So, in 1984, that young exec was bragging to his former frat brothers about how he makes more money than God, spends it all on blow, and has a sweet new boobie-phone.
Anyone else find it ironic that this product can be ordered from a company based out of Mission, Kansas? #theeroticaphone
@Nathan Obbards: Hey, at least they didn't go the extra mile for realism and design it to make your ear bloody a few days each month, one way or another.
Y'know, by, like, inexplicably cranking up the volume on you? #theeroticaphone
The kid won his case. He did not win his case in front of a jury, he did not win his case in front of the court. Amazon settled, he won a settlement, which a judge approved. The settlement applies only to Amazon and its actions. It is a binding settlement only to Amazon. A settlement sets no precedent for any other company. You cannot go to court in Florida and say, "Hey! A kid in Seattle received a settlement on a case with similar facts, therefore I should win here in front of a judge." The judge would laugh at you.
Precedent comes in three types. Binding precedent - a court above you within the same jurisdictional framework made a decision (U.S. Sup. Ct U.S. Circuit Ct U.S. District Ct; U.S. Sup. Ct. State Sup. Ct. State Appellate Ct. State Superior Ct.; otherwise crossover is rare) and their decision is now law. A court on the same level as you - one district court to another - is "non-binding" persuasive precedent and is not binding on the other court, but can be viewed as persuasive that things should go that way. A settlement is not precedent and is rarely persuasive as to what the law should be on a particular set of facts. Try Wikipedia out: [en.wikipedia.org]
So, the phrase "the kid just won in court" really is not proper. The kid "reached a settlement agreement with Amazon.com". This makes a fairly big difference - that is, it is unlikely to directly affect what any other company does. Albeit, most other companies realize that what Amazon did (on accident or not) was utterly stupid.
Okay, enough of a legal lesson, enjoy the fact that a large lawfirm just made al ot of money, yay!
uh huh...so now Amazon will just modify their T's & C's so that by downloading a book you now explicitly agree to grant them the right to remove said work at their discretion, hereby adhering to the provision
"the user consents to such deletion or modification"
Ah, legalese. The language judges use when they want us to think we won.
Thanks goes to Justin Gawronski for going forward with his suit against a big corporation.
Also, a rightful one... which is a rarity these days when it comes to big companies.
And may his example be followed.
Few things are more infuriating than loosing hours of work because some company just decided it's their right to go erasing other people's stuff without permission.
And they say kids don't do anything useful. Thankfully we have law firms that would take a case pro bono if only to make ads that said that they beat Amazon.com
(c) is still the problem. There is no way that protections from confiscation will be equivalent to those accorded to private property when all it takes is Amazon pressing a button. There's a big difference between a judge telling the police to break in your door and take your stuff, and a judge telling Amazon to press delete. And maybe someone who knows more law can say: can a "regulatory order" generally lead to the confiscation of physical property in your house? How easily?
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
[gizmodo.com] #theeroticaphone
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
Anyone else find it ironic that this product can be ordered from a company based out of Mission, Kansas? #theeroticaphone
11/16/09
I'm surprised that it only plugs into the wall and doesn't let you plug-in. #theeroticaphone
11/16/09
Y'know, by, like, inexplicably cranking up the volume on you? #theeroticaphone
10/30/09
10/02/09
Can we use this picture from now on? I keep seeing a color Kindle and it freaks my mind for a second.
10/02/09
The kid won his case. He did not win his case in front of a jury, he did not win his case in front of the court. Amazon settled, he won a settlement, which a judge approved. The settlement applies only to Amazon and its actions. It is a binding settlement only to Amazon. A settlement sets no precedent for any other company. You cannot go to court in Florida and say, "Hey! A kid in Seattle received a settlement on a case with similar facts, therefore I should win here in front of a judge." The judge would laugh at you.
Precedent comes in three types. Binding precedent - a court above you within the same jurisdictional framework made a decision (U.S. Sup. Ct U.S. Circuit Ct U.S. District Ct; U.S. Sup. Ct. State Sup. Ct. State Appellate Ct. State Superior Ct.; otherwise crossover is rare) and their decision is now law. A court on the same level as you - one district court to another - is "non-binding" persuasive precedent and is not binding on the other court, but can be viewed as persuasive that things should go that way. A settlement is not precedent and is rarely persuasive as to what the law should be on a particular set of facts. Try Wikipedia out: [en.wikipedia.org]
So, the phrase "the kid just won in court" really is not proper. The kid "reached a settlement agreement with Amazon.com". This makes a fairly big difference - that is, it is unlikely to directly affect what any other company does. Albeit, most other companies realize that what Amazon did (on accident or not) was utterly stupid.
Okay, enough of a legal lesson, enjoy the fact that a large lawfirm just made al ot of money, yay!
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/01/09
"the user consents to such deletion or modification"
Ah, legalese. The language judges use when they want us to think we won.
10/01/09
Also, a rightful one... which is a rarity these days when it comes to big companies.
And may his example be followed.
Few things are more infuriating than loosing hours of work because some company just decided it's their right to go erasing other people's stuff without permission.
Even though 1984 is worth a second read. :P
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09