Linked by Nescio on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:05 UTC
Numerous irrelevant issues and feelings about them are ventilated in comments on the case. However, there are only two important issues. One is what the law is, the other is what we think the law should be.
Permalink for comment 352383
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
"The Verge has learned that HTC's Chief Product Officer, Kouji Kodera, left the company last week. Kodera was responsible for HTC's overall product strategy, which makes the departure especially notable on the heels of the global launch of the make-or-break One. It's not just Kodera. In the past three-odd months, HTC has lost a number of employees in rapid succession." I really hope HTC pulls it together.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
"It is with huge pleasure that the Debian GNU/Hurd team announces the release of Debian GNU/Hurd 2013. This is a snapshot of Debian 'sid' at the time of the Debian 'wheezy' release (May 2013), so it is mostly based on the same sources. It is not an official Debian release, but it is an official Debian GNU/Hurd port release." Important note: 75% of Debian packages are supported bu Debian GNU/Hurd. Impressive.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
"The first killer app was VisiCalc. This early spreadsheet turned the Apple II from a hobbyist toy to a business computer. VisiCalc came with room for improvement, though. In addition, a new architecture and operating system, the Intel-based IBM PC and MS-DOS, also needed a spreadsheet to be taken seriously. That spreadsheet, released in early 1983, would be Lotus 1-2-3, and it would change the world. It became the PC's killer app, and the world would never be the same. On May 14, IBM quietly announced the end of the road for 1-2-3, along with Lotus Organizer and the Lotus SmartSuite office suite. Lotus 1-2-3's day is done." Impressive 30 year run.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
"There's a disconnect between how Apple CEO Tim Cook sees his company's tax strategies and how some members of the US Senate view it. That became clearer than ever today after Cook and two other Apple executives testified before Congress, explaining why they're holding most of their international income in Irish subsidiaries like Apple Operations International, which declare no tax residency anywhere in the world. AOI hasn't filed a tax return anywhere in the world for the last five years, yet it earned $30 billion in income from 2009 to 2012, according to a Senate report released yesterday." Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's just. Apple, Google, Microsoft, and many more - these companies might not be breaking any laws, but it's obvious to anyone that what they are doing is scummy.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
The new WebKit Opera for Android has been released. "Opera 14 for Android is built on top of Chromium 26, with a total overhaul of the UI in native code, making it fit well with the latest Android design guidelines. Go get the build from Google Play or point your browser to m.opera.com, and give it a spin!"
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
The Verge pointed me to a blog post by Leap Motion - which reveals how their Kinect-like motion control works with Windows 8. "From the second you plug in your Leap Motion Controller, you'll be able to browse the web and interact with your computer just by moving your hands and fingers in the air. With Leap Motion technology and Windows, you can do everything that's possible with multi-touch inputs - without actually touching anything. This also means that existing applications in Windows 7 and 8 will respond to your natural hand and finger movements. Soon, we'll show you how Leap Motion will work with Mac OS X." Quite cool.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
PocketNow interviews Marc Dillon, and there's an interesting note about why Jolla is keeping the display properties under wraps: "We're leaving some of those details out because we do understand that there are a lot of really big players in the market and they tend to take certain components in the market and dominate them. We created the ability to actually be able to run Sailfish on multiple hardware displays and be able to swap components, so this is part of the demand and supply planning phase. We are committed to this industrial design which is a 4.5-inch display, an 8 megapixel camera on the back and a front-facing camera at the front, and the exact specs of the display we'll provide when we're close to delivery." Something you rarely hear anything about.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
"This is my NeXTstation Turbo Color booting the Mac System 7.1 Operating System using a hardware add-on called 'Daydream'. The Daydream has a Mac ROM and a few custom ICs in it and hooked up to the NeXTs DSP port. Turns your NeXT into a full fledged 68k powered Mac." So cool.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
"The NetBSD Project is pleased to announce NetBSD 6.1, the first feature update of the NetBSD 6 release branch. It represents a selected subset of fixes deemed important for security or stability reasons, as well as new features and enhancements. Please note that all fixes in the prior security/bugfix updates (NetBSD 6.0.1 and 6.0.2) are also in 6.1."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
"At the end of a week in which Electronic Arts confirmed it wasn't developing a thing for the Wii U, one of the software engineers in EA Sports' Canada studio, in a series of since-deleted tweets, disparaged the console as 'crap' and suggested Nintendo should give up on hardware altogether. 'The Wii U is crap. Less powerful than an Xbox 360. Poor online/store. Weird tablet', tweeted Bob Summerwill, listed as a senior software engineer at EA Canada, in a reply to a tweet posting a link about EA's no-Wii U news. 'Nintendo are walking dead at this point'." The Wii U is turning into the 21st century's Virtual Boy.More News »
Sponsored Links
Member since:
2005-07-24
The article seemed to miss one important point: what the law says is required to create a legal contract in regards to usage rights of a copyrighted material...
