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."

10 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 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"
    3. 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.
    4. 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/
    5. 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.

  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. 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."