| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
maybe she's jokingmaybe she's jokingPosted Aug 12, 2009 14:48 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544)In reply to: EFF on the RealDVD decision by AndreE Parent article: EFF on the RealDVD decision Maybe it's "irreparable" in that there's nothing to repair :-) Like if you insulted my cup of tea, the harm to my cup of tea would be irreparable.
(Log in to post comments)
maybe she's joking Posted Aug 12, 2009 15:10 UTC (Wed) by Zenith (subscriber, #24899) [Link]
Oh my, did I ever laugh out loud upon reading your comment! :D
maybe she's joking Posted Aug 12, 2009 16:25 UTC (Wed) by gps (subscriber, #45638) [Link]
bwhahaha! :)
Real would've been better off never signing a contract.
maybe she's joking Posted Aug 12, 2009 16:53 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
from the quote in the posting on /. it's not that they signed a contract, it's that they didn't return or destroy (and formally certify that they had done so) the CSS spec, so the judge assumes that they agreed to it's terms.
if true, this makes click-wrap licenses look tame by comparison.
maybe she's joking Posted Aug 12, 2009 16:58 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
I assume that to get access to the CSS spec you have to enter into a agreement prior to that.
I doubt that it's like the MPEG/DVD/whatever folks mailed the CSS spec to some poor sap at Real then proceeded to sue them on those grounds.
maybe she's joking Posted Aug 13, 2009 20:05 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] It's just like Moses. He didn't return or destroy the Ten Commandments, so he must have agreed to them.
|
|
||||||||||||