8 ms·

>And there are some legal issues that are tied to the date a feature first becomes available to the public. Seeing a feature go public prematurely throws a bunc

>And there are some legal issues that are tied to the date a feature first becomes available to the public. Seeing a feature go public prematurely throws a bunch of scheduling into disarray because you now have to finish those legal documents in less time than you planned. As someone who's never worked for a company that produces commercial software, I'm curious about what he's referring to.

prplhaz4 10y ago
A simple example would be adding a feature that collects user information before you update the EULA to tell people that you're collecting their information. The EULA will likely need to go through multiple iterations between local and partner lawyers before the language is agreed upon - so expediting is not always an option.
- 0x0 10y ago
  If you're running a pirated OS, are you really going to go to court over a missing disclaimer in the pirated EULA?!
  - rodgerd 10y ago
    Burglars have been known to go to court over getting injured in the commission of a crime, suing the property owner.
    - IntelMiner 10y ago
      Is this one of those "only in America" stereotypes? I'd love to see how the hell they justified that, much less if they won
      - nols 10y ago
        The justification for a lot of these frivolous injury lawsuits are often very similar. The person suing has thousands or tens of thousands of medical debt. They could spend years paying it off or they could look like a moron in the hopes of a settlement that will pay off the debt or at least make a dent in it. Probably the most famous case, Bodine v Enterprise High School, involved a teenager who fell through a painted over skylight while stealing (or redirecting to play basketball) a spotlight off the roof. Because of the fall he became a quadriplegic, he didn't really have much to lose suing the school district because, well, his life as he knew it was over. He had a lifetime of medical bills to pay and no way to earn an income. There are definitely plenty of scam artists or leeches or whatever you want to call them abusing the legal system because it's easier than getting a real job, but don't underestimate the people backed into a corner by debt.
        xxbondsxx 10y ago
        Thank you for this perspective; was a new take on a lot of the common tropes I've heard. As said in Mr Robot, debt is the invisible hand that coerces us all
        specialist 10y ago
        I wonder if this book had some influence. It's definitely blowing my mind. Debt: The First 5,000 Years https://www.amazon.com/Debt-Updated-Expanded-First-Years https://www.amazon.com/Debt-Updated-Expanded-First-Years
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > I'd love to see how the hell they justified that, much less if they won There are general principles of responsibility of property owners for dangerous conditions on the property that apply even when the harm done by them is done to trespassers (and regardless of the purpose of the trespass.) IIRC, these are largely common law principles, and older than the US. Of course, they don't relieve any criminal liability for crimes committed by the trespasser on the property, or any civil liability for torts committed on the property, but if you are already on the hook for those and can't try to claim that you weren't the intruder, there's no reason not to try to pursue any colorable claim you have.
        scoot 10y ago
        So - if an intruder breaks in to your house, you can shoot him without repercussions; but if an intruder breaks into your house and trips on your loose stair carpet, he can sue for his resulting injuries? Bizarre!
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > So - if an intruder breaks in to your house, you can shoot him without repercussions In many US jurisdictions, not generally the case. The ones with a strong "castle doctrine" are notable because this is not the norm. But, even so... > So - if an intruder breaks in to your house, you can shoot him without repercussions Your loose stair carpet was not created as a specific and immediate response to a particular unlawful act, and thus the relief from otherwise applicable legal liability attached as a result of self-defense doesn't apply to it.
        briHass 10y ago
        > In many US jurisdictions, not generally the case. The ones with a strong "castle doctrine" are notable because this is not the norm. Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement, it's actually the other way around. Most US states have a castle doctrine law of varying strength. Even the "gun-unfriendly" states like NJ, NY, and CA. If you weren't the initial aggressor, and you are in your home with a licensed/legal firearm, you may shoot an intruder. Duty to retreat doesn't apply to your house...which makes perfect sense.
      - scott_karana 10y ago
        Not limited to the US. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2074077.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2074077.stm
      - cm2187 10y ago
        Burglars suing the owner also happened to France, which has a very crime friendly legislation. For instance if you break in a house while the owner is on holidays, and stay a few days, not only the owner would have to go to court for years to kick you out, but the owner is not even legally permitted to enter his own house until after the execution of the eviction, after all appeals have been exhausted. ...not just in the US!
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        celticninja 10y ago
        This may be about squatting, rather than a burglar. A squatter can take occupation of an abandoned building if they do not break in, so if a door is open or something like that. Usually they break a window and replace it immediately to be able to support their claim.
      - hyperman1 10y ago
