Comments on: Top 5 Reasons Software License Agreements are Unlawful http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/ Take No Prisoners Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:50:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: Kavan Wolfe http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/#comment-727 Kavan Wolfe Thu, 06 Sep 2007 06:54:53 +0000 http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/#comment-727 @Alex: Some other relevant cases in U.S. law are Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology (939 F.2d 91) and Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. @Philo: good points. Just one thing: keep in mind that the issues vary by country. I'm more interested in principles of low than the specifics of US law. The treatment of adhesion contracts, for instance, varies depending on the country. @Alex: Some other relevant cases in U.S. law are Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology (939 F.2d 91) and Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd.

@Philo: good points. Just one thing: keep in mind that the issues vary by country. I’m more interested in principles of low than the specifics of US law. The treatment of adhesion contracts, for instance, varies depending on the country.

]]> By: Philo http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/#comment-726 Philo Thu, 06 Sep 2007 06:40:20 +0000 http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/#comment-726 The leading holding on clickwrap contracts is ProCD v. Zeidenberg ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg ). Judge Easterbrook came to the horrendous conclusion that clickwrap contracts were enforceable because: 1) All the terms in software contracts are fundementally the same (this is absolutely false) 2) If you did not like the contract, you could return the software. Point 3 above tries to contradict the second part of the reasoning. However, I did a survey of major software publishers in the late 90's, and they *all* had money back guarantees. For example, Microsoft offers a 45 day money back guarantee on all their software: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/productrefund/refund.mspx Incidentally, contracts of adhesion *are* generally enforceable. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion Having said all that, I do agree there are problems with EULA's and a lot of software publishers really abuse them (the standard "you can't publish a review without our permission" is pretty abusive). The leading holding on clickwrap contracts is ProCD v. Zeidenberg ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg ). Judge Easterbrook came to the horrendous conclusion that clickwrap contracts were enforceable because:
1) All the terms in software contracts are fundementally the same (this is absolutely false)
2) If you did not like the contract, you could return the software.

Point 3 above tries to contradict the second part of the reasoning. However, I did a survey of major software publishers in the late 90’s, and they *all* had money back guarantees. For example, Microsoft offers a 45 day money back guarantee on all their software:
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/productrefund/refund.mspx

Incidentally, contracts of adhesion *are* generally enforceable. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion

Having said all that, I do agree there are problems with EULA’s and a lot of software publishers really abuse them (the standard “you can’t publish a review without our permission” is pretty abusive).

]]> By: Alex http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/#comment-725 Alex Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:59:43 +0000 http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/#comment-725 Do you know of any examples where these principals have been tested in court, specifically with Software EULAs or a direct parallel? Do you know of any examples where these principals have been tested in court, specifically with Software EULAs or a direct parallel?

]]>