CA Court Strikes Blow Against Hidden EULAs 640
vsprintf writes "Ed Foster's Gripelog has a story on California's ruling against some of our favorite software producers and software retailers. EULAs inside the shrinkwrap are no longer good enough. Retailers with rules against accepting returns of open software could be in for hefty fines or settlements. Finally, a break for the buyer. May this spread quickly to other states."
soggy frist psot (Score:5, Funny)
The 20% off-topics (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:soggy frist psot (Score:5, Funny)
-
What next? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What next? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What next? (Score:2, Funny)
Well hopefully the people at the software company notice where I've added and initialed a change to the EULA which says "If you try to collect my left nut then I am entitled to collect both your nuts and your teenaged daughters."
Re:What next? (Score:4, Funny)
--
Grammer nazi's! I no!
Re:What next? (Score:5, Funny)
Then, I'll have my wife buy it. If she as a left nut, she sure as hell doesn' need it ...
Re:What next? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. From the article:
Re:What next? (Score:3, Insightful)
What's next? Will we have to read and agree to the EULA before we can buy? .
Yes. From the article: . .
Not necessarily. From the article:
It would seem that if you don't agree to the EULA, you are entitled to return the product. Why are some so pessimistic and n
Re:What next? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounded like lawsuit territory. If I had chosen not to accept the EULA, and the store refused my return, I probably would have had the right to sue to see if:
1. The store has to accept the return
2. The company that produced the software has to refund me
3. The EULA is invalid, so it falls
Re:What next? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you find out that a bit of software is crap, or unsuitable then you should be able to return it.
If you find that EA released some game so buggy that it needs to phone home for patches, then you should be able to get your
Re:What next? (Score:5, Informative)
If you don't agree you can then bring it back and not have any issues because the package is not open.
Re:What next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do some think this is an acceptable business practice?
Re:What next? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What next? (Score:3, Interesting)
Oops, shoulda been clearer. I meant, some people actually think that it's okay to have that kind of business. I listened to a dude go off about how it was stupid that people were bitching about Steam's EULA. He seemed to think that it was perfectly okay for them to demand that. He wasn't the only one with that opinion. I just assumed that it was because he liked that game. But, I am sort of ge
Re:What next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also moron, is every "consumer" expeted to be a lawyer or hire one before each purchase? Have you ever read an EULA from MS or any other big corp? They are not written for the average user to understand. They are written in lawyer-speak. So exactly how is a _customer_ expected to get a fair-shake when they are required to _not_ purchase a product until they hired a lawyer who goes to the companies web-site and interprets the EULA for them?
Online only useful IF you've got Internet Access.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore, in order to fufill the requirements of the settlement, they're going to have to prominently place it in a manner that can be read with the ability to return it to a retailer- period. If that means putting it on there so it'll fit on the outside packaging, so be it.
Re:Online only useful IF you've got Internet Acces (Score:5, Informative)
Copyright deals with the production and distribution of literary and other works of art. Nothing more, nothing less.
An End User License covers whatever in the hell the licenseor wants. It covers usage, etc.
Big damn difference there. With pure Copyright, the rules for use are anything that doesn't infringe- including copying snippets and even copying your friend's instance of the work for your own purpose if it's music (American Home Recording Act covers the compulsory license to be able to do so...). With an EULA, they can prohibit you telling anyone you're a user, whether or not it performs as well as they claim, and so forth.
Come on, wise up.
Re:What next? (Score:4, Insightful)
Presumably, one could buy the product, see the EULA url through the clear plastic wrap, go home, read the EULA on the internet without opening the package, and then open the package and use it or decide to return it unopened. Although this is somewhat difficult if the software is an OS and there are no other computers available (knoppix to the rescue?).
Alternatively, stores could put out a net connected computer that customers could use to read the EULA.
As for the EULAs being understandable however as another poster hoped, I would hesitate to place even a penny or two on that bet.
Re:What next? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only that.. (Score:3, Insightful)
What happens if it's revised between the time they print the software, and the time you take it home? What happens then?
Or what about something nefarious? For example: suppose a MITM [evilscheme.org] attack causes every request you make to (for example) MS's EULA site to return an text that states "you must use the software in accordance with copyright law", but then you go to install it, and the EULA includes all of MS's usua
Ideally (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Companies will make simple consumer readable EULAs.
