Slashdot Mirror
Man Sues Gateway Because He Can't Read EULA
Scoopy writes "California resident Dennis Sheehan took Gateway to small claims court after he reportedly received a defective computer and little technical support from the PC manufacturer. Gateway responded with their own lawyer and a 2-inch thick stack of legal docs, and claimed that Sheehan violated the EULA, which requires that users give up their right to sue and settle these cases in private arbitration. Sheehan responded that he never read the EULA, which pops up when the user first starts the computer, because the graphics were scrambled — precisely the problem he had complained to tech support in the first place. A judge sided with Sheehan on May 24 and the case will proceed to small claims court. A lawyer is quoted as saying that Sheehan, a high school dropout who is arguing his own case, is in for a world of hurt: 'This poor guy now faces daunting reality of having to litigate this on appeal against Gateway...By winning, he's lost.'"
Heh, my sentiment exactly when I read that line. If Gateway sends a lawyer to small claims court with "vast legal and financial resources" the judge is likely to put Gateway's lawyer into a world of hurt. As a small claims court judge its more likely that the judge will be unimpressed by big lawyer shenannigans in a common sense small claims court.
I never boot up a new PC without a Linux installation CD in the CDROM/DVD drive after having first checked the BIOS to make sure that it's set as the first boot device!
So, because I did it this way, I never get to see Gateway's boot screen EULA, therefore I am never bound by it? Or does blowing away the contents of their HDD also violate some obscure law?
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Ya know ... I'm not a big fan of lawyers and stupid lawsuits ... but I'm getting a little sick of giving up all my rights every time I turn around. I've seen this "agree not to sue, and instead, go to binding arbitration with an arbiter of the company's choice" on all sorts of things lately.
... EVER ... not just in respect to the immediate business. Hopefully that won't stand up in court.
The other day, the cable guy came out. He drops off my HD DVR. He hands me his handheld PC and says "sign here". The thing I'm supposed to sign says something like "I agree to all the stuff above". Of course, I can't scroll up and read anything. So, i ask what I'm signing. He tells me it's that I received the DVR. Grr. OK. So I sign. Then it prints out this huge receipt. Among other things, i've given up my right to sue them.
To make it worse, they often are worded such that you can never sue them for anything
The only possible way in which a EULA would be legal would be if it granted you some right that you didn't already have. The legal technicality that is used by software is that copying the program from the install media to your disk and then to RAM requires extra rights (not valid in all jurisdictions). For hardware, there is no such loophole. If you didn't agree to the contract before sale, then they can't enforce it afterwards.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
So the take home lesson is that the little guys should never attempt to sue big companies? that even if they have a chance of winning, the big guns will put them "in a world of hurt"? this is how the legal system is supposed work?
I thought the main reason they did that was for the:
"this software is not guaranteed in any way"
part, rather than the
"if you distribute, then..."
parts. ie. it's more a disclaimer of responsibility
I actually wonder if such a screen puts the distributor in violation of the GPL.
The GPL requires that users be given the software under the terms of the GPL, with no further restrictions.
The GPL does not require users to accept it to use the software.
Software which DOES require the users to accept the GPL to use the software is enforcing a restriction not listed in the GPL.
Therefore, the software-mandated license acceptance is in violation of the GPL.
Not sure if this argument would apply if the GPL were taken apart in detail with regard to its restrictions against adding restrictions. I just thought it was an interesting concept...
I read everything I sign before I sign it. That includes lengthy contracts a home purchase agreement. Of course, I read much faster than the vast majority of people, but that's mostly just practice. It's certainly not "utterly impossible".
Is general society so bad at reading that most people can't be bothered to look at what they're agreeing to? I suppose so, or else the title company person at my first home purchase wouldn't have had to move us to another conference room once she realized that I was actually going to read things before I signed them. She apparently expected it to take 5 minutes instead of half an hour and had scheduled the room accordingly.
In any case, the law regarding contracts is that for a contract to be valid, there must have been a "meeting of the minds" where both parties knew substantially what they were agreeing to. Of course, nowadays some people probably sign the statement that they've read and understand the contract without even reading that statement, but some people are stupid that way.
I have lots of experience with all sorts of times when actually knowing what was in a contract I'd signed was useful, even when simply looking up and reading the VA state law online that pertained to a specific company health insurance provision and pointing it out to HR made their lawyers drop all their demands and sent a letter of profuse apology once they figured out that technically they owed me 3x the amount of a $25K claim they had illegally refused to pay until I signed a subordination agreement that I refused to sign (having read it and recognized it as obligating me to things that they had no right to get out of me), but since you don't read things you probably aren't still reading this anyway.
Heck, you probably don't read documentation either. You still have that extra set of screws left over from when you built that bicycle that rattles kind of funny?
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
I realize it's de rigeur to say "nuh-uh" to things other slashdotters said that sound legally shaky. Thing is, if you don't know the law either, it turns out not to work very well.
S'pose that's why you were AC, though.
StoneCypher is Full of BS