Browser ?

[Nikolas Britton]

On 8/12/05, Gary W. Swearingen <garys at opusnet.com> wrote:
> Nikolas Britton <nikolas.britton at gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On 8/12/05, Gary W. Swearingen <garys at opusnet.com> wrote:
> >> Nikolas Britton <nikolas.britton at gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > Like what?
> >>
> >> Like the indemnification clause in
> >>      http://mail.google.com/mail/help/terms_of_use.html
> >>
> >> One can limit their exposure to such risks by accessing such services
> >> as read-only services, except for their normal SMTP services which,
> >> AFAIK, are covered only by implied licenses with no indemnification.
> >> I hope.
> >
> > I'm sure you'd find that in any type of web service.
> 
> In any type, probably, but not in every service; I've found several
> e-mail service providers (two free) without indemnification clauses.
> Unfortunately, I can't find a single domain name supplier, except
> there are probably some outside the United States of Attorneys.
> 
> > Say if I
> > disclosed, under an NDA, the code that SCO claims was stolen and put
> > into Linux using Google's Gmail service and then SCO turns around and
> > sues google for posting the message, because they have deeper pockets
> > then I. Google has nothing to do with this other then being the
> > intermedium, I'm the one that did the damage.
> 
> And let's also say that you were 100% innocent.  Google can still
> have you pay for the most expensive legal firm they could find to
> take depositions, argue about source code in hearings and court, etc,
> before SCO lost their case.

It unenforceable from Google's perspective because they don't know me
from Adam and click through contracts are questionable at best, the
person you are talking to may not even exist in the real world, they
could be a minor, someone could have stolen my identity and use it to
sign up with gmail, and a million other reasons.