End User License Gems

satosphere writes "TG Daily has an article on EULA Gems, priceless statements that companies want you to agree to in their End User License Agreement." From the article: "You agree, if purchasing by credit card or charge card, that you permanently and irrevocably waive any and all right to cause a 'chargeback' ... You agree that, if you institute such a "chargeback", it constitutes a material violation of this license, and damages Company in ways impossible to calculate, and with long-term adverse effects to the Company."

Comments

From MS

[Anonymous Coward]

This is in MOST MS agreements

You may install and use one copy of the software on one device. You may install multiple copies of the software on one device provided that you have a license for each copy.
You may install and use a second copy of the software on a portable device for use by only the primary user of the first copy


It pays to read the ms ones if you have a laptop. This is in Dungeon Siege (I & II), in XP Pro and Home, and Office.

Re:From MS

[LiquidCoooled]

The MS Office Eula9.chm document states the following:

Can I make a second copy for my portable computer?
The End-User License Agreement (EULA) for many Microsoft application software products contains the following sentence: "The primary user of the computer on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed may make a second copy for his or her exclusive use on a portable computer." If your EULA contains this sentence, then, subject to the conditions mentioned, you may make a second copy of the software. Note that you must be the primary user of the computer on which the software is installed. The primary user is the individual who uses the computer most of the time it is in use. Only that individual is entitled to use the second copy. Furthermore, the software must be installed on the local hard disk of your computer; you are not entitled to make and use a second copy on your portable computer if you run the primary copy of the software from a network server. Finally, only one secondary copy may be made; you may install this copy on more than one portable computer.


There is a Second copy clause in the MS Office and MS Project Eulas, however in the default MS Windows XP Eula, there is No such provision.

(I checked C:\WINDOWS\system32\eula.txt for the term primary/second)

Re:From MS

[Anonymous Coward]

I always wondered how they would define portable device.

I have a carrying strap for my desktop, it's portable. Actually, most systems are portable, as in not bolted to the floor.

Re:From MS

[LiquidCoooled]

The Eula is taken from the retail version, for additional verification you can look yourself here:

XP Home license
XP Pro Edition

I would assume since product activation kicked in this would be reduced, I still use Office 2000 over here which may explain why mine still says it, I can see issues of needing to call to activate the newer editions "Honest guvner, I'm at home now, its just my office machine got reinstalled 17 times last week, this is totally seperate"

Anyone care to check if newer versions of Office continue this "Use at home" tradition?

Re:From MS

[Meagermanx]

Next time somebody wants to use the computer:
"Look, I'm sorry, but this copy of Windows is only licensed to the primary user of this machine.
Hey, don't look at me like that. You're the one who's against piracy! You can't just go around deciding which terms of the EULA you want to adhere to! That would be illegal."

Re:From MS

[shmlco]

Funny, but totally inaccurate, as you, the "primary user", should well know.

If you don't want your friends (secondary users) on your computer snooping through your porn collection, just say so in the first place.

BEFORE YOU POST

[Anonymous Coward]

Make sure you read this before posting.

Re:BEFORE YOU POST

[Anonymous Coward]

Clause 1. By posting to slashdot, you agree that you will not RTFA first
Clause 2. You will discard any intelligble comments and post based on standard stereotypes
Clause 3. ??
Clause 4. Profit!
Clause 5. Beowulf Cluster

Re:BEFORE YOU POST

[greenguy]

Clause 6. Natalie Portman
Clause 7. Hot grits
Clause 8. In Soviet Russia, posters mod YOU down!
Clasue 9. Great Google-y moogley
Clause 10. iPod! Video iPod! Trans-dimensional, cancer-curing, Google-a-matic iPod!
Clause 11. Steve Ballmer and obligatory chair/monkey/DEVELOPERS reference
Clause 12 is dying... Netcraft confirms it...

Re:BEFORE YOU POST

[accelleron]

Taken from somethingawful.com: "Interestingly enough, this was the entirety of Gator's EULA: Hahaha, dumbass."

Something Awful

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of Something Awful's recent lampoon of the same subject. Nobody reads these things because they're all in legalese. No wonder companies think they can slide in anything. And what are the users going to do, not accept the terms?

Re:Something Awful

[badasscat]

And what are the users going to do, not accept the terms?

Well, in the case of the chargeback example, they can accept the terms knowing what they've agreed to is completely unenforceable.

Say you agree to that in a EULA, then the software won't install and you ask for a refund, which the company will not provide. You call the credit card company and say "they sold me a defective product and won't give me my money back" and the card company calls the software maker to see what's up. The software maker says "but the customer agreed not to do a chargeback!" You know what the CC company's gonna do?

They're gonna laugh in the software company's face. Then they're gonna do a chargeback.

Your relationship is with the CC company. You can't un-agree with a third party to something you've already agreed to with your CC company. Because the CC company is under no obligation whatsoever to abide by that; they haven't agreed to alter their policies to fit this EULA. Their only obligation is to their customers with which they have prior agreements.

Now, IANAL, but I've got plenty of experience dealing with CC companies (including handling chargebacks) through previous jobs I've had, and this is pretty basic contract law anyway. Contracts are between two parties; if you've got a contract that you're trying to apply to a third party but that they haven't signed, it's meaningless. I can't write up a contract that says "you agree that your sister will never ask me to borrow money" and expect that that actually obligates your sister not to do anything, even if you do sign it.

It's just worth pointing out that some people subscribe to this fallacy that anything you put in a contract is binding as long as it's signed. That's just not the case. You can't agree to something that's illegal, you can't sign away most rights given to you under the law, and you can't agree to something on behalf of a third party (unless that third party also signs, as in a guarantor type situation). The purpose of a contract is to get two people to agree in writing to something under the law. A lot of these companies are apparently using EULA's these days to get people to agree to things that are outside the law, but those EULA's just cannot be enforced.

(This is not to say no EULA can be enforced; obviously, we've seen that they can be. But a EULA has to be written properly just like any other contract; you can't just stick random stuff in there.)

Breach Of Contract Is Not A Crime

[John Hasler]

Where do these doofuses get the notion that you can go to jail for failing to comply with the terms of a contract?

Re:Breach Of Contract Is Not A Crime

[KillShill]

and furthermore a EULA is not a contract.

it's a strongly suggested lengthy piece of psuedo-legalese, designed to make people think it's binding.

Re:Breach Of Contract Is Not A Crime

[Mateito]

Under Australian Law at least, the contract formed by the sale goods has three phases:

1) Invitation to treat - ie - Our software costs this much if you want it.
2) An offer - Buyer offers vendor/retailer consideration (cash/credit card) for the product.
3) An acceptance - The vendor/retailer accepts the offer, and supplies the goods.

At this point, the contract has been executed.

The vendor cannot now impose restrictions on the use of the product unless they were made clear to the buyer as a condition of the contract. Naturally, this excludes their rights under the law (ignorance of the law is no defense, however failure to adequately disclose an express term of a contract is.)

So anything that is shrinkwrapped is not valid as it did not form part of the contract of sale.

EULAs that display on websites prior to hitting "buy" however ("Click Through" agreements) are a different story, and you'd have to turn to consumer legislation and equity provisions in contract law to see whether these are enforceable or not. In general, if it interferes with a buyers right to enjoy their property, it will be illegal. Thus we get into the whole "What is property?" debate. This is far from being settled.

There. Now I feel like I've done some study for this bloody legal studies exam in 9 days time.

Re:Breach Of Contract Is Not A Crime

[Sycraft-fu]

Well for something to be a contract there's a number of things that are generally required:

1) It has to be an exchange of things. Contracts don't say "I agree to give up all this and get shit in return" it's always an exchange. When I first bought a house, my parents helped me purchase it since my credit wouldn't allow it on my own. Later, I refinanced it to my own name, which meant they had to quit their claim to the house. However the quitclaim contract didn't say they just gave it over, it said in exchange for teh sum of $10 and other consideration they gave it over. Reason being had there been no exchange, it wouldn't have been a contract.

