4 ms·

What about the $30,000 sales contract by which OP reasonably expected to receive a functional camera, rather than a surprise additional contract containing unfa

What about the $30,000 sales contract by which OP reasonably expected to receive a functional camera, rather than a surprise additional contract containing unfavourable clauses? One could argue that, unless there is a mechanism by which OP can make use the camera without agreeing to the unexpected contract, OP has been a victim of false advertising.

everforward 5y ago
> One could argue that, unless there is a mechanism by which OP can make use the camera without agreeing to the unexpected contract, OP has been a victim of false advertising. That seems unlikely. My layman's understanding is that you have to purchase the hardware and license the software, and the two are considered distinct items. The hardware is entirely capable of what was promised, but OP will either have to agree to the terms of the software or create their own. That exists in a lot of markets. Phones are advertised running OS' that require EULA's, computers are marketed running OS' and apps that require other EULA's, etc. I think my car even has an EULA on it. It feels bad when there realistically isn't an alternative like there are with phone or computer OS', but I don't think there's anything legally different.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  This world where EULA's (and other one-sided "agreements") are treated just like contracts: Meeting of the minds between two equal-power parties, mutually understood and negotiated--needs to die. These things are take-it-or-leave-it law, unchangeable, non-negotiable, and dictated by some corporate counsel 1000 miles away. They should be all thrown out due to being unconscionable. If the US Supreme Court wasn't entirely captured by corporate interests this crap would have been scrapped long ago.
- EMIRELADERO 5y ago
  You don't have to license the software. Copyright law only regulates copying and redistribution, not use. Just because they say "this software is licensed, not sold" doesn't mean they're right (even if they are the software makers themselves)

everforward 5y ago

> One could argue that, unless there is a mechanism by which OP can make use the camera without agreeing to the unexpected contract, OP has been a victim of false advertising. That seems unlikely. My layman's understanding is that you have to purchase the hardware and license the software, and the two are considered distinct items. The hardware is entirely capable of what was promised, but OP will either have to agree to the terms of the software or create their own. That exists in a lot of markets. Phones are advertised running OS' that require EULA's, computers are marketed running OS' and apps that require other EULA's, etc. I think my car even has an EULA on it. It feels bad when there realistically isn't an alternative like there are with phone or computer OS', but I don't think there's anything legally different.

ryandrake 5y ago
This world where EULA's (and other one-sided "agreements") are treated just like contracts: Meeting of the minds between two equal-power parties, mutually understood and negotiated--needs to die. These things are take-it-or-leave-it law, unchangeable, non-negotiable, and dictated by some corporate counsel 1000 miles away. They should be all thrown out due to being unconscionable. If the US Supreme Court wasn't entirely captured by corporate interests this crap would have been scrapped long ago.
EMIRELADERO 5y ago
You don't have to license the software. Copyright law only regulates copying and redistribution, not use. Just because they say "this software is licensed, not sold" doesn't mean they're right (even if they are the software makers themselves)