5 ms·

We are updating the Google Terms of Service. The new Terms will go live on November 11, 2013 and you can read them here. Because many of you are allerg

by kylec 13y ago

We are updating the Google Terms of Service. The new Terms will go live on November 11, 2013 and you can read them here. Because many of you are allergic to legalese, here’s a plain English summary for your convenience. Why not just write your TOS in plain English, then? Also, if a company supplies both a "legalese" version and a "plain English" version that differ, which one takes precedent?

eCa 13y ago
The legalese. (And I agree.)
pmelendez 13y ago
I believe the legalese version is the actual one and it offers protection in front a court. As for the plain English, I think is because in law you have to be very explicit in order to do not leave any holes.
TheCraiggers 13y ago
Technically, the legalese version is written in plain English. ;) But snark aside, I don't think this plain English version is all that enforceable since it doesn't mention at any point about being a contract that you're agreeing to. IANAL, but I think this is part of why the actual TOS isn't written in "normal English". All the stuff that makes it binding (or is supposed to, anyway) and prevents lawyers from twisting the words is what we call legalese. I don't so much blame companies for this sorry state, but the legal system and the lawyers who inhabit it. Google and the like are just doing what they must to navigate in that environment.
- criley2 13y ago
  TECHNICALLY "plain" means a number of things but most definitions revolve around: "easy to perceive or understand; clear, not decorated or elaborate". By a dictionary definition (a technical one), convoluted legalese is anything but plain English.
  - pekk 13y ago
    So there is clear and precise language, and then there is plain and vague language which is easily interpreted. Which would you rather have in legally binding contracts to which you are voluntarily a party?
    - criley2 13y ago
      Nice little question, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to be a lawyer yourself to buy the argument that pages of legalese is "plain english".
      - pekk 13y ago
        I think the problem is not legalese but the concept and scope of TOS (at least in US law)
runako 13y ago
"Plain English" is the legal equivalent of pseudocode. (By similar reasoning, the courts are analogous to CPUs.) The TOS isn't in plain English for the same reason that Android isn't written in pseudocode: the CPUs won't run it. Also -- pseudocode ignores edge cases, boundary conditions, etc. to make it readable. Production code (and legal documents) can't escape these requirements.
- peterjmag 13y ago
  I really like that analogy.
  - gbog 13y ago
    Yes it is sexy, but it has the smell of a dangerous rhetoric flower. The CPU is a machine, it is deterministic, same input yields same output. The legal system may try to be as predictable as possible, it is still a human production built on human language, and cannot be deterministic, not even asymptotically.
- jforman 13y ago
  "the CPUs won't run it" A TOS is a contract between Google and its users. The "CPU" in this case should then be the two parties to the contract (as these are the people meant to directly consume the contract's contents), not the legal system. The legal system is more like an attached debugger. You wouldn't want different code being interpreted in the runtime and the debugger. Similarly, there should not be a different contract being agreed to and being litigated.
  - abstrakraft 13y ago
    This is ivory tower thinking. There is precisely one interpretation that actually matters, and that's the judge presiding over the case. Of course, his interpretation may be influenced by the parties' legal councils, but ultimately, it's the judge's call.
  - runako 13y ago
    If you routinely sign contracts that you do not believe will stand up in court, you are asking for trouble. If you trust the other party in a contract to adjudicate on your behalf, you are asking for trouble. If you don't trust the other side to adjudicate, you will need an independent third party who can back up its rulings on your behalf. Conveniently, you've already paid for one with your taxes. The courts are the arbiter of contracts, period. Edit: your analogy struck me as off, but I couldn't put my finger on why. The parties to the contract don't directly consume the contract, they use the fact that the legal system can do so. So: you and I don't consume the bytecode of our respective Web browsers, but we do use the fact that the CPUs in your respective devices can, so that we can debate this online. The applications are written for the CPUs; the contracts are written for the courts.
grabeh 13y ago
It would certainly be open to the user to argue before a court that as the plain English version was more easily understood and avoided obscure legal terms, then that is the version that is enforceable against them. This is particularly the case in the EU where legislation requires consumer-facing agreements to be in language that users are able to understand. As far as I'm aware the issue has not been directly tested before a court. In part because the two-tiered approach is not adopted by many companies, and also because disputes over company's terms rarely reach court. It would definitely be interesting to see a court's take on the two-tiered approach though. Speaking of plain English terms, at my workplace I recently re-drafted our main consumer-facing agreement to use exclusively plain English. This is likely to mean we would be more likely to enforce it, and also, I don't feel any certainty has been lost or if there has been any reduction this is outweighed by the benefit in making the terms more digestible by users.
humbledrone 13y ago
Here is the new (November 11) TOS. Reads like plain English to me. http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/
aviraldg 13y ago
They differ in specificity.

by kylec 13y ago

eCa 13y ago

The legalese. (And I agree.)

pmelendez 13y ago

I believe the legalese version is the actual one and it offers protection in front a court. As for the plain English, I think is because in law you have to be very explicit in order to do not leave any holes.

