11–20 of 46 posts
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/03/20/supreme-court-...
But maybe someone with a better understanding of the law could help clarify the connection - if any?
"Whether or not users will continue to be allowed to sell invites is unclear though, as Google Wave's terms say that users are prohibited from "Sell, trade, resell or otherwise exploit the Service for any unauthorized commercial purpose," though a number of Google Voice invites can also be found on the auction service."
If you buy a thing, do they have the right to do this? Is there a difference between "purchasing a physical item" and "entering a contract where someone supplies you a physical item on specific terms"? Surely there are consumer rights that protect us from this insane greedy abhorrent shit? What fucking right do companies have over your property? Surely even free-market capitalists should be recoiling in horror over t…
If it doesn't hold up, it has no legal force. Though they can still close your account and make you take them to court over the software side of things.
If you buy a thing, do they have the right to do this? Is there a difference between "purchasing a physical item" and "entering a contract where someone supplies you a physical item on specific terms"? Surely there are consumer rights that protect us from this insane greedy abhorrent shit? What fucking right do companies have over your property? Surely even free-market capitalists should be recoiling in horror over t…
Consumer rights also include not buying this POS and making a huge deal about it. If Google really wants to transform this industry, then they can buck up and not try to strong arm people into how they can use something they pay a lot of money for. Also, if this is tied to your email address, people will simply create a dummy email, with fake information. Then when the time comes, they can just transfer the account a…
Also, the terms specify that Google is allowed to deactivate the device if they find you've given it to someone else.
If you read the terms @ http://www.google.com/glass/terms/ Specifically the 'Device Specific Addendum' at the bottom you can see that this restriction only applies to the Explorer Edition. I believe this article may be intentionally omitting this detail to create drama.
If you read the terms, in the non-Device Specific Addendum: > You may not commercially resell any Device, but you may give the Device as a gift, unless otherwise set forth in the Device Specific Addendum. So, nope.
Sounds like you can still give / gift / sell / otherwise transfer a glass unit to another individual privately. This all sounds completely normal.
I wonder about the relevance of the recent Supreme Court decision that stopped publishers from trying to limit the resale of imported textbooks: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/03/20/supreme-court-... But maybe someone with a better understanding of the law could help clarify the connection - if any?
If you buy a thing, do they have the right to do this? Is there a difference between "purchasing a physical item" and "entering a contract where someone supplies you a physical item on specific terms"? Surely there are consumer rights that protect us from this insane greedy abhorrent shit? What fucking right do companies have over your property? Surely even free-market capitalists should be recoiling in horror over t…
This is a limited run that is meant to be tested by a small number of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consumer rights also include not buying this POS and making a huge deal about it. If Google really wants to transform this industry, then they can buck up and not try to strong arm people into how they can use something they pay a lot of money for. Also, if this is tied to your email address, people will simply create a dummy email, with fake information. Then when the time comes, they can just transfer the account a…
A fake identity is less likely to have passed Google's selection process, and may be be difficult to verify when they go to pick up the device in person. Also, the terms specify that Google is allowed to deactivate the device if they find you've given it to someone else.
If you buy a thing, do they have the right to do this? Is there a difference between "purchasing a physical item" and "entering a contract where someone supplies you a physical item on specific terms"? Surely there are consumer rights that protect us from this insane greedy abhorrent shit? What fucking right do companies have over your property? Surely even free-market capitalists should be recoiling in horror over t…
This is not the retail version. This is a limited run that is meant to be tested by a small number of people.
I wouldn't pay $1,500 for the test hardware with this provision, but I'm going to withhold my hypothetical anger until Google does this with the consumer version.
If you read the terms @ http://www.google.com/glass/terms/ Specifically the 'Device Specific Addendum' at the bottom you can see that this restriction only applies to the Explorer Edition. I believe this article may be intentionally omitting this detail to create drama.