RE: [NF] Invalid Terms
=> => On Jan 17, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Hal Kaplan wrote: => => > OK Ed. A couple of posts back you wrote "IONAL." I thought that => > meant "I am not a lawyer." I guess I was wrong about that => particular => > meaning and that it was not an acronym after all. => => Oh. Cute. => => No, IANAL does indeed mean that "I am not a lawyer". It => does not mean that my brain is incapable of retaining legal => information given to me by a lawyer so that I can conduct my => business well. => => Anyone who sells their creative work, such as software => writing, for a living and who hasn't invested a few hundred => bucks to sit down with a knowledgeable copyright attorney is => being penny-wise and pound- foolish. I did that early in my => career, and have met with that lawyer on a couple of => occasions since. I write 'IANAL' so that others out there => also get good legal advice, instead of taking my => regurgitated words as anything other than an informed => person's understanding. => => It is wrong to assert that only lawyers can speak => intelligently about legal matters. IANAMD, but I'll bet you => that I can talk a whole lot more intelligently about the => diagnostic differentials for achalasia than many => gastroenterologists. That's not to say that I know => everything about gastroenterology; only that which I've => experienced first-hand. And I first-hand went through 4 => different gastros before I found one who could recognize the => condition and treat it accordingly. In the process I learned => an awful lot about that particular disease, and feel => comfortable in my grasp of this particular condition. Ed, sorry to say that you had that coming to you. You set yourself up so perfectly and I simply could not let it pass without comment. I don't believe that I ever questioned your intelligence or knowledge of any topic, Ed. And I never said that only lawyers can speak intelligently about legal matters. I am totally at a loss to explain why you are bringing up those points. You certainly did the right thing by consulting an attorney regarding your retention of your intellectual property rights. And I know you learned a lot from seeing all those doctors about your GI problem(s). I too have had my share of intense collaboration with legal and medical professionals regarding personal matters. I've been clinically dead three times. I've had part of my heart replaced, total kidney failure, and watched my first wife spend almost five years deteriorating, one bodily function at a time, from infiltrating ductile carcinoma that metastasized to 75% of her body. Oh yeah, and it took 17 doctors over the course of 12 years to discover that I suffer from lactose intolerance. And you know what? I don't know squat about medicine or the law or anything compared to the people that I've dealt with. And with all due respect (and I do respect you, Ed), I contend that unless you go to med school, intern, specialize, and play g-d with your patients lives, neither do you. Of course we both know more than most people would like to know but that doesn't make us qualified for anything except being two old farts shooting the breeze here. (Well one old fart, anyway.) I wanted to be a lawyer (after I wanted to be an M.D. and after I got about 95% of my M.Arch). I wanted to help people and vanquish the s.o.bs. and make money and do all those wonderful idealistic things that a teenager might dream of (oh yeah, I graduated from high school 10 days after my 16th birthday). Then I looked at an LSAT prep book. The first question described a situation that involved general legal and ethical questions of a benign nature but with clearly two points of view inherent in the facts. The assignment was to choose a side and write an essay supporting your position. Great! I can do that. Next question: same facts as the first question. Write an essay opposing your first essay; take the other side. Oh, and then throw away your answer to the first question. My point here is that attorneys are trained to be ADVOCATES, not judges. They are paid to use their legal and mental wiles and wits to ensure that the client is victorious, and if that cannot be, then to mitigate, by any way possible, the loss the client might suffer. So when you see an attorney writing some kind of non-trial paper on a topic, it is meaningless with regard to how that attorney may plead a case or how a JUDGE or JURY might decide an issue. As a matter of fact, most attorneys have difficulties with persuasive arguing and that is why the American system of jurisprudence, for the most part, has deteriorated to a battle of following or not following rules of practice. Sadly, many other endeavors have achieved the same level of intellectual morbidity in this country. You wanna keep talking about the law, go ahead. I've said all I can on this issue and time will tell ... ma
Re: [NF] Invalid Terms