2) It has to be before the fact. You can't try and spring a contract on someone after the deal is done, you have to has it out prior to the deal going down. Hence the point of prenuptial agreements. They are contracts that place conditions on a marriage. However to be valid, they have to be signed prior to the marriage. You can't get married later and then tell your wife "Oh, and here's the contract you agreed to, sign it" because she DIDN'T agree before the fact.

3) It has to be mutually agreed upon. This means that BOTH parties have to find it acceptable, and veryify this, generally with a signature. In the case of important contracts, it's a witnessed, notarized signature. One side cannot simply tell the other side how it's going to be and give them no ability to back out. Both sides have to agree it's a fair contract.

4) Along those lines, it has to be open to negoation. One side can't present the contract to the other side and force them to sign it. You can modify a contract and send it back. They don't have to accept your changes, but the process has to be allowed.

Thus EULAs basically fail ALL of these. The exchange (money for goods) has already taken place before you are asked to agree, and they aren't offering you anything, simply making demands of you. There's also no proof you agree (clicking a button isn't proof, what if someone else clicked it?).

My bet is the "after the fact" nature would be enough to invalidate any outlandish provision of a EULA. Since you didn't sign the contracts as a condition of the sale, it's not a valid contract and you aren't bound by it.

That doesn't mean none of the provisions are enforcable, some EULAs just enumarate the laws that govern software anyhow, you can't make illegal copies and so on. However when they are demanding you give up rights you normally have, it probably wouldn't hold up.

Now this is different than, say a credit card. Some people note that there's an agreement on those and they make you accept it to have the card. True enough, but that's a service, not a good. You have to take it on their terms if you want to use it. If they modify the terms so that they are unacceptable, feel free to cancel, but it's there service, their terms. Also, the disclosure is up front (the terms are spelled out on the little sheet that comes with the app).

In general, EULAs are just a waste of bytes.

Re:Breach Of Contract Is Not A Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Contracts don't say "I agree to give up all this and get shit in return"

It just might say that if you're a farmer making arrangements to obtain fertilizers.

Go Blizzard

[MachDelta]

Love this one they added to WoW. Every once in a while there's a huge fuss about Blizz's "Warden" program. Anyways here's the TOS excerpt:


A. WHEN RUNNING, THE WORLD OF WARCRAFT CLIENT MAY MONITOR YOUR COMPUTER'S RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY (RAM) AND/OR CPU PROCESSES FOR UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAMS RUNNING CONCURRENTLY WITH WORLD OF WARCRAFT. AN "UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM" AS USED HEREIN SHALL BE DEFINED AS ANY THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY "ADDON" OR "MOD," THAT IN BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT'S SOLE DETERMINATION: (i) ENABLES OR FACILITATES CHEATING OF ANY TYPE; (ii) ALLOWS USERS TO MODIFY OR HACK THE WORLD OF WARCRAFT INTERFACE, ENVIRONMENT, AND/OR EXPERIENCE IN ANY WAY NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT; OR (iii) INTERCEPTS, "MINES," OR OTHERWISE COLLECTS INFORMATION FROM OR THROUGH WORLD OF WARCRAFT. IN THE EVENT THAT WORLD OF WARCRAFT DETECTS AN UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM, BLIZZARD MAY (a) COMMUNICATE INFORMATION BACK TO BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION YOUR ACCOUNT NAME, DETAILS ABOUT THE UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM DETECTED, AND THE TIME AND DATE THE UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM WAS DETECTED; AND/OR (b) EXERCISE ANY OR ALL OF ITS RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 6 OF THIS AGREEMENT, WITH OR WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE TO THE USER.


Nice, no? Of course "WE NOW OWN YOUR COMPUTER GG NOOB" would have been shorter and more to the point, but it doesn't sound nearly as eloquent. :)

Re:Go Blizzard

[jrockway]

Those terms give Blizzard the right to install a rootkit on your computer and communicate the information that the rootkit retrieves (like your bank account information and GPG keys) back to Blizzard. All so that you have the privilege of paying them to play on their servers. Nice, eh.

They're probably not doing this, but without the source code, how can you be sure? (Yeah, I know I sound like a zealot... but it's true.)