Did you by a "Copy of a Copyrighted Material" (CCM) at purchase, or a license? What determines this? By law, the manner of purchase makes the primary determination.
If you bought a CCM you cannot be forced to behave in a certain way regarding your usage of the product ex post facto, making the EULA basically illegal - but there are some finer points, of course.
A license contract must be made before the time of purchase as a condition of usage rights and the license, itself, must be the purchased item, explicitly. You can't be forced to change this later, even if you do have the right to do so.
If the receipt says "Apple MacOS X 10.5.2 DVD," it is implied to be CCM, by law. I have signed nothing that states otherwise. Once the sell is complete the item is governed under the laws which govern all CCMs. Those laws MUST provide a way for the original seller to transfer the material to another set of laws, otherwise I am the only one that can cause such a modification, ex post facto, via my signature, and in contractual agreement with the authorizing party.
You CAN agree to have purchased a license if you purchased CCM, no problem. BUT you CAN NOT be forced into doing so. You own a CCM, you have your rights now! USE THEM OR LOSE THEM!
Think about it:
I can't give you a receipt for "The Great Gatsby - Audio Tape," let you leave with your tape, and then when you play it at home have a little note that says you cannot play with anything other than a Radio Shack branded tape player... even though you just did! I can't do that even if I "allow" you to listen to up to five minutes without an "infraction"... You own your copy!
I can't sell you a normal book and tell you that you MUST use a specific brand of contact lenses, or a G.E. light bulb just by having the requirement written on the first few pages.
So why can I force you to use a program on a specific machine in such a manner??
I can't!! Not ex post facto, in the very least! I CAN certainly require you to sign an agreement of license in ADVANCE, but I must follow the laws governing such licensing.
AND, in so doing, I CAN NOT sue you for copyright infringement when you violate that contract. Nope. Can't do it. You had a license to my copyright!!
Instead, I have to sue you for violating the contract. BUT, I have to PROVE I had a contract with *YOU*. And I have to PROVE that certain REMEDIES were enumerated in the signed contract, AND that such REMEDIES were *LEGAL*.
Who here has ever had to sign a contract?? Probably most of you have had to go through the process.
Generally you have to initial several items, and/or you have to have an uninterested party play as a 'witness.' Not all contracts have the same requirements, naturally, many only require a signature. BUT, they ALL require AT LEAST a signature. Be that in ink, or electronically.
Oh.. electronically means I can just hit "I Agree" and I just signed the contract!?!?
NO!! There are legal requirements regarding electronic signatures!
One requirement is encryption!! YES IT IS **REQUIRED**. No encryption, no signature!
From the "SEAL", U.S. Law
Sec 3(g)
(g) ELECTRONIC AUTHENTICATION- The term `electronic authentication' means a cryptographic or other secure electronic technique that allows the user of the technique
(1) to authenticate the identity of or information associated with a sender of a document
(2) to determine that a document was not altered, changed, or modified during its transmission to a recipient, or
(3) to verify that a document received was sent by the identified party claiming to be the sender.
Not exactly the best example, but I'm lazy.
Sec 3(g)(1) is the biggest killer:
How does MacOS X identify you as being you?? You are not required to so much as enter your name, and THEN you are in no way required to prove you entered your OWN name, nor to prove you were legally permitted to sign such an agreement.
So the electronic signature is broken, by U.S. law at the very least.
THEN, where is the signature from an authorized party?? WHERE IS Apple's SIGNATURE???
Muwahahah!! NOT PRESENT NOT PRESENT!!
OOPS.. NULL AND VOID!
hmm.. so... no EULA == no license == purchase was CCM == YOU HAVE RIGHTS!
All this would be fixed if Apple were to place, clearly, on their MacOS X box: "MacOS X 10.5.2 License." And a nice little footnote stating that you must sign a contract BEFORE you can buy the software :-) You would need to have your license ready, or you would need a verifiable electronic method...
If you buy something that says "Apple MacOS X 10.5.2" You BOUGHT "Apple MacOS X 10.5.2." Being a copyrighted material, the law automatically distinguishes between a copy(CCM) and the copyright itself, so the product purchase is "CCM of Apple MacOS X 10.5.2, the storage medium, the container, and all contents therein, governed under all applicable laws."
When you buy a CCM, you can NOT be FORCED to change that into a RUL ( Restricted Usage License ). BUT, there is NO requirement from the authorizing party to make it easy for you to use their product if you don't do such a thing ( unless they say it is easy to use and install ;-) ).
Apple's method of selling at retail suggests a CCM sell is taking place, once you purchase this - all is well. Clicking "I Agree" isn't legally binding, not unless a credit card or something is used to assure you are who you say you are within all legal requirements.
So, as usual: Go Psystar!!
--The loon