Slashdot Mirror


California Court: EULAs are Inapplicable in Some Cases

(outer-limits) writes "In a significant ruling in a California court, a judge has ruled the standard EULA licensing agreement to be invalid. This must be the biggest upset in software licensing ever. No more are we powerless End Users of software, having to agree to every restriction a software company makes (Expect an appeal on this, though)." Note that this is about the resale of bundled software, so it's not like EULAs are dead, but this ruling could have broad effects. Update: 02/12 03:45 GMT by J : Yeah, this is a repeat - sorry.

4 of 361 comments (clear)

  1. Sell all bundled MS software for cheap by coolcast · · Score: -1, Troll

    and make microsoft go out of business. After all, if they do not give proper refund when you don't use bindled software, you have the right to sell it. So we can start second-hand software shops! Windows ME for $10; Windows XP for $25!

    --

    Don't click here. BT will enforce intellectual rights and sue for eac
  2. Is EULA Legally valid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    When I go to a store (say Kmart) and buy a shrink wrapped music CD. I am expected to abide by certain guide lines. I can return almost anything back to Kmart, but, in the cases where I opened the CD, and returned it with no faults on the media, they would not accept it back.

    People seem to apply a totally different view with regard to common sense laws on the net. In real world, it's morally unjustifiable to buy a CD, open it up, and then return it (for no reason). But, here in the world of bits and bytes, things are otherwise.

    For example look at the average EULA, let me point to the one that came with my Windows XP workstation. This EULA explictly states, that I cannot copy or install this software on any other computer. Now zoom back to the Kmart cd, it said I cannot open it and return. What's the difference here folks?

    In a world of tech-thieves who try to justify themselves by telling that it's morally justifiable to copy and leech software. They go to great lenghts to justify this case. An EULA would only be unaccpetble to someone who has not baught the software, but for all others it's the legally binding contract between you and the software company, no matter in what form the merchandise comes.

    I define those who view EULA's just pieces of paper and justification for stealing software to be no worse than the corner store robber last night, who made off with 25 dollars. But, you dear friend are robber more than 150 dollars+ each time. Understand this.

    Iuf aama.

  3. slashdot is for sickos only. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Eat me turds linux lovers.

  4. Re:Softman v. Abode, done TWICE before on Slashdot by TrollForJesus · · Score: -1, Troll

    Shut up you cock goblin