This is great and I am glad to see TechCrunch making great strides here.
In my view the problem with the tablet market has been a combination of high pricing and bad timing. The market for tablets now is increasing though and the benefits can be great. I think many of the naysayers here are thinking there is no way a tablet can replace a laptop or phone for various reasons, but I say that the market for a tablet is not directed at them. A tablet is not meant to be a replacement device, but instead a compliment to your current devices and/or a business tool. Here are some immediate benefits/uses I can think of:
1. Faster boot time (great for presentations, looking something up quick on the internet, inventory management systems, sales professionals)
2. Lightweight compared to laptops (remember cost is a factor here too)
3. No clunky equipment inside, making the lifespan a little longer
4. So the monitor sits wide open and may not be durable. This opens up a market for accessory companies to build durable covers. Both my Blackberry and iPhone have screens that came with no protection, but I was quick to buy covers for them both.
5. Can be mass produced for cheap. Take away experimentation costs and development costs, Arrington has said that the cost to produce will be $200 or less. This makes them accessible to everyone.
Before knocking tablets, you must remember that not everyone has a computer on 24x7x365 and easily accessible. Being able to easily check web-based email or surf the web is the entire point of this device. No boot-up, zero to minimal errors, no complex operating system to fight with, the list goes on.
That is why most sites have a line that says something like: "XYZ Company reserves the right to update and change these Terms of Service from time to time and without notice. Continued use of the Site after any such changes shall constitute your consent to such changes. It is YOUR responsibility to check these Terms of Service from time to time."
As it has already been said the Terms of Service on a site are for your, as the site owner, protection mainly. They should outline the responsibility you will take and the responsibility your customers are required to take. Additionally, a good Terms of Service will have a limited liability clause, a warranty clause, termination clause in it.
Now to answer your question there are several ways sites handle this. Mainly it is a trust though and the burden of proof lies on the end user. That is why sites will have a line like "your continued use of this service" signifies you have accepted the terms of the site. A good example would be if you got pulled over for speeding. You figure you are going to get a ticket and be on your way. But unfortunately there is a new law that says you will be arrested. While you probably will hear about it on the news or online somewhere, the state doesn't send a letter to every person that has a driver's license informing them of the new law. The state changed their terms and didn't notify you. But by having a driver's license in that state it is your responsibility to know the driving laws and the consequences for not following those laws.
Sadly you can arbitrarily declare where someone can sue you. In legal terms it is called a "forum-selection clause" and is common in almost every contract you will read here in the US. The party designates what court will hear any dispute regarding the nonperformance of the contract. Google does have a forum-selection clause in their terms of service for Google Checkout so to sue for breach of contract she would have to file in the court stated in the terms of service for Google.
One option would be for her to file with a local court and seek jurisdiction. This would be time consuming and costly though. I am not sure exactly how this would work with her being in the UK.
It's not that crazy if you think about it. We have 50 different sets of state contract law and precedence to deal with (unlike your 13 superior courts to watch) and a larger amount of interstate commerce and contracts to be handled. Compounding the problem is that fact that state laws regarding contracts can vary quite widely. While some companies may wish to restrict jurisdiction to states that have a pro-business bias this is less of a factor than you might think (companies sue each other far more often than consumers sue companies) and what most companies are looking for is a single standard to use for the contract. No one wants to learn the hard way that some state changed a law six months ago which completely hoses you for liability or contract enforcement and if a contract could not specify a jurisdiction then companies would be forced to stay up to date on new legal precedents and new legislative efforts in all fifty states.
You can try to change the jurisdiction, but it is hard to do this for a very specific reason.
Yeah,it is a little crazy, but kind of makes sense if you think about it when it comes to preventing frivolous lawsuits.
There are ways around it, and as you pointed out you can file locally and try to convince the local court that i should take jurisdiction over the case. But this would cost you money and time. Plus, you would have an uphill battle trying to convince a court to overturn a clause you agreed to in the first place.
While you cannot always do it, at least in the states, if you are negotiating a contract for your business try to get the other party to agree to dual jurisdiction. Basically stating that your local court or their local court can have jurisdiction over the contract. Some parties will agree outright, others will want it to say something like if they sue you it has to be in your court, but if you sue them it has to be in their court.
You can have a contract that has a "forum-selection clause" but it's far less binding that people assume. For example if there was fraud or duress or undue influence involved in the signing of the contract then the entire contract can be worthless including the "forum-selection clause".
FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES ARE NOT BINDING ABSENT A SIGNED WRITTEN CONTRACT. EVEN WITH A CONTRACT, ALMOST NO COURT IN THE US WILL HONOR A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE BETWEEN A CONSUMER AND A CORPORATION.
