New Dell Clickthrough Software License

Petrol writes "I just read that Dell is installing a new mandatory click-through software license at first boot. From the article, Dude, you're getting screwed: 'Kat and I just received the Dell Inspiron 5100 notebook we ordered from Dell Canada. We quickly ran across problems.'"

Comments

I get razzed all the time at work...

[RobertB-DC]

I'm a coder in a company that is fully compliant with all licensing agreements -- word is that someone let things slip before I was hired on, and the company paid a buttload of cash after getting audited.

So you'd think that before we install a Visual Studio upgrade, we'd all get together in a meeting room and go over the EULA we will all be required to agree to.

(Ok, have you finished laughing yet? Good, I'll go on.)

As you already guessed, nobody reads the damned EULA... except me. I no longer read it from top to bottom, but I skim it for the latest additions. This earns me some good-natured razzing from my co-workers, but I've discovered some doozies.

Remember those "required patches"? When I installed them, there was a EULA. This one said, "You are not allowed to publish the results of benchmark testing of the .NET Framework." What the f*** does that have to do with installing a required security patch? It's like the sign at Wal-Mart saying employees of competitors are not allowed to compare prices. Maybe they can get away with it, but that doesn't make it right.

Another memorable EULA quote: I'm forbidden to use Visual Studio tools to make any word processing or spreadsheet application, unless it's a small part of a larger application. Unlike Open Source, if a Microsoft-enchained programmer (like me) invents a better mousetrap, they're verboten to release it.

If end-users actually read the EULAs (like our heroes in the article), there'd be riots in the virtual streets. As it is, nobody reads the EULA, and ignorance is bliss.

yeah sure.

[garcia]

Now, they figure no one reads the EULAs anyway, so why bother even providing a copy?

Duh!

First off, I have worked in customer service/tech support and have heard exactly "who reads those things anyway?" "you just click ok." Right.

Second, you are surprised that CSRs don't have ALL the information they need to do their jobs? Policy changes daily and even though the CSRs are the "front line" they are never told until it's too late.

Third, I just dealt with someone today (not computer related). They clicked through a document they should have read. It explained the policy they were trying to excuse themselves from. The exact quote was, "I saw the thing I clicked through, I never read those, no one does. You can't expect me to now agree to that." Sadly, this is commonplace. It's not advantageous to read them or ignore them. If you do read them, you have to go through a lengthy process to return what you disagree with (no company expects that more than a handfull of people will ever decline), if you do agree what good does it do you? You either a) didn't read and comprehend the rights you were signing away or b) you did know, you knew it probably wouldn't matter, and when it did matter, you already sold your soul.

That's why these things should be illegal.

That's my worthless .02

Enforcement

[Godeke]

If this guy documented the steps he took, I suspect if he was to go to a judge, the judge would consider any agreements past that point unenforable. An "agreement" is just that. If one party is not given even a portion of the agreement's content, the entire agreement can be found to be invalid. If they can't provide agreements after that much work, any legal enforcement of those agreements would be in serious question.

Of course, lots of software has the agreement in the box, and you can only view it after breaking the seals (making the software unreturnable). Most companies try to get around that by saying you can get a refund if you don't agree to the terms, and then fail to provide a channel for such refunds. Again, as they have broken the agreement, I doubt any further terms would be enforcable.

Contacting publicly traded corporations

[sphealey]

Well, the article is now Slashdotted so I can't get the exact quote. But in there somewhere he says the manager of customer service would not accept his complaint and would not give him a mailing address.

In this situation, one needs to write a letter stating one's problem or complaint in clear, calm, non-abusive language. Look up the corporation's VP of Customer Service, Chairman of the Board of Directors, and Chief Legal Counsel (all names should be available through finance.yahoo.com). Send the letter to each of them at the address where the company accepts legal correspondence (also available from public sources). That course of action is far more likely to get results in difficult or complex circumstances than endlessly e-mailing or calling worker bees.

Remember, the worker bees aren't fibbing: they really can't do anything outside corporate policy if they want to keep their jobs

sPh

It's good that nobody reads them.

[raehl]

When it comes time that someone actually tries to enforce one in court, the fact that no one ever reads them will make a good case for them being invalid - it shows that sticking a bunch of text between a user and using a product they just bought is not an effective means of establishing a binding, legal agreement.

Re:It's good that nobody reads them.

[Hierarch]

Another important point with contracts: the courts have been known to discard clauses that the signatory could not reaonably have expected to be present. The original precedent - I don't have the actual citation handy, I'm sure someone can google it up - was a case where a man signed a friend into the hospital. He thought he was signing consent forms; there turned out to be a clause wherein he agreed to take financial responsibility for the medical bills if the patient was unable to pay. Well, when the bill came due he refused to pay and went to court, where the court agreed that a reasonable person would not expect to find such a clause in the contract.

Given the nature of some of these clauses, particularly on the security patches, I don't think the courts would hold them valid, completely aside from the other obvious points that have been brought up. (Lack of negotiation, consideration, etc.)

Unenforcebale

[taustin]

This took from around 3pm to around 8:30pm today. I'm just bewildered that Dell corporate policy is that users need to lie to use their new laptops, and to agree to legal agreements that it's completely impossible to have read.

If you can't read it, legally, you can't agree to it. It is unenforceable, period. Since it is unenforceable, and invalid on its face, that means the user is bound only by Title 17 copyright law.

Very simple situation.

Perhaps Dell is doing it on purpose because Microsoft is forcing them to use an unacceptable EULA, and this is their way to working around it.

In any event, this isn't exactly a new issue. It's been well covered by contract law for decades, even centuries.

You can't be held to an agreement you weren't allowed to understand.

No msdn.microsoft.com license? Au contraire?

[Trelane]

Visit msdn.microsoft.com and click on "Terms of Use". For a quicker ride, click here

I'd paste some of the Terms of Use, but then I'd be violating the third paragraph. Actually, taking the fascistic bent (hey, when has Microsoft ever been a stickler on the terms?) you can't write a program based on the information presented there, since it'd be a derivative work of the information presented there (again, third paragraph).

Of course, this posting is also a derivative work.

Dang it!!