I never suggested anything that I thought was illegal . . .

I never suggested anything that I thought was illegal . . .

[Brett 'Volleyball is my game' Kettering]

From the article <7390@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> (David Kassover)

>In article <9E10893F111F400A5B@icdc.llnl.gov> KETTERING@SPIKE.llnl.gov (Brett 'Volleyball is my game' Kettering) writes:
>|About this mess of buying software and such at outrageously inflated prices
>|overseas.  Have the prospective foreign buyers thought of getting ahold of
>|someone they know and trust in the U.S., having them buy it cheaply here and
>|ship it to them?  If they are trusted friends it seems that some sort of
>|payment method, acceptable to both, could be worked out here.

>There's a word for that kind of activity.  "Smuggling" comes to
>mind.  This is not to say that it doesn't happen, or should or
>shouldn't happen.

To the best of my knowledge it is not illegal, nor is it "smuggling" to have
someone in another country send you legally obtained, noncontraband items and
send them to you via the postal system.  When I lived in Argentina, friends
sent me things all the time.  They simply declared the contents of the package
on an invoice, paid the postage, and sent them.  I did the same from Argentina
back to the U.S.

If this is, for some unknown reason, illegal then why did the postal officials
in both of these countries allow it to occur?  If it were not legal then the
officials were either ignorant of the law or just not paying attention to the
declaration of contents accompanying the packages.  I doubt that the officials
were ignorant of the law.

Does the mere fact that the foreign party will reimburse the purchaser make
this act illegal?  I would think not.

>There are also classes of goods for which the US shipper accepts
>responsibility for non-transferance to prohibited countries.

If the item listed on the contents invoice is prohibited to the destined
country then it is the responsibility of the postal officials to make this
known to the sender and not allow it to be sent.  In the case of the original
article the item was sold in the foreign country, so it must not be a 
prohibited country for the product.  There is no intent to hide the contents
of the package, only to provide it at a reasonable cost.

Brett Kettering

Re: I never suggested anything that I thought was illegal . . .

[David Kassover]

In article <9B05573732FF4013B5@icdc.llnl.gov> KETTERING@SPIKE.llnl.gov (Brett 'Volleyball is my game' Kettering) writes:
>From the article <7390@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> (David Kassover)
>
>>In article <9E10893F111F400A5B@icdc.llnl.gov> KETTERING@SPIKE.llnl.gov (Brett 'Volleyball is my game' Kettering) writes:
>>|About this mess of buying software and such at outrageously inflated prices
>>|overseas.  Have the prospective foreign buyers thought of getting ahold of
>>|someone they know and trust in the U.S., having them buy it cheaply here and
>>|ship it to them?  If they are trusted friends it seems that some sort of
>>|payment method, acceptable to both, could be worked out here.
>
>>There's a word for that kind of activity.  "Smuggling" comes to
>>mind.  This is not to say that it doesn't happen, or should or
>>shouldn't happen.
....
>>There are also classes of goods for which the US shipper accepts
>>responsibility for non-transferance to prohibited countries.
>
>If the item listed on the contents invoice is prohibited to the destined
>country then it is the responsibility of the postal officials to make this
>known to the sender and not allow it to be sent.

First of all, postal clerks, in the US, in general, are not intimately
familiar with the entire "contraband list"  (disclaimer:  neither
am I)  Just because something is commonly done doesn't make it
legal (or illegal) (or a good idea or a bad idea)


Secondly, if I ship something from USA to country X, that it is
perfectly legal to ship to X, and then the recipient in
X ships it to some other place Y, which may be perfectly legal
to ship to from X, but not from USA to Y, the shipper from USA to
X *may* have some liability.

Intent has little to do with it.


Sanity Check:

Someone said "why not do blotz?"  I provided a (possibly too
casually stated) reason why not.

THIS IS ALL SPECULATION, not demand for performance.  Do with it
what you will.


In my E-mail to the poster of the complainant about 100% markup + VAT,
I discussed my views on this and possible courses of action.  Has
little to do with Ada programming or Software Engineering.
--
David Kassover             "Proper technique helps protect you against
kassover@ra.crd.ge.com	    sharp weapons and dull judges."
kassover@crd.ge.com			F. Collins

Re: Export of Ada compilers

[Mike Feldman]

In article <7463@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> kassover@jupiter.crd.ge.com (David Kassover) writes:
>
>Secondly, if I ship something from USA to country X, that it is
>perfectly legal to ship to X, and then the recipient in
>X ships it to some other place Y, which may be perfectly legal
>to ship to from X, but not from USA to Y, the shipper from USA to
>X *may* have some liability.
>
There seem to be a couple of issues here. Recently I purchased a copy of
Turbo Pascal 5.5 from a major mail-order house. On the box there was a
prominent label which said "NOT FOR EXPORT! For use in the U.S. and
Canada only!" As far as I could tell, this had no legal strength and
was just put there so _Borland_ could control export through its 
designated agents overseas. If the mail-order house sent it outside
the U.S. and Canada, conceivably it would be violating a resale agreement
it had with Borland, so Borland could sue for breach of contract. But
it's not _illegal_ as far as I can tell, right?

Now suppose I resell the software to my friend in country Y. I am
normally allowed to resell software, since the license usually gives me
that right (as long as I delete my own copy, of course...). What laws
am I breaking? 

Suppose I just buy it in Egghead Software and move to France, 
taking it with me? 

Suppose I get tired of it and sell it to a friend in France? 

Suppose I _give_ it to my friend in France?

So much for Turbo Pascal. How about Ada? Certain Ada technology is
export-controlled in the sense that it isn't supposed to land behind
what we used to call the Iron Curtain. Since Meridian has an agent in the UK
who is legally selling the compiler there, it obviously isn't illegal to
sell it in the European Community. What is stopping me, then, from sending
a copy there myself? I buy it, I leave it shrink-wrapped, I ship it out
with full disclosure on the forms. I may be undermining Meridian's agent
over there, which of course hurts their business purpose, but am I breaking
the law? I doubt it.

Any software lawyers out there in Ada land?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Michael Feldman
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
The George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052
+1-202-994-5253
mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Export of Ada compilers

[Vladimir G. Ivanovic]

Well, the United States has these stupid laws which govern trademarks
and such.  If I import a Nikon camera into the US, I have to file off
the Nikon name.  Nikon USA owns the trademark Nikon and will not allow
importation of Nikon cameras into the US except under their auspices.

I find it hard to imagine how to file off the trademarked names in
software.  Note that it's not illegal to import cameras into the US.

The upshot is that it is (unfortunately) possible for it to be illegal
to import, even for private use, a product that is sold quite legally.

Consumers suffer; industrialists artificially keep the prices high.

-- In the name of free trade, Vladimir

Re: Export of Ada compilers

[David Kassover]

I seem to have touched off a little firestorm here.

I have begun correspondence with a lawyer friend of mine, who
happens to deal in import/export.

Also with another friend of mine, not a lawyer, whose job brings
him into contact with issues related to transshipment of
sensitive or potentially sensitive materials.

In the meantime, I will continue to be suspicious of requests
from "friends" to transship goods.  Particularly the ones who
make jokes about thickwall steel pipe, 14" i.d., 770" long.

I wonder how many spooks read this newsgroup.

Back to Ada.  
--
David Kassover             "Proper technique helps protect you against
kassover@ra.crd.ge.com	    sharp weapons and dull judges."
kassover@crd.ge.com			F. Collins