Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
I used to buy prebuilt boxes (HP, Dell, Acer) with Win7, and I used them as they are, with Win7 OS. But if I am required to buy Win8 when I need another box I will instead buy parts and build a PC this way - something I haven't done for a long, long time.
Dell or HP would be happy to sell you a Win7 machine:
I was under the impression that binding arbitration requirements could apply only as part of a preexisting contractual relationship between the parties.
The use of a copyrighted work creates a contract. Ta-da.
Except that the countersuit would be based on the claim that there was no use of the copyrighted work, hence no contract, hence no requirement for binding arbitration.
Why is the government protecting a business model that is based on selling equipment at a loss?
Because they're not selling equipment at a loss. They're not even selling equipment - they're selling a bundle of equipment and a service contract. And the price of equipment + contract > the cost of equipment + service. And early termination fees protect their investment.
Consumers in ten states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma, Texas) won't be affected, since laws in those states forbid the practice
California law prohibits adding a surcharge for credit cards, but allows a discount for cash: California Civil Code Section 1748.1. So while consumers in California may not be affected by the change in national law, they're already subject to the possibility of a higher price when using a credit card - and unlike states that will now allow surcharging, California receipts do not break out the difference in price as a separate charge.
Got to love modern day freedom of the press!
Cnet is free from government abridgment in this affair; their corporate overlords are not subject to the first amendment's constitutional proscription.
According to Eric Brown, an IBM research assistant...
Eric Brown isn't a research assistant, he's a research scientist. More formally, he's a Research Staff Member, which is IBM's title for its research scientists. He hasn't been a research assistant since grad school.
I suppose the difference comes from why they wanted to print it and make such a big deal about it. All things considered it was another attempt to demonize a segment of the population they don't care for and would like to go away. It wasn't news. It was an attempt at intimidation.
So you'd like to have the government analyze a speaker's intention and then decide whether or not to suppress their speech? And if the government decides the speech is intended to demonize a segment of the population (or simply "wasn't news") - for example, criticizing the efficacy of a particular congressional majority or the policies of a sitting president - then you're comfortable with that speech being suppressed?
It also should not protect your ability to publish whether or not I legally purchased a gun, since that is very likely to result in me being unjustly harassed by anti-gun nuts like you.
Could you draw a line between which publicly available information (such as New York gun registrations) shall be reprintable and which you'd like the government to suppress?