Slashdot Mirror
The Self-Modifying EULA?
An anonymous reader asks: "Years ago, when I first installed Windows 2000, I accepted its EULA. Despite serious defects in the product, I resisted installing Service Packs because they modify the original EULA. Now even Homeland Security is on my back to upgrade and install a fix. I would be happy to install SP4 and all the security patches BUT ONLY IF IT IS DONE UNDER THE ORIGINAL EULA. Otherwise, Microsoft has made me an unwilling zombie. The clear fact is that Microsoft delivered a defective product- should not allow them to redefine our agreement. I cannot think of any other market that successfully browbeats its customers in this manner. Can this be legal? Has it been tested in court?"
Well there not really on your back to install the fix. It's just the simplest solution for the vast majority of people. If you are not the vast majority read the freaking website on how to plug up the holes. The DHS does in fact post more than one way to ensure you computer is secure but closing up the holes. Of course with the number of holes you will be bashing your head up against the wall. It depends on your stuberness. Here is an interesting question though. Are then infact changing the EULA or just giving you another one for the patch. Im not hip to the jive of the Microsoft's EULA.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
Excuse me for thinking you're missing a few nuts but why the hell do you care what it sais in SP4's EULA? Yes, SP4 EULA has its problems and I would be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt if it was't for your inexplicable explanation that you need to update your windows now cause DHS sais so... doh! Where have you been for the last three years? SP4 came out on June 26, 2003!!! And as for MS products being defective - this is surely news to everyone here. Reality is a harsh place for those who can't cope with it.
www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
I think it's just on products that you already bought where the EULAs' validity is questionable. The reasoning was that the terms of the transaction were already finalized... you paid money and got your product. The EULA tries to add on additional terms on top of that, when the transaction was already finalized WITHOUT those terms, or so they say (IANAL and all that). Add onto this the fact that many places won't let you return opened software, and you can see that anyone who CAN'T agree to an EULA for whatever reason is in an unfair position.
But the service packs are free, so this wouldn't apply there.
What if the EULA allowed Microsoft to require spyware on your machine. Actualy, the HIPPA crowd had a huge issue with a change a few years ago when MS added the ability with WGA to inspect your machine and documents and phone home at will... that's not in the original EULA of Windows XP. For the HIPPA people that addition could mean non-compliance with the law... by installing a security update? That's taking advantage of the customer needing their product to work in order to better their own position....that's wrong.
Under UK law, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 states that goods must be
* of satisfactory quality - which means the product you buy should be reasonably reliable.
* fit for purpose - which means it should perform the function you bought it to do.
* as described - means it should be exactly what the trader told you it was.
Those white envelopes containing CDs that state "by opening this, you are agreeing to these terms & conditions" are an example of where these EULAs arent enforcable.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
It's a license, not a contract.
Arguments about single-sided contracts do not apply to licenses.