42.10. Acceptable Use; Safety-Critical Systems. Your use of the Lumberyard Materials must comply with the Acceptable Use Policy. The Lumberyard Materials are not intended for use with life-critical or safety-critical systems, such as use in operation of medical equipment, automated transportation systems, autonomous vehicles, aircraft or air traffic control, nuclear facilities, manned spacecraft, or military use in connection with live combat.
However, this restriction will not apply in the event of the occurrence (certified by the United States Centers for Disease Control or successor body) of a widespread viral infection transmitted via bites or contact with bodily fluids that causes human corpses to reanimate and seek to consume living human flesh, blood, brain or nerve tissue and is likely to result in the fall of organized civilization.
Even more unfortunately, there is no “US Centers for Disease Control” (there is a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which typically uses an acronym in which the “and Prevention” is not represented) so the certification condition can never be met.
This is the kind of "bug" that I would expect matters in smart contracts, but is easily treated by a court (the ultimate interpreter of a contract) as meaning being perfectly clear, and therefore is not a problem.
At least in smart contracts (in a world where everything would be smart contracts), you could bind the association to a UID for the right entity, so it couldn't be fooled by setting up a organization with exactly the same name in order to fool humans.
You could, but it would likely be against the intent of the contract. Note that it also mentions "or successor body". So a smart contract would still be worse in this scenario.
For this kind of event I don't think it's possible to define what "successor body" means. If the US government falls, is the "New United States" body "US Centre of Disease Control" a successor body? If CDC (and its private keys) gets nuked as part of containment, is the spinoff "US Centre of Zombie Prevention and Control" the successor? Maybe. Depends how the role of CDC was split up in the new world.
Is it an easy question? No. A court will likely have a hard time doing the right interpretation. But with smart contracts it instead becomes impossible to achieve the goals intended by all parties involved in making the contract.
(Of course laws can be enacted and dictate a given interpretation, too, saying e.g. that any contract clause preventing use by the military against zombies is void)
And so it goes for all smart contracts. A smart contract can bring back slavery. But slavery is illegal. Now what?
So a smart contract would still be worse in this scenario
Not necessarily, contract could be made to accept "claim" from either UID matching exactly X, or where inheritsFrom/inheritsTo is set to UID Y. Just has the court would have to think about the right interpretation, a contract would have to think about the right implementation. Sure, both of tradeoffs, but such is the world.
A smart contract can bring back slavery
How exactly? Slavery is something physical, smart contracts only deal with concepts in the digital realm.
from either UID matching exactly X, or where inheritsFrom/inheritsTo is set to UID Y.
I already gave the example where the US government has fallen, and "New United States" does not inherit from US government.
Just has the court would have to think about the right interpretation, a contract would have to think about the right implementation
My point here is that not everything can be foreseen. Not even every mistake in the contract can be foreseen. And that is why it's more important to be able to make these interpretive decisions after the new information comes in, and not be tied to a codification made on bad or incomplete data cementing an interpretation no party wanted, and no person would ever think was the intention or even common-sense interpretation.
In any case all smart contracts contradicting actual contracts or laws are moot. Say a smart contract says that Amazon can't sell to nuclear plants. There's absolutely no way for a smart contract to prevent this.
Even if 100% of the economy was transacted on the same blockchain there would be nothing stopping Amazon giving software to a nuclear powerplant and that nuclear powerplant sending them money. At most they'd have to create a subentity, like an ice cream truck, that they buy one ice cream from, for $10M.
Hell, the nuclear plant could reclassify itself as an ice cream truck.
It's not the ink in the contract, nor the code in the smart contract, that prevents breach. It's the law and legal system. Because ink and code can't.
Sure, both of tradeoffs, but such is the world.
I don't think there is a tradeoff. At best a smart contract is more efficient. But in order to actually be useful it needs to be overridable.
Just like how a handshake deal or verbal contract is more efficient. But we all agree that courts decide. You can't make a handshake deal and expect courts to say "well, slavery is illegal, but their palms touched so there's nothing I can do".
Handshake is more efficient than smart contract, and as long as everything goes 100% according to plan a smart contract is more effective at execution/enforcement. But when it inevitably goes wrong it's many orders of magnitude harder to fix.
Children and some mentally disabled people cannot legally enter contracts. Smart contracts will never be able to codify these things either. Smart contracts are completely missing the point about what's hard about contracts, and instead make things worse.
Slavery is something physical, smart contracts only deal with concepts in the digital realm.
A person's ownership over another can be on the blockchain. In this scenario Amazon's ability to sell software or service to certain customers is on the blockchain.
In fact, if something like that actually happened, it's likely a court would interpret "viral" more in the sense of "going viral" -- i.e., something that spread widely and quickly, as opposed to something that was spread specifically by a virus.
I think many a real court would (however much it conflicts with certain idealized views of court operation) in different ways depending on whether the issue before it was Amazon seeking to exclude the use as unauthorized as a basis for breach (either seeking damages or seeking to avoid damages for cutting off the entity using the software in a CDC certified zombie invasion) or the some other party seeking to use the fact that it was an authorized use of Amazon software to make a product liability claim against Amazon for harms resulting from such use.