Gee, I hope everything came out all right in the end. (Bad Chet)... :-) Ed Leafe wrote: >On Jan 17, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Hal Kaplan wrote: > > > >>OK Ed. A couple of posts back you wrote "IONAL." I thought that >>meant "I am not a lawyer." I guess I was wrong about that >>particular meaning and that it was not an acronym after all. >> >> > > Oh. Cute. > > No, IANAL does indeed mean that "I am not a lawyer". It does not >mean that my brain is incapable of retaining legal information given >to me by a lawyer so that I can conduct my business well. > > Anyone who sells their creative work, such as software writing, for >a living and who hasn't invested a few hundred bucks to sit down with >a knowledgeable copyright attorney is being penny-wise and pound- >foolish. I did that early in my career, and have met with that lawyer >on a couple of occasions since. I write 'IANAL' so that others out >there also get good legal advice, instead of taking my regurgitated >words as anything other than an informed person's understanding. > > It is wrong to assert that only lawyers can speak intelligently >about legal matters. IANAMD, but I'll bet you that I can talk a whole >lot more intelligently about the diagnostic differentials for >achalasia than many gastroenterologists. That's not to say that I >know everything about gastroenterology; only that which I've >experienced first-hand. And I first-hand went through 4 different >gastros before I found one who could recognize the condition and >treat it accordingly. In the process I learned an awful lot about >that particular disease, and feel comfortable in my grasp of this >particular condition. > > >-- Ed Leafe >-- http://leafe.com >-- http://dabodev.com > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Justice = The Midas Rule (was Re: [NF] Invalid Terms)
"putting everyone and everything down" The mark of a loser. On 1/17/07, Hal Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Don't be a sore loser and a whiner, Mike ... work to make the system > better instead of putting everyone and everything down. You will have a lot > more credibility. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Justice = The Midas Rule (was Re: [NF] Invalid Terms)
Hal Kaplan wrote: > => > => Take a look at OJ Simpson and Robert Blake. Both guilty as > => sin with good lawyers. Phil Spector looks like he'll get > => off with murder too. I wonder if you can convict a > => celebrity anymore. > => > > Lil Kim (spelling?) served her year-and-a-day in jail on a perjury conviction > (felony) and is no longer a citizen of the United States of America. > > Robert Stroud saved hundreds of injured and sick birds but he never got a > pardon. > > > Don't blame the system just because the results don't live up to your > expectations. > > It would really be nice if 1+1=3 or even 4 or a gazillion, but it is not > going to happen in our system of mathematics. > > For every OJ or Blake or Specter, there is an Ethel & Julius Rosenberg. > > Don't be a sore loser and a whiner, Mike ... work to make the system better > instead of putting everyone and everything down. You will have a lot more > credibility. > Old Krong Fu Tse's saying "The good system with the bad person works badly, the bad system with the good person works correctly". ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Invalid Terms
On Jan 17, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Hal Kaplan wrote: > OK Ed. A couple of posts back you wrote "IONAL." I thought that > meant "I am not a lawyer." I guess I was wrong about that > particular meaning and that it was not an acronym after all. Oh. Cute. No, IANAL does indeed mean that "I am not a lawyer". It does not mean that my brain is incapable of retaining legal information given to me by a lawyer so that I can conduct my business well. Anyone who sells their creative work, such as software writing, for a living and who hasn't invested a few hundred bucks to sit down with a knowledgeable copyright attorney is being penny-wise and pound- foolish. I did that early in my career, and have met with that lawyer on a couple of occasions since. I write 'IANAL' so that others out there also get good legal advice, instead of taking my regurgitated words as anything other than an informed person's understanding. It is wrong to assert that only lawyers can speak intelligently about legal matters. IANAMD, but I'll bet you that I can talk a whole lot more intelligently about the diagnostic differentials for achalasia than many gastroenterologists. That's not to say that I know everything about gastroenterology; only that which I've experienced first-hand. And I first-hand went through 4 different gastros before I found one who could recognize the condition and treat it accordingly. In the process I learned an awful lot about that particular disease, and feel comfortable in my grasp of this particular condition. -- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Invalid Terms
Hal Kaplan wrote: > The bottom line? She loves to go to Dunkin Donuts for joe and I > like 7-11. > How well does she know "Joe" ?? (He meant 'coffee' for you non-US folks who might not know what he really meant. ) -- Michael J. Babcock, MCP MB Software Solutions, LLC http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com http://fabmate.com "Work smarter, not harder, with MBSS custom software solutions!" ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [NF] Invalid Terms
