= On Jan 16, 2007, at 11:31 AM, MB Software Solutions wrote:
=
= Whenever someone with deep pockets decides to do so.
= Until then, the
= Golden Rule applies.
=
= But when they (M$) are the deepest pockets for miles
= around, that time
= will never seem to come?
=
= Hence the
On Jan 17, 2007, at 11:14 AM, Hal Kaplan wrote:
M$ has to start by alleging a breach of contract. So the question
then becomes what provision is so onerous that a licensee has no
choice but to violate it?
No, that's not the case at all. Copyright gives you certain rights
to
Take a look at OJ Simpson and Robert Blake. Both
guilty as sin with good lawyers. Phil Spector looks
like he'll get off with murder too. I wonder if you
can convict a celebrity anymore.
--- MB Software Solutions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ed Leafe wrote:
snipped
since justice has very
=
= On Jan 17, 2007, at 11:14 AM, Hal Kaplan wrote:
=
= M$ has to start by alleging a breach of contract. So the question
= then becomes what provision is so onerous that a licensee has no
= choice but to violate it?
=
= No, that's not the case at all. Copyright gives you
= certain
=
= Take a look at OJ Simpson and Robert Blake. Both guilty as
= sin with good lawyers. Phil Spector looks like he'll get
= off with murder too. I wonder if you can convict a
= celebrity anymore.
=
Lil Kim (spelling?) served her year-and-a-day in jail on a perjury conviction
(felony)
Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were guilty.
--- Hal Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=
= Take a look at OJ Simpson and Robert Blake.
Both guilty as
= sin with good lawyers. Phil Spector looks like
he'll get
= off with murder too. I wonder if you can convict
a
= celebrity anymore.
=
On Jan 17, 2007, at 12:26 PM, Hal Kaplan wrote:
Poppycock, Ed! M$ makes a product. You want to use it and you buy
it SUBJECT TO THE TERMS of the license agreement. You don't like
the agreement? Don't buy the product or negotiate a different
agreement.
Sorry, but copyright
= On Jan 17, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Hal Kaplan wrote:
=
= Fine, Ed. Copyright law does not work that way but I am
= not referring
= to copyright law. I am referring to licensing. You can
= copyright
= your relationship with a person by marriage,
=
= No, you can't.
=
= but your
Hal Kaplan wrote:
snipped The bottom line? She loves to go to Dunkin Donuts for joe and I
like 7-11.
How well does she know Joe ?? gdr(He meant 'coffee' for you
non-US folks who might not know what he really meant. g)
--
Michael J. Babcock, MCP
MB Software Solutions, LLC
On Jan 17, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Hal Kaplan wrote:
OK Ed. A couple of posts back you wrote IONAL. I thought that
meant I am not a lawyer. I guess I was wrong about that
particular meaning and that it was not an acronym after all.
Oh. Cute.
No, IANAL does indeed mean that I
Hal Kaplan wrote:
=
= Take a look at OJ Simpson and Robert Blake. Both guilty as
= sin with good lawyers. Phil Spector looks like he'll get
= off with murder too. I wonder if you can convict a
= celebrity anymore.
=
Lil Kim (spelling?) served her year-and-a-day in jail on a
putting everyone and everything down
The mark of a loser.
On 1/17/07, Hal Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't be a sore loser and a whiner, Mike ... work to make the system
better instead of putting everyone and everything down. You will have a lot
more credibility.
--- StripMime Report
Gee, I hope everything came out all right in the end.
(Bad Chet)... :-)
Ed Leafe wrote:
On Jan 17, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Hal Kaplan wrote:
OK Ed. A couple of posts back you wrote IONAL. I thought that
meant I am not a lawyer. I guess I was wrong about that
particular meaning and
=
= On Jan 17, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Hal Kaplan wrote:
=
= OK Ed. A couple of posts back you wrote IONAL. I thought that
= meant I am not a lawyer. I guess I was wrong about that
= particular
= meaning and that it was not an acronym after all.
=
= Oh. Cute.
=
= No, IANAL does
Ed Foster's Gripelog || Reader Voices: Invalid Terms
At what point is it clear that a nasty license provision goes so far
across the line that it must be deemed invalid? That seems to be an
increasingly hot topic, due in large part to recent discussions here
and elsewhere about various terms in
Ted Roche wrote:
Ed Foster's Gripelog || Reader Voices: Invalid Terms
At what point is it clear that a nasty license provision goes so far
across the line that it must be deemed invalid? That seems to be an
increasingly hot topic, due in large part to recent discussions here
and elsewhere
On Jan 16, 2007, at 11:08 AM, MB Software Solutions wrote:
When do you think we'll see a challenge in court to this kind of crap?
Whenever someone with deep pockets decides to do so. Until then, the
Golden Rule applies.
-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com
Ed Leafe wrote:
Whenever someone with deep pockets decides to do so. Until then, the
Golden Rule applies.
But when they (M$) are the deepest pockets for miles around, that time
will never seem to come?
--
Michael J. Babcock, MCP
MB Software Solutions, LLC
Of MB Software Solutions
Sent: 16 January 2007 16:32
To: profox@leafe.com
Subject: Re: [NF] Invalid Terms
Ed Leafe wrote:
Whenever someone with deep pockets decides to do so. Until then, the
Golden Rule applies.
But when they (M$) are the deepest pockets for miles around, that time
Dave Crozier wrote:
Michael,
Mass revolt is what is needed. Power to the people and all that.
But, Profox Martyr's doesn't have the same ring to it as the Tolpuddle
Martyr's does it BG. Back to the drawing board.
Tolpuddle ??? Ah, I see it's a British thing:
On Jan 16, 2007, at 11:31 AM, MB Software Solutions wrote:
Whenever someone with deep pockets decides to do so. Until then, the
Golden Rule applies.
But when they (M$) are the deepest pockets for miles around, that time
will never seem to come?
Hence the desire by many to get
21 matches
Mail list logo
