Linked by Nescio on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:05 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 352427
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-10-12
They are, some of them, at least being consistent. They really do think that any software manufacturer should be allowed to place any restrictions he wants to in the EULA and have the courts enforce them. It is difficult to see their reasoning. Its not clear that such a provision is necessary to the health of the industry, in the way that copyright arguably is. And its not clear that there would be any social benefits to it, though there might be many to a supplier by reduction of competition.
We do in consumer protection law commonly restrict what agreements companies can make with their customers. In the UK, for instance, no agreement which limits the consumer rights you have in law will be valid.
There is no evidence that the ability to restrict what we do with software in way of installation of one authorized and purchased copy is either a necessary or desirable power for companies to have.