2. People will sign away all their rights without checking the fine print.
2a Resulting in a raft of stupid consumer protection.
2b Huge public backlash when the companies try to press their rights.
3. Some people will not accept these agreements and the EULA might become a factor on what software you purchase.
Re:What next? (Score:4, Interesting)
How does that help things?
Re:What next? (Score:3, Insightful)
this may be the one thing that will wake up the idiotic masses and realize the evil-doom that Software licenses really are.
Ok, a little over the top, but it's true. If every consumer read and understood what they were agreeing to with software EULA's there would be a backlash that would change things drastically.
On the other hand, the human race is so pitiful they may simply happily accept that t
Re:What next? (Score:3, Funny)
I think you have an excellent point. Just imagine standing at the cashier for 25 minutes, while carefully reading the EULA. For bonus points you can ask the clerk for legal help:
"Excuse me sir: What means non-exclusive int this context?"
Sure, the folks in line will go ballistic and the shop won't be happy: But maybe they finally get the point and either kick the products out or start to apply real
Re:What next? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only are the corporations huge, but copyright grants additional monopoly leverage (to whoever argues that there is competition, it is monopolistic competition as evidenced by strong 'brand' preference. Software titles are not interchangable). The result is that even when all the terms are spelled out, people are very strongly compelled to accept. The seller is able to implement a take it or leave it
Retailers are going to need.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What next? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What next? (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you seen the receipts that come out of Best Buy (mass consumer cattle herder) when you buy CDs/DVDs/software. It says... "Unopened software may be returned or exchanged. Open product may be exchanged for the same item only. Softare returns or exchanges are only valid within 30 days of purchase" (may vary, mine is canadian) Basically it says, they can't accept opened software. Now this reciept is about 12 inches long. I've seen them up to 24 inches long (I
not shrinkwrap... (Score:5, Interesting)
Many, many, many years ago I worked for a regional computer retailer (way out of business). They had a roll of shrink plastic and mounted blow dryer. They had nicknamed it the relicenser.
Paper containers with gummed flaps are a much better way of detecting an opened package.
eric
Frys (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Frys (Score:5, Funny)
To you and any other dirty hippy out there: If I am behind you in line and you try to explain this court ruling to a clerk, I WILL KICK YOUR ASS UP AND DOWN EVERY AISLE IN THE STORE.
Re:Frys (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Frys (Score:5, Funny)
EULAs are bunk (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:EULAs are bunk (Score:2, Interesting)
I think a lot of people are more concerned with Microsoft's Trusted Computing Initiative, which, according to GNU advocates, means your computer essentially does not belong to you - that is, they have ultimate say over what code you run and what you do not. EULAs, especially shrink-wrap ones are a conveniant way to slip this in. By opening, say, a brand new computer with TC built in, you would be agreeing to the EULA, therefore signing over your rights to your own machine. This isn't a problem for most cons
Re:EULAs are bunk (Score:2)
While in spirit I agree with you, it appears that the courts believe that shrink-wrap EULA's are enforceable in at least some circumstances.
I've read enough of them to see some pretty outrageous terms, and I'm certain (though I'm not a lawyer) that many of the terms are simply unenforceable. Others are silly. Some actually mean something (ie only installing an OS on one CPU for which it is licensed) and are enforcible.
It's the downright stupid stuff, plus the stuff that gives them way too many rights t
Re:EULAs are bunk (Score:2)
This is not a troll. "First Sale" doctrine means EULAs are meaningless. The publisher cannot restrict my rights to do whatever I please with the software (copyright not withstanding) after I purchase it. A purchase is not a license.
Re:EULAs are bunk (Score:2)
Just a copy of it so First Sale doctrine does not apply.
Kind of weird hu?
Eula's were invented for large business licenses and this makes sense. Microsoft started using EULA's knowing they were BS for average Joe's but no one challenged the EULA's so it gave them all sorts of legal power.
Re:EULAs are bunk (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a copy of it so First Sale doctrine does not apply.
Here we go again...
