Post by thread:[OT] Re: [EE] Re: Free PCB package

Roman Black wrote: > Chris Hunter wrote: > >>If you read the M$ Licence Agreement (that you signed up to by tearing open >>the packaging!), you'll discover that they've cleverly omitted to actually >>offer ANY support, ever! > > > > Those agreements are not legal and won't stand the > test of time. In a situation where 99% if the users > NEVER read the "agreement" the user can't be held > accountable. There are laws protecting the consumer > from "agreeing" to documents they may be tricked > into. Changing to [OT]: While I agree with you that this type of coerced contract is *usually* not enforceable under Common Law, I'm pretty sure I just read recently that at least one District Judge here in the U.S. upheld one of the shrink-wrap EULA agreements in a case recently. Of course, if Appealed, this ruling could be tied up for years. The legalality of software EULA's is ultimately something only Judge and Jury will decide over time, but the momentum of precedent has started to swing, and not in favor of the consumer. Shrink-wrap and click-through EULA's may yet be considered full-blown enforceable contracts. Especially if no other method for negotiating a contract at purchase-time is found for software vendors to use. There's also the issue of someone having enough resources to fight it if put to the test. Our legal system here is becoming more expensive than the average person can bear, especially against a Corporation with $2 Billion U.S. Dollars (with a B) available in their "war chest". On the flip-side, older Microsoft EULA's had a "refund" clause in them that if you had never used nor intended to use and had made no copies of their software that came pre-installed on a PC, you could require that they take it back and provide a refund of the value your PC manufacturer paid for the software. Of course, that clause was removed very quickly from their shrink-wrap EULA, but not before a number of folks were able to garnish refunds for large numbers of machines purchased with Microsoft products installed that never had and never would have used the products. The bad news ultimately was that M$ revised their vendor rules and to this day, even after the Justice Department lawsuit, they require their vendors to not sell machines with no OS on them if they also provide machines with Windows on them. Dell Computer, of course, had the last laugh when they started shipping machines with FreeDOS on them to meet the requirement. Fun to watch the battles of the Titans sometimes, isn't it? Nate -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

Nate Duehr wrote: > > Chris Hunter wrote: > > > >>If you read the M$ Licence Agreement (that you signed up to by tearing open > >>the packaging!), you'll discover that they've cleverly omitted to actually > >>offer ANY support, ever! As often happens people have taken my words all too seriously. I'm sure I put a winkie-face ;o) in there somewhere. > There's also the issue of someone having enough resources to fight it if > put to the test. Our legal system here is becoming more expensive than > the average person can bear, especially against a Corporation with $2 > Billion U.S. Dollars (with a B) available in their "war chest". Hmmm, justice for all, but only if they're *very* rich otherwise they get totally screwed. ;o) I suppose I don't measure justice by who wins the court case... -Roman -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics