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?"
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.