Ask Best Buy if it's a sale. (It is.) Ask Fry's if it's a sale. (It is.) Ask a Federal judge if it's a sale. (It is.) If it looks like a sale, it's a sale. You think Best Buy would refuse to sell software to my kid, who, being under eighteen cannot enter into a license agreement?
Legally, there are certain requirements for a contract, which is what a EULA is. Trouble is, EULAs don't meet the criteria. (Must be able to negotiate, must be of legal age, must show proof of acceptance of terms, must actually know who you are entering into an agreement with, etc.) EULA's are totally fiction. How many court cases have there been to seek damages from someone who didn't uphold the EULA? How about zero? Why? Because the publishers know they would lose and that would deflate the perception that these things are meaningful in any way.
Kind of weird, huh?
Re:EULAs are bunk (Score:5, Informative)
Forgot about this one [eff.org]?
Yeah, it's under appeal, but the bnetd guys lost big on this one, because the EULA was violated in the creation of a competing product. The lower court ruled that the EULA was absolutely enforceable, and that the bnetd guys were absolutely bound by it.
Re:EULAs are bunk (Score:3, Funny)
Re:EULAs are bunk (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:EULAs are bunk (Score:3, Funny)
Re:EULAs are bunk (Score:3, Informative)
Re:EULAs are bunk (Score:2)
I only read EULA's that involve interactions with my personal banking online, credit cards etc. For example, eBay, paypal, my online bank, other internet stores that save your information. Many others do the same.
But EULA's for software? No. I've never even read the GPL, but know enough about it to realize it's one
Re:EULAs are bunk (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, courts are upholding EULAs (even those undisclosed at point of sale) as enforcable. I would love to back you and say "Screw EULAs!", but recent events like those on 30 Sept. are reminding us that courts are increasingly siding with the big companies on this one.
More disturbing, it is extremely important to understand what the EULAs say more than ever before, because companies like Blizzard are injecting clauses into the EULA that explicity say that by clicking "OK" and using the software, you are giving up specific rights like your right to reverse engineer for interoperability, and your rights protected under the first sale doctrine. This came out in the recent decision in the Bnetd case.
In fact, multiple provisions protected under copyright law and the DMCA that allowed certain actions are being specifically forbidden in EULAs because companies don't want you to reverse engineer their products, no matter what. Courts are allowing you to "sign" away these protections allowed for in federal law in EULAs, even if the EULA was not available at point of sale.
This isn't a great forum to discuss this type of thing because it is really quite intricate, but I did write two [etherplex.org] pieces [etherplex.org] on this in my blog over at Etherplex that treat it in more detail. If you're not in touch with what the courts have been doing recently, it may be of interest.
Actually... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm? ; ) (Score:2)
Tell that to this [intriguing.com] guy [intriguing.com]...
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
For example, I signed up for a hotmail account many years ago, before most people had any idea what hotmail actually was. Recently the 30 or 60 days or whatever had elapsed between me actually looking at the my mail there (mail? spam!), and so the account expired. I was given the opportunity to keep my account name, but I had to agree to a Microsoft EULA. So, I actually read it.
Basically, signing it gave Hotmail (and MS) permission to search my computer to make sure the software I was running was "legitimate" or something and then act on this information if they found anything.
Screw that!
Of course they wouldn't actually have been able to *do* that, and I don't run any MS software anyway, but buggered if I'm giving them permission to have a look at some point if they work out a way to do so.
Hooray? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hooray? (Score:2)
Don't count on it just yet. The article says that the companies will provide copies of the license on the internet to review before you buy and place labels on the outside of the box. So it may just be that your next Dell box has a big nasty looking Surgeon General's warning on it.
Re:Hooray? (Score:2)
In-store EULA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:In-store EULA (Score:5, Insightful)
Not exactly a vast improvement...
N.
Re:In-store EULA (Score:2, Interesting)
-ben
maybe it is.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you look at some of the outrageous EULAs out there, I can't help but to believe that some of these companies would be embarassed to 'publish' them.
If you (or especially your company) was evaluating products and you could get a copy of all the EULAs up front, don't you think that would be outstanding?
And as far as web publishing, it seems to me that for it to be a legal document, it might have to be digitally signed.
On the other hand if you buy softw
Finally! (Score:3, Interesting)
On a related note... (Score:4, Interesting)
If I am EULA free... anyone feel like writing a program that will install Windows from a CD?
