Slashdot Mirror


Windows 8: More EULA, Fewer Rights.

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."

35 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 An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 4, Funny

      Darth Ballmer: "I will make it legal."

    5. Re:not sure by mbone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, the legal wisdom of Antonin Scalia. The man isn't fit to judge traffic court.

    6. 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"
    7. 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.
    8. Re:not sure by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Another great ruling by Scalia. Seriously someone should do a Kennedy on him. He's the one who organized the scotus coup on Gore in 2000. No I really don't think that someone should do a Kennedy on him. Sorry if that gave anyone ideas. But the guy is an asshole and is hurting the people of the U.S. You know the people: The general populous who he is supposed to help by ensuring the law is applied fairly. Oh wait, he was one of the (ahem, so called) justices that ruled that corporations are people. Go figure. I do hope he has an aneurysm or heart attack though. I don't wish someone would die very often, I can make an exception for him and even Clarence Thomas; come to think of it, maybe especially Thomas... another fucktard of the supreme court of the US.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    9. 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.

    10. Re:not sure by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      FYI: The Supreme Court exists to INTERPRET LAW, not to create it. So unless there is a law on the books that says that you can't put a clause preventing the signatory party from engaging in Class Action suites in a binding agreement, then how can any Court rule that you can't?

      If you start letting judges making up laws, what sort of law shall we have? Easy: You get Kangaroo Courts where the laws are made up to fit the ends of the Court.

    11. Re:not sure by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Billing issues or service issues?
      So you mean the minor details of not being cheated out of money or the service you are paying for?

      What other interaction does one have with these companies than getting service and being billed?

    12. Re:not sure by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 4, Funny

      Next he'll be saying, "I have altered the EULA. Pray that I do not alter it any further."

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    13. Re:not sure by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Funny

      "I don't wish someone would die very often"

      Oh, don't worry. Dying just once is usually quite enough.

    14. Re:not sure by snowgirl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh wait, he was one of the (ahem, so called) justices that ruled that corporations are people.

      While this is accurate to say, it's like saying that he's one of the justices that is a human being. 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. Why are corporations people? Because otherwise, they couldn't own property, and could not be sued.

      Let's have a hypothetical. Let's say that corporations are not people in our new world. Alice, Bob, and Charlie are working together in a Corporation, ACME. Now, ACME is not a person, so someone has to own all the assets that would otherwise belong communally to ACME, and the three decide that Alice should be the person of record for ownership of materials. Now, someone has to run the company and be on the line for any legal messes, and the three decide that Bob shall do the actual operations of the company, and direct Charlie in his work, while Alice just sits at home, and collects a paycheck just for not walking away with the money and property. Now, Bob tells Charlie to dump some toxic waste in Derick's yard. Derick is upset, and goes to sue ACME in court, however, since ACME is not a person, he cannot sue ACME. So, he has to sue the people responsible for the toxic waste dumping. Well, obviously, he'd like to go after Alice, with the deep pockets, but she had no hand in causing the harm. Bob would also be a nice choice, because as the director, he has a reasonable salary, and it was his policies that directed Charlie to dump the toxic waste. Except that Bob only ever told Charlie in verbal communication that was never recorded to dump the toxic waste in Derick's yard. Leaving the only person that Derick can sue as Charlie, who is really just a lowly employee with no salary, and no real power. Derick sues and throws Charlie into bankruptcy with the tort finding, while Alice continues to maintain all the company assets that have not been touched, and Bob continues to direct the company however he sees fit with no accountability for his actions.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    15. Re:not sure by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you start letting judges making up laws, what sort of law shall we have? Easy: You get Kangaroo Courts where the laws are made up to fit the ends of the Court.

      I think you got it backwards, it's the people who write the contracts who'll be making law because they decide what kangaroo court to hear it in. The real law and the real court system will still exist, you've just lost your right to get your contract dispute heard there. This is the rule of law signing off and handing over the reins to the corporations, all that's lacking for a Star Wars moment is thunderous applause.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    16. Re:not sure by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>What's that a definition of?

      Constitutionalist. Almost everyone is familiar with Thomas Jefferson's "Separation of church and state," which is used by the Supreme Court to forbid praying in schools, but few know this quote: "On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

      Jefferson was our second most intelligent president (estimated IQ of 160). We should listen to him.

      I also like this one. People are aware of the checks-and-balances between the 3 branches, but forget that that People's State legislatures are ALSO a check against central government: "...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."

      -Thomas Jefferson, 1821

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    17. 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/
    18. Re:not sure by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point is to punish the company doing harm. If the lawyers could not make money doing it they would not. If I take a day off for small claims court I will probably lose more money than the court awards me. I would rather know the company had to pay out for its transgressions then let them get away with it, even if I do not get the money.

    19. Re:not sure by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If a law says, "Promotion of fire fighters shall be determined based on the outcome of written examinations," and the judge named Sotomayor then turns-round and cancels the promotion of those men who legally-passed the exam, the judge is NOT enforcing the law. Or interpreting the law as written. They are arbitrarily acting with no reason or rationality, except their own desires to make law from the bench.

      Scalia may very well be an asshole, but at least he reads and judges based upon what law the Congress passed. Sotomayor does not. She admitted it during her testimony.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    20. Re:not sure by tbannist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      According to Wikipedia's page on the Florida Election Recount, in a state wide recount, Gore would have won. Additionally, the New York Times determined that poor ballot design cost Gore a little over 8000 votes, which is a big difference when Bush's victory margin was 537. In percentage terms Bush's victory margin was 0.009% of the Florida vote.

