This is an interesting case because, contrary to what she claims in her suit, I doubt that software vendors are working with retailers to trick customers into purchasing their software. Back in the old days, before every household got a cd burner, it was possible to return open software, music, etc. Many retailers had some type of money back guarantee where if you simply didn't care for the product, you could return it. However, what they quickly realized was that everyone and their brother was simply just copying said software/music and returning the original. In order to reduce piracy and theoretically to keep prices on software down, stores have enforced the policy that you cannot return open software/music unless it is defective, in which case you can exchange it for the same exact title.
So my question is, how do you balance the fairness of being able to read the agreement prior to purchasing without sacrificing the very policies which help prevent software piracy? Sure you can print the license on every box, but is that really practical?
What you say is correct assuming that was the intention of Network Associates. The reason they claim to have inserted such a clause into their EULA was to reduce/eliminate reviews of their products based on older/antiquated versions. For example, the newest MAAV comes out which supports X feature and which also addresses Y bug which was previously exploitable. Someone posts a review of MAAV which essentially says "Don't buy MAAV. It doesn't support X and has a really nasty bug Y which is exploitable!!!"--this of couse based on his experience with a PRIOR version of MAAV. All the while, he never mentions that his "review" is of a previous version so it causes confusion. If I read this review and deemed it to be reliable, I certainly would not buy MAAV, even though the current version has eliminated all the problems mentioned.
However, I also agree their current restriction is too general and gives the impression that they are trying to eliminate bad reviews of their product. After all, why would NA grant permission to someone that is posting a bad review of their product?
why? It's obvious banner advertisement isn't cutting it for them. If they link to subscription only sites, they can get a kickback from the publisher:)
Slashdot Mirror
was forwarded this posting on craigslist a moment ago: http://www.craigslist.org/sfc/rnr/47709048.html
Here is some additional information as well: :)
Here is some additional information as well. And another link to a live sign. Go wild
Microsoft revokes Timeline (tmln.com)'s IIS server license:
"Invalid procedure call or argument [WebClass::WebClass_Start] AnalystWebReporting"
This is an interesting case because, contrary to what she claims in her suit, I doubt that software vendors are working with retailers to trick customers into purchasing their software. Back in the old days, before every household got a cd burner, it was possible to return open software, music, etc. Many retailers had some type of money back guarantee where if you simply didn't care for the product, you could return it. However, what they quickly realized was that everyone and their brother was simply just copying said software/music and returning the original. In order to reduce piracy and theoretically to keep prices on software down, stores have enforced the policy that you cannot return open software/music unless it is defective, in which case you can exchange it for the same exact title.
So my question is, how do you balance the fairness of being able to read the agreement prior to purchasing without sacrificing the very policies which help prevent software piracy? Sure you can print the license on every box, but is that really practical?
If you had and balls you would have posted under your slashdot username. so says the anonymous coward.
What you say is correct assuming that was the intention of Network Associates. The reason they claim to have inserted such a clause into their EULA was to reduce/eliminate reviews of their products based on older/antiquated versions. For example, the newest MAAV comes out which supports X feature and which also addresses Y bug which was previously exploitable. Someone posts a review of MAAV which essentially says "Don't buy MAAV. It doesn't support X and has a really nasty bug Y which is exploitable!!!"--this of couse based on his experience with a PRIOR version of MAAV. All the while, he never mentions that his "review" is of a previous version so it causes confusion. If I read this review and deemed it to be reliable, I certainly would not buy MAAV, even though the current version has eliminated all the problems mentioned.
However, I also agree their current restriction is too general and gives the impression that they are trying to eliminate bad reviews of their product. After all, why would NA grant permission to someone that is posting a bad review of their product?
-w
AC, that sounds like a personal problem.
why? It's obvious banner advertisement isn't cutting it for them. If they link to subscription only sites, they can get a kickback from the publisher :)
Here's a mirror of the riddles: http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~huangy/riddles/intr o.shtml
http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~huangy/riddles/intr o.shtml