Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

blog.agiletortoise.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 111 posts

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#21

Post by kbutler »

alextgordon wrote: post #5
torme wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not being combative, just genuinely curious, but how is this not legal? If it's part of their ToS it seems like it would be enforcable.

You can put "Users may not breathe while using this website" in your ToS but that doesn't make it enforceable. A ToS has to have some basis in law.

> You can put "Users may not breathe while using this website" in your ToS but that doesn't make it enforceable. A ToS has to have some basis in law.

You seem to be confusing copyright law with contract law. ToS are generally considered part of contract law, under which anything that is not illegal can be part of the contract, and the parties agreeing to the contract would be obligated to comply.

There are exceptions to enforceability (like contracts of adhesion and unconscionable terms, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract) that may limit enforceability of a contract or terms of use, but "basis in law" is not necessarily required.

In contrast, copyrights (and patents, and trademarks) involve certain rights granted by law and explicit and unstated limitations to those rights. Owners of copyrights/patents/trademarks may make assertions that go beyond their rights and are thus not enforceable as they have no basis in law.

In the Wolfram|Alpha case, then, the questions involve (a) does linking to a site constitute acceptance of the terms of use? (b) does using the site constitute acceptance of the ToU? (c) are the terms actually an enforceable contract (not illusory/unconscionable).

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#24

Post by raganwald »

kragen wrote: post #20
raganwald wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I read this, he's not making links to their web pages. He's deep linking to their content and displaying it within what appears to be a custom browser. While there is plenty of debate about the propriety of deep linking and whether sites have the right to bar deep linking, displaying content within a custom browser is analogous to 'framing' content without permission, and framing content a no-no. Creating deep lin…

I'm dubious about this idea that web site owners have the right to dictate which web browsers their users are permitted to use to access their site, but it's certainly more colorable than a complaint about launching Mobile Safari with their page. It could be passing off, if nothing else.

I know, it's hard to draw a nice objective line in the sand. A general-purpose browser with a new UI, for example, ought to be allowed without requiring permission from anyone.

On the other hand, what if I write an iOS app just for getting answers from Wolfram|Alpha that displays the content using Webkit? I could certainly understand Wolfram arguing this kind of thing requires permission.

I'm curious about DuckDuckGo's use of Wolfram|Alpha content. There's an example of framing content and deep linking together. I assume they have permission or an army of lawyers?

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#26

Post by epi0Bauqu »

raganwald wrote: post #24
kragen wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm dubious about this idea that web site owners have the right to dictate which web browsers their users are permitted to use to access their site, but it's certainly more colorable than a complaint about launching Mobile Safari with their page. It could be passing off, if nothing else.

I know, it's hard to draw a nice objective line in the sand. A general-purpose browser with a new UI, for example, ought to be allowed without requiring permission from anyone. On the other hand, what if I write an iOS app just for getting answers from Wolfram|Alpha that displays the content using Webkit? I could certainly understand Wolfram arguing this kind of thing requires permission. I'm curious about DuckDuckGo…

We have permission. They seem very reasonable once you get in touch with them.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#27

Post by agiletortoise »

kenjackson wrote: post #16
mcherm wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a serious legal question about whether or not a ToS for a website is enforceable. Probably, if ANY ToS is enforceable then this one is. But it's an open question. The argument against enforceability goes something like this: TOS enforcement stems from contract law. A principle of contract law says that a contract is binding on both parties if they agreed to it, but there must be SOME benefit to each party. A…

but in this case agiletortoise didn't gain any benefit from the website -- he simply wrote a program that directed the user's browser to go there. I don't get that. Doesn't agiletortoise get benefit when their users get benefit?

Yes, I got a benefit. There were users that like the Wolfram links and will be sorry they are gone.

As I said in my post, I'm fine with it. I think Wolfram's Terms are OK. I think it's a bit tenuous only in that if they were really serious about it, they could enforce that requirement in their code. They are not doing that, because it's to their benefit to allow some linking -- they are just reserving the right to selective enforce those terms, which seems a bit sleazy to me.

- agiletortoise

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#28

Post by dpcan »

You break the rules, you pay the consequences. Ignorance is NOT an excuse.

He's "in his situation" (edit) with Wolfram because he didn't do his due-diligence and contact them first before linking to them in his app.

EDIT: He seems to understand this, and admits that he "goofed", yes.

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#29

Post by [deleted] »

epi0Bauqu wrote: post #26
raganwald wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know, it's hard to draw a nice objective line in the sand. A general-purpose browser with a new UI, for example, ought to be allowed without requiring permission from anyone. On the other hand, what if I write an iOS app just for getting answers from Wolfram|Alpha that displays the content using Webkit? I could certainly understand Wolfram arguing this kind of thing requires permission. I'm curious about DuckDuckGo…

We have permission. They seem very reasonable once you get in touch with them.

[deleted]

Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"

#30

Post by agiletortoise »

epi0Bauqu wrote: post #26
raganwald wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know, it's hard to draw a nice objective line in the sand. A general-purpose browser with a new UI, for example, ought to be allowed without requiring permission from anyone. On the other hand, what if I write an iOS app just for getting answers from Wolfram|Alpha that displays the content using Webkit? I could certainly understand Wolfram arguing this kind of thing requires permission. I'm curious about DuckDuckGo…

We have permission. They seem very reasonable once you get in touch with them.

I expect they are. In retrospect, I should have asked first.

It something like going to a dinner party and having the host throw you out for placing your fork to the left of the plate, because they put them on the right at their house. Runs contrary to expectations.

--agiletortoise

Post reply on HN