And FWIW, I always cheat in games by modifing the packet stream... on another machine that the Blizzard software has no way of knowing exists. These kinds of "protections" only protect against the n00b script kiddies, not people that actually make money data mining and cheating. (If you feel safe, then you are safe, they say.)

Re:Go Blizzard

[Proc6]

The problem is, for the cheaters, "cheating" is the game.
And with that, your guidelines fall flat. :(

Re:Go Blizzard

[Arker]

Actually it says they can look for programs that you are using to cheat with. It doesn't say they can look for other programs or for you bank account information.

You need to brush up on your legalese man. It says they can look for whatever the hell they want and do whatever the hell they want, period. Here's the key bit:

ANY THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY "ADDON" OR "MOD," THAT IN BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT'S SOLE DETERMINATION:

Well formatted 1 page version

[fuzzy12345]

http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/10/22/rtf_eula/print.h tml

loose

[michaelbuddy]

I'm glad my company keeps it's license agreements pretty loose. We only request that once you choose accept you will no longer fraternize with any of our competition, nor will you install any free or otherwise non-profitable software on your computer.

Fun but less-than-serious

[mcgroarty]

While working for a small Amiga publisher, we demanded the buyer's first-born in the software license. In the follow-up product, we asked for the second and for the rights to facilitate production of same. Later at a game company, I inserted the right to pitch a tent and toast marshmallows in the customer's yard, but the text was yanked by the publisher. :(

Heh.

[Mister White]

That's hilarious. I think I'm going to start throwing stupid little clauses like that in my EULAs.

By running the Program, you agree that:
(1) You will not, under any circumstances, write a bad review about the Program, and;
(2) Any declaration in which language found to be slanderous of the Program or the Company will result in impossible to calculate damages to the Company. You further agree that you will pay the Company a preset repayment of no less than $50,000 and no more than $50,000,000, within 24 hours of publication of such declaration. Failure to comply will result in death by catapult.

Skype

[mcgroarty]

About the most egregious license agreement comes from Skype, which all but says they own your computer. Basically, they assume the right to all "computing resources" while you're running the program. They take advantage of this to turn PCs with high bandwidth into relays for chatting pairs who are both behind firewalls, and to turn random systems into directory nodes, suffering sudden influxes of upward of a thousand connections.

Great damage to the company

[jrockway]

My cell phone contract contained similar language. It stated that cancelling the contract before the term was up would could "cause damage to the Company that is difficult to determine, but is approximately $150". I was ready to pay this (because US Cellular is the absolute worst phone company EVER... I live in Chicago and didn't even get good reception at US Cellular field!), until I read the whole contract and realized that my cell phone company screwed up -- they said my term was "0 months" (not 2 years like I thought). Needless to say, I called them and pointed this out. They said they'd call back, but I haven't heard from them in months. I haven't gotten a bill either, so I guess they just silently admitted defeat.

Funny how the contract can actually screw the company over sometimes :)

The real question here, is...

[aarku]

WHY DO END USER LICENSE AGREEMENTS LIKE CAPS SO MUCH?

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Re:The real question here, is...

[mistakenanonymity]

THIS IS THE USUAL REASON! http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-316.html

Sony

[Space cowboy]

There was a clause in an NDA I signed with Sony that said something along the lines of "In the event of You disclosing material which is considered proprietary under this agreement, the Company will seek maximum damages, and financial reparation may not be sufficient".

That scared me slightly... I still signed though. And I made sure not to have any first-born (hah! As if I had the chance back then :-)

Simon

A humorous look at EULAs

[deep square leg]

Something Awful posted this article on Saturday.

Interestingly enough, this was the entirety of Gator's EULA:

Hahaha, dumbass.

Bypass/change EULAs in Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.geocities.com/external45739/Disagree.zi p

- Enables disabled buttons (like "Next" even if you don't select "I agree")
- Makes EULA edit boxes editable again
- Saves and prints EULAs

Re:Bad EULA's

[CosmeticLobotamy]

You're kidding, and you're funny, but I'll say it nicely so someone else doesn't say it meanly:

The GPL is a license to distribute, and not a license for end users. Whether or not there's a legal distinction is beyond the scope of me.

