[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: I Agree buttons, GAKzilla & liability.

On Fri, 1 Dec 1995 [email protected] wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Brian Davis wrote:
> > Well that would depend on the terms of the agreement to hold the escrowed 
> > keys, wouldn't it?   And presumably the GAK keyholder will have lawyers 
> > write the agreement so that it says, in essence, "we will try really 
> > really hard not to let the keys out, but if they get out, our only 
> > liability if to say 'Ooops' followed by a heartfelt apology!"
> This sounds like the fine print you "agree" to by opening commercial software
> packages. Hasn't this been found void in a couple of places? The "OK"  or 

"I agree" that shrinkwrapped licenses are problematic, at best.  I don't 
think the analogy applies, though.  Maybe I'm mixing threads up, but I 
thought the topic was "Why would anyone agree to escrow keys commercially 
-- given the high risk if the keys get out?"

If that is the topic, then the keys would be escrowed by one of two 
parties:  the software developer or the customer.  If the customer does 
it, through an active act on his part, then no problem -- he's expressly 
consented (not a "shrinkwrap license" problem in my view if he send them 
his key ...).

If the software developer gives the key to the C/GAK escrow agent, then 
all that should be necessary is to warn the consumer that there is a 
backdoor through the escrowed key.  Then the consumer can buy the product 
or not, but knows what he is getting so can make a choice.

As long as the escrow aspect is not hidden, I don't see any fraud.  The 
remedy is the marketplace.  It is a long fall from $5,000,000,000 ...


> "I Agree" buttons I'm forced to press (but you don't *have* to download 
> software, nya,nya,nya...) when downloading wares also comes to mind.
> Has this been tested in a court? (Sega's reverse engineering suit from 
> a while back comes to mind)
> Pressing buttons is hardly the same as your notarized handwritten signature
> on paper (we prefer blood, it's more permanent), or its digital equivalent.
> Mere tokenism, not insurance. 
> </IANAL>
> About JR's concern about Netscape's shareholders, they're playing a bubble
> market and they know it. I wish them all the money and luck; luck is 
> something they're gonna need if this is to go on.
> Ps. Netmanage websurfer ain't so bad, hint, hint, hint (detraction time 
> netscape). 

Not a lawyer on the Net, although I play one in real life.
Flame away! I get treated worse in person every day!!