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

[Michael D. Hirsch]

On Friday 02 April 2004 06:19 pm, 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.

I recall one court case where the judge expressed extreme doubt that it would 
stand up.  But, since the case didn't actually hinge on that matter, there 
was no firm ruling.

Michael