Re:On a related note... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:On a related note... (Score:2)
DMCA says that it's illegal to circumvent copy protection:)
Re:On a related note... (Score:2, Interesting)
So writing an install program for Windows is pointless unless of course there are some other irks in the license agreement you do not like.
Re:On a related note... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you know there is an EULA in place, and you do some silly thing to avoid not clicking "I agree" like letting your cat or a minor click it or replace the licence text or copy the files directly or whatnot, it doesn't help.
The only plead you can make is ignorance, that you had not been made aware of an EULA at all. If you take an action which will be seen by the court as a deliberate circumvention, you are going to be bound by it.
Kjella
Re:On a related note... (Score:3, Interesting)
An amusing thought - DMCA clause (f) Reverse Engineering is normally completely worthless and bogus because it only applies to the decryption of software. So you just cited practically the only case in which that exemption *might* actually do anything. heh.
-
Article Text (Score:2, Insightful)
By Ed Foster, Section Columns Posted on Mon Dec 20th, 2004 at 08:02:57 AM PDT
Having so often been the bearer of bad news from the legal front, I am thrilled to have some good news to report for a change. The old-fashioned shrinkwrap license appears to have suffered from what may well be a mortal wound. Microsoft, Symantec, Adobe, CompUSA, Best Buy, and Staples have agreed in the settlement of a California lawsuit to change their ways, and you can already see th
Mirrored article (Score:2, Informative)
Mirrordot Mirror [mirrordot.org]
N.
Good Riddance Shrink Wrapped EULA! (Score:2, Insightful)
It's pretty silly, Hurray for the courts!
Re:Good Riddance Shrink Wrapped EULA! (Score:2)
like any of us is going to pick "I Dissagree" AFTER WE HAVE PAID FOR AND TAKEN THE PRODUCT HOME???
It's pretty silly, Hurray for the courts!
So there's nothing you won't agree to? That's pretty sad. At least one woman had the principles to refuse. By all means, sign your rights away to your corporate overlords. All I can say is that you should be willing to stand up and fight like a woman for your rights.
URLs are good enough? (Score:2)
Re:URLs are good enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
Either accept returns or disclose the license prior to purchase.
The article says that under the settlement they have to do both.
The Age of Wal-Mart (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Age of Wal-Mart (Score:4, Insightful)
I return opened-but-not-installed software after refusing to accept the EULA terms, and some spotty Wal-Mart checkout person refuses to give me a refund. I then call his supervisor, and continue until I either get someone who says "OK" or I've spoken to the most senior Wal-Mart person in the store. If I don't get the OK, I get my lawyer and we take it from there.
Yep, I'll be potentially taking on the combined legal might of Wal-Mart, so maybe I should be very very scared. However, in such a clear cut case against such a big corporation, I'd have no trouble finding legal representation that'd be happy to work on a pro bono basis - think of all those class actions against huge tobacco and asbestos companies over the years.
Downsides for me, assuming it goes down this path:
- have to search through phone book for legal rep
- pain of dealing with legal people in general
- time, stress and general mental wear and tear (all claimable as damages *when* I win)
- loss of access to my refundable money while it all gets cleared up
Downsides for Wal-Mart, assuming it goes down this path:
- bad PR (and any legal person working on this on a pro-bono basis would be doing handstands to get this case on TV and in print media. "Big bad corp versus downtrodden individual" still makes press headlines...)
- loss of availability of its people while they're tied up with legal stuff
- possibility of a class action suit emerging
- possibility of more serious charges (racketeering?) being brought after they go down this path beyond a certain point
- possibility of consumer-protection government agency intervention (e.g. ACCC in Australia)
With Wal-Mart presumably being staffed by non-drones at some level of seniority, I'd have to think they'd work out that just giving me the refund I've requested in a timely fashion would be much less painful for them.
Re:The Age of Wal-Mart (Score:3, Informative)
> refund.
That's true; maybe I should've spelled my point out a bit clearer.
You have a right to expect a purchased product is "fit for purpose" in every Western country I can think of. That applies to any product you can name, and will override any business-specific statements to the contrary. If you buy software, take it home, open the box, start installing it and find it's not "fit for purpose" because of some EULA restriction that you didn't know ab
Re:The Age of Wal-Mart (Score:2)
Walmart *IS* evil, and they deserve to die, and if people dont want them around, thats their choice.
In small community they built *TWO* Super Walmarts. "Main Street" here had gotten very raggedy when the first regular walmart was put in. Now the 6 or 8 grocery stores in town that *ACTUALLY PAY LIVABLE WAGES* will be slowly put out of business. Then the prices at the Super Walmart will skyrocket. Thats what they do.
Re:The Age of Wal-Mart (Score:2)
You would be amazed at what Walmart could do with a little lobbying for more business convient laws.
returns? (Score:2, Insightful)
seems like its an incentive for companies to implement online activations, hardware keys, etc.
Common sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's some legalese that I'm supposed to agree to before installing and using the software, then it should be presented to me before I hand over the money.
Intellectual property isn't THAT much different to real property: when I buy a washing machine, I don't take it home, plug it in and then find out that it's illegal to use it to wash blue clothes...
Re:Common sense... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hidden EULAs (Score:5, Interesting)
IA-definitely-NAL but in a very-very-light commercial law subject I took at Uni we looked at cases where terms and conditions were displayed inside a carpark (which you can't see unless you purchase the ticket). When something went wrong, the ones trying to enforce the terms and conditions lost their cases quite convincingly.
Morally (and with any luck legally) you shouldn't be obliged to go to the hassle of returning something because it contained a EULA or similar that you didn't know about (or weren't told about) that you disagree with. The transaction of cash for product ended when you handed your money over for the product and got the product in return. You shouldn't have to chase your money back because they chose to alter the deal afterwards. *does best Vader breath*
Of course things may be very little different if you obtained something for free or were presented with the agreement before purchase. A new trick used in car parking is to say it is subject to the terms and conditions, and if you don't agree, you can leave without charge in the first half hour. These were the first car parking terms I ever actually bothered to read, as they may actually stand up in court. I am guessing the GPL is pretty solid too, being a distribution license that gives you rights above what you already have, should you choose to accept it.
Since Slashdot doesn't RTFA... (Score:3, Insightful)
What's with the "by request" crap? I don't want to go into Best Buy and chase down an "associate" every time I want to know about licensing of a product. If the software company lost, and consumers won, how come consumers are running around looking for help?
Post the license stuff right there on the shelf with the software, or better yet, put it on the box in the first darn place. If its so complex that it won't fit with readable fonts, maybe its better to go buy something else.
Good grief, we aren't winning, we are getting punished for objecting....
Re:Since Slashdot doesn't RTFA... (Score:2)
S.O.P. for the entire legal world.
Ask to see every EULA at the store, every time you come in, and get as many friends of yours to do the same as possible.
Eventually, the GM will just post them next to the software.
Spyware makers next (Score:5, Insightful)
Ouch. And good for us.
I was under the impression any license agreement was not valid anyway without a notary present for a signature. Clicking a botton can not be interpetted as signing a document. Especially if no lawyer or notary is present.
I think the whole concept of a EULA is bs. MS who started this with average joe consumer knew it too but gave it a shot.
Corporate customers who sign legal agreements is a whole different matter.
Re:Spyware makers next (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost all contracts are valid if both parties agree to it.
And yes, that includes verbal contracts, though there are other exceptions.
But proving the other party agreed is a whole lot simpler when you have a signed and notarized contract.
For example, suppose I claim that I never clicked on the "accept" button.
Could you prove that I did so in a court of law?
-- Should you believe authority w
Re:Spyware makers next (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, as of October 2000, in the US clicking a button can legally be acknowledged as accepting a contract. The little thing that makes this possible is called the Electronic Signature in Global and National Commerce Act. President Clinton signed it into law on June 30th, 2000.
It wa
Plain English Campaign (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean this is the US right??!? And NO-ONE had gotten a lawyer before...? I thought you guys sued if someone looked at you funny. Or made posts like this... Ooops..
Seriously though, it's a great point but EULA's aren't ever in plain english. I accept that the legalese is to an extent needed due to interpretation worries and the like but you could get the folks at he Plain English Campaign http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/ [plainenglish.co.uk] to turn these damn things into something that we might actually read and understand. EULA's might not be something most of us want/need to 'get by' on a daily basis but it'd certainly increase the chances.