        It happens in Belgium. Someone I know was away from home for an evening, and found the police at her door when she came back. Turns out some junky decided to break into her gardening shed to find something to force entry to the main house. Was so high he accidentally slit his wrist on the glass window he broke to climb inside the shed. Neighbours heard him cry and called the police. Police told her she was very lucky he didn't die, as she was responsible for his well-being while breaking in. In a related note, if you have a dog, you need a sign to warn burglers about it , as you have to safeguard anyone in your house, including burglars. If the sign talks about a dangerous dog, it means you knew the dog was dangerous and have a higher responsibility for injuries. As far as I understand it (IANAL), the legal theory is that breaking in and failing to safeguard the burglar are 2 unrelated crimes, which each deserve their own punishment/damages.
        dx034 10y ago
        >Police told her she was very lucky he didn't die, as she was responsible for his well-being while breaking in. I doubt that. Just because a police officer says sth doesn't mean it's true. Perhaps people sued in the past but lost in court. Otherwise I could break in somewhere, hurt myself (there is always a possibility) and sue the owner of the house. Unless the owner builds traps to severely injure anyone who enters the house even if there's no danger to residents, I cannot imagine a court deciding in favour of the burglar. It may be different if you have a dog that is trained to injure/kill anyone who enters the premise. That could lead to a court case, e.g. if the dog injures a child who wanted to retrieve a ball from the garden and there was no warning sign. Do you have any links for cases that were actually won by the burglar?
    - sequence7 10y ago
      This seems to be an urban myth that gets often repeated but I've never actually seen a concrete example. Could someone point me to an example of someone suing a property owner because of an injury received in the commission of a crime?
      - corobo 10y ago
        Wasn't it from that old Jim Carrey film Liar Liar? Greta: Mr. Reede, several years ago a friend of mine had a burglar on her roof—a burglar. He fell through the kitchen skylight, landed on a cutting board, on a butcher's knife, cutting his leg. The burglar sued my friend. He sued my friend and because of guys like you, he won. My friend had to pay the burglar $6,000. Is that justice? Fletcher: No!…I'd have got him ten. [1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Liar_Liar https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Liar_Liar
  - restalis 10y ago
    They don't care that much about the pirated version doing things not mentioned in the EULA, they care about not being rushed to ship a legit version (that has not yet a ready EULA) because it has to get released in order to limit the spread of the pirated version or for any other reason.
monochromatic 10y ago
Might be considered a public disclosure for purposes of patenting the feature.
- cududa 10y ago
  This is accurate. A leak still constitutes a public disclosure (I use to help track down leaked builds of Windows)
  - slipstream- 10y ago
    "help track down leaked builds of Windows" If you're talking about public leaks (rather than just private leaks to a few individuals), surely they're not that hard to find? I wonder if you mean the leakers? (for the record, I'm a moderator of a forum which discusses said "leaked builds of Windows"; and I help try to find and preserve those that leaked long enough ago such that they have almost disappeared)
  - aaronsnoswell 10y ago
    This is fascinating to me - do you know of any documented cases where a leak prevented someone filing for claim(s)?
  - abraae 10y ago
    I hope that's not true. Surely if the "leak" is the result of an employee acting unlawfully, i.e. maliciously leaking their employer's intellectual property in contravention of their employment agreement, then the leak does not constitute a disclosure. If it did, then IP-based organisations would have an absurd level of exposure to the bad actions of any employee, and would have to impose equally absurd security measures - cavity searches at the exits, anyone? - on every employee with access to IP.
- syshum 10y ago
  The solution that is ending software patents which should not be a thing in the first place
  - 10y ago
abtinf 10y ago
Among other things, it creates revenue recognition problems. If you have publically promised a future feature, you sometimes cannot recognize current revenue for the associated product until you deliver that feature. It makes for a very bad day.
optimiz3 10y ago
Patents. If you have features you need to file patents on, that needs to be done before the feature is publicly disclosed/exposed.
- PhantomGremlin 10y ago
  I was going to say that you had a year after disclosure to file a patent. But then I remembered that there are other countries in the world other than the USA. Those other countries have different rules! It's sometimes difficult for Americans to remember that, since we're so insular here. E.g. I haven't been out of the USA in probably about 25 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_disclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_disclosure
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    I thought USA had moved to first to file, public disclosure then is prior art to your own application, except in limited circumstances (which usually means showing the invention at specific trade shows)?
xmodem 10y ago
In Australia there are R&D tax concessions that apply differently based on whether something has shipped. That is, bug fixes on an unreleased feature are eligible as R&D, but once the feature ships work done on it is no longer R&D. No idea if a leaked build would count as shipping for these purposes, though.

prplhaz4 10y ago

A simple example would be adding a feature that collects user information before you update the EULA to tell people that you're collecting their information. The EULA will likely need to go through multiple iterations between local and partner lawyers before the language is agreed upon - so expediting is not always an option.