ProCD v. Zeidenberg

[Landaras]

IANAL. However, I am a law student.

To respond to your post: actually depending on your jurisdiction, it may be a binding contract. One of the keys is that acceptance of an offer to contract may be manifested by conduct. Some courts have recognized that conduct as running the software and/or failing to return it. However, the EULA is still vulnerable to the doctrine of unconscionability, among other reasons for a court refusing to enforce a contract.

Perhaps the seminal case on the subject of EULAs is the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision ProCD v. Zeidenberg , from 1996. I dissect that case (and my strong opposition to it), in this episode of my podcast.

Courts have not been consistent with their treatment of EULAs, so what the law is will vary based upon where a case is brought. At the tail end of the ProCD episode I outline some of the ways we can legally fix the damage caused by EULAs.

- Neil Wehneman

That "no charge back" clause is wacko...

[dbc]

So, I have yet to see a product where the norm is to buy it with a credit card and where you actually get to read the ELUA before charging the card. Now, what happens if you charge the card to buy the product, read the ELUA and go "Holy cow! I don't agree to this!" but by then you can't do a charge back. How could that stand up in court?

But more to the point... how could that wash with with a Visa merchant account agreement? Seems to me that a quick call to Visa where you quote the ELUA and surrounding circumstances, and somebody's merchant account just got yanked.

Re:Can common/civil law override these licenses?

[jcr]

Is it possible that the law can override the stuff written in a license?

Of course. You can't be held to a contract that violates the law.

-jcr

no habla ingles

[davidwr]

Scenario #1:
I asked my non-English-speaking friend to buy me a new computer and install OpenOffice.

Of course he got the English-language MS-Windows and of course he had to walk through all the EULA and activation stuff. He'd watched someone else do it before so he knew what buttons to press but didn't understand a word of what was on the screen.

He didn't know enough to tell me he'd just signed away a bunch of rights on my behalf.

Who if anyone is liable if I violate the EULA - the very EULA that neither me nor my friend is aware of.

Scenario #2, except instead of me asking him, he did it on his own and gave me the PC w/ OO installed for Christmas.

Re:no habla ingles

[Mateito]

Woohoo! I'm enjoying this. Even though you don't care, I can post to slashdot and study for my legal studies exam at the same time!

So, under Australian law at least:

In this case your friend is acting as your agent. At some point in time you made a (verbal) agreement that your friend would install all the software. Unless you explicitly stated that he was not authorised to accept EULAs, as your agent, he as the apparent authority to do so because accepting these licenses is a necessary part of installing the software.

Thus anything he does in your name is legally binding in as much as it would be legally binding on you.. an unenforceable contract remains unenforcable not matter whether its "signed" by you or your agent.

small font EULAs

[Barbarian]

Something that bothers me, why do EULAs typeically come in eight-point font in a 400x200 dialog box, and make it impossible to copy the text? There's absolutely no excuse for the small font--no paper is being saved, and the tiny window is just to discourage people reading and finding out just how many ways they are getting screwed.

Here's a funny EULA...

[antdude]

From a Broadband Reports' security forum thread for those who missed it in my EULA poll reply:

PLEASE READ this end-user license agreement ("eula") carefully. By being born, you agree to be bound by the terms of this eula. If you do not agree, do not exit womb and, if applicable, return to the place of conception for a full refund.

1. GENERAL. This eula is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or an entity) and the scientific or religious establishment of your choice ("God"). This eula governs your Life, which includes all seconds from the time you are born until you are legally pronounced dead (. This eula also governs the container supplied with your Life ("Body") and any support services ("miracles") relating to Life except as may be included in another agreement between you and God. An amendment or addendum to this eula may be presented to you by your retail suppliers ("Parents").

