4 ms·

>> They are just using the EULA as the basis for claiming jurisdiction. IANAL but it's always seemed to me that if I reject the terms of a EULA then the EULA d

>> They are just using the EULA as the basis for claiming jurisdiction. IANAL but it's always seemed to me that if I reject the terms of a EULA then the EULA doesn't apply to me. Pushing the "button" does not mean anything because only the EULA gives it meaning and I reject that. 50 years from now if someone is doing software archaeology and they go to install some software from a long gone company, who does clicking the button form an agreement with? Will it be legal to try that software? Can existing software companies list people they have click-through agreements with? These things seem like a bad joke in practical terms.

eganist 5y ago
> 50 years from now if someone is doing software archaeology and they go to install some software from a long gone company, who does clicking the button form an agreement with? Will it be legal to try that software? Can existing software companies list people they have click-through agreements with? These things seem like a bad joke in practical terms. I mean, this seems pretty easily addressed: I can't sign a contract with a dead company, can I? Well, literally I can, but the agreement wouldn't be binding. Same applies here. Unless the entity still exists, in which case congratulations, you're in a binding agreement lol
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  There are some practical problems with this. Suppose that Small Co sells the assets of a business unit to Big Co. Do you now have a contract with Small Co. or Big Co.? Small Co. no longer has the rights to the software. Big Co. may not agree to the terms of the old license. Suppose someone dies and their assets go to their heirs. Do you now have a contract with the heirs? What if there are no heirs, so the assets go to the government? Do you now have a contract with the government? I can think of some fun terms to add to a software license from someone on their deathbed if that's the case.
  - SQueeeeeL 5y ago
    I like how suddenly the intense legal minuate are the most important details of a system as if we're in a contract law class, as opposed to the obvious point that in general these agreements are fairly obvious
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      Making up rules without thinking about the consequences of those rules is a Bad Idea.
      - SQueeeeeL 5y ago
        Edge cases aren't consequences; they're trivia. And at the the of day, our legal system is governed by humans who interpret and argue. Until humans are perfect, we'll never write a perfect law.
        AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        "Perfection is impossible, therefore don't try" is a dodge.
        SQueeeeeL 5y ago
        We're not making the laws, we are observers commenting on the status quo. I'm sure no one's losing sleep over hacker news commenters being upset
        eganist 5y ago
        Are you a practicing attorney?
      - mike_d 5y ago
        What happens to contractual obligations when companies are acquired or dissolved is a matter that is settled law. It has been well thought out and is probably in scope for literally dozens of legal cases a day. Just because something is new to you, doesn't mean that professionals that deal with this every day have never thought about it. (The actual answer depends on the State, entity type, if it was dissolved or suspended, if a bankruptcy is involved, etc. and you should just consult a contracts lawyer)
  - woah 5y ago
    What are the problems here? > Suppose that Small Co sells the assets of a business unit to Big Co. Do you now have a contract with Small Co. or Big Co.? Small Co. no longer has the rights to the software That's right, that's what they sold. > Big Co. may not agree to the terms of the old license. Then I guess maybe they shouldn't have bought it. > Suppose someone dies and their assets go to their heirs. Do you now have a contract with the heirs? Yes. They inherited the deceased's assets. > What if there are no heirs, so the assets go to the government? Do you now have a contract with the government? You'd probably have to ask an estate planning attorney about the specifics of this, but so what if you did? > I can think of some fun terms to add to a software license from someone on their deathbed if that's the case. You should totally do it lol
    - dcow 5y ago
      So if I sell you a magic rock under the contract that so long as you are in possession of said rock I have legal authority to monitor your household to make sure you don’t misuse the rock for evil, and you die and your heir comes in possession of the rock, I now have a contract with your heir? I can go set up cameras in their house and invade their privacy just because you wanted a magic rock? That doesn't seem right?..
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        Probably if the heir accepted the rock during the estate proceedings, but im just speculating.
      - _djo_ 5y ago
        Contract law isn't absolutist like that, and it can't bind both parties in a way that's unreasonable or contrary to certain basic rights-related laws. That's why you can't contract yourself into slavery. What'll happen in cases like that is that it'll be litigated, interpreted, and either amended through a settlement agreement or annulled. As others have said, the law isn't a programming language. It's a human system that, while being rigorous, strict, structured, and binding for the most part, is nonetheless capable by design of nuance and interpretation within known and constrained bounds.
voxic11 5y ago
US contract law jurisprudence doesn't really seem to support you here. > The mental assent of the parties is not requisite for the formation of a contract. If the words or other acts of one of the parties have but one reasonable meaning, his undisclosed intention is immaterial except when an unreasonable meaning which he attaches to his manifestations is known to the other party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_v._Zehmer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_v._Zehmer
- phkahler 5y ago
  Well (IANAL) but if you want to get into contract law, my understanding is that a contract requires acknowledgement from both parties. It's not really fair to say "the functioning of the software is acknowledgement" when the company granting that permission has no record of it. Ask a CEO on the stand if his company has any binding agreements with the judge.
- GoblinSlayer 5y ago
  That looks very different: >Zehmer wrote on the back of the restaurant's receipt stating, "We hereby agree to sell to W. O. Lucy the Ferguson Farm complete for $50,000.00, title satisfactory to buyer". The note was signed by Zehmer and his wife.

