Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 21st Aug 2012 21:57 UTC
Windows With Windows 8 right around the corner, the usual game of reading the end-user license agreements and spotting the different versions is in full swing. Usually, this is a game of ridicule as Microsoft comes up with ever more convoluted version schemes and EULA terms. This time around, though, the company seems to be taking steps to make things easier, as Ed Bott reports.
Permalink for comment 531862
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Why would companies care?
by Alfman on Thu 23rd Aug 2012 04:40 UTC in reply to "Why would companies care?"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

leech,

"Besides, as far as I know, the EULAs have NEVER stood up in court, anywhere. GPL has because it's a copyright rather than just a license."

I'm not following your distinction? "License" is right there in the GPL acronym.

Take a look at this case as it may be a counter-example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg

I find this ruling disappointing for various reasons. One of which is that phone directories are not supposed to be copyrightable. The judge ignored this and essentially concluded the EULA trumps copyright law. There wasn't even a formal contract in place, just a damned clickwrap license. I'd write this one up to a seriously bad judge, but it has established a precedent. It proves that with the "right" judge, you can get any ruling you want.


What I find despicable with "clickwrap" licenses generally is:
1) they aren't explicitly available at the time of purchase
2) you have to "agree" to them before you can see the product
3) Opened software typically is not accepted for return if one doesn't agree with the EULA. It's notoriously difficult.

For example, Dell's return policy is:
"We accept returns of software for refund or credit only if the package containing the disks is sealed and unopened."

Clickwrap licensing is a scam.

Reply Parent Score: 4