The "Center for Disease Control and Prevention" was previously the "Center for Disease Control", although I don't know if the rename makes it a "successor organization".
Examples: ophiocordyceps [0,1] is a fungus, and toxoplasmosis [2,3] is a single-celled eukaryote. I've commented this before: this is a loophole in the ToS.
Comments
Unfortunately, if the infection is bacterial, amoebic, or prionic in nature, you'll still have to use something else.
Even more unfortunately, there is no “US Centers for Disease Control” (there is a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which typically uses an acronym in which the “and Prevention” is not represented) so the certification condition can never be met.
This is the kind of "bug" that I would expect matters in smart contracts, but is easily treated by a court (the ultimate interpreter of a contract) as meaning being perfectly clear, and therefore is not a problem.
IANAL, though.
At least in smart contracts (in a world where everything would be smart contracts), you could bind the association to a UID for the right entity, so it couldn't be fooled by setting up a organization with exactly the same name in order to fool humans.
I do like anal.
You could, but it would likely be against the intent of the contract. Note that it also mentions "or successor body". So a smart contract would still be worse in this scenario.
For this kind of event I don't think it's possible to define what "successor body" means. If the US government falls, is the "New United States" body "US Centre of Disease Control" a successor body? If CDC (and its private keys) gets nuked as part of containment, is the spinoff "US Centre of Zombie Prevention and Control" the successor? Maybe. Depends how the role of CDC was split up in the new world.
Is it an easy question? No. A court will likely have a hard time doing the right interpretation. But with smart contracts it instead becomes impossible to achieve the goals intended by all parties involved in making the contract.
(Of course laws can be enacted and dictate a given interpretation, too, saying e.g. that any contract clause preventing use by the military against zombies is void)
And so it goes for all smart contracts. A smart contract can bring back slavery. But slavery is illegal. Now what?
Not necessarily, contract could be made to accept "claim" from either UID matching exactly X, or where inheritsFrom/inheritsTo is set to UID Y. Just has the court would have to think about the right interpretation, a contract would have to think about the right implementation. Sure, both of tradeoffs, but such is the world.
How exactly? Slavery is something physical, smart contracts only deal with concepts in the digital realm.
I already gave the example where the US government has fallen, and "New United States" does not inherit from US government.
My point here is that not everything can be foreseen. Not even every mistake in the contract can be foreseen. And that is why it's more important to be able to make these interpretive decisions after the new information comes in, and not be tied to a codification made on bad or incomplete data cementing an interpretation no party wanted, and no person would ever think was the intention or even common-sense interpretation.
In any case all smart contracts contradicting actual contracts or laws are moot. Say a smart contract says that Amazon can't sell to nuclear plants. There's absolutely no way for a smart contract to prevent this.
Even if 100% of the economy was transacted on the same blockchain there would be nothing stopping Amazon giving software to a nuclear powerplant and that nuclear powerplant sending them money. At most they'd have to create a subentity, like an ice cream truck, that they buy one ice cream from, for $10M.
Hell, the nuclear plant could reclassify itself as an ice cream truck.
It's not the ink in the contract, nor the code in the smart contract, that prevents breach. It's the law and legal system. Because ink and code can't.
I don't think there is a tradeoff. At best a smart contract is more efficient. But in order to actually be useful it needs to be overridable.
Just like how a handshake deal or verbal contract is more efficient. But we all agree that courts decide. You can't make a handshake deal and expect courts to say "well, slavery is illegal, but their palms touched so there's nothing I can do".
Handshake is more efficient than smart contract, and as long as everything goes 100% according to plan a smart contract is more effective at execution/enforcement. But when it inevitably goes wrong it's many orders of magnitude harder to fix.
Children and some mentally disabled people cannot legally enter contracts. Smart contracts will never be able to codify these things either. Smart contracts are completely missing the point about what's hard about contracts, and instead make things worse.
A person's ownership over another can be on the blockchain. In this scenario Amazon's ability to sell software or service to certain customers is on the blockchain.
Why is one more real than the other?
Surely a reasonable court would say that it's very clear what they meant?
In fact, if something like that actually happened, it's likely a court would interpret "viral" more in the sense of "going viral" -- i.e., something that spread widely and quickly, as opposed to something that was spread specifically by a virus.
I think many a real court would (however much it conflicts with certain idealized views of court operation) in different ways depending on whether the issue before it was Amazon seeking to exclude the use as unauthorized as a basis for breach (either seeking damages or seeking to avoid damages for cutting off the entity using the software in a CDC certified zombie invasion) or the some other party seeking to use the fact that it was an authorized use of Amazon software to make a product liability claim against Amazon for harms resulting from such use.
The "Center for Disease Control and Prevention" was previously the "Center for Disease Control", although I don't know if the rename makes it a "successor organization".
Examples: ophiocordyceps [0,1] is a fungus, and toxoplasmosis [2,3] is a single-celled eukaryote. I've commented this before: this is a loophole in the ToS.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15651231 ("'Zombie ant' brains left intact by fungal parasite")
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15376654 ("Rage Disorder Linked with Toxoplasmosis")
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasma_gondii
That is clearly a joke, which begs the question, what else in this contract is a joke? How is an uneducated man to know the difference?
One does not need to know the difference. It being entertaining does not change the enforceability.