> I'm through with this discussion, except to say that you really do need to
> read posts before commenting on them. First, I NEVER made the blanket
> statement that machines can't bind somebody to a contract. I did say,
> however, that it is NOT enough to show the machine's action. One must also
> show additional elements. Such as intent. It is clear that, when one puts
> money in a machine, they are showing an intent to purchase. And the machine
> has writing that offers cans for a certain amount. But if the machine
> screws up, and spews out a whole lot of cans, guess what? If the person
> takes them all without paying for them, he is STEALING! Get it yet? I
> doubt it.
Even after *three* attempts to make it clear that the point of the vending machine example is to focus on the **VENDOR'S** intent, embodied in the configuration of the machine, you still focus on the client instead of the server. The point is that the candy buyer is analogous to the web client and the machine's vendor is analogous to the web author. The only difference is that sale of a good requires consideration, whereas a copyright licence does not. If the posted price is "free", your argument actually proves my point.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:50 GMT