2. THE PARENT PROGRAM. All complaints and technical support requests should be addressed to your Parents, who may or may not, depending on the subscription level you have elected, offer you additional warranties. Parents are third-party components, and not subject to warranties under this eula. God is not liable for the quality, competence, character, number, gender, species, ethnicity, religious affiliation, or presence/absence of your Parents, or for the quality of the relationship between them, if any, and does not supply technical support for Parental units. Any Parent may be terminated or exchanged at any time without notice and without recourse.

3 CONSCIOUSNESS. To reduce piracy, God requires certain components to be activated. The license rights granted under this eula are limited to the first five times you gain Consciousness ("Wake up") after you are Born unless you supply the information necessary to activate your Life. You may also need to reactivate your Life if you modify your Body or alter your Consciousness. God will not collect any personally identifiable information from your DNA during the activation process without your consent.

4. DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT. Content providers are using digital rights management technology to protect the integrity of their content so that their intellectual property, including copyright, in such content is not misappropriated. If your Brain's security has been compromised, content providers may request that God revoke your right to copy, display, and/or play protected content. Revocation does not alter your Brain's ability to access unprotected content, if any exists.

5. OUT-OF-BODY EXPERIENCES. Your Life may not be shared or used concurrently among different Bodies.

6. YOU ALSO AGREE:

a. Not to remove or obscure any copyright, trademark or patent notices ("Birthmarks") that appear on the Body as delivered to you;

b. To indemnify, hold harmless, and defend God from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorneys' fees, that arise or result from the use or distribution of the Life;

c. That God reserves all rights not expressly granted.

3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. God reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this eula. The Life is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. God or Its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Life and in any derivative works produced by you during the course of your Life. The Life is licensed, not sold.

4. MEMORIES. You may make a single back-up copy of the Life. You may use one (1) back-up copy solely for your archival purposes and to reinstall the Life in the Body. Except as expressly provided in this eula or by local law, you may not otherwise make copies of the Life, including the imprinted materials accompanying the Life. You may not loan, rent, lease, lend, or otherwis

MBFS has an EULA for their website too

[FirstTimeCaller]

The marvelous company that came up with the no charge-back EULA also has a EULA for their website. The grant you a revocable license to browse their site, but no bots without permission (I found the site through Google, so I hope the got permission). Their terms for use of the website includes such gems as:

MBFS does not permit unsolicited reviews of its products.

MBFS grants you a limited license to access and make personal use of the Site and not to download (other than page caching)

You are granted a limited, revocable, and nonexclusive right to create a hyperlink to the home page of the Site so long as the link does not portray MBFS, its affiliates, or their products or services in a false, misleading, derogatory, or otherwise offensive matter.

I'd include a link to the terms of service, but I don't think I'm allowed to.

Re:MBFS has an EULA for their website too

[Just Some Guy]

You are granted a limited, revocable, and nonexclusive right to create a hyperlink to the home page of the Site so long as the link does not portray MBFS, its affiliates, or their products or services in a false, misleading, derogatory, or otherwise offensive matter.

Asshats.

Read the Termination clause CAREFULLY

[Meetch]

OSTG may terminate a user's account in OSTG's absolute discretion and for any reason. OSTG is especially likely to terminate for reasons that include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) violation of these Terms; (2) abuse of site resources or attempt to gain unauthorized entry to the site or site resources; (3) use of an OSTG Site in a manner inconsistent with the Purpose; (4) a user's request for such termination; or (4) as required by law, regulation, court or governing agency order ; or (4) for being a smarty-pants and pointing out that this clause of the OSTG license was written by someone who couldn't count up to 4... errr.

Per machine vs per user licensing

[WIAKywbfatw]

The reason for this is because Microsoft licenses for Windows XP (and all of its operating systems) are per machine (or per processor), whereas its licenses for Office and other applications are per user.

Hence, it's permissable for an individual to install a single copy of Office on both their desktop and laptop without requiring more than one license, as long as both aren't used simultaneously. However, installing Windows XP on both those machines would always require two licenses, regardless of how the machines are used.

One side effect of this is that people who use Office at work can normally buy a copy of Office to use at home for a nominal fee. For example, under the terms of Microsoft's licensing as it applies to her mid-sized employer, my girlfriend is entitled to purchase a copy of Office for around £10, which covers the cost of media, postage and packaging and processing her request.

