FW: Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 now available.

[full-disclosure () lists netsys com (PJ)]

On Tue, 06 Aug 2002, Steve wrote:

> Sorry but this sounds plain stupid. How would you convince a judge that you 
> ran a program designed to remove the EULA, and now that it gone you don't 
> need to follow it!? The argument seem too easily shut down with common sense. 
> Why did you run a program designed to remove EULA's in the first place? Of 
> course he would say you did it to circumvent a legal requirement! 

The point is that you are not legally required to sign or agree with a
contract that is simply presented in front of you, if you don't agree
to it, you can negotiate the points in contention, refuse to sign or
make your own addumenum before presenting it to the other party.  Now,
since you have already paid your money and are not presented with the
EULA until you start installing, this removes the need to actually
agree with whatever terms are presented to you after the fact.  The
point is, since you never agreed to it, you are not legally obliged to
follow it.  Previously, the only way to install is to agree to
whatever.  This removes that need.  I would have thought this point obvious.

> I'd love to see someone who got away with that. One thing would be to remove 
> it at Microsoft before they implemented it on the CD, or their web site. This 
> way you could argue that you never received it, and that would be easily 
> proven.

If I am not mistaken, an EULA has never been tested in a court of law.
Of course, as noted, regular copyright law would still apply.

PJ

-- 
When you play, play to your own strengths, not the strengths of the enemy.