DB>> Translation - there is no precedent;

RS> Translation, poor old Dave resorting to sillyness when he doesnt
RS> like what he sees.

DB> In fact, poor old Dave just doesn't like being told, "It is so,
DB> but I couldn't be bothered proving it to you because then that
DB> would mean it would *really* have to be so..";

Stiff shit Dave, if you dont like it you can always try killing yourself
or something. Your likes and dislikes are of absolutely no concern of
mine whatever. If you dont have the mental horsepower to grasp that it
isnt possible to provide to you what I did not save at the time, thats
essentially your problem Dave. Its of no concern to me either.

DB> Rod, if you want to present an opposing view, then sure go right
DB> ahead - nobody can (nor should they) stop you.  Just don't pretend
DB> that what you're saying is reality unless you can back it up

Go and fuck yourself Dave. I will present whatever argument I like, in
whatever way I like. If you dont like the way I do it, thats essentially
your problem, not mine. When I want some pompous preaching from some kid
still in school on how to conduct myself I will ring a little bell. Dont
hold your breath tho, I wont be doing it any time soon.

DB> (or at least give some vague recollection of where you saw/heard it,
DB> or whatever);  if you can't remember (which is fair enough), then say,
DB> "It probably isn't because...".  No, I'm *not* trying to
tell you what
DB> you can and cannot do (despite appearances to the contrary).

Yep, sure looks like it to me Dave.

RS> he does appear to know what he is talking about...

DB> Cool, I have no problem with that;  although why you bothered
DB> complaining about my request for more information when you finally
DB> decided to come out and tell me anyway ("..recent MS consent decree
DB> stuff..", &c.), I'll never know.

Who cares what you will ever know Dave ?  I sure dont.

RS> Again, I didnt save any of that tho with 20:20 hindsight, that
RS> may also be handy in the future too. Thats life, like I say, I
RS> often regret not saving stuff.

DB> See?  It wasn't so difficult to just come out and say it after all. 

Pathetic Dave. Thats precisely what I did say when you bombastically
demanded proof initially. I said explicitly that it wasnt possible to
do what you demanded. I in fact said explicitly that you would have to
do the research yourself. No point in the this silly patronising faking.

DB> Now Rod, you've raised an interesting point here - just let me
DB> remind you that you're talking about the American jurisdiction,

Thats supposed to be news is it Dave ? You aint reminding me of a
damned thing.

DB> when the discussion was originally centred (by situation) on the
DB> Australian jurisdiction.

Nope, it aint that simple. We were in fact talking about purported
contracts inserted by US software majors and whether they were binding
on the users of the software.

DB> You have stated emphatically that shrinkwrap licences *have* been
DB> tested in a court of law - but only in the U.S.; to date, you haven't
DB> addressed the Australian scene.

You know as well as I do that the fundamentals of what purports to be a
contract situation is just a tad more complex than that Dave. There isnt
that total separation you are implying.

DB> While it is certainly possible that the matter *has* been addressed
DB> locally, relying on foreign cases isn't the way to prove this.

Never said it was, but there can indeed be situations where a foreign
decision on some stuff does in fact matter. You know that as well as I do.

RS> That then involves just what is 'accepts' in the situation we are
RS> talking about. Still not as cut and dried as you are attempting to
RS> suggest.

DB> I was not attempting to suggest that it was "cut and dried";

You were in fact suggesting that the conditions were binding. It aint
that clear that they are.

DB> in fact, that was your approach, "It doesn't constitute a contract -
DB> and that's that."  I have been arguing that the matter is more
DB> complicated than that, and involves the location of the licence, &c.

Bullshitting Dave.

RS> You could have said the same thing about the ticket, the
RS> conditions are on the back, they claimed that you basically
RS> agree to those conditions.

DB> You get the ticket at the conclusion of the transaction, that's
DB> why the conditions on the back are irrelevant.  If the conditions
DB> were viewable prior to the sale, then that would be different.

Nope. If a parking station has a sign up denying all responsibility for
the safety of your car while its in the parking station, even if you
cant miss that on entry to the parking station, still doesnt let the
owners off the hook. Ditto for signs purporting that you agree to let
your bags be searched in a supermarket. Doesnt change the law, if you
refuse to let them be searched and they insist, and they dont find
anything, they can be in deep shit real quick. Purported contract not
withstanding. It aint anywhere near as simple as you suggest.

RS> And then there is the question of whether there is any equivalent
RS> of 'the form' in the case we were discussing.

DB> I believe the document (the form) is that on which the licence
DB> conditions are written.

You can believe that if you like Dave. Just what the law has to say on
that matter is a different matter entirely tho.

DB>> [And the list goes on - this is all quoted from HB Sales'
DB>> "Standard form contracts" (1953) 16 MLR 318.]

RS> Doesnt prove a damned thing.

DB> No meant to - it's "food for thought" as it seems relevant to the
DB> discussion of shrinkwrap licences, which certainly appears to be a
DB> variant of standard form contracts.

Nope, nothing like it in fact, with the implication on the standard
form contracts of signatures and the occasional failure to sign. In
fact thats a large part of the problem, the software suppliers purport
that they are just contracts in the usual way and its very very far
from clear that they really are.

RS> All that stuff applys just as much to the tickets which purported
RS> to waive your rights.

DB> No - as above;

Yes - as above

DB> the ticket thing is beaten at a fundamental level.

Now explain the other stuff away too. You cant basically.

(Continued to next message)

--- PQWK202