0x0 10y ago
If you're running a pirated OS, are you really going to go to court over a missing disclaimer in the pirated EULA?!
- rodgerd 10y ago
  Burglars have been known to go to court over getting injured in the commission of a crime, suing the property owner.
  - IntelMiner 10y ago
    Is this one of those "only in America" stereotypes? I'd love to see how the hell they justified that, much less if they won
    - nols 10y ago
      The justification for a lot of these frivolous injury lawsuits are often very similar. The person suing has thousands or tens of thousands of medical debt. They could spend years paying it off or they could look like a moron in the hopes of a settlement that will pay off the debt or at least make a dent in it. Probably the most famous case, Bodine v Enterprise High School, involved a teenager who fell through a painted over skylight while stealing (or redirecting to play basketball) a spotlight off the roof. Because of the fall he became a quadriplegic, he didn't really have much to lose suing the school district because, well, his life as he knew it was over. He had a lifetime of medical bills to pay and no way to earn an income. There are definitely plenty of scam artists or leeches or whatever you want to call them abusing the legal system because it's easier than getting a real job, but don't underestimate the people backed into a corner by debt.
      - xxbondsxx 10y ago
        Thank you for this perspective; was a new take on a lot of the common tropes I've heard. As said in Mr Robot, debt is the invisible hand that coerces us all
        specialist 10y ago
        I wonder if this book had some influence. It's definitely blowing my mind. Debt: The First 5,000 Years https://www.amazon.com/Debt-Updated-Expanded-First-Years https://www.amazon.com/Debt-Updated-Expanded-First-Years
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > I'd love to see how the hell they justified that, much less if they won There are general principles of responsibility of property owners for dangerous conditions on the property that apply even when the harm done by them is done to trespassers (and regardless of the purpose of the trespass.) IIRC, these are largely common law principles, and older than the US. Of course, they don't relieve any criminal liability for crimes committed by the trespasser on the property, or any civil liability for torts committed on the property, but if you are already on the hook for those and can't try to claim that you weren't the intruder, there's no reason not to try to pursue any colorable claim you have.
      - scoot 10y ago
        So - if an intruder breaks in to your house, you can shoot him without repercussions; but if an intruder breaks into your house and trips on your loose stair carpet, he can sue for his resulting injuries? Bizarre!
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > So - if an intruder breaks in to your house, you can shoot him without repercussions In many US jurisdictions, not generally the case. The ones with a strong "castle doctrine" are notable because this is not the norm. But, even so... > So - if an intruder breaks in to your house, you can shoot him without repercussions Your loose stair carpet was not created as a specific and immediate response to a particular unlawful act, and thus the relief from otherwise applicable legal liability attached as a result of self-defense doesn't apply to it.
        briHass 10y ago
        > In many US jurisdictions, not generally the case. The ones with a strong "castle doctrine" are notable because this is not the norm. Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement, it's actually the other way around. Most US states have a castle doctrine law of varying strength. Even the "gun-unfriendly" states like NJ, NY, and CA. If you weren't the initial aggressor, and you are in your home with a licensed/legal firearm, you may shoot an intruder. Duty to retreat doesn't apply to your house...which makes perfect sense.
    - scott_karana 10y ago
      Not limited to the US. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2074077.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2074077.stm
    - cm2187 10y ago
      Burglars suing the owner also happened to France, which has a very crime friendly legislation. For instance if you break in a house while the owner is on holidays, and stay a few days, not only the owner would have to go to court for years to kick you out, but the owner is not even legally permitted to enter his own house until after the execution of the eviction, after all appeals have been exhausted. ...not just in the US!
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - celticninja 10y ago
        This may be about squatting, rather than a burglar. A squatter can take occupation of an abandoned building if they do not break in, so if a door is open or something like that. Usually they break a window and replace it immediately to be able to support their claim.
    - hyperman1 10y ago
      It happens in Belgium. Someone I know was away from home for an evening, and found the police at her door when she came back. Turns out some junky decided to break into her gardening shed to find something to force entry to the main house. Was so high he accidentally slit his wrist on the glass window he broke to climb inside the shed. Neighbours heard him cry and called the police. Police told her she was very lucky he didn't die, as she was responsible for his well-being while breaking in. In a related note, if you have a dog, you need a sign to warn burglers about it , as you have to safeguard anyone in your house, including burglars. If the sign talks about a dangerous dog, it means you knew the dog was dangerous and have a higher responsibility for injuries. As far as I understand it (IANAL), the legal theory is that breaking in and failing to safeguard the burglar are 2 unrelated crimes, which each deserve their own punishment/damages.
      - dx034 10y ago
        >Police told her she was very lucky he didn't die, as she was responsible for his well-being while breaking in. I doubt that. Just because a police officer says sth doesn't mean it's true. Perhaps people sued in the past but lost in court. Otherwise I could break in somewhere, hurt myself (there is always a possibility) and sue the owner of the house. Unless the owner builds traps to severely injure anyone who enters the house even if there's no danger to residents, I cannot imagine a court deciding in favour of the burglar. It may be different if you have a dog that is trained to injure/kill anyone who enters the premise. That could lead to a court case, e.g. if the dog injures a child who wanted to retrieve a ball from the garden and there was no warning sign. Do you have any links for cases that were actually won by the burglar?
  - sequence7 10y ago
    This seems to be an urban myth that gets often repeated but I've never actually seen a concrete example. Could someone point me to an example of someone suing a property owner because of an injury received in the commission of a crime?
    - corobo 10y ago
      Wasn't it from that old Jim Carrey film Liar Liar? Greta: Mr. Reede, several years ago a friend of mine had a burglar on her roof—a burglar. He fell through the kitchen skylight, landed on a cutting board, on a butcher's knife, cutting his leg. The burglar sued my friend. He sued my friend and because of guys like you, he won. My friend had to pay the burglar $6,000. Is that justice? Fletcher: No!…I'd have got him ten. [1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Liar_Liar https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Liar_Liar
- restalis 10y ago
  They don't care that much about the pirated version doing things not mentioned in the EULA, they care about not being rushed to ship a legit version (that has not yet a ready EULA) because it has to get released in order to limit the spread of the pirated version or for any other reason.