=> On Jan 17, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Hal Kaplan wrote: => => > Fine, Ed. Copyright law does not work that way but I am => not referring => > to copyright law. I am referring to licensing. You can => "copyright" => > your relationship with a person by marriage, => => No, you can't. => => > but your marital relationship is not going to work out if => you and your => > partner cannot come to terms on how you are going to live together. => => Of course, but completely irrelevant to software licensing. => => The only reason licensing is needed is because of => copyright. Without copyright, I can take Microsoft's code => and do with it what I like, and I can make as many copies as => I want and sell them and keep all the money for myself, or => just give them away if I like. But copyright prohibits me => from doing that. The license I receive from an author who => holds the copyright is similarly bound by copyright law. => => -- Ed Leafe OK Ed. A couple of posts back you wrote "IONAL." I thought that meant "I am not a lawyer." I guess I was wrong about that particular meaning and that it was not an acronym after all. This discussion is very interesting and I would like to go on but it's also moot. We covered something similar to this in my wife's 1-L class last year (she is also a prof) and spent 3 days debating motion picture copyrights, derivative works, personae, likenesses, and greed. The bottom line? She loves to go to Dunkin Donuts for joe and I like 7-11. B+ HALinNY ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Invalid Terms
On Jan 17, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Hal Kaplan wrote: > Fine, Ed. Copyright law does not work that way but I am not > referring to copyright law. I am referring to licensing. You can > "copyright" your relationship with a person by marriage, No, you can't. > but your marital relationship is not going to work out if you and > your partner cannot come to terms on how you are going to live > together. Of course, but completely irrelevant to software licensing. The only reason licensing is needed is because of copyright. Without copyright, I can take Microsoft's code and do with it what I like, and I can make as many copies as I want and sell them and keep all the money for myself, or just give them away if I like. But copyright prohibits me from doing that. The license I receive from an author who holds the copyright is similarly bound by copyright law. -- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [NF] Invalid Terms
=> => > Poppycock, Ed! M$ makes a product. You want to use it => and you buy it => > SUBJECT TO THE TERMS of the license agreement. You don't like the => > agreement? Don't buy the product or negotiate a different => agreement. => => Sorry, but copyright law doesn't work that way. IANAL, => nor am I married to one, so I'll let someone who is explain it: => => http://interactionlaw.com/id12.html => => -- Ed Leafe Fine, Ed. Copyright law does not work that way but I am not referring to copyright law. I am referring to licensing. You can "copyright" your relationship with a person by marriage, but your marital relationship is not going to work out if you and your partner cannot come to terms on how you are going to live together. The way the article is written (that is, the tone), we are arguing about a moot point because if M$ ever deigns to attempt to enforce the EULA, they will, ipso facto, lose the copyright, which is 1000% against what they got the copyright for in the first place. So, let's all go out and violate every provision of the EULA. Let's FORCE M$ to engage in this folly. After a few years, the battle will be won and all M$ products will be in the PUBLIC DOMAIN! Clearly, there is nothing in the EULA or the DMCA that is subject to interpretation. 500 years of jurisprudence has left no stone unturned and therefore we know that all contracts are clear and unambiguous and all important legal decisions have been made already. So let's stop arguing about this and party! And here's my slogan, at no additional charge: You may be able to burn the Yule log only at Christmastime, but you can burn the EULA any day you choose (... and without infringing on the copyright.) B+ HALinNY ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Invalid Terms
On Jan 17, 2007, at 12:26 PM, Hal Kaplan wrote: > Poppycock, Ed! M$ makes a product. You want to use it and you buy > it SUBJECT TO THE TERMS of the license agreement. You don't like > the agreement? Don't buy the product or negotiate a different > agreement. Sorry, but copyright law doesn't work that way. IANAL, nor am I married to one, so I'll let someone who is explain it: http://interactionlaw.com/id12.html -- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [OT] Justice = The Midas Rule (was Re: [NF] Invalid Terms)
Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were guilty. --- Hal Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > => > => Take a look at OJ Simpson and Robert Blake. > Both guilty as > => sin with good lawyers. Phil Spector looks like > he'll get > => off with murder too. I wonder if you can convict > a > => celebrity anymore. > => > > Lil Kim (spelling?) served her year-and-a-day in > jail on a perjury conviction (felony) and is no > longer a citizen of the United States of America. > > Robert Stroud saved hundreds of injured and sick > birds but he never got a pardon. > > > Don't blame the system just because the results > don't live up to your expectations. > > It would really be nice if 1+1=3 or even 4 or a > gazillion, but it is not going to happen in our > system of mathematics. > > For every OJ or Blake or Specter, there is an Ethel > & Julius Rosenberg. > > Don't be a sore loser and a whiner, Mike ... work to > make the system better instead of putting everyone > and everything down. You will have a lot more > credibility. > > B+ > HALinNY > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [OT] Justice = The Midas Rule (was Re: [NF] Invalid Terms)
