![]() (*) Back when I used to post to Slashdot you'd see a lot of "logical geek" types who knew a lot about computers and/or science- but with little obvious *actual* legal knowledge- take it for granted that their imagined idea- derived from guesswork and extrapolations and reflecting their own mentality- were correct, and the law was purely a pseudo-logical system that could be gamed. Then again, I should be clear that IANAL, and this is guesswork on *my* part as well. I suspect their may be other legal issues with trying to associate their advert with Google without permission. (Might be different if the ad were more clearly separate and/or the end user had knowledge of what the situation was). ![]() the end result and obvious intent- would likely be of more legal relevance than how it was implemented. Is this claim based on actual knowledge and experience of how the legal system(s) work, or are you simply taking it for granted that- in the real world- the legal process and argument would be based solely on that purely technological argument? (*)Īs I already commented in this post (which I won't bore everyone by rehashing in full here), the impression given to the end user is that MS's banner/ad is a part of Google's page. This doesn't make the action less despicable, but it does prevent it from being illegal. It's showing you extra stuff in the application you're using to view that site, without modifying the original site which is now below. ![]() It's not modifying someone else's site.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |