8 ms·

Agree. Related thought: the influence of lawyers in tech firms - witness the draconian EULAs users are 'forced' to accept with a false binary choice of accept o

Agree. Related thought: the influence of lawyers in tech firms - witness the draconian EULAs users are 'forced' to accept with a false binary choice of accept or not - and the role that corporate law staff have had in software development, by effectively limiting the rights of users. It seems to me that many technology firms copy-and-paste the soul of EULAs to protect themselves (against the worse cases that may arise) with little thought about the effect these long list of restrictions cause. It often seems it cascaded from Microsoft's use of EULAs from Windows 95, Office 95 and onwards, because it was the norm to consumers in that 'monopoly' environment. The role of lawyers in suppressing ideas, choices and debate - be it in healthcare (the USA dermatology sector as per the OP article) or in technology - the Hacker News set - warrants further debate. Especially if ethics are to play a greater role in the future of technology - as seems to be the general consensus of forward-thinking governments and progressive technologists.

losteric 8y ago
I think this legal arms race is a consequence of America's overly-litigious and profitable legal system. These EULAs are the equivalent of warning labels on soda bottles that loosely read "Warning: Contents under pressure, don't point at your eyes"... who is that written for? We laugh and call it unnecessary, but that warning exists because there is precedent that must now be defended against. When those ludicrous cases are widely used as a means of attack or personal enrichment, of course corporations will respond with excessive legal restrictions. Their shareholders don't want to lose money to frivolous lawsuits or be exposed to risks competitors have covered.
- WalterSear 8y ago
  A warning is not a contract.
  - mcny 8y ago
    I anal but it might be worth looking into making EULA null and void. But first (sorry for sounding like a broken record), we must repeal the cfaa.
- thomasfedb 8y ago
  Do they actually write that on carbonated drinks in USA? That's brilliant.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    A warning appears on some UK labels. Pepsi Max has "pressurised container, please open slowly and handle with care" on the label.
  - lbriner 8y ago
    Haven't you seen the McDonalds coffee in the UK? "Warning, contents may be hot" The "may" always makes me chuckle.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - gaius 8y ago
      They were sued in the US by some woman who scalded herself when she spilled McDonalds coffee on herself. She was given millions.
      - fjsolwmv 8y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Burn_incident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest... That woman burned the skin off her genatalia when McDonald's served a far too hot coffee. After they refused to pay a small amount to cure her injuries (remember, no socialized health care in USA), she sued. She offered to settle, again for a small amount to cover expenses, and McDonald's refused again McDonald's launched a massive PR campaign to mock her in order to pollute public sentiment in favor of corporations over victims, so thejury awarded $2.7 millions in punitive damages to defend the public against McDonald's brazen attack on himan society. The Judge lowered the award to $640K; and McDonald's appealed, refusing for the third time. They eventually settled for a confidential amount.
        8y ago
- cylinder 8y ago
  Make losing plaintiffs pay the defendant's attorney's fees and costs, it changes everything
  - howard941 8y ago
    It sure does change everything, including the locks to the courthouse doors.
- adrian_mrd 8y ago
  > I think this legal arms race is a consequence of America's overly-litigious and profitable legal system. I would concur with this. From the software firm's perspective, there is less risk in being overly cautious (i.e. EULAs) than to have less restrictive and open rights. Maybe there is a need for a standard common-law contract that provides a set of 8-10 basics and then any companies have to specifically spell out what is different in their personal EULA - and the user can either accept or reject those additional terms? A true accept or reject, that is, and not just two buttons ;) But then why are EULAs allowed in countries that are far less litigious? Are other countries compelled to adopt the EULA for their citizens (convenient!), lobbied or pressured via free- or other trade agreements with the USA (soft/smart lobbying!), or are we, as users to blame for pressing 'accept' without any lobbying efforts of our own?
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    In most European countries EULAs are only valid if you are given the opportunity to read it before buying the product. It is not legally binding to sign for something after having paid for it. Now if the box states somewhere a kind of EULA introduction, with indication where to read the full version, then it is another matter.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  Considering the many YouTube videos of exploding bottles, the warning is for the 10000 people a day learning something for the first time. What's wrong with using literacy to help people learn from the miatskes of others?
  - kikoreis 8y ago
    Users don't read. We have warnings in my state next to elevators that read "Ensure elevator is at this floor before entering". This is literally accurate but practically ludicrous. The solution to problems of this nature is almost always redesign.
    - quickben 8y ago
      But users sue.
      - thrill 8y ago
        And juries award.
- hedvig 8y ago
  Corporations (and their shareholders oh god) are not poor persecuted victims. Corporations govern our lives. They should not be free to do whatever they want. With the intentional erosion of most means to settle civil disputes, the court is the last refuge for the individual against a private group. The people behind tort reform (you know who they are) don't even care about the specific "frivolous" lawsuits themselves. They care about getting rid of environmental, consumer, and worker protections in general. Because they stand in the way of profits.
User23 8y ago
> Agree. Related thought: the influence of lawyers in tech firms - witness the draconian EULAs users are 'forced' to accept with a false binary choice of accept or not The comedy option is to print it out, cross out and initial each clause you disagree with, sign it, and mail it to them certified with a letter saying you agree under these terms please write back if they don't agree. This actually works with all contracts of adhesion, but you will get a lot of confused looks from the flunkies.
- adrian_mrd 8y ago
  Sounds like my kind of comedy jam! I also like the idea of the 'Nightmare Letters' such as this one for GDPR: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nightmare-letter-subject-access-request-under-gdpr-karbaliotis/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nightmare-letter-subject-acce... Would be of interest to note how many users have submitted such requests/letters, since GDPR took effect in May of this year. If lawyers, and by extension, the management/C-level teams of software firms - who either direct, endorse or approve what the lawyers put in the EULAs to begin with - can stick it to users, why shouldn't users be able to stick it back to them?
  - emiliobumachar 8y ago
    I love the contract negotiation thing, but hate nightmare letters with a passion. The case against regulation gets a lot stronger if it reliably spawns an army of trolls out for blood.

losteric 8y ago

I think this legal arms race is a consequence of America's overly-litigious and profitable legal system. These EULAs are the equivalent of warning labels on soda bottles that loosely read "Warning: Contents under pressure, don't point at your eyes"... who is that written for? We laugh and call it unnecessary, but that warning exists because there is precedent that must now be defended against. When those ludicrous cases are widely used as a means of attack or personal enrichment, of course corporations will respond with excessive legal restrictions. Their shareholders don't want to lose money to frivolous lawsuits or be exposed to risks competitors have covered.

WalterSear 8y ago
A warning is not a contract.
- mcny 8y ago
  I anal but it might be worth looking into making EULA null and void. But first (sorry for sounding like a broken record), we must repeal the cfaa.
thomasfedb 8y ago
Do they actually write that on carbonated drinks in USA? That's brilliant.
- DanBC 8y ago
  A warning appears on some UK labels. Pepsi Max has "pressurised container, please open slowly and handle with care" on the label.
- lbriner 8y ago
  Haven't you seen the McDonalds coffee in the UK? "Warning, contents may be hot" The "may" always makes me chuckle.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - gaius 8y ago
    They were sued in the US by some woman who scalded herself when she spilled McDonalds coffee on herself. She was given millions.
    - fjsolwmv 8y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Burn_incident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest... That woman burned the skin off her genatalia when McDonald's served a far too hot coffee. After they refused to pay a small amount to cure her injuries (remember, no socialized health care in USA), she sued. She offered to settle, again for a small amount to cover expenses, and McDonald's refused again McDonald's launched a massive PR campaign to mock her in order to pollute public sentiment in favor of corporations over victims, so thejury awarded $2.7 millions in punitive damages to defend the public against McDonald's brazen attack on himan society. The Judge lowered the award to $640K; and McDonald's appealed, refusing for the third time. They eventually settled for a confidential amount.
      - 8y ago
cylinder 8y ago
Make losing plaintiffs pay the defendant's attorney's fees and costs, it changes everything
- howard941 8y ago
  It sure does change everything, including the locks to the courthouse doors.
adrian_mrd 8y ago
> I think this legal arms race is a consequence of America's overly-litigious and profitable legal system. I would concur with this. From the software firm's perspective, there is less risk in being overly cautious (i.e. EULAs) than to have less restrictive and open rights. Maybe there is a need for a standard common-law contract that provides a set of 8-10 basics and then any companies have to specifically spell out what is different in their personal EULA - and the user can either accept or reject those additional terms? A true accept or reject, that is, and not just two buttons ;) But then why are EULAs allowed in countries that are far less litigious? Are other countries compelled to adopt the EULA for their citizens (convenient!), lobbied or pressured via free- or other trade agreements with the USA (soft/smart lobbying!), or are we, as users to blame for pressing 'accept' without any lobbying efforts of our own?
- pjmlp 8y ago
  In most European countries EULAs are only valid if you are given the opportunity to read it before buying the product. It is not legally binding to sign for something after having paid for it. Now if the box states somewhere a kind of EULA introduction, with indication where to read the full version, then it is another matter.
fjsolwmv 8y ago
Considering the many YouTube videos of exploding bottles, the warning is for the 10000 people a day learning something for the first time. What's wrong with using literacy to help people learn from the miatskes of others?
- kikoreis 8y ago
  Users don't read. We have warnings in my state next to elevators that read "Ensure elevator is at this floor before entering". This is literally accurate but practically ludicrous. The solution to problems of this nature is almost always redesign.
  - quickben 8y ago
    But users sue.
    - thrill 8y ago
      And juries award.
hedvig 8y ago
Corporations (and their shareholders oh god) are not poor persecuted victims. Corporations govern our lives. They should not be free to do whatever they want. With the intentional erosion of most means to settle civil disputes, the court is the last refuge for the individual against a private group. The people behind tort reform (you know who they are) don't even care about the specific "frivolous" lawsuits themselves. They care about getting rid of environmental, consumer, and worker protections in general. Because they stand in the way of profits.

User23 8y ago

> Agree. Related thought: the influence of lawyers in tech firms - witness the draconian EULAs users are 'forced' to accept with a false binary choice of accept or not The comedy option is to print it out, cross out and initial each clause you disagree with, sign it, and mail it to them certified with a letter saying you agree under these terms please write back if they don't agree. This actually works with all contracts of adhesion, but you will get a lot of confused looks from the flunkies.

adrian_mrd 8y ago
Sounds like my kind of comedy jam! I also like the idea of the 'Nightmare Letters' such as this one for GDPR: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nightmare-letter-subject-access-request-under-gdpr-karbaliotis/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nightmare-letter-subject-acce... Would be of interest to note how many users have submitted such requests/letters, since GDPR took effect in May of this year. If lawyers, and by extension, the management/C-level teams of software firms - who either direct, endorse or approve what the lawyers put in the EULAs to begin with - can stick it to users, why shouldn't users be able to stick it back to them?
- emiliobumachar 8y ago
  I love the contract negotiation thing, but hate nightmare letters with a passion. The case against regulation gets a lot stronger if it reliably spawns an army of trolls out for blood.