5 ms·
What's wrong with agreeing to the EULA?
by pfraze 13y ago
What's wrong with agreeing to the EULA?
- caf 13y agoBecause you might not agree with the terms in it?
- glesica 13y agoWhy should I have to agree to whatever terms MS has set forth just to be allowed to wipe their operating system off of my hard drive?
- pfraze 13y agoIt's not ideal, but what are the actual effects?
- InclinedPlane 13y agoA EULA is a legal document, it can contain myriad of terms. Indeed, most EULAs bind you to future as-yet-disclosed terms as well. That's no small thing.
- mikestew 13y agoNote that I commented above that I am in disagreement the way MSFT arranged this. However, to be fair to the one posing the question, the actual outcome of clicking through the EULA to install the OS of your choice is probably nothing (well, you won't be getting your money back for that Windows license). EULA or not, nothing will happen. It's "the principal of the thing". In this case, it's a pretty big matter of principal, though.
- sillysaurus 13y agoIt doesn't matter that the outcome is nothing. What matters is that you agreed to give up your rights. It's an opening for them if they should choose to pursue action against you.
- jeltz 13y agoAs DannyBee said, I doubt a court would hold you to those terms.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- DannyBee 13y agoMost EULAs cannot validly bind consumers to future as-yet-disclosed terms. As above, in this specific situation, where you are agreeing because that is the only way to effectively remove the software, i have trouble seeing any court holding you to those terms. If you were trying to get around agreeing to the license but still using windows 8, sure.
- glesica 13y agoGoing to court at all is a loss. Why should I have to risk having to pay for a lawyer and take time out of my day to convince a judge that I shouldn't be bound to the terms.
- DannyBee 13y agoYou can always be taken to court, they just don't often take you when they are going to lose. Since that is, here, independent of whether you agree, ...
- mikestew 13y agoI shouldn't have to agree to a contract for an OS I don't care to use in order to boot into the OS of my choice. Nor should I have to read the thing in order to see what I'm agreeing to just to boot into the OS of my choice. Make no mistake, I have not been one of the hand-wringers over this whole secure boot thing. But this recent development could turn me into one.
- ddinh 13y agoWhat if the EULA forbids you from installing a third-party OS?
- npsimons 13y agoWhat's wrong with me setting my user-agent to "By allowing me access, you waive all rights and policies regarding my access." and then viewing your website? Hint: it's about as enforceable as a EULA, but just as obnoxious and offensive because it presumes too much and oversteps bounds. Still, in the grand scheme of things, my UA string makes more sense, as putting something online is practically tantamount to putting it in the public domain, whereas you can't perform perfectly reasonable and otherwise legal acts with your legally owned property unless you violate most EULAs.
- comex 13y agoThis EULA is unlikely to be unenforceable, as you have the option of returning the product to the manufacturer if you don't want to agree to it.
- vacri 13y agoMS was the creator of the license that was 'activated' by opening the box in which the license resided. No way to even view the license without 'activating' it.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- doktrin 13y agoI don't see why this comment is being downvoted. Certainly, agreeing clicking through the EULA isn't ideal, but is it anything other than a theoretical nuisance? I'm genuinely curious - does there exist some relevant and concerning precedent here? If this turns out to actually become an issue, it would probably harm Microsoft more than anyone - and would be a boon to manufacturers willing to bundle Linux on pre-built machines (such as the Alienware x51 or "developer" x13). However, I sincerely can't see anything coming of this threat.
- yew 13y agoIf this turns out to actually become an issue, it would probably harm Microsoft more than anyone . . . It would probably harm Microsoft eventually. It would harm whoever gets turned into a legal test case immediately - which is the sort of thing you avoid by not electronically signing randomly selected legal documents.
- pondababa 13y agoIf you agree to the EULA, then you can't get a refund for the Windows license that comes with the computer.
- doktrin 13y agoFair. This is a legitimate concern. I guess I'm a fairly uninformed consumer, as I've never actually sought a refund for a Windows license (nor known this was a possibility).
- mordae 13y agoWith Windows 8 it no longer is.
- fractallyte 13y ago'PC' ('personal computer') is a general purpose computing device, based on the original IBM architecture. The point is, it was never tied to any particular operating system. Any attempt to 'tie' the hardware to a proprietary OS can be met with a legal challenge on these grounds. So, regardless of what manufacturers would like customers to think, it is possible to obtain an OS-free computer, even if it entails refusing an EULA and getting a refund for the unused OS. Many people think this argument applies to Apple, too. But that's a mistake: Apple computers are not marketed as 'PCs'; and their computing system, from hardware to OS, is Apple throughout. Microsoft works with PC manufacturers to pull off this anti-competitive hoodwink on an ignorant computing public. If it were tested properly in court, the whole corrupt practice would be torn to pieces.
- dlitz 13y agoSpeaking of the EULA, couldn't I just lie to my tablet? Assume there's no communication back to Microsoft and no need for a license under copyright law. Couldn't I just click the "I agree" button while not actually accepting the EULA? Surely, the tablet itself can't be a party to a contract, right?
- unhammer 13y agoI do this all the time when I'm signing contracts, I just lie to the paper and sign my name even though I don't agree with it. Right.
- dlitz 13y agoWell, in this case, the signed paper is never actually delivered to the other party, and the other party has no knowledge that you ever signed it in the first place. A signed piece of paper is neither necessary nor sufficient to form a contract. It's prima facie evidence that an agreement took place, but that's not the same thing.
- zurn 13y agoAt least in previous versions of Windows you could click "no" to the EULA and you could use the draconian terms as an argument to get a Windows refund.