=> => Take a look at OJ Simpson and Robert Blake. Both guilty as => sin with good lawyers. Phil Spector looks like he'll get => off with murder too. I wonder if you can convict a => celebrity anymore. => Lil Kim (spelling?) served her year-and-a-day in jail on a perjury conviction (felony) and is no longer a citizen of the United States of America. Robert Stroud saved hundreds of injured and sick birds but he never got a pardon. Don't blame the system just because the results don't live up to your expectations. It would really be nice if 1+1=3 or even 4 or a gazillion, but it is not going to happen in our system of mathematics. For every OJ or Blake or Specter, there is an Ethel & Julius Rosenberg. Don't be a sore loser and a whiner, Mike ... work to make the system better instead of putting everyone and everything down. You will have a lot more credibility. B+ HALinNY ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [NF] Invalid Terms
=> => On Jan 17, 2007, at 11:14 AM, Hal Kaplan wrote: => => > M$ has to start by alleging a breach of contract. So the question => > then becomes what provision is so onerous that a licensee has no => > choice but to violate it? => => No, that's not the case at all. Copyright gives you => certain rights to control your work, but not absolute => rights. If I write a book, I can legally force someone to => pay me for the right to read my book. => But I cannot add a restriction that the book only be read in => natural sunlight, and that reading it using => electrically-generated light sources is a violation of their => license to read the book. If I write a hit song, I can => charge you for a copy of the song, but I can't add a => restriction that prohibits you from humming the catchy melody. => => The EULA issues fall into this realm. They are claiming => rights that they simply do not have, but no one dares to => risk the financial burden of challenging them, since justice => has very little to do with who is right, but rather who can => afford the best lawyers for the longest period. => => -- Ed Leafe Poppycock, Ed! M$ makes a product. You want to use it and you buy it SUBJECT TO THE TERMS of the license agreement. You don't like the agreement? Don't buy the product or negotiate a different agreement. The copyright only protects the holder's right to be compensated for his work. If some jerk wants to stop you from humming his hit song and he makes that clear when you purchase a copy, then you have an agreement with him NOT TO HUM the song. As long as the license agreement does not include any provisions that are illegal or criminal or dangerous to the public safety and well-being (whatever that is), it remains a voluntary, enforceable agreement and has nothing to do with the copyright (although there is some overlap). The only way a EULA would not be enforceable is if M$ required you to commit adultery every time you booted your computer with Windows. This is just an example. Some people may enjoy committing adultery and some people cannot because they are not married or not old enough to be sexually active or too old to be sexually active. But please do not become picayune. B+ HALinNY ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [OT] Justice = The Midas Rule (was Re: [NF] Invalid Terms)
Take a look at OJ Simpson and Robert Blake. Both guilty as sin with good lawyers. Phil Spector looks like he'll get off with murder too. I wonder if you can convict a celebrity anymore. --- MB Software Solutions <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ed Leafe wrote: > > > > since justice has very little to do with > > who is right, but rather who can afford the best > lawyers for the > > longest period. > > > > I wonder if there's a way to fix that problem? Do > other civilized > countries have this same problem? > > -- > Michael J. Babcock, MCP > MB Software Solutions, LLC > http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com > http://fabmate.com > "Work smarter, not harder, with MBSS custom software > solutions!" > > > > ___ > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
[OT] Justice = The Midas Rule (was Re: [NF] Invalid Terms)
Ed Leafe wrote: > > since justice has very little to do with > who is right, but rather who can afford the best lawyers for the > longest period. > I wonder if there's a way to fix that problem? Do other civilized countries have this same problem? -- Michael J. Babcock, MCP MB Software Solutions, LLC http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com http://fabmate.com "Work smarter, not harder, with MBSS custom software solutions!" ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Invalid Terms
On Jan 17, 2007, at 11:14 AM, Hal Kaplan wrote: > M$ has to start by alleging a breach of contract. So the question > then becomes what provision is so onerous that a licensee has no > choice but to violate it? No, that's not the case at all. Copyright gives you certain rights to control your work, but not absolute rights. If I write a book, I can legally force someone to pay me for the right to read my book. But I cannot add a restriction that the book only be read in natural sunlight, and that reading it using electrically-generated light sources is a violation of their license to read the book. If I write a hit song, I can charge you for a copy of the song, but I can't add a restriction that prohibits you from humming the catchy melody. The EULA issues fall into this realm. They are claiming rights that they simply do not have, but no one dares to risk the financial burden of challenging them, since justice has very little to do with who is right, but rather who can afford the best lawyers for the longest period. -- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [NF] Invalid Terms
