elpookie’s Comments

• Nov 30th, 2012 @ 9:08am

  PeopleBrowser

  on PeopleBrowsr Gets Temporary Restraining Order Against Twitter For 'Felony Interference With A Business Model'
  For PeopleBrowser this is going to be an expensive lesson on the cost of failing to plan ahead. Reliance on supply on the basis of generalized statements re: future conduct on part of a supplier is a really bad strategy. That being said, other options are available to PB but I do not see the necessary basis in the current paperwork. Looks like Twitter just added to its retail analytics business. Thanks PB
• Nov 19th, 2009 @ 11:00pm

  industry intent

  on The Lobbyists' Ability To Control The Message
  Excellent idea. And you are quite right about the use of the "intent" language to interpret legislation. While not controlling overall it is deemed at least "persuasive" evidence of the intent of congress in passing a particular piece of legislation and it is given a degree of deference that perhaps it does not merit if the true source were known. Or course, I am somewhat biased against some politicians (affiliation does not matter). I would not dare insult cockroaches by comparing them to politicians.
• Oct 21st, 2009 @ 4:28am

  garth brooks

  on Garth Brooks Complains That The Gov't Ignores Musicians
  Who is Garth Brooks?? Yes, my rock is quite comfy, thank you.
• Oct 21st, 2009 @ 4:19am

  Contract restriction and expected consumer use

  on If Your Business Model Requires An Overly Restrictive Contracts... You Have No Real Business Model
  Have to agree with the basic premise: overly restrictive conditions on the use of a product will either result in its non use or use in "violation " of the terms of the agreement. The problem arises not only from what is construed to be restrictive covenants on the use of the product but on the fact that attempting to read and comprehend the terms of most of the boilerplate defies most any English speaker's intelligence (or at least this one--but then, I do have my own problems in that regard). The evolution of the Terms and Conditions in most Use agreements is by what I call Frankendrafting, that is, the compilation (mashing?) of various prior Terms of Use terminology and language into one basically incomprihensible document--except when it comes to restrictions beneficial to the seller (sorry, licensor); restrictions of which there are many. Compare the "Terms of Use" agreements in most web sites with the Terms of Use in most product use agreements and you will see what I mean. My question is from J Lewis: "Why dont you say what you mean or mean what you say?" (sorry if I am misquoting.) If possible, and I mean it without laughing too much, a law should be drafted which requires the use of plain English terms and conditions on the use of the product. And yes, I recognize the inherent problems in such a proposal. But you have to start somewhere.
• Oct 21st, 2009 @ 3:52am

  NSL

  on Judge Keeps Gag Order In Place On ISP Boss Over Feds Demand For Info On Customer
  Check and balances. Our government is based on this basic principle. Extraordinary measures, such as the suspension of Habeaus Corpus, are generally reserved for times of war. Unfortunately ever since VietNam our spinless congress has allowed this country to participate in wars which are really not "wars." To declare war requires an Act of Congress. As long as Congress does not do so, the Executive Power gets out of balance and the use and abuse of it goes unchecked. NSL's are but a manifestation of the problem and it results in a Star Chamber form of justice which the Framers (Constitution) were attempting to address. "Power corrups, absolute Power corrupts absolutly".
• Oct 9th, 2009 @ 2:38pm

  craigslist

  on Craigslist's Dumb Lawsuit Against Spam Tools Provider
  Interesting position to take: If a provider is taking specific steps to block spam by a specific company (assume id can be esblished) and that specific company continues to issue modifications to its software spcifically to get around the block, what is the effect of the DMCA. Like I always tell my clients, you can sue for whatever you want, proving it, on the other hand, is the hard part. Going to have to read this suit. Interesting observations by some of the comments here.