Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I'd certainl yhope so... (Score 1) 63 63

I suspect the legal theory goes like this:

By calling our fine, outstanding product "shitware," you have defamed us.

Or, possibly, "You encourage others to engage is practices that harm our business, which somehow constitutes some kind of fraud or conspiracy or something."

Mind you, I agree these people should be publicly whipped for being assholes, but it isn't at all difficult to come up with an internally consistent legal theory to support their claim.

Fortunately, the court saw fit to spank them for being retards.

Comment: Re:Is Haselton going to jail? (Score 1) 187 187

The thing is, you can't find a brute force attack without testing it. And this one is so basic that it's mind boggling that even a clueless web designer let it slip though. This is one that can't be reasonably reported without testing it.

Mind you, I'm as in favor ore Bennett Hassleton being sodomized by a mutant goat on Viagra as anybody, but United's position is, frankly, kinda silly.

Comment: Re:What? (Score 5, Informative) 289 289

I am not, in fact, a lawyer, but I do know how to use Google (unlike so many here). For instance, I can, without any adult help, open up my web browser, and type in and go to a convenient search engine. In the search box for that search engine, I can type in "eula struck down as unconscionable" and click on the button labeled "Search." And get results such as

this, which talks about Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc., in which Linden's TOS (specifically, the arbitration clause) is struck down as unconscionable not once, not twice, but at least three or four different times and ways ("procedural unconscionability" and "substantive unconscionability" in two different ways, and then again on the latter after Linden amended it).

Wired also covers Gatton v. T-Mobile, again on an arbitration clause, and ruled unconscionable both procedurally and substantively. Also unconscionable for prohibiting class action lawsuits, because "that form of litigation is often the only means of stopping and punishing corporate wrongdoing." It also discusses Douglas v. U.S. District Court, which is about changing the terms of a contact after it has been signed, and which was ruled unconscionable. Gatton is often cited as recognizing that all click-wrap license have an element of unconscionability that must be considered by the court.

This has a link to this", which is a ruling on McKee v. AT&T, ruing their arbitration clause unconscionable.

Note that these are the first three results on the search, and the fourth is on McKee v. AT&T again.

Also note that these are all different courts, state and federal, all over the country.

Unconscionability is an affirmative defense - the defendant has to demonstrate why the contract is unconscionable, but it does, in fact, happen, and more importantly, it took me, literally, less than ten seconds to find example (and five of that was waiting for the browser to open.)

To quote the third link, you may now feed my cats for a week.

Comment: Re:What? (Score 4, Insightful) 289 289

Second semester law school: unconscionable contracts are unenforceable.

Aside from any contractual obligations between Samsung and Microsoft that would affect this, and you can bet there are some.

The lesson here, boys and girls, don't get legal advice from first semester law students. Consult a real lawyer.

Comment: Re:Facebook ignorance. (Score 1) 290 290

Well it's only like a town square IN THAT people are personally accountable for their posts. If people can use pseudonyms without any restrictions at all, this will be lost and there will be a flood of venomous noise.

How is that different from the current flood of venomous noise on Facebook? That they keep having to update their policies shows they recognize the problem, and want to stop catching hell over it (as opposed to stopping it, which is impossible and can only suppress legitimate speech in the attempt).

Comment: Re:Do not... (Score 4, Insightful) 290 290

It is not a binary equation. There are other categories in between. And there are a lot of examples of restrictions within that spectrum. And Facebook is probably violating some of them, if the allegations are true. It has, for instance, been illegal for 50+ years to discriminate on the basis of religion, race, etc. If your name doesn't sound "authentic" because you are from, say, an African tribe (I mean, really, if Johnathon Goodluck weren't the president of a country, how many Americans would believe that was a real name? Thus, making him, but not people with names like John Smith or Joe Jones, provide documents that can easily be used for identity theft, because he is from Africa and doesn't have a white sounding name, has been illegal for half a century.

There's also the matter of whether or not Facebook (realizes) they are responsible for any misuse those identity documents are put to. It's only a matter of time before some disgruntled insider sells the whole database to some Russian mafia type.

Comment: Re:Why? (Score 4, Insightful) 301 301

As long as your streaming service is working. And your internet service. And any number of other steps in between. And the streaming service doesn't get in to a dispute with a studio, and drop (or be forced to drop) their entire product line. And as long as they don't change the price from ten bucks a month to 20, or 50, or 500. Or you lose your job and can't even afford ten.

I'll stop listening to music before I pay for something as insubstantial as radio (and that's what streaming is. And don't think for a second you won't have ads within a few years, even on premium accounts.)

Comment: Re:Poor guy never answered the complaint (Score 1) 389 389

I've never understood that whole "you lose if you don't show". This isn't about who ate the last cupcake, it's a point of law.
If there's an established law, then shouldn't the accusation be moot?

How else could it possibly be? If the judge (or jury) hears only one side, how can they possibly consider the other side? Your position is literally irrational and disconnected from reality.

Comment: Re:Insurance companies suffer? (Score 1) 389 389

As I said, it's already illegal to drive without insurance. So what you want is already the law.

And if you believe that getting your car paid for in an accident and the other driver having insurance are the same thing, you should be institutionalized for your own safety.

They are called computers simply because computation is the only significant job that has so far been given to them.