[ale] STORY LINK: Vendor slammed for 'selling' patches

[Joe Knapka]

Bob Toxen <bob at verysecurelinux.com> writes:

> On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 02:24:28PM -0700, Joe Knapka wrote:
> > John Mills <johnmills at speakeasy.net> writes:
> 
> > > ALErs -
> 
> > > Whatever subsequent responsibilities of vendor to purchaser and vice-versa
> > > should as a matter of good practice be agreed at the time of sale. (Will
> > > anyone who thinks they understand Microsoft's EULA please stand up.  
> > > Anyone??)
> 
> > Seems pretty straightforward. Paraphrased: "If we catch you using our
> > software without paying for it, or giving it to others, we have the
> > right to rape you, throw your family out in the street, kill your
> > pets, and burn down your domicile.  If our software doesn't do what we
> > say it does, you are screwed. So, heh heh, we pretty much get you
> > either way."
> 
> In California, it is common for judges to throw out contracts that are
> too one-sided as being unfair and "coerced".  I'm disappointed that this
> has not happened with Microsoft's EULA and those of other software vendors.

Have they ever actually been tested in court? I've never heard of
such a case, that I can recall anyway.

-- 
Resist the feed.
--
If you really want to get my attention, send mail to
jknapka .at. kneuro .dot. net.