      Now Gore had not (yet) asked for a state wide recount, although the Florida director of his campaign has said that they were about to request one when the Supreme Court ruling came down staying the recounts.

      There facts seem clear that Gore should have won Florida and the presidency.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    21. Re:not sure by Microlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All of this is utter nonsense, quite frankly, and persists for no good reason (and keeping lawyers employed is not a good reason.) If there's ever been an entity where it is not merely acceptable but utterly essential to mark as being subhuman, it is the corporation.

      It should be for corporations the inverse as it is for actual humans in this country: while people are free to do as they wish unless explicitly prohibited, corporations should not be able to do anything unless explicitly permitted. Otherwise they abuse the rights we as citizens have and eventually leverage that confusion (and other associated nonsense) to even greater heights of power above actual people.

    22. Re:not sure by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It may well depend on what state you live in.

      Personally, the better option would be to just not bother with Windows 8, and demand a refund (or if the OEM allows it, demand a non-Windows 8 preload). If Microsoft refuses to refund your money, take them to small claims court for that refund.

      I wonder though - can an enterprising lawyer raise up a class-action lawsuit over the EULA clause itself?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    23. 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. good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Good - class action lawsuits are bad for the individual consumers anyway, only make money for the law firms. I'd rather 200 people file small claims suits than someone file a class action.

    1. Re:good by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You like the GP are a moron.
      Not everyone impacted can take the day off to go to small claims court. This means the company can abuse untold numbers of customers and never pay a dime. A class action is to punish the company while not over burdoning the members of the class as their each individual claim is very small.

  3. Class Action Lawsuits suck anyway by sapphire+wyvern · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There needs to be a better mechanism for keeping corporations in line, anyway.

    I'm not endorsing MS's attempts to weasel out of liability here (although I guess once Sony took a bite of that particular poison apple, it's only a matter of time before the other tech giants decide that class action immunity is too awesome to pass up).

    But class action lawsuits never deliver anything of real value to the people who actually suffered from whatever prompted the class action suit. They often hurt the target company, a lot, but that's vengeance & retribution rather than justice - the only people who actually benefit from the "restitution" and "settlement" are the lawyers.

    Really, it would probably be better all round to just have regulators & ombudsmen with real teeth rather than relying on lawyer feeding frenzy class actions to provide a punishment system for corporations. The big problem with that is regulatory capture. I don't have a solution, but I wish I did. The present state of affairs isn't really satisfactory to anyone IMO.

  4. Value added is perception of legitimacy by Picass0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If one man has a grievance and sues a company he's portrayed in the press as crackpot. A class action takes the same grievance and because numerous people are involved there's the appearance of wrongdoing, no matter if it's real or not. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs try the case in the court of public opinion until a settlement is forced because the defendant feels their reputation is becoming tarnished. A settlement will mean pennies on the dollar for the numerous plaintiffs, and that's after the attorneys take out their costs.

    Microsoft thinks they are clever enough to circumvent this cycle. Does anyone think they class action lawsuit industry will let Microsoft's new license stand? Not without a fight.

  5. Class Action Lawsuits are important by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, class action lawsuits don't help the victims. Neither does putting murderers in jail. But the goal is to give people and businesses a reason to think twice before committing a despicable act. Thanks to SCOTUS's decision that companies can stick a "you can't sue us!" clause in any and all contracts, there is now no mechanism by which companies can be made to pay for abusing their customers. Day-dreaming about alternate mechanisms is pointless. This is the one that we have (or had, at any rate), and for all its flaws, it did work. Companies that abused people were made to pay. But no longer.

  6. Time to put a EULA on everything. by Eldragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So does this mean I can put a sticker on my car that says:

    "By Reading this Bumper Sticker you agree to the following Terms and Conditions:
    In the event of an accident the operator of this vehicle shall be held harmless for any damage or personal injury incurred to any person involved. You agree to take full personal and financial responsibility for any damage incurred to this motor vehicle and belongings."

  7. Forget class action by sjames · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Forget about class action. Go with crowd action. Let 100,000 people file in small claims court at the same time. Assuming the courts can handle the load, I'm guessing even MS doesn't have enough lawyers to appear personally in each suit.

    They don't allow plaintiffs to pay out coupons in small claims court.

  8. 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.

  9. I'd suggest by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just by not buying Windows, Microsoft won't see they lost a sale.

    Everyone go out and buy a copy of Windows 8, open the box so it can't be resold, then return it for a full refund with the reason that the EULA you can't see until you try to install it was an unacceptable attack on basic civil rights.

    This is about the only way Microsoft would get a clear message and see how much its costing them.

  10. 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.

  11. Fill in somewhat? by jeko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    many aspects of the modern world that simply couldn't be done without the kind of resources that a Ford or a General Electric can bring to the table. The government could fill in somewhat

    Hi. I'm a child of the 20th Century. You might remember us. We fixed a Depression, killed Adolf Hitler, held Stalin in check, invented the atom bomb, rebuilt Europe and Japan, built a national infrastructure of highways and electricity, got Jim Crow off the books at least, added a Moon rock to our mood ring collection and then watched Al Gore invent the internet -- all without a single corporation as the driving force.

    Mozart wrote his operas, Shakespeare wrote his plays, Nobunaga conquered Japan, Genghis Kahn ruled an empire, Rome took Europe, the Mings handled China, and Ogg invented fire all without a single patent or copyright protection to their name.

     

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."