daveb@geac.UUCP (Dave Brown) (06/11/87)
In article <174400034@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu> dorner@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >Please, I don't think anyone was (this time around) flaming Apple. We were >flaming Apple's lawyers. Nobody likes lawyers :-). It is unfortunate that >the legal profession has made it so that the only way to protect oneself >from horrible abuse is to make blustering statements that everyone knows >are meaningless in most cases. > Actually you are seeing bad legal draftsmanship (in their case, perhaps bad legal draftscrittership (:-)). If one wants to be user-friendly in Canada or anywhere using the British legal system, you say something like: Any copying, including but not limited to XXXX, is a breach of this agreement. Notwithstanding the above, YYYY is permitted for ZZZ purposes. For XXXX, list the bad things you might do. For YYYY, list the good things you are allowed to do. For ZZZZ, list the reason YYYY may be done, for the court to use in determining if bizzare_variant(YYYY) is legal. --dave (lawyers should take philosophy-of-law and semantics courses) brown