Unless I'm missing something, this ruling is just plain weird. Does contract law work differently in Italy?

This is not a long term contract. If Netflix was offering a price for, say, a two year commitment, then I get the objection to arbitrarily changing the terms. But to my knowledge, they are month to month, meaning the contract is for the month, and by agreement a new contract is created each month

Going back to those previous contracts seems like nonsense.

"Simple, honest, direct language." - George Carlin

Sigh... the good old days. I ran Word 2.0 on WFW 3 with 16MB of memory. That was extravagant - they recommended 2MB.

And it did 95% of what I've ever done with a word processor.

They won't. Some misguided twits seem to think it's a kind of badge of honour to remain backwards. It stopped being an omission and started being a decision long ago.

It's too convenient to just write off Jobs. The truth is somewhere in the middle, as it always is. The idea that plenty of others could have done what he did is just too dismissive. When he died the company was worth a third of a trillion dollars. Not just any sociopath can pull that off.

For their money, large companies want the proverbial throat to choke - even when they've never successfully choked the throats they've paid for. The footprint of open source in these companies often grew through bottom up implementation. The moment that somebody has to pay an ongoing support contract, it will become a financial and strategic decision. That means vendor management, tech and vendor downselection, risk analysis... the best-effort maintainer isn't going to fly.

If I were a betting man, I think the result would be a decline in usage - and that might be fine. If the model isn't working, that definitely needs addressing. But the companies most able to afford licensing are probably the ones least likely to pay for it.

I'm too uneducated. If 92 antiprotons end up annihilating themselves in collisions with matter, how much energy is released? Is it "did you hear that?" or, "I found the driver's femur!"

And would Uber apply a surcharge?

Americans are predisposed to use energy wastefully. They aren't alone, of course, but when national symbols include huge homes and big trucks, and their president hates windmills, non-incandescent bulbs, and low flow toilets and showers, their collective behaviour won't change until a plea to conserve comes with financial pain and an honest-to-goodness shortage.

Watch how a populace fields a request to not water lawns in a drought region to see how they move.

One of the primary ways that the population can try to find fairness, redress, and compensation for wrongs incurred is through the justice system. By putting a blanket stop to that, they are doing an end run into what is really the only tangible power the people have.

No matter how you feel about the rest of this complicated matter, wiping away legal accountability en masse is a terrible precedent.

Well, yeah. That's what it says on the tin. :)

But there's a suggestion that some people did have safety incidents, we just won't mention them. I wonder how many, and of what nature. Were their errors understandable, and have steps been taken to correct the possible misuse, or at least the documentation?

"...no safety incidents have been reported for customers who used the panels as instructed..."

When I read a phrase containing a built in caveat, I always wonder what's tucked inside it.

I don't think that's a sound assumption. Big companies often outpace their contract pipeline. Some so it by design. Having staff "on the bench" is anticipation of work to come.

Atlassian derives the bulk of their income through subscriptions, not contracted projects. That's my assumption, but I think it's defensible.

I think if your point were true for them they would, as you suggest, keep consuming that project queue. Nobody company doesn't want revenue. But since they're looking at the other side of the ledger, I suspect they're not oversubscribed.

Of course if somebody wants to chime in and say "I tried to give atlassian money to get work done quickly and they weren't interested" I'm open to being proven wrong. :)

That only works if your company has access to "more work". If your contracts are being fully serviced, and your bottleneck is demand, "paid work" isn't on the table. Just "make work". And that is not efficient.

Finishing projects early only makes you more profitable if your project queue is oversubscribed.

For some reason I'm struggling to identify the stand you are taking. Are you washing over the arbitrary or insupportable detainments by saying that sometimes they get it right? Or that game devs from other countries might be smuggling drugs or supporting terrorism? What, exactly, do you mean?

If it's that these border guard behaviors are fine with you, then say that. Not judging... just looking for clarity.

If you paid the tariffs as a line item on the invoice, you could probably pursue it. If you just paid a list price without breakdown, it seems unlikely. But IANAL.