A serious threat to our national security

The high commissioner for Nigeria

is currently saying exactly that to Australia: "Jail 'Greedy' Scam Victims, Says Nigerian Diplomat"

Last I heard, nobody has ever tried to enforce a shrinkwrap EULA in court. If you never sue anyone for violating a shrinkwrap EULA, no court ever gets a chance to rule that a shrinkwrap EULA is not a binding contract...

--
Guy Macon

If an honest man (who is also honest with himself) buys a product from what he believes to be an honest seller, then that seller skips town with his money, which conclusion is correct:

[1] Nobody got cheated [2] The honest man was really dishonest. [3] You can cheat an honest man. [4] Other (specify) ___________________

--
Guy Macon

There's no law about being greedy, and there's often a fine line between "greed" and "aggressively pursuing personal enrichment through ethical means." That being said, you'd have my support to jail scam victims when the con is premised on something that's clearly illegal, e.g., "I've embezzled millions from the government and need your help to move it out on the country." While many Nigerian scams are of this sort, plenty of them don't suggest anything illegal is happening, e.g., "A distant relative of yours has died and you're the only remaining heir," or "I saw your personals ad -- here's mine (very attractive, of course) -- I've love to meet; can you send me plane fare?" In those cases it's unreasonable to suggest jail is warranted for the mark.

You're assuming that all cheats are presented as scams.

2: He was trying to pull a fast one - otherwise, why would he have opted to do business with a thief?

"Oh, but HM didn't know he was a thief" I hear you cry.

No, actually, the guy simply was negligent in doing his due diligence.

Hope This Helps! Rich

No, not at all - what I'm asserting is that I think people "should" educate themselves well enough to tell the difference. It's not that hard, you know, if you're not blinded by your own greed.

Cheers! Rich

IANAL, but isnt it the law of torts that essentially says you cannot enter into a contract unawares?

and, of course, the big problem with the legal system - money wins. regardless of the actual legality, Im pretty sure I could never, ever win a legal argument against microsoft, regardless of its veracity

Cheers Terry

g

Do the thieves wear "I'm a thief" t-shirts in your neighborhood?

What greed blinds the purchasers of Windows?

Terry Given wrote:

Bingo! When you have to pay for the product before you can unwrap it and you can't read the "agreement' until you do both, there is no contract. ...and have you ever tried to **return** shrinkwrapped software?

There was a case in Germany. The judge said *Not binding*.

No, they wear "Vote for me" Tee shirts, but thanks for playing. :(

--

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account:

There are two kinds of people on this earth: The crazy, and the insane. The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

JeffM wrote in news:80adba11-6759-4b7f-88fa-8f00e2392e41 @a8g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

It's similar to buying a book in that you purchased the text - the pages, including the words and markings printed on them, are yours. What you don't purchase is the right to either copy parts of it and sell them for personal profit, or pass them off as your own original work.

A license OTOH would be like renting a book, but then having to return it, destroy it, or have a self-destruct mechanism engage, once the rental period expired ran out and if you didn't pay for an additional rental period.

Actually. I was thinking of crying "which part of 'from what he believes to be an honest seller' are you having trouble understanding?"

You appear to be claiming that every thief is identifiable as such beforehand, regrdless of the intelligence and experience of the victim; all you have to do is try hard and you will never be decieved.

--
Guy Macon

Actually the legendary shrink-wrap EULA non enforceability is he result of lawsuits trying to enforce them.

Not completely so.

Probably not. But they spend plenty on lawyers to see to it that such cases are trivially disposable beforehand. Just like all major corporations.

I can find no such lawsuit in the USA.

--
Guy Macon

I mostly agree with Don. Part of it is discovering that you parted with something under false valuation, a form of coercion with transfer of property, thus properly a form of theft.

You think so? How about some backup?