Lawyers are the same way, especially lawyers who were IT guys in a former life — yeesh, what a combo.

So they can’t bear if anybody uses their lingo, or cites their citations. But…they can. This is the Internet. You don’t have to pay to go to law school and buy expensive law books and only look them up in libraries you can…go online now. This has created less friction for learning.

Accordingly, anyone with half an education could read about Bragg and the contract of adhesion and the allegation of “unconscionable”.

So I made two very straightforward statements as already indicated. I didn’t “flail” or “fall into hysteria” (projection much? lol) I merely reiterated that a) I had raised a larger point b) expecting most already knew about the “unconscionable” issue. That’s all.

And…these lawyers really truly did say that these cases don’t win on appeal as a rule. Imagine! Other lawyers! Who disagree! lol that happens all the time, are you aware of that?!

These lawyers aren’t “anonymous” at all. I just don’t recall their names as I don’t believe they are SL regulars. Go on virtualworlds2008.com and find the legal track for the first day in the morning session, and there they are!

I’m not at all persuaded that this assertion of yours is correct for California. When I see someone as literalist, and as tekkie, and as invested emotionally in playing “gotcha” as you are, I realize you don’t have a brain. You are a parrot. Lawyers often are.

Now do stop being a parrot and just realize that nothing whatsoever of what you imagine happened occurred, you were wrong, and you’re wrong on several matters, but that’s ok, because it doesn’t matter. These are abstractions. Until somebody actually gets a case going on “contract of adhesion,” and keeps it going through all the appelate courts and whatnot and wins, it’s all just speculation.

I don’t know who those lawyers are, or where they practice, but, at least in regard to the California courts — i.e. the ones where the LL TOS requires all claims to be brought — that assertion is flat out wrong. To the contrary, in recent years, the California appellate courts have more often than not affirmed lower court decisions holding contract terms invalid on grounds of adhesion and unconscionability. Indeed, in some cases, the appellate courts have found voided contract terms on adhesion and unconscionability ground where the trial court had not.

I’ll give these anonymous lawyers the benefit of the doubt and presume that they aren’t familiar with California law. It is true that many other jurisdictions are less amenable to adhesion & unconscionability defenses. But their advice carries little if any weight as far as SL is concerned.

Um, here’s what I wrote again, asswipe. My God, people like you are vain. Are you even a lawyer?! Why would you persist in looking so fucking stupid?!

Here is what I said AGAIN:

“And the issue of contracts of adhesion was dealt with by Bragg v. Linden, and we’ll never know, at least from that case, how that flew, as they settled out of court.”

What part of “issue of contracts of adhesion was dealt with” do you not understand?! That’s the whole issue. The rubric covering that issue. I didn’t even feel it necessary to get into the bit about the arbitrarion *because everyone knows it already reading this blog*. You can’t resist trying a hortatory little aside because you imagine somebody still needs to “learn” this. They don’t. It’s been long ago absorbed and everyone went on.

What the court looked at was a narrower issue of an unconscionable TOS on the matter of the arbitration. They didn’t really address the entire broader scope of contract of adhesion as an entirely unfair TOS as far as I can tell. If you have citations, bring them.

The contracts of adhesion problem went NOWHERE. And we’ll never know where it might have gone as it was SETTLED. Der.

Furthermore, we’re told by lawyers at VW08 panels that litigators who get a recognition of a contract of adhesion almost never succeed upon appeal. That lets us know the test is very narrow.

Um, no, that’s not what you wrote. But nice try.

Re-read what I wrote. I said that the entire issue of *contract of adhesion* was not dealt with as a whole. I didn’t feel it was necessary to tag the separate base once again and talk about the “unconscionable” bit, because we all know that, and people mistakenly believe when they hear that that the “entire TOS” was unconscionable — whereas it was only this one narrow bit about arbitration.

It doesn’t matter if the court was “prepared to view” the contract as one of adhesion — they didn’t. And furthermore, I heard at least two lawyers at the Virtual Worlds legal track last week say that when people get these rulings on “adhesion” or “unconscionability” they never win on appeal. So it sounds elusive.

It is certainly correct that the technology requires LL’s having SOME license to reproduce and distribute resident-created content. The license that LL arrogates to itself in its TOS goes far beyond what is technologically required — indeed, by its terms, the license is absolutely limitless. A decent lawyer could easily have drafted a more reasonable license that would adequately have addressed the technological requirements. Instead, whoever drafted the current license chose, for whatever reason, to adopt the broadest and most over-reaching language imaginable. Even without ascribing evil motives, that language is and should be of serious concern.

As for nominal use, the terms of the new TM policy, on their face, would indeed impose restrictions on nominal use, in ways not permitted under U.S. TM law. LL is using its TOS to cram down those restrictions on residents, whose only alternatives are to reject the TOS and leave SL now, or accept the TOS and face the prospect of being chucked from SL later at LL’s whim. Prok may not see that; but anyone who understands TM and contract law can.

I’m also finding Timeless thing very self-serving. Why would the asset server agree to separately send out his multigadget updates to everyone on a firewalled server? If those people weren’t subscribers already or purchasers. That part makes no sense. I think he is looking for trouble somehow. I’d like to hear a better explanation of this.

I don’t at all see that the new TOS makes you sign away nominal use. And the issue of contracts of adhesion was dealt with by Bragg v. Linden, and we’ll never know, at least from that case, how that flew, as they settled out of court.