DannyBee

48 ms·

571.
by DannyBee 2y ago
See now i would go copy paste one of those 73 page email signature disclaimers but it would push everything off the page.
572.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Matt - i'm not your lawyer, but you should shut up. Employers generally have an obligation to keep personal data confidential, especially sensitive information like a job application. Whether that applies in this particular case or not
573.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Lawyer here - we do. For very good reason. A. Legally, it cannot possibly help you (whatever happened, happened). However, it can hurt you (inconsistent statements, etc). This is particularly true in colloquial environments like HN. B.
574.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Yeah but at least they bother to plead the exceeding authorization portion. I actually think they want more than just the trademark issue resolved. I agree it is sort of the minimum they want resolved (but i flag it as non-interesting bec
575.
by DannyBee 2y ago
1. Matt just claimed it wasn't about software at all. So we've now moved on to saying "well it's about code, but not GPL code". Progress, i guess? 2. The agreement does not limit it to non-GPL code in any way, so i&
576.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Err, no. That statutory exemption was created to resolve one court case and one worry: 1. A holding that you can commit infringement simply by loading a program into memory even for maintenance purposes. This was MAI v. Peak, one of the ea
577.
by DannyBee 2y ago
"The agreement wasn't about their license to the code," Maybe you misread it (or miswrote it i guess)? it says: "WP Engine will cease and desist from forking or modifying any of Automattic’s, WooCommerce’s, or its affili
578.
by DannyBee 2y ago
I think you missed the point. They (i know it's you but easier to not personalize it here) do not own all the rights to the software themselves. For the parts they do not own, they have no rights other than what they got through GPLv2
579.
by DannyBee 2y ago
A few things: First, something general - one thing to keep in mind is that open source folks think of these things as license violations/etc, but that's not actually a thing, legally. Breach of contract and copyright infringemen
580.
by DannyBee 2y ago
It supports their various unfair competition/etc claims, but mostly seems written for the IRS/press/etc.
581.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Of these, the ones that are interesting are basically 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10. The CFAA claim here is actually basically an extortion claim (plus other throwaway general claims) framed in CFAA terms. See 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(7) This is actually s
582.
by DannyBee 2y ago
I'm not sure the author makes that point usefully, though it is an interesting point to discuss. I agree this is the classical halting problem, and it can't answer it if the formalism is only as powerful as a turing machine. Even
583.
by DannyBee 2y ago
First, as a point of amusement - last i looked, companies were still suing people over duke nukem decades later: https://www.scribd.com/doc/208676148/GEARBOX-SOFTWARE-v-3D-R... (too lazy to look up the resolution,
584.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Sure, there are models and variations whose power is not good enough to approximate the problems we are talking about here - most of them trading speed for power on purpose because of the enormous costs involved. This is actually one of the
585.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Lots of claims and assertions here, most of them wrong, with little data or cases. I'm just going to suggest you stop trying to play lawyer. "You're 100% allowed to IP ban people individually. There's no law anywhere t
586.
by DannyBee 2y ago
"Not sure what you mean" https://archive.is/mVbJP "I said they have no right in the casual sense, which has a broader meaning to most people." So you said it's a antitrust violation in the casual se
587.
by DannyBee 2y ago
It's worse than a sloppier version, because we've already proven it wrong in the literal sense. The simulation of code part is trivially wrong - early CPU's were clear fixed function pipelines and they could execute programs
588.
by DannyBee 2y ago
This whole silly post seems to have been written so they can make this statement, which they seem to believe is profound: "This failure is not surprising, because any machine learning model, no matter how many magic parameters it has,
589.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Third party clients that exist solely to display a certain site in a slightly different way are definitely derivative works of that site. That's not really an "if" question. I'm not aware of any disagreement by any c
590.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Yes. If you separate out "how should things be" from "how things are", then from duke-nukem levels to you name it, caselaw is very clear that they can control this through fairly simple copyright law principles (derivati
591.
by DannyBee 2y ago
"More justification for anti trust action against Google." Antitrust is the RICO of HN, as far as i can tell. "They have absolutely no right to encroach on that, and they know it." Based on what, exactly? Other than your
592.
by DannyBee 2y ago
The argument was that HN supports a "private equity grab" over an OSS-supporting person. I'm simply pointing out for plenty of people it's not about OSS or private equity but about the behavior of the person.
593.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Buddy, among other things, i'm licensed as an IP/antitrust lawyer, have actually worked on some of the most recent antitrust cases in tech, and am trying to help you understand what the law actually says. You don't want to kn
594.
by DannyBee 2y ago
"You're not obligated to provide free services to people you don't have a contract with, and who are openly hostile to negotiation." If you choose to accept all comers, you get to accept all comers. If you decide to the
595.
by DannyBee 2y ago
You really don't get it. Matt seems incapable of clearly separating his roles as: Person involved with WP foundation Person who is head of Automattic Person who contributes/whatever to wordpress This is highly dangerous from a l
596.
by DannyBee 2y ago
100% - i raised exactly this issue in the legal claim concerns. This is a remarkably bad plan from a legal perspective.
597.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Or, again, they are just deciding the economy isn't worth the cost. (or not worth prioritizing upfront or ....) When we had numerous discussions on HN as these rules were implemented, this is precisely what the europeans said should ha
598.
by DannyBee 2y ago
Why is it that and not just cost/benefit for them? They've decided it's not worth their time/energy to do it right now in a way that complies with regulation (or whatever) Isn't that precisely the choice the EU want
599.
by DannyBee 2y ago
1. You can find the stats (and many other things, like employee counts by type/division, etc) in their annual report 2. No, actually. At least, not this much lower. The win rate is certainly limited by aggression in the extreme, but no
600.
by DannyBee 2y ago
They don't control most FTC employees actually - i'm not sure why HN always gets this wrong. The set of political employees at the FTC is very small. As for the rest, much like other critics, i don't believe Lina is competent

More ›