4 ms·

> You agree to grant and hereby grant I get that legalese is like human-interpretable pseudocode, but like, is there really no better way to word this? How can

by kortex 3y ago

> You agree to grant and hereby grant I get that legalese is like human-interpretable pseudocode, but like, is there really no better way to word this? How can you grant without agreeing to grant? > import, access, use, store, transmit, review, disclose, preserve, extract, modify, reproduce, share, use, display, copy, distribute, translate, transcribe, create derivative works Wow this cover of Daft Punk - Technologic sucks. I, for one, do not welcome our dystopian overlords, but am at a loss to what I can do about it. I try to use Jitsi or anything not-zoom whenever possible, but it's rarely my pick.

kitchi 3y ago
> How can you grant without agreeing to grant? I think it's more that they're being explicit about the logical AND in that sentence. You agree to grant, AND grant them the permission. I think it's a technicality about it being a "user agreement" so they probably have to use the word agree for certain clauses.
rolph 3y ago
set yourself up with a couple of vices [coffee, smokes] and have look here, for things you can do: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37022623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37022623 [a number of links regarding how to play with bots and bork training by"malforming" your inputs]
SoftTalker 3y ago
And after that litany of very specific things, "and to perform all acts with respect to the Customer Content." Couldn't the whole paragraph just have been that phrase?
- psunavy03 3y ago
  Not a lawyer, but generally when whole paragraphs aren't "that phrase" it's because people read loopholes into "that phrase."
angled 3y ago
To whom at Zoom do we send the eDiscovery (and litigation hold) requests? My goodness.
dctoedt 3y ago
>> You agree to grant and hereby grant "Hereby grant" means the grant is (supposedly) immediately effective even for future-arising rights — and thus would take precedence (again, supposedly) over an agreement to grant the same rights in the future. [0] (In the late oughts, this principle resulted in the biotech company Roche Molecular becoming a part-owner of a Stanford patent, because a Stanford researcher signed a "visitor NDA" with Roche that included present-assignment language, whereas the researcher's previous agreement with Stanford included only future-assignment language. The Stanford-Roche lawsuit on that subject went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.) [0] https://toedtclassnotes.site44.com/Notes-on-Contract-Drafting-2021-08-21.html#ip-own-prsnt-future https://toedtclassnotes.site44.com/Notes-on-Contract-Draftin...
- mafuy 3y ago
  Yes, but the parent commenter noticed that and wondered about the other part, the "agree to grant" part. Simply "hereby grant" should suffice.
  - dctoedt 3y ago
    > Simply "hereby grant" should suffice. Not necessarily — in some circumstances, the law might not recognize a present-day grant of an interest that doesn't exist now but might come into being in the future. (Cf. the Rule Against Perpetuities. [1]) The "hereby grants and agrees to grant" language is a fallback requirement — belt and suspenders, if you will. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities

by kortex 3y ago

kitchi 3y ago

> How can you grant without agreeing to grant? I think it's more that they're being explicit about the logical AND in that sentence. You agree to grant, AND grant them the permission. I think it's a technicality about it being a "user agreement" so they probably have to use the word agree for certain clauses.

rolph 3y ago

set yourself up with a couple of vices [coffee, smokes] and have look here, for things you can do: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37022623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37022623 [a number of links regarding how to play with bots and bork training by"malforming" your inputs]

SoftTalker 3y ago

And after that litany of very specific things, "and to perform all acts with respect to the Customer Content." Couldn't the whole paragraph just have been that phrase?

psunavy03 3y ago
Not a lawyer, but generally when whole paragraphs aren't "that phrase" it's because people read loopholes into "that phrase."

angled 3y ago

To whom at Zoom do we send the eDiscovery (and litigation hold) requests? My goodness.

dctoedt 3y ago

>> You agree to grant and hereby grant "Hereby grant" means the grant is (supposedly) immediately effective even for future-arising rights — and thus would take precedence (again, supposedly) over an agreement to grant the same rights in the future. [0] (In the late oughts, this principle resulted in the biotech company Roche Molecular becoming a part-owner of a Stanford patent, because a Stanford researcher signed a "visitor NDA" with Roche that included present-assignment language, whereas the researcher's previous agreement with Stanford included only future-assignment language. The Stanford-Roche lawsuit on that subject went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.) [0] https://toedtclassnotes.site44.com/Notes-on-Contract-Drafting-2021-08-21.html#ip-own-prsnt-future https://toedtclassnotes.site44.com/Notes-on-Contract-Draftin...

mafuy 3y ago
Yes, but the parent commenter noticed that and wondered about the other part, the "agree to grant" part. Simply "hereby grant" should suffice.
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > Simply "hereby grant" should suffice. Not necessarily — in some circumstances, the law might not recognize a present-day grant of an interest that doesn't exist now but might come into being in the future. (Cf. the Rule Against Perpetuities. [1]) The "hereby grants and agrees to grant" language is a fallback requirement — belt and suspenders, if you will. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities