Slashdot Mirror

So, once again, true shrink wrap EULAs have been tested in most major jurisdictions and are valid contracts, subject to certain limitations. Terms of Service contracts, like the "EULA" found in MMOGs, are simply enforceable. There is a common perception that EULAs have not been tested in court. This is incorrect. They have been.

Don Shelkey

In a legal sense it really doesn't matter what is in the EULA, grated it helps, but you can't do something illegal even if you declare in in the EULA.

For one, most of the time EULAs are not legal contracts, and even if they met the legal 'requirements' you cannot have a contract for something that is illegal.

http://www.okratas.com/modules.php?op=modload&name =News&file=article&sid=45&mode=thread&order=0&thol d=0

Enforceability of EULAs. The author of this link is a lawyer, though not providing legal advice (naturally).

True or not, they are enforceable, which is what I was trying to lead you to with my post. It doesn't matter whether EULAs mesh with your ideals if you can be punished for breaking them. That EULAs are not valid in your understanding of the world will not be a working defense if you are ever dragged into court over the same.

Note: I am assuming with this post that you live in the US or some other country with similar contract laws; if not, forgive my Amero-centrism, but let me also ask the question, why are we having this debate?

Try not to take web-pedia's definition as legal advice.

web-pedia was simply one of the resources I referenced, and quite obviously the only one you visited. I also posted a link to an interview with Don Shelkey a Buchanan Ingersoll attorney. IANAL, but neither are you. Below is an important quote from that interview you might want to read...

"If you ask an attorney about EULAs, he or she will likely say they are enforceable, but there are some caveats." If you ask him about a terms of service agreement that you "sign" by clicking "I agree"[emphasis mine] each time you log into a service, he will likely say "that sounds pretty good to me." He will be right on both accounts. So, once again, true shrink wrap EULAs have been tested in most major jurisdictions and are valid contracts, subject to certain limitations. Terms of Service contracts, like the "EULA" found in MMOGs, are simply enforceable. There is a common perception that EULAs have not been tested in court. This is incorrect. They have been. In fact, very recently Blizzard's EULA was enforced in two separate cases and relief was granted based on the EULA's terms.
-Don Shelkey from the Corporate Finance and Technology section of the law firm Buchanan Ingersoll
"Shrink wrapped EULA" are those that you "agree to" simply by opening the box. Notice how it is stated in the quoted summary that EULA's requiring you to click I agree are enforcable.

As I've said before, you can get out of some of the "overly unreasonable" demands in an EULA through a lawsuit, but you can't simply push aside an EULA by saying "I didn't sign that!" (Well, you can, but I don't think it's wise. Call your Attorney, and ask him if it's wise before doing so, at least) ME? I'll trust the quoted Lawyer, and continue to read EULAs. Feel free to throw caution to the wind, if you please, though.

owever, an EULA isn't a legal contract, and causing an animation of a button depress on a TV screen isn't legally binding either.

Are you so sure about that?

EULAs have been tested, and enforced,many times many times in court. Shrink-wrapped EULAs ("You agree by opening this box to... even though you haven't seen the agreement yet") might little easier to circumvent through a court case, but even those are valid contracts.

You don't need to sign every contract with a pen. People sign the FAFSA all the time without ever touching a mouse, and verbal contracts are also seen as legally binding in many places.

IANAL, TINLA, etc., etc., etc...

#2 is off. EULAs are valid legal documents. This comes from two reasons; first, there is a reasonable assumption that an EULA is required to run the software (as tested in the courts), as long as the EULA is "reasonable" itself, it holds up. Secondly (and more importantly for the mindset you have), the fact that there is an EULA is listed on the box of said game (all Blizzard games, and most software in general include this disclosure, just in case).

You are paying for the license to use software, knowing (both because you should know, and because it is on the box) that there is an EULA. It is part of the consideration (e.g., they get your money and your agreement to the EULA, you get the license to use the software).

Also, most EULAs (that I know of) contain clauses that allow them to update the EULA with sufficient notice (as per any normal contract).

That said, you are correct that Terms of Service (TOS) are, if anything, more ironclad. Since you have to agree to both before playing this particular game (which is also listed on the box), there's really no way around it.

If you are more interested, I talk about it more in this post which is attached to this article. This article (referenced in the slashdot post) gives some good information.

Short version, EULAs are just fine.

Long version, RTFA =)

Sorry if I condensed the content a little too much here, it's oversimplified, but has the gist.

Phoenix_SEC