291–300 of 366 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you can copyright the most efficient implementations.
You can only copyright the text of the source code, as if it was literature. Write your own source code to implement the same algorithm using the same efficient techniques, and you're fine (as long as it isn't patented.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A license is different from a contract because there is a separate body of law for licenses and another for contracts, with different requirements. A contract can involve a license, and a license can involve a contract, explicitly. But they are different things. You need a lawyer to explain precisely how they are different, and how they interact. (Many judges and many lawyers are not very clear on license law.) But o…
Licenses are a type of contract, (like a square is a type of quadrilateral). Contract law applies to all licenses, but IP licensing law does not apply to all contracts.
("Contracts" and "deeds" are different – contracts require consideration, deeds don't – a deed can be completely one-sided; deeds have far stricter formality requirements than contracts.)
There may also be cases of licenses which are neither contracts nor deeds – such as the concept of a "license by estoppel".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.ycombinator.com/legal#tou
Back in the good old days... http://web.archive.org/web/20141020194316/https://www.ycombi... Terms of Use When you click on a link, our server will send you the corresponding page.
Update from Disney: > The above legal language applies ONLY to replies to this tweet using #MayThe4th and mentioning @DisneyPlus . These replies may appear in something special on May the 4th! https://twitter.com/disneyplus/status/1254849654585323525 ... as if that's really any better.
Wow. From their terms of use: "Disney DTC LLC and/or its affiliates and subsidiaries (collectively, “Disney” “we” or “us”) are pleased to provide to you certain websites, software, applications, content, products, and services (“Disney Products” and “Products”), which may be branded Disney, ABC, ESPN, Marvel, Pixar, Lucasfilm, FX, Fox Searchlight, 20th Century Fox, National Geographic, or another brand owned or licen…
So Disney is claiming that if I reply to their tweet and use the hashtag, and if my reply contains content that is ok according to Twitter's terms of use, but not ok according to Disney's terms of use, I am magically violating Disney's terms of use. Despite me not using an actual Disney service, despite them having zero control over my tweets, and despite me not accepting their terms of use in the first place.
Hell no.
I'm not saying you all should reply to that tweet with your best Chewbacca furry porn. But you totally should.
At a rummage sale a few years ago, I bought a book published by Disney in the 1960s or 1970s which had instructions on how to make Mickey Mouse puppets. It also said to "have fun" making them. Selling things for a profit is a lot of fun. As far as I'm concerned, I now have a perpetual, transferable license to make and sell Mickey Mouse puppets. I even asked a lawyer.
Well-developed (highly-litigated) areas of law don't work this way. A phrase in children's book is unlikely to be considered sufficient evidence that Disney has conveyed an unlimited license to sell Mickey puppets. At best, the language might protect an unsophisticated infringer from having to pay statutory damages or Disney's legal fees. For example, if a naive person (non-lawyer, non-business person) sold a few of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did Twitter put them back to their place or they don't want to lose the ad revenue and let the muggles fight them off?
Nothing's going to come from this, and Twitter doesn't need to care, because the conflict is about Disney using other people's tweets in their own marketing material. Twitter's rights aren't being infringed if Disney does that, because Twitter doesn't own people's tweets. The only way to challenge this is for you to tweet something to Disney that they then use in their marketing material. That allows you to send them…
This is what unfettered and auto-extending copyright enables.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In that scenario you actually have the legal obligation to return the letter to the post office. The law as written makes it a crime to throw it away or otherwise obstruct delivery. Being asked merely to delete it is a much lower obligation. https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-is-the-federal-law...
I don’t think that applies in the given scenario. GP said that the letter is addressed to you, but the content is intended for someone else. You can’t obstruct delivery because it’s been delivered to the right place (the address on the envelope). If obstruction of delivery applied in this case then we would end up with the ludicrous scenario where I could deliberately address letters to you, that are intended for my…
I imagine if you tried to abuse this and then sue your case would be laughed out of court. It would also be awfully expensive; compare the cost of postage to send all those letters with the cost of a rubber stamp to have them returned.
Talk about regressive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that tweets aren't sent to Disney. They're sent to all Twitter users.
> The above legal language applies ONLY to replies to this tweet using #MayThe4th and mentioning @DisneyPlus Couldn't replying to their tweet be considered sending it to Disney?
> Couldn't replying to their tweet be considered sending it to Disney?
Is replying to a column in an opinion piece sending it to the author or the newspaper?
At a rummage sale a few years ago, I bought a book published by Disney in the 1960s or 1970s which had instructions on how to make Mickey Mouse puppets. It also said to "have fun" making them. Selling things for a profit is a lot of fun. As far as I'm concerned, I now have a perpetual, transferable license to make and sell Mickey Mouse puppets. I even asked a lawyer.
This reminds me of a book called "numerical recipes in C", full of algorithms that were very useful except you couldn't really use them because the authors protected their use with a very restrictive license.