Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows 8: More EULA, Fewer Rights.

Posted by Unknown on from the you-shall-submit dept.

sl4shd0rk writes "Microsoft has adopted a brand new licensing scheme for Windows 8 which effectively removes your right to file a class-action lawsuit against them should you feel the need. '...Many of our new user agreements will require that, if we can't informally resolve the dispute, the customer bring the claim in small claims court or arbitration, but not as part of a class action lawsuit.' Class-action lawsuits are intended to help individuals stand up to corporate law-breaking but this new EULA model simply nullifies that course of action for the consumer."

11 of 470 comments (clear)

  1. not sure by yagu · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not sure that that's even legal -- would be surprised if it held up in court.

    1. Re:not sure by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Informative

      There was a recent Supreme court case that made this legal.

      Now all 3 of our branches of government have officially sold out. We might as well replace all civil courts with a comparison of the defendants and plaintiffs net worths. Would not change the outcome much and save us a lot of tax money.

    2. Re:not sure by IDtheTarget · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not sure that that's even legal -- would be surprised if it held up in court.

      Actually, the Supreme court has already ruled that this is, in fact, legal.

    3. Re:not sure by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not legal in Canada, or in Germany. Various other parts of the EU either.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:not sure by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Informative

      >>>There was a recent Supreme court case that made this legal.

      Which one?
      I find it hard to believe. During the Paypal case, the U.S. judge crossed-out most of the EULA saying customers can not sign-away legally protected rights..... such as the right to sue a company for stealing money (that's what Paypal was guilty of).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    5. Re:not sure by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Informative

      >>>There was a recent Supreme court case that made this legal.

      Which one?

      Hopefully you can get through the paywall ... here. Failing that, google for "AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion".

      SCOTUS ruled on this last year.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:not sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not sure that that's even legal -- would be surprised if it held up in court.

      Actually, the Supreme court has already ruled that this is, in fact, legal.

      Actually, the Supreme Court ruled that a contract can remove the possibility of a class-action arbitration, not a class-action lawsuit. They are not the same thing. Further, there is still wide disagreement over what rights can and cannot be removed by a EULA specifically, rather than a traditional contract.

    7. Re:not sure by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Informative

      As opposed to the infinite "Legal Wisdom" of mbone, I'll take Scalia any day of the week.

      We're talking about the same guy who has extensive ex parte communications with Dick Cheney and then goes on to rule on a case involving Dick Cheney (rather than recusing himself, as any non-corrupt jurist would do), right? He's not the only one, of course: Clarence Thomas has issued rulings on cases where his wife had a financial stake in one of the parties.

      Regarding this kind of clause, the legal concept in question is an argument of unconscionability, where somebody claims that the contract terms are so unfair that they should not be enforced. Courts, including SCOTUS, have ruled both ways on whether clauses that bar access to legal redress are unconscionable. It's been part of contract law for decades at least.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    8. Re:not sure by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Informative

      > All justices, judges, and magistrates accept that corporations are legal persons. This is neither surprising, nor debatable, and is a fundamental part of Common Law tradition.

      Total nonsense. Corporations became legal persons OVER time.

      Date Decision, Legal Right Affirmed
      1889 "Minneapolis and St. L. R. Co. v. Beckwith", Right for judicial review on state legislation
      1893 "Noble v. Union River Logging R. Col", Right for judicial review for rights infringement by federal legislation
      1906 "Hale v. Henkel", Protection "against unreasonable searches and seizures (4th)
      1908 "Armour Packing C. v. United States", Right to trial by jury (6th)
      1922 "Pennsylvania Coal Co. V. Mahon", Right to compensation for government takings
      1962 "Fong Foo v. United States", Right to freedom from double jeopardy (5th)
      1970 "Ross v. Bernhard", Right to trial by jury in civil case (7th)
      1976 "Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Consumer Council)", Right to free speech for purely commercial speech (1st)
      1978 "First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti", Right to corporate political speech (1st)
      1986 "Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. Public Utility Commn of California", Right against coerced speech (1st)
      Reference:
      http://cnx.org/content/m17314/latest/

      Also see:
      http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=314
      Specificaly, "The Corporation complete film transcript (PDF)"
      http://hellocoolworld.com/files/TheCorporation/Transcript_finalpt1%20copy.pdf
      http://hellocoolworld.com/files/TheCorporation/Transcript_finalpt2%20copy.pdf

      > Because otherwise, they couldn't own property, and could not be sued.
      At one time in America they couldn't OWN other corporations. This limited the collateral damage they could do. This was a GOOD thing.

      > Let's have a hypothetical.
      The fact that OWNERS wanted to separate their liability is based on thing: Greed.

      Corporations pay no death tax (estate tax) because corporations NEVER die. That fact right there is a HUGE problem. It slowly strips the wealth (power) out of individuals and consolidates it -- total anathema to the original intent of State and Federal separation and balance of power.

      It would behoove you to watch "The Corporation"

  2. An EULA isn't a contract by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are numerous requirements for something to be a contract in US law and the EULA fails a number of them. The biggest is contracts have to happen before the exchange of goods/money. They can't be ex post facto. So if a company requires you to sign a contract before you buy the software, that's a real contract. An EULA that you are introduced to after the sale, not a contract.

    Easy to see here at work too. I work for a state university so they are very big on the "only approved people can sign contracts for the university" thing. Any contract has to go through the contracts office and be approved by the lawyers. EULAs? They tell us don't worry just click through. In other words, they are confident the EULAs don't bind us to shit. If they though they did, we'd have to get them all approved.

  3. One sided contracts are contracts. by GodInHell · · Score: 4, Informative

    They're called adhesion contracts. EULAs are the most common example, but so are the warranties that come with mass produced goods, the terms on your ticket stub at a ball game or a parking garage -- these things are contracts and they are enforceable. They're just held to a (very slightly) higher standard of fairness before being held unconscionable.

    Theoretically you could break a contract of adhesion, hire a lawyer, and get away with it. But that lawyer will charge you more than you would have to pay for windows (unless he's a very cheap lawyer, or you get a really bad deal on windows). So, click accept little sheep, go down the ramp into the windowless room now please.