having to pay licensing fees, companies would have no choice to pass the cost on to consumers. Where would the hard drive industry be today without Pharoah's Theorem?
Treating HIV by this method would doubtfully be useful. Rather than giving the immune system a "boost" it would be necessary to fundamentally change the CD4+ T-cells' structure to cure HIV using this method. HIV infects cells by exploiting certain surface proteins of the T-cells. Although in the distant future this technology me be clinically useful, diseases like HIV will probably be treated with different technology.
"The human body is riddled with what, if it was engineered rather than evolved, could only be called kludge." The human body may contain "kludge", but we can not even attempt to design many of the bodies elaborate systems. While recent advances have made it possible for the blind to have partial vision, look at the techniques used. The equipment is cumbersome and not nearly as effective as the human body. The most powerful computers cannot begin to model the folding of proteins that naturally occurs. The bottom line is that nature is excellent at finding optimum solutions to the point current technology only begins to rival nature.
I do not know all the specifics, but I would say that protein and other materials would adhere to the implant (for information, see Vrohman effect (sp?). These adhesions probably will not cause a degradation on the device itself, but may cause other complications. These complications may include inflamation, calcification, and scar tissue. As far as lasting 22 years, some vascular implants last 15 years with 99% success. It is quite possible to create a complex implant with a life expectancy of 30 years or more.