Gizmodo 
.jpg)
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Chris Jacob
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
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
10/01/09
10/01/09
The damage isn't just compensation, it's also supposed to deter future infractions. This seems reasonable.
10/02/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
Edit: Wow. Remarkably nice job injecting even more moronic drivel. It's not just the unbelievable density of misconceptions, factual inaccuracies, and argumentative fallacies you've managed to fill your words with, but the masterful skill with which you've woven it all together. It's like an adamantine spider's web of stupidity.
10/01/09
Look if you have disdain for an individual and his administration, provide facts and references to support your weak-minded claims.
It is easy to shout out fallacies; while remaining mentally stunted in order to think you are doing what is considered en vogue amongst your fellow ignorant peers and media select. Likewise it takes the greater INDIVIDUAL to take stock in ones own comments,beliefs and morals; while determining that what he is about to say is based on facts, obtained through due diligence and verified to be true. Otherwise you come off as one of the millions of uneducated "herd", who we the educated and INDEPENDENTLY thinking call a: "dumb ass", "ignoramus", "numb nuts", "mental midget", "intellectually brief", etc...
Your post not only does nothing to further the conversation, it detracts from the article, and is unproductive. Do us all a favor and put a self-imposed moratorium on all of your ignorance and stupidity. Society will thank you for it.
Love
Cordfucious
10/01/09
They may be able to dictate what documents work on it and how long those documents last, but (as far as I know) they have no legal right to mess with personal data on the device.
10/01/09
very well said. i couldn't think of a better way to get that across. +1 to you good sir.
10/01/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
So if I break in and steal your computer you're telling me you won't call the cops because it isn't the government's place to punish those who take what you've bought?
Interesttting....
10/02/09
10/05/09
Thank you for contributing!
10/05/09
The only thing is that consumers will rebel (which I would) and eventually stop purchasing the device or using Apple's service.
This is how a free market works, but it's not free anymore when the government mandates what companies can do.
10/05/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
Apple has never once hit a kill switch on apps that people have already purchased. All those stories you've heard about Apple axing apps is them just removing it from the store, much like retailers can pull things off the shelves.
There is no precedent applicable to Apple here. The action Amazon took and the circumstances that led Amazon to do it is completely different.
09/30/09
10/03/09
And fuck Max Hodges for his annoying overuse of that stupid sound.
09/30/09
09/30/09
[www.techcrunch.com]
09/30/09
@Reyn Yonashiro: Good find.
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09