|
|
|
| Authored by: scav on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 04:11 AM EDT |
Not necessarily, but when a public statement to that effect
is part of a pattern of behaviour leading others to believe
you consent to their actions, then YES! That's the law.
You might think *that* law has bad effects, but despite
having said so publicly, you should be happy to know you
still get the benefit of it, should you ever need it :)
---
The emperor, undaunted by overwhelming evidence that he had no clothes,
redoubled his siege of Antarctica to extort tribute from the penguins.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 09:17 AM EDT |
Difference from your soccer example in this case is that Sun
should have warned Google to stop using the API's if it felt
it was wrong. By instead choosing to work closely with
Google, doing presentations together, publicly supporting
Android etc, they unfairly influenced Google into thinking
what they were doing was supported by Sun. From what I
understand of the law, you can't actively encourage someone
to enter your house then later charge them with trespassing,
despite trespassing being a relevant law as your invitation
misled the transgressor into believing you are giving the
ok..[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
