Re: Epson 1280/ MIS Perpetual Color Ink

["Thomas Keesling" <tom.keesling@att.net>]

I don't understand your reasoning here. Whenever one enters into a legally
binding agreement (e.g., a license agreement), how can the subsequent
violation of that agreement by one of the parties not be "illegal?" Are you
suggesting that these software licensing agreements are nonbinding or not
legally enforceable? I think there have been a sufficient number of
successful court cases to show that (at least in general) the agreements are
legally enforceable.

I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting, but if you or anyone else on
this list is recommending or even condoning behavior that is likely to be
illegal, I have a major problem with that. It's unethical, IMHO, and such
suggestions shouldn't be a part of this list.

Ignorance of the law is one of the reasons there are so many fully-employed
lawyers in this country.

Tom Keesling
Intelligent Design, Inc.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Wire Moore" <wirem@attbi.com>
To: <epson-inkjet@leben.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 1:48 AM
Subject: Re: Epson 1280/ MIS Perpetual Color Ink


> So the pertinent question in this context (consumption and uses of
> commodities profiling packages) is not about whether you are performing an
> illegal activity. The questions are: how binding are arbitrary
stipulations
> of use included in "shrink wrap" license agreements, and what sorts of
risks
> does the consumer face for breach of such agreements?



-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.