Slashdot Mirror
Professor Michael Geist on Vista's Fine Print
Russell McOrmond writes "With Microsoft's Vista set to hit stores tomorrow, Michael Geist's weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) looks at the legal and technical fine print behind the operating system upgrade. The article notes that in the name of shielding consumers from computer viruses and protecting copyright owners from potential infringement, Vista seemingly wrestles control of the "user experience" from the user. If you are a Canadian and think that the owner of computers should be in control of what they own, rather than some third party (whether virus authors or the manufacturer/maker), then please sign our Petition to protect Information Technology property rights."
This has nothing to do with enforcability of EULA's. This is a statement of what will happen with your computer if you install the software, much as installation of this software will give you access to keyboards and mice and a display such as on a monitor.
The only way around it is to remove bits of the software, like Windows Defender (sounds like a misnomer, more like "MS Monopoly Ensurer" to me) which are technically forbidden by the EULA. Now, recall that most that install this won't be savvy enough to disable/remove Windows Defender, or the other "services" that need removing, and you'll see why this is a Big Deal[TM].
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
How many people really read their 10 page mortgage application? Surprisingly few. And yet the agreement is legal.
The concept is referred to as a "contract of adhesion," where insofar as the terms in the contract are those that can be reasonably expected to be found in similar contracts for similar purpose, the contract is considered binding whether or not a "meeting of the minds" has occurred over the material details of the contract. I actually don't like contracts of adhesion at all, and wish they didn't exist. But they do.
In many states, and I believe now in at least one federal appellate district, EULA's have been ruled to be contracts of adhesion. You can imagine my alarm. So what I'm telling you is that that EULA you didn't read is likely legal. Evil, but legal.
C//
The petition is to the Canadian parliament, and is on behalf of all owners of Information Technology -- not just those who choose any specific brand of hardware or software.
Our existing petitions have already had an important effect, letting politicians know that there are more constituencies in this issue than the incumbent industry associations. Our new petition tries to move away from the myths that DRM is about "content control" when in fact it is about "hardware control". This "hardware control" impacts your usage of hardware you own, regardless of whether you are using "premium content" or not.
This is also not a Microsoft and/or Apple issue, as these bad laws impact all users of technology whether or not they are ever a customer of Microsoft or Apple.
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/
"THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Parliament to prohibit the application of a technical protection measure to a device without the informed consent of the owner of the device, and to prohibit the conditioning of the supply of content to the purchase or use of a device which has a technical measure applied to it. We further call upon Parliament to recognise the right of citizens to personally control their own communication devices, and to choose software based on their own personal criteria."
Digital Copyright Canada forum
Amazon Software Bestsellers (January 29 12:45 PM ET)
2 Microsoft Office Home and Student 2007
4 Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate Upgrade
5 Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium Upgrade
12 Microsoft Office Professional 2007 Upgrade
13 Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate Full Version
14 Microsoft Office Student and Teacher Edition 2003
15 Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium Full Version
Microsoft has twenty titles in the top fifty.
I'd say these numbers suggest that Vista is going to do just fine in the domestic consumer market.
Toms Hardware http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista / just published extensive Vista Enterprise benchmarks, comparing them to XP Pro.
The result:
At best, the computer won't run any slower.
At worst, it will run software abysmally slow or not at all. OpenGL support seems nonexistant, judging from the horrendous drop in performance in UT2004 (>30% drop) and the rendering of 3D/CAD/CAE software unusable (80-90% drops in performance).
This is idiotic on Microsoft's part. Now businesses will be even more opposed to upgrading to Vista, since either they're going to have to stop using their engineering/graphics software (at least until vendors work on their Vista support) or they're going to have to split their computer infrastructure and support both XP and Vista, while seeing, at beast, negligible gains under Vista.
Businesses are not going to be sold on the promise of Aero glass, especially not when Vista's recommended system requirements are so high, relative to those for XP (I have a P2 450 with 384MB of RAM running XP Home passably, it certainly won't be able to run Vista).
The concept is referred to as a "contract of adhesion," where insofar as the terms in the contract are those that can be reasonably expected to be found in similar contracts for similar purpose, the contract is considered binding whether or not a "meeting of the minds" has occurred over the material details of the contract. I actually don't like contracts of adhesion at all, and wish they didn't exist. But they do.
In order to have a contract you need:
1) Offer
2) Acceptance
3) Consideration
4) Intention
5) Capacity to contract
Of most interesting is consideration. When you purchase an item from a store there's consideration. I offer my $5 for your pack of cigarettes. Their needs to be consideration on both sides to have a contract.
What I find interesting is that there is no consideration in a EULA; it's one sided. You've already paid for the license, and now you're being asked to agree to the terms after the contract has been made. At no point has any more consideration happened on your part.
Agreeing to an EULA IMO is like making a promise. If I promise someone a trip to Vegas for nothing in return, there is no contract, just a promise and it's unenforceable. I'm quite surprised no one has challenged an EULA under contract law asking where the consideration is when you agree to the therms? Simply agreeing to terms of usage without offering up any consideration is quite interesting because the money is paid to the store, and the store then sends money to the manufacturer.
Of course the problem lies in convincing a judge that a click-through agreement after a contract has been made is not binding, and who wants to battle Micro$oft? I for one don't.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0