=> On Jan 16, 2007, at 11:31 AM, MB Software Solutions wrote: => => >> Whenever someone with deep pockets decides to do so. => Until then, the => >> Golden Rule applies. => > => > But when they (M$) are the deepest pockets for miles => around, that time => > will never seem to come? => => Hence the desire by many to get the government => regulators involved. => => -- Ed Leafe I think this is all much ado about nothing. First, no one is going to sue M$ because of EULA content. M$ has to start by alleging a breach of contract. So the question then becomes what provision is so onerous that a licensee has no choice but to violate it? This is not a question of "it looks onerous" or "it looks unfair," it is a question of how adherence to the EULA (acceptance of which is purely voluntary) is harming the licensee? Specifically. Does anyone have an example of how the EULA is harmful either to the legitimate needs of a licensee or the public safety and welfare? Let's discuss it! Also, in terms of "deep pockets," the "worst" defendant that M$ could engage, from the M$ point of view, is an individual operating as such, not a corporation. Such a defendant would not need professional legal assistance and could argue his case "pro se." Most lawyers hate "pro se" opponents because the court will usually bend over backwards to help such a person, provided the person is respectful, sincere, and possesses a modicum of the appearance of honesty and is acting with "good" intentions. So please tell us how the EULA is going to hurt you unfairly. B+ HALinNY ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Invalid Terms
On Jan 16, 2007, at 11:31 AM, MB Software Solutions wrote: >> Whenever someone with deep pockets decides to do so. Until then, the >> Golden Rule applies. > > But when they (M$) are the deepest pockets for miles around, that time > will never seem to come? Hence the desire by many to get the government regulators involved. -- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Invalid Terms
Dave Crozier wrote: > Michael, > Mass revolt is what is needed. Power to the people and all that. > > But, "Profox Martyr's" doesn't have the same ring to it as the "Tolpuddle > Martyr's" does it . Back to the drawing board. > "Tolpuddle" ??? Ah, I see it's a British thing: http://www.tolpuddlemartyrs.org.uk/ -- Michael J. Babcock, MCP MB Software Solutions, LLC http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com http://fabmate.com "Work smarter, not harder, with MBSS custom software solutions!" ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [NF] Invalid Terms
Michael, Mass revolt is what is needed. Power to the people and all that. But, "Profox Martyr's" doesn't have the same ring to it as the "Tolpuddle Martyr's" does it . Back to the drawing board. Dave Crozier -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MB Software Solutions Sent: 16 January 2007 16:32 To: profox@leafe.com Subject: Re: [NF] Invalid Terms Ed Leafe wrote: > Whenever someone with deep pockets decides to do so. Until then, the > Golden Rule applies. > But when they (M$) are the deepest pockets for miles around, that time will never seem to come? -- Michael J. Babcock, MCP MB Software Solutions, LLC http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com http://fabmate.com "Work smarter, not harder, with MBSS custom software solutions!" [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Invalid Terms
Ed Leafe wrote: > Whenever someone with deep pockets decides to do so. Until then, the > Golden Rule applies. > But when they (M$) are the deepest pockets for miles around, that time will never seem to come? -- Michael J. Babcock, MCP MB Software Solutions, LLC http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com http://fabmate.com "Work smarter, not harder, with MBSS custom software solutions!" ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Invalid Terms
On Jan 16, 2007, at 11:08 AM, MB Software Solutions wrote: > When do you think we'll see a challenge in court to this kind of crap? Whenever someone with deep pockets decides to do so. Until then, the Golden Rule applies. -- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Invalid Terms
Ted Roche wrote: > Ed Foster's Gripelog || Reader Voices: Invalid Terms > > "At what point is it clear that a nasty license provision goes so far > across the line that it must be deemed invalid? That seems to be an > increasingly hot topic, due in large part to recent discussions here > and elsewhere about various terms in Microsoft's Windows Vista EULA." > > http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2007/1/15/11529/2390 > > When do you think we'll see a challenge in court to this kind of crap? -- Michael J. Babcock, MCP MB Software Solutions, LLC http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com http://fabmate.com "Work smarter, not harder, with MBSS custom software solutions!" ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
