As someone who's never worked for a company that produces commercial software, I'm curious about what he's referring to.
The EULA will likely need to go through multiple iterations between local and partner lawyers before the language is agreed upon - so expediting is not always an option.
Probably the most famous case, Bodine v Enterprise High School, involved a teenager who fell through a painted over skylight while stealing (or redirecting to play basketball) a spotlight off the roof. Because of the fall he became a quadriplegic, he didn't really have much to lose suing the school district because, well, his life as he knew it was over. He had a lifetime of medical bills to pay and no way to earn an income.
There are definitely plenty of scam artists or leeches or whatever you want to call them abusing the legal system because it's easier than getting a real job, but don't underestimate the people backed into a corner by debt.
As said in Mr Robot, debt is the invisible hand that coerces us all
Debt: The First 5,000 Years
There are general principles of responsibility of property owners for dangerous conditions on the property that apply even when the harm done by them is done to trespassers (and regardless of the purpose of the trespass.) IIRC, these are largely common law principles, and older than the US.
Of course, they don't relieve any criminal liability for crimes committed by the trespasser on the property, or any civil liability for torts committed on the property, but if you are already on the hook for those and can't try to claim that you weren't the intruder, there's no reason not to try to pursue any colorable claim you have.
Bizarre!
In many US jurisdictions, not generally the case. The ones with a strong "castle doctrine" are notable because this is not the norm.
But, even so...
> So - if an intruder breaks in to your house, you can shoot him without repercussions
Your loose stair carpet was not created as a specific and immediate response to a particular unlawful act, and thus the relief from otherwise applicable legal liability attached as a result of self-defense doesn't apply to it.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement, it's actually the other way around. Most US states have a castle doctrine law of varying strength. Even the "gun-unfriendly" states like NJ, NY, and CA.
If you weren't the initial aggressor, and you are in your home with a licensed/legal firearm, you may shoot an intruder. Duty to retreat doesn't apply to your house...which makes perfect sense.
You're misunderstanding my statement. And/or considering only the duty to retreat and not the threat aspect of self-defense.
> Most US states have a castle doctrine law of varying strength.
Right, key part being "of varying strength"; but, AFAIK, very few have a strong castle doctrine law that would make "you can shoot an intruder without liability" generally true; IIRC, the most common version is the very weak form where being in your home basically just eliminates the obligation to flee if able in preference to using deadly force in self defense, but does not have an effect on the level of threat (both subjective and objective) which must be posed before using deadly force.
> If you weren't the initial aggressor, and you are in your home with a licensed/legal firearm, you may shoot an intruder.
Generally, "licensed/legal firearm" is irrelevant to self-defense analysis (whether in the home or otherwise).
It may or may not be "just fine" in general (e.g., it might violate building codes, etc.), but if you deliberately used it in a condition where you were legally authorized to use deadly force in self defense, you probably wouldn't be liable for that particular use.
For instance if you break in a house while the owner is on holidays, and stay a few days, not only the owner would have to go to court for years to kick you out, but the owner is not even legally permitted to enter his own house until after the execution of the eviction, after all appeals have been exhausted.
...not just in the US!
Someone I know was away from home for an evening, and found the police at her door when she came back. Turns out some junky decided to break into her gardening shed to find something to force entry to the main house. Was so high he accidentally slit his wrist on the glass window he broke to climb inside the shed. Neighbours heard him cry and called the police.
Police told her she was very lucky he didn't die, as she was responsible for his well-being while breaking in.
In a related note, if you have a dog, you need a sign to warn burglers about it , as you have to safeguard anyone in your house, including burglars. If the sign talks about a dangerous dog, it means you knew the dog was dangerous and have a higher responsibility for injuries.
As far as I understand it (IANAL), the legal theory is that breaking in and failing to safeguard the burglar are 2 unrelated crimes, which each deserve their own punishment/damages.
Otherwise I could break in somewhere, hurt myself (there is always a possibility) and sue the owner of the house. Unless the owner builds traps to severely injure anyone who enters the house even if there's no danger to residents, I cannot imagine a court deciding in favour of the burglar.
It may be different if you have a dog that is trained to injure/kill anyone who enters the premise. That could lead to a court case, e.g. if the dog injures a child who wanted to retrieve a ball from the garden and there was no warning sign.
Do you have any links for cases that were actually won by the burglar?
Greta: Mr. Reede, several years ago a friend of mine had a burglar on her roof—a burglar. He fell through the kitchen skylight, landed on a cutting board, on a butcher's knife, cutting his leg. The burglar sued my friend. He sued my friend and because of guys like you, he won. My friend had to pay the burglar $6,000. Is that justice?
Fletcher: No!…I'd have got him ten.
If you're talking about public leaks (rather than just private leaks to a few individuals), surely they're not that hard to find?
I wonder if you mean the leakers?
(for the record, I'm a moderator of a forum which discusses said "leaked builds of Windows"; and I help try to find and preserve those that leaked long enough ago such that they have almost disappeared)
Surely if the "leak" is the result of an employee acting unlawfully, i.e. maliciously leaking their employer's intellectual property in contravention of their employment agreement, then the leak does not constitute a disclosure.
If it did, then IP-based organisations would have an absurd level of exposure to the bad actions of any employee, and would have to impose equally absurd security measures - cavity searches at the exits, anyone? - on every employee with access to IP.
No idea if a leaked build would count as shipping for these purposes, though.
But then I remembered that there are other countries in the world other than the USA. Those other countries have different rules! It's sometimes difficult for Americans to remember that, since we're so insular here. E.g. I haven't been out of the USA in probably about 25 years.