TheCraiggers 13y ago

Technically, the legalese version is written in plain English. ;) But snark aside, I don't think this plain English version is all that enforceable since it doesn't mention at any point about being a contract that you're agreeing to. IANAL, but I think this is part of why the actual TOS isn't written in "normal English". All the stuff that makes it binding (or is supposed to, anyway) and prevents lawyers from twisting the words is what we call legalese. I don't so much blame companies for this sorry state, but the legal system and the lawyers who inhabit it. Google and the like are just doing what they must to navigate in that environment.

criley2 13y ago
TECHNICALLY "plain" means a number of things but most definitions revolve around: "easy to perceive or understand; clear, not decorated or elaborate". By a dictionary definition (a technical one), convoluted legalese is anything but plain English.
- pekk 13y ago
  So there is clear and precise language, and then there is plain and vague language which is easily interpreted. Which would you rather have in legally binding contracts to which you are voluntarily a party?
  - criley2 13y ago
    Nice little question, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to be a lawyer yourself to buy the argument that pages of legalese is "plain english".
    - pekk 13y ago
      I think the problem is not legalese but the concept and scope of TOS (at least in US law)

runako 13y ago

"Plain English" is the legal equivalent of pseudocode. (By similar reasoning, the courts are analogous to CPUs.) The TOS isn't in plain English for the same reason that Android isn't written in pseudocode: the CPUs won't run it. Also -- pseudocode ignores edge cases, boundary conditions, etc. to make it readable. Production code (and legal documents) can't escape these requirements.

peterjmag 13y ago
I really like that analogy.
- gbog 13y ago
  Yes it is sexy, but it has the smell of a dangerous rhetoric flower. The CPU is a machine, it is deterministic, same input yields same output. The legal system may try to be as predictable as possible, it is still a human production built on human language, and cannot be deterministic, not even asymptotically.
jforman 13y ago
"the CPUs won't run it" A TOS is a contract between Google and its users. The "CPU" in this case should then be the two parties to the contract (as these are the people meant to directly consume the contract's contents), not the legal system. The legal system is more like an attached debugger. You wouldn't want different code being interpreted in the runtime and the debugger. Similarly, there should not be a different contract being agreed to and being litigated.
- abstrakraft 13y ago
  This is ivory tower thinking. There is precisely one interpretation that actually matters, and that's the judge presiding over the case. Of course, his interpretation may be influenced by the parties' legal councils, but ultimately, it's the judge's call.
- runako 13y ago
  If you routinely sign contracts that you do not believe will stand up in court, you are asking for trouble. If you trust the other party in a contract to adjudicate on your behalf, you are asking for trouble. If you don't trust the other side to adjudicate, you will need an independent third party who can back up its rulings on your behalf. Conveniently, you've already paid for one with your taxes. The courts are the arbiter of contracts, period. Edit: your analogy struck me as off, but I couldn't put my finger on why. The parties to the contract don't directly consume the contract, they use the fact that the legal system can do so. So: you and I don't consume the bytecode of our respective Web browsers, but we do use the fact that the CPUs in your respective devices can, so that we can debate this online. The applications are written for the CPUs; the contracts are written for the courts.

grabeh 13y ago

It would certainly be open to the user to argue before a court that as the plain English version was more easily understood and avoided obscure legal terms, then that is the version that is enforceable against them. This is particularly the case in the EU where legislation requires consumer-facing agreements to be in language that users are able to understand. As far as I'm aware the issue has not been directly tested before a court. In part because the two-tiered approach is not adopted by many companies, and also because disputes over company's terms rarely reach court. It would definitely be interesting to see a court's take on the two-tiered approach though. Speaking of plain English terms, at my workplace I recently re-drafted our main consumer-facing agreement to use exclusively plain English. This is likely to mean we would be more likely to enforce it, and also, I don't feel any certainty has been lost or if there has been any reduction this is outweighed by the benefit in making the terms more digestible by users.

humbledrone 13y ago

Here is the new (November 11) TOS. Reads like plain English to me. http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/

aviraldg 13y ago

They differ in specificity.