14 ms·
I wouldn't. Modern judges have done a terrible job of keeping up with technology. It's as likely as not that the judge would rule something crazy like all EULAs
by LLWM 12y ago
I wouldn't. Modern judges have done a terrible job of keeping up with technology. It's as likely as not that the judge would rule something crazy like all EULAs are binding contracts and then we'd all be fucked.
- pbhjpbhj 12y agoThat's the point where you take out the EULA from your pocket that says "This EULA applies when X is brought before any judge. If you intend to declare against X then you forfeit all goods, rights, chattels and possessions to X. By bringing X before you you are agreeing to release him without charge. By not destroying this EULA you accept it's terms as binding on pain of death." ... They'd still put you away, or whatever, you'd just then have confirmation that the rule of law doesn't apply in that jurisdiction.
- LLWM 12y agoAnd that's a satisfactory outcome for you?
- pbhjpbhj 12y agoNot at all. I'm entirely for the rule of law - EULAs are clearly wrong and should be held to be entirely unenforceable. IMO the suggestion that their unilateral terms are legal requirements should instead be met with a severe penalty, it's deception.
- LLWM 12y agoUntil there is a serious reform of the courts, either by active effort or by sufficient replacement with younger judges, taking things to court is likely only going to bring about the opposite.