For PeopleBrowser this is going to be an expensive lesson on the cost of failing to plan ahead. Reliance on supply on the basis of generalized statements re: future conduct on part of a supplier is a really bad strategy. That being said, other options are available to PB but I do not see the necessary basis in the current paperwork. Looks like Twitter just added to its retail analytics business. Thanks PB
Excellent idea. And you are quite right about the use of the "intent" language to interpret legislation. While not controlling overall it is deemed at least "persuasive" evidence of the intent of congress in passing a particular piece of legislation and it is given a degree of deference that perhaps it does not merit if the true source were known. Or course, I am somewhat biased against some politicians (affiliation does not matter). I would not dare insult cockroaches by comparing them to politicians.
Have to agree with the basic premise: overly restrictive conditions on the use of a product will either result in its non use or use in "violation " of the terms of the agreement. The problem arises not only from what is construed to be restrictive covenants on the use of the product but on the fact that attempting to read and comprehend the terms of most of the boilerplate defies most any English speaker's intelligence (or at least this one--but then, I do have my own problems in that regard). The evolution of the Terms and Conditions in most Use agreements is by what I call Frankendrafting, that is, the compilation (mashing?) of various prior Terms of Use terminology and language into one basically incomprihensible document--except when it comes to restrictions beneficial to the seller (sorry, licensor); restrictions of which there are many. Compare the "Terms of Use" agreements in most web sites with the Terms of Use in most product use agreements and you will see what I mean. My question is from J Lewis: "Why dont you say what you mean or mean what you say?" (sorry if I am misquoting.) If possible, and I mean it without laughing too much, a law should be drafted which requires the use of plain English terms and conditions on the use of the product. And yes, I recognize the inherent problems in such a proposal. But you have to start somewhere.
Check and balances. Our government is based on this basic principle. Extraordinary measures, such as the suspension of Habeaus Corpus, are generally reserved for times of war. Unfortunately ever since VietNam our spinless congress has allowed this country to participate in wars which are really not "wars." To declare war requires an Act of Congress. As long as Congress does not do so, the Executive Power gets out of balance and the use and abuse of it goes unchecked. NSL's are but a manifestation of the problem and it results in a Star Chamber form of justice which the Framers (Constitution) were attempting to address. "Power corrups, absolute Power corrupts absolutly".
Interesting position to take: If a provider is taking specific steps to block spam by a specific company (assume id can be esblished) and that specific company continues to issue modifications to its software spcifically to get around the block, what is the effect of the DMCA. Like I always tell my clients, you can sue for whatever you want, proving it, on the other hand, is the hard part. Going to have to read this suit. Interesting observations by some of the comments here.
creatonists should be able to sue for a piece of the action. This patent is as absurd as business plan patents. Often think of the patent department as the three monkeys that see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. They should be protecting the public from these types of BS
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by elpookie.
PeopleBrowser
For PeopleBrowser this is going to be an expensive lesson on the cost of failing to plan ahead. Reliance on supply on the basis of generalized statements re: future conduct on part of a supplier is a really bad strategy. That being said, other options are available to PB but I do not see the necessary basis in the current paperwork. Looks like Twitter just added to its retail analytics business. Thanks PB
industry intent
Excellent idea. And you are quite right about the use of the "intent" language to interpret legislation. While not controlling overall it is deemed at least "persuasive" evidence of the intent of congress in passing a particular piece of legislation and it is given a degree of deference that perhaps it does not merit if the true source were known. Or course, I am somewhat biased against some politicians (affiliation does not matter). I would not dare insult cockroaches by comparing them to politicians.
garth brooks
Who is Garth Brooks?? Yes, my rock is quite comfy, thank you.
Contract restriction and expected consumer use
Have to agree with the basic premise: overly restrictive conditions on the use of a product will either result in its non use or use in "violation " of the terms of the agreement. The problem arises not only from what is construed to be restrictive covenants on the use of the product but on the fact that attempting to read and comprehend the terms of most of the boilerplate defies most any English speaker's intelligence (or at least this one--but then, I do have my own problems in that regard). The evolution of the Terms and Conditions in most Use agreements is by what I call Frankendrafting, that is, the compilation (mashing?) of various prior Terms of Use terminology and language into one basically incomprihensible document--except when it comes to restrictions beneficial to the seller (sorry, licensor); restrictions of which there are many. Compare the "Terms of Use" agreements in most web sites with the Terms of Use in most product use agreements and you will see what I mean. My question is from J Lewis: "Why dont you say what you mean or mean what you say?" (sorry if I am misquoting.) If possible, and I mean it without laughing too much, a law should be drafted which requires the use of plain English terms and conditions on the use of the product. And yes, I recognize the inherent problems in such a proposal. But you have to start somewhere.
NSL
Check and balances. Our government is based on this basic principle. Extraordinary measures, such as the suspension of Habeaus Corpus, are generally reserved for times of war. Unfortunately ever since VietNam our spinless congress has allowed this country to participate in wars which are really not "wars." To declare war requires an Act of Congress. As long as Congress does not do so, the Executive Power gets out of balance and the use and abuse of it goes unchecked. NSL's are but a manifestation of the problem and it results in a Star Chamber form of justice which the Framers (Constitution) were attempting to address. "Power corrups, absolute Power corrupts absolutly".
craigslist
Interesting position to take: If a provider is taking specific steps to block spam by a specific company (assume id can be esblished) and that specific company continues to issue modifications to its software spcifically to get around the block, what is the effect of the DMCA. Like I always tell my clients, you can sue for whatever you want, proving it, on the other hand, is the hard part. Going to have to read this suit. Interesting observations by some of the comments here.
dna patent
creatonists should be able to sue for a piece of the action. This patent is as absurd as business plan patents. Often think of the patent department as the three monkeys that see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. They should be protecting the public from these types of BS