Rumors

Economics bloggers beware!  It seems that if you are  blogging out of South Korea your stinging criticism of national monetary policy or bailout plans can bring you to court!  In general though:

The government has denied wanting to suppress online freedom of expression, but it has long voiced concern about the influence of Internet rumors. Officials blamed online demagogues in part for huge protests last summer against U.S. beef imports that paralyzed the government for weeks.

I have no doubt that with the growing popularity of economics blogs and alternative opinion sources that some bloggers could become active forces in swaying public opinion, but is that a bad thing and should it be against the law to spread 'rumors' about the government? Luckily the court found the latter question's answer to be "no".

The Bare Necessities?

It seems that Brazilian courts are expanding the definition of what is an essential good.

(Link courtesy of that oh-so-lovely web clip scroller on the top of Gmail)

Odd Legal Precautions

It is, I am informed on the warning label, a violation of federal law to use my new bottle of Fantastik™ brand heavy-duty kitchen cleaner "in a manner inconsistent with these directions." Really?! So if I don't shake well before use, or I use on porous materials, I'm violating federal law? I've started noticing this little tagline on lots and lots of labels for lots and lots of products (I'm something of a compulsive label-reader) -- does anyone know what federal law they're talking about?

That's from The Volokh Conspiracy. One of the most interesting legal precautions that I have read about recently via the folks at Freakonomics is a curious little itunes:

From the department of curious legal precautions: Apple’s iTunes licensing agreement — which you have already agreed to if you’ve installed the latest version of the popular music software — contains a clause which prohibits anyone from using the program …

… for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture, or production of nuclear missiles or chemical or biological weapons.

So Apple has got the WMD angle covered. But say you’re interested in using iTunes to run your new nuclear reactor?

Not so fast. A separate version of the iTunes license agreement warns that:

The Apple software is not intended for use in the operation of nuclear facilities, aircraft navigation or communication systems, life support machines, or other equipment in which the failure of the Apple software could lead to death, personal injury, or severe physical or environmental damage.

It turns out that this “nuclear clause” shows up in all sorts of unlikely places, from virus scanners to desktop weather readers.

Is this language as useful as a no-parking sign in front of a broken fire hydrant? Or do software lawyers know something we don’t about what our computers are capable of?