Think about it: if forum selection clauses did have legal effect (between consumers and corporations), you wouldn't be able to sue most companies unless you were willing to go to Delaware (where roughly 90% of naitonal US corps are headquartered). The reason we have lawsuits everywhere is precisely b/c you can file anywhere, even despite a forum selection clause.
ONLY BUSINESSES NEED TO WORRY ABOUT FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES.
That statement is wrong. Forum selection clauses are binding absent a signed written contract. For example, one of the more famous cases setting precedent for forum selection clauses involved Carnival Cruise Lines. In that case a passenger injured on a cruise attempted to sue Carnival in the passenger's local jurisdiction. Carnival countered that because there was a forum-selection clause in the contract printed on the back of the passenger's ticket that the passenger should be forced to sue Carnival in Florida. The case went all the way to the US Supreme Court which ruled that the forum-selection clause on Carnival's ticket was fair and reasonable and enforceable against the passenger. Check out Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v Shute 499 US 595, 111 S.Ct122 (1991) for details on this exact case.
Now I am by no means saying that forum-selection clauses are an end all to potential contract lawsuits (key here being contract disputes and not just any lawsuit between a plaintiff and defendent corporation). There are ways to fight the forum-selection part, but you must be prepared to fight it and pay the legal expenses involved. Sometimes it is a matter of weighing the cost versus the outcome sadly and that is why corporations end up avoiding the lawsuits in contract disputes.
Check the case again: this case is only mandatory precedent for ADMIRALTY cases. While strongly persuasive precedent, b/c it is SCOTUS, it has not been followed in the state courts.
Was on the road today and just noticed the stats for several of our sites were really low today. This explains the problem. Does anyone know how long it was down for? I know David is a member here so any details from him would be greatly appreciated.
Oops, just noticed the answer to my question on their website. Looks like it was only down an hour. Guess it was a slow day for our sites. Oh well. Still support EveryDNS 100% though!
Not to shoot your idea down, but I agree with the other comment. But, to answer your question sure I would sell my designs. Who would buy them is a different question though. Like the other comment, what stops a potential customer from just downloading my page, stylesheets, js files, etc... and making them their own?
For unique templates, companies like TemplateMonster have made a good business for themselves selling web templates though and I would see them as your primary competition in this market. With their brand recognition and affiliate program though I would find it difficult to believe you would have a chance at competing against them unless you developed a different, better, pricing model and provided better services (i.e. include template customization or css conversion at no charge for customers).
I get similar letters at least once a week. The first time it did catch me off-guard, but after talking with our attorney we determined it was a scam to get people to buy China domains. Interestingly enough the same company "Path soft Corp" is always the one trying to register domain names that supposedly infringe on my trademarks.
It is not unheard of (i.e. DEMO is a good example). However, comparing this event to DEMO is like comparing apples and oranges. The visibility of DEMO makes the fee a little less hard to swallow. The visibility of this event is limited primarily to a particular state. They would be better off marketing this as a "conference" or "exhibit" where up to 40 companies can participate and a Top 10 will be selected. To say it is the Top 40 in Georgia though is a little deceiving and false advertising in my opinion. For example, what if I am legitimately selected as one of the top 40 and cannot afford to participate (and assuming I do not qualify for a "scholarship"), does the next company in line take my spot or are only 39 companies exhibiting? If the next company takes my spot, then you really can't say it is the Top 40 in Georgia, it is more like the Top 39 and a company that could afford to pay. Yes, I know it clearly states that I will be charged a fee if selected before I apply, but that in itself destroys the notion of a "Top 40" since obviously the only 40 companies there are going to be ones that can either afford to pay or qualify for a scholarship.
The better option in this case would be to setup something like TechCrunch50 where the top 50 get to present for free, BUT other companies can exhibit for a fee.
The bad part about these events being marketed like as a "Top XXX" competition is that people generally assume, based on the title of the competition, that if you aren't exhibiting then you are not a "Top Company", when in fact you could have been selected but unable to afford the cost of exhibiting.
Sadly when events like this are held and marketed this way I think good companies are often overlooked. My technology may be the next great thing, but will be overlooked because I can't afford the "entry fee" to exhibit and be viewed as a "Top 40" or possibly a "Top 10" in the state.
Not to just keep pimping my own things, but this was why I started Startup Riot (http://www.startupriot.com) which I just held in Atlanta last week. Presenting companies pay nothing and there are no exhibitors. Other startups can attend and pay the registration fee ($20/person for startups).
That said, you make a good point on what happens if a company drops out because they can't pay. I'm not clear as to what happens. Since it's billed as a Top 40, I'm assuming they fill the slot with someone else.
We use everydns.com here as well. It is free, but they do ask for donations. If you donate I think it is at least $15 they will remove the restrictions on the number of domains you have. They have an easy to use web interface and are extremely reliable. Overall we couldn't be happier with them.
