FW: Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 now available.

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

On Tuesday 06 August 2002 10:20 am, PJ wrote:
> 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

> 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.

OK, good point. As you say the EULA has not been tested in court. It might be 
to our advantage to try to get it into court and remove, or verify, the 
potential ax hanging over our heads. If I could afford to, I'd be happy to 
take them to court on it. And ensure good media coverage!

> > 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

-- 
 
Steve Szmidt
V.P. Information Technology
Video Group Distributors, Inc.