monochromatic 10y ago

Might be considered a public disclosure for purposes of patenting the feature.

cududa 10y ago
This is accurate. A leak still constitutes a public disclosure (I use to help track down leaked builds of Windows)
- slipstream- 10y ago
  "help track down leaked builds of Windows" If you're talking about public leaks (rather than just private leaks to a few individuals), surely they're not that hard to find? I wonder if you mean the leakers? (for the record, I'm a moderator of a forum which discusses said "leaked builds of Windows"; and I help try to find and preserve those that leaked long enough ago such that they have almost disappeared)
- aaronsnoswell 10y ago
  This is fascinating to me - do you know of any documented cases where a leak prevented someone filing for claim(s)?
- abraae 10y ago
  I hope that's not true. Surely if the "leak" is the result of an employee acting unlawfully, i.e. maliciously leaking their employer's intellectual property in contravention of their employment agreement, then the leak does not constitute a disclosure. If it did, then IP-based organisations would have an absurd level of exposure to the bad actions of any employee, and would have to impose equally absurd security measures - cavity searches at the exits, anyone? - on every employee with access to IP.
syshum 10y ago
The solution that is ending software patents which should not be a thing in the first place
- 10y ago

abtinf 10y ago

Among other things, it creates revenue recognition problems. If you have publically promised a future feature, you sometimes cannot recognize current revenue for the associated product until you deliver that feature. It makes for a very bad day.

optimiz3 10y ago

Patents. If you have features you need to file patents on, that needs to be done before the feature is publicly disclosed/exposed.

PhantomGremlin 10y ago
I was going to say that you had a year after disclosure to file a patent. But then I remembered that there are other countries in the world other than the USA. Those other countries have different rules! It's sometimes difficult for Americans to remember that, since we're so insular here. E.g. I haven't been out of the USA in probably about 25 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_disclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_disclosure
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  I thought USA had moved to first to file, public disclosure then is prior art to your own application, except in limited circumstances (which usually means showing the invention at specific trade shows)?

xmodem 10y ago

In Australia there are R&D tax concessions that apply differently based on whether something has shipped. That is, bug fixes on an unreleased feature are eligible as R&D, but once the feature ships work done on it is no longer R&D. No idea if a leaked build would count as shipping for these purposes, though.