Print

Print
Sometimes in a French movie, documentary, or rap video you can see a judge (real or fake) standing there in his judicial robes, thumping a law book and answering a question like Dak's.    I don't think I've ever seen such a thing portrayed in an American film, much less in real life.  IANAL but I've assumed this somehow relates to a fundamental difference between the American/English adversarial system in which nothing is decided until there is an actual case to decide, and the top-down Roman system from which the French system is more closely derived.   Given a sufficient number of lifetimes in which to learn things, I'd pick this topic for one of them so I could understand it better.

John Gorentz



At 03:51 PM 9/14/2010, David McFarlane wrote:
Like everyone else on this list, IANAL.  Nevertheless, here is my general understanding.  You are asking for a simple absolute answer, and in the law there are almost no absolutes.  Nothing ever abolves anyone of ALL legal recourse; anyone can bring suit against anyone else at any time for any thing.  What matters is not absolution against legal recourse, but instead what *might* (note the note of probability there) in fact happen in any real case, and the only way to judge that is to look at past real cases and decisions.  And that is why we have law schools.

So you need to rephrase your question.  Instead of asking simply, "Does it absolve the college of ALL legal recourse," ask, "What cases like this have been brought in the past, what was the resolution in those cases, and how might that apply under the conditions of my situation."  That is the best that you or anyone can do.

-- dkm


Aldrich, Dak wrote:
In the case you have provided, then, if the answer is "gray" then it is No.

My question was: Does it absolve the college of ALL legal recourse..."  If the answer is not yes, then it is no.  And this DRASTICALLY affects our decision to allow faculty to install ANY software on their machines themselves.

I will make sure I forward GC's response to me out to all of you, so we all have a Yes or No answer to this question.

Thanks!

-dak


On 9/14/10 3:29 PM, "Gary Schrock" <<[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:

On 9/14/2010 3:10 PM, Aldrich, Dak wrote:
 RE:  Legal responsibility of software installed by faculty Ok.  I think I need to re-phrase my questions regarding who is legally responsible, bottom line, for software installed on university purchased machines.  A lot of good things came up with the responses I got.  However, I now need a VERY SPECIFIC response.

Yes or No.

If (answer != YES) | (answer != NO) then {
    msg = "Do not answer this email";
};

If we have an agreement that states explicitly that faculty are responsible for all software they install and it's state of legality, does that absolve the College of ALL legal recourse, should the faculty be found to have installed illegal software?




I think the answer is probably more grey than yes or no, because it's going to depend on the lawyers and judges ultimately involved.  And once you get to that point, yes and no aren't really easy to answer.  My guess would be that if some company decided to go after someone they discovered using illegal copies of their software, the lawsuit would likely name the individual, the department, and quite frankly probably the university, and then it would be up to the legal wranglings of lawyers and judges to decide who really should be held responsible.

Given that, then the answer is probably a lot closer to No than Yes.

If the answer is "some of it, but not all of it" then the answer I'm looking for is "No".

I have spoken to several individuals, both at ATS and in Gifts office, and have not gotten a flat out Yes or No from anyone.

The answer I get will determine how we deal with allowing them to install their own software, as well as our internal College level IT Policies.

Again, thank you for all the responses I got, and some of the advice and thoughts I received.  They were helpful for other issues, as well as this one.

Thanks!

-dak