Ying-Yang (Score:2, Interesting)
Or, if they are smart:
They could create a program for these retailers, where they would enter the product's serial number, and it would instantly check if that product had been regestered, hence installed. This would be easy for M$, seeming as how they already keep tracks
This doesn't sound like a victory. (Score:5, Insightful)
A victory would be something saying that first sale rights apply to software, just like they do to books, and if you take a piece of software to the front counter of a store and purchase it you just bought a copy of that software, even if the software vendor includes a piece of paper saying that you didn't.
Australia has the ACCC (Score:3, Informative)
Quote: Also under
A variant on the classic paradox (Score:3, Interesting)
Ever wonder what happens when an irrestible force meets an immovable object?
I can't wait to see how this pans out.
Re:A variant on the classic paradox (Score:3, Interesting)
If they had been more reasonable in the beginning and done more to fix problems before shipping and not been so heavy-handed and one-sided in their licenses ("we take, you give" and little else) maybe they wouldn't be in this fix.
They might have wound up in a nasty corner, or may be on their way there, but they
Re:A variant on the classic paradox (Score:3, Interesting)
Keep the EULAs at the service counter? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now you don't have to open the box, you just have to go to some counter and ask specifically for the EULA. Though, what happens if someone gives you the software as a gift? You would now have to go to the store and get the EULA prior to opening the box as the giver of said gift, probably didn't read the EULA...
Its kind of like the "Nutritional Information" signs at McDonalds... you really have to press to get the information... then once you do, you don't want to eat there.
HockeyPuck ---> .
Web sites are a start (Score:3, Insightful)
It would almost be better to have people bringing the unopened software back saying something about reading the terms online and not agreeing to all that. When EULA's start translating into lost business they will change.
Big software buyers are also starting to demand changes in the licensing agreements. When confronted with a "if you don't like it get out" from a big buyer companies will roll over. You don't hear about it as much but it's happening more and more. Not as much with MSFT, but if was a deal breaker I'd bet money they'd roll. If anyone else has pushed them on that I'd love to hear about it.
Why license agreements aren't always valid. (Score:5, Interesting)
(written on the back of a check prior to entering CompUSA)
"By cashing or depositing this check, CompUSA agrees to give me anything I want in the future for free, or, if they refuse to fulfill that requirement, to pay me five million dollars."
"If CompUSA does not agree to this requirement, they should send the check back to the address printed on it without cashing or depositing it. If they do so, they will not be bound by this agreement."
Raise your hand if you seriously think such a thing would stand up in court.
A different attack on EULAs (Score:3, Interesting)
This is good news, but it won't necessarily eliminate some of the obnoxious terms found in EULAs. I wonder if another approach might help there. One principle of contract law (at least in the Anglo-American system) is that provisions contrary to law or [wikipedia.org] to the public interest are invalid [auburn.edu]. (See also 17A Am. Jur. 2d Contracts 257 (1991).) For example, here's a discussion of a case [caldivorceguide.com] in which a couple had signed a contract requiring that they be faithful to each other and providing damages if one or the other was unfaithful. The man was unfaithful again, his wife divorced him, and then sued to enforce the contract. The California courts refused to enforce the contract on the grounds that it conflicted with the public policy underlying California's no-fault divorce law. The crucial thing here is that the contract was not specifically prohibited by any statute; the court's ruling was based on its inference of public policy.
The courts are careful about taking too broad a view of the public interest for this purpose because if they did they'd effectively be legislating after the fact. For example, they will not interpret a life insurance policy as a health insurance policy even though one might argue that it is in the public interest for death to be prevented rather than the survivors compensated. My question is, are some of the provisions of EULAs sufficiently obnoxious that the courts can be persuaded that they should be invalidated as contrary to public policy? It seems to me, for example, that provisions forbidding the user from monitoring his own network traffic should be considered contrary to public policy since they adversely affect both the individual user and the general public.
No it isn't awesome, RTFA... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I've never understood the shrink wrapping thing (Score:2)
Therefore if you agree to the terms, they are not responsible for seeing to it that the software works as advertised, and you have agreed that this is ok.