4 ms·
"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
by 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 agoThis 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 agoIf 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.