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

[Bjorn Dittmer-Roche]

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Joe Knapka wrote:

> 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.

These types of EULAs fall in the "boiler-plate" contract category meaning
that since both parties were not given the opprotunity to make changes to
the contract, the contract only holds water in so far as it is acceptable
practice in the industry and both parties make resonable effort to uphold
the spirit of the contract. That doesn't mean you can run around making
illegal copies of your Microsoft Windose installer CD just because their
EULA makes demands that are not acceptable industry practice, though,
because the spirit of the contract is that you can't make copies.

I believe this area of law is called "the uniform commertial code" so you
could google that for more info.

Obviously, IANAL. (Is anyone?) But a lawyer I know, assures me that EULAs
of this type almost never mean anything at all. They probably offer the
company some protection of its IP and some liabilty protection and a
reminder that the license is for personal use only, but that's about it.

	bjorn