eganist 5y ago

> 50 years from now if someone is doing software archaeology and they go to install some software from a long gone company, who does clicking the button form an agreement with? Will it be legal to try that software? Can existing software companies list people they have click-through agreements with? These things seem like a bad joke in practical terms. I mean, this seems pretty easily addressed: I can't sign a contract with a dead company, can I? Well, literally I can, but the agreement wouldn't be binding. Same applies here. Unless the entity still exists, in which case congratulations, you're in a binding agreement lol

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
There are some practical problems with this. Suppose that Small Co sells the assets of a business unit to Big Co. Do you now have a contract with Small Co. or Big Co.? Small Co. no longer has the rights to the software. Big Co. may not agree to the terms of the old license. Suppose someone dies and their assets go to their heirs. Do you now have a contract with the heirs? What if there are no heirs, so the assets go to the government? Do you now have a contract with the government? I can think of some fun terms to add to a software license from someone on their deathbed if that's the case.
- SQueeeeeL 5y ago
  I like how suddenly the intense legal minuate are the most important details of a system as if we're in a contract law class, as opposed to the obvious point that in general these agreements are fairly obvious
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    Making up rules without thinking about the consequences of those rules is a Bad Idea.
    - SQueeeeeL 5y ago
      Edge cases aren't consequences; they're trivia. And at the the of day, our legal system is governed by humans who interpret and argue. Until humans are perfect, we'll never write a perfect law.
      - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        "Perfection is impossible, therefore don't try" is a dodge.
        SQueeeeeL 5y ago
        We're not making the laws, we are observers commenting on the status quo. I'm sure no one's losing sleep over hacker news commenters being upset
        eganist 5y ago
        Are you a practicing attorney?
    - mike_d 5y ago
      What happens to contractual obligations when companies are acquired or dissolved is a matter that is settled law. It has been well thought out and is probably in scope for literally dozens of legal cases a day. Just because something is new to you, doesn't mean that professionals that deal with this every day have never thought about it. (The actual answer depends on the State, entity type, if it was dissolved or suspended, if a bankruptcy is involved, etc. and you should just consult a contracts lawyer)
- woah 5y ago
  What are the problems here? > Suppose that Small Co sells the assets of a business unit to Big Co. Do you now have a contract with Small Co. or Big Co.? Small Co. no longer has the rights to the software That's right, that's what they sold. > Big Co. may not agree to the terms of the old license. Then I guess maybe they shouldn't have bought it. > Suppose someone dies and their assets go to their heirs. Do you now have a contract with the heirs? Yes. They inherited the deceased's assets. > What if there are no heirs, so the assets go to the government? Do you now have a contract with the government? You'd probably have to ask an estate planning attorney about the specifics of this, but so what if you did? > I can think of some fun terms to add to a software license from someone on their deathbed if that's the case. You should totally do it lol
  - dcow 5y ago
    So if I sell you a magic rock under the contract that so long as you are in possession of said rock I have legal authority to monitor your household to make sure you don’t misuse the rock for evil, and you die and your heir comes in possession of the rock, I now have a contract with your heir? I can go set up cameras in their house and invade their privacy just because you wanted a magic rock? That doesn't seem right?..
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Probably if the heir accepted the rock during the estate proceedings, but im just speculating.
    - _djo_ 5y ago
      Contract law isn't absolutist like that, and it can't bind both parties in a way that's unreasonable or contrary to certain basic rights-related laws. That's why you can't contract yourself into slavery. What'll happen in cases like that is that it'll be litigated, interpreted, and either amended through a settlement agreement or annulled. As others have said, the law isn't a programming language. It's a human system that, while being rigorous, strict, structured, and binding for the most part, is nonetheless capable by design of nuance and interpretation within known and constrained bounds.

voxic11 5y ago

US contract law jurisprudence doesn't really seem to support you here. > The mental assent of the parties is not requisite for the formation of a contract. If the words or other acts of one of the parties have but one reasonable meaning, his undisclosed intention is immaterial except when an unreasonable meaning which he attaches to his manifestations is known to the other party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_v._Zehmer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_v._Zehmer

phkahler 5y ago
Well (IANAL) but if you want to get into contract law, my understanding is that a contract requires acknowledgement from both parties. It's not really fair to say "the functioning of the software is acknowledgement" when the company granting that permission has no record of it. Ask a CEO on the stand if his company has any binding agreements with the judge.
GoblinSlayer 5y ago
That looks very different: >Zehmer wrote on the back of the restaurant's receipt stating, "We hereby agree to sell to W. O. Lucy the Ferguson Farm complete for $50,000.00, title satisfactory to buyer". The note was signed by Zehmer and his wife.