That's strange...

[noisymime]

My copy of MS Office's EULA says:

Dear user, you are valued and important to the Microsoft Corporation. We understand that you've paid a lot of money for out product and we really appreciate it. We encourage you to share this program with your friends if you find it to be of a high quality and might be of use to them. We also really appreciate any comments and feedback you may have about the software, particularly if you experience difficulty with it. We hope your enjoy using our product.

Ohhh you mean I'm not meant to edit that file before I install it?

Re:Depends on who initiated the chargeback

[dgatwood]

In this case, it's more like "you agree to not ask your sister to borrow money from me, even though I am under a binding contract with your sister not to ask you not to ask her."

In other words, report these clowns to Visa and they're likely to get their merchant account revoked. I strongly suspect that attempting to circumvent the terms of your merchant account agreement would constitute a violation of the terms of said agreement....

MS Front Page License?

[commodoresloat]

Didn't MS have a license with Front Page for a while that said that it violated the license to use the product to create web pages critical of MS? As I recall they took the clause out after people complained about it, but the fact that they even had the audacity to consider it is troubling.

My EULA says...

[Simonetta]

My EULA on all my software, regardless of any written or implied language in the 'agreement', is interpreted by me, the primary user, to be:

   
    (1) The possessor of this software, regardless of how the possessor came to be in possession of the software, is entitled to do whatever the fuck they want to with the software. Included but not restricted to: giving the software to whoever the fuck I want, for any or no compensation that I so chose; examining and altering the software in any fashion that I chose; commenting negatively or positively on the quality of the software, in totality or part, in any forum that I chose to, public or private.

      (2) I, the primary user of the software, accept that the maker of the software offers no assurance, either explicit or implicit, that the software in any way, works for the purpose or any purpose that I, the primary user, acquired it for. Nor, do I, the primary user, make any assumptions that the data produced by the software be accurate, correct, realistic, are in any applicable to the purpose that the software was acquired. Regardless of the consequences of the use of this software, the makers or providers of the software to the primary user will hold no liability for any fucking thing that can happen as a result of interaction with the software on any level.

    This is what I am agreeing to when I click on I agree. The lawyers for large software corporations have this incomprehensibly weird idea that anyone would agree to clause #2 without the corporation's acceptance of clause #1.

Sale of Goods Act

[Budenny]

The issue is not really whether Eulas are enforceable. Some are, some are not, depending on what they say. The issue is whether a court in your jurisdiction will enforce a clause, whether in a Eula or anywhere else, which is incompatible with the law in that jurisdiction.

For example, the wonderful example where The Breeder Standard (is this real, and not a joke?) says that you agree to pay them $8k if you try to chargeback. I'm pretty sure this is incompatible with the UK Sale of Goods Act, which gives you various rights, and with other UK sale of goods regulations which limit what contracts may be imposed in the mass market. For example, from a UK Government site:

"The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 2083) provide that a term which has not been individually negotiated in a consumer contract is unfair (and hence non-binding on the consumer) if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer." There are similar regulations in effect in the whole of the EC.

There was a discussion some time ago here on whether Apple could, by Eula alone, prevent buyers of OS X from installing it on non-Apple hardware. The issue is the same as the question of whether MS can, by Eula alone, prevent buyers of Office from installing it under Wine.

The answer in both cases is no: not because of any difficulty with Eulas. But because such linked sales conditions are unlawful under EC competition law.

In the same way, a Eula condition which placed the buyer in involuntary servitude would not be lawful in the US, not because Eulas are problematic, but because involuntary servitude is unlawful under the constitution. Whatever boxes you check on a Eula, no court is going to place you in involuntary servitude.

So really, the most helpful way to look a this is not by focussing on Eulas. The thing to focus on is whether the company behaviour and conditions which they are trying to enforce in this way are lawful, regardless how they are enforced. The involuntary servitude example: suppose they had a guy standing at the exit to the store who had you sign a contract in the presence of three witnesses, and under oath. That would not be a Eula, and it would not be enforceable either...