Re: ATTN an MVP that is against the MS EUA

From: kurttrail (dontemailme_at_anywhereintheknowuniverse.org)
Date: 02/03/05 

Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 00:30:43 -0500

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> As I thought, you will not answer with a simple yes or no.
>
> "I'll your question, once you answer mine."
> Reminiscent of a childhood game.

"MS has no intent in their Windows XP EULA to allow the buyer to install
on more then one computer at the same time, but that does not mean that
MS has the LEGAL RIGHT to limit individuals to install Windows XP on
only one computer at a time."

Boy are you stupid! The answer is there. "no intent" "no"

So now answer my question:

Is everything written in a contract legally enforceable just because it
was mutually agreed to by both parties?

>
>
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:%23ZLeozaCFHA.3924@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>
>>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
>>> Somehow I knew you would not answer that Yes or No question.
>>
>> And let's not forget you trying to compare a civil offense with a
>> criminal one by changing the subject with your question to begin
>> with!
>>>
>>> Let me rephrase:
>>> As the EULA is written, was it the intent of Microsoft that the
>>> buyer be entitled to install Windows on more than one computer at
>>> the same time?
>>
>> I'll your question, once you answer mine.
>>
>> Here it is:
>>
>> Is everything written in a contract legally enforceable just because
>> both mutually agreed to?
>>
>>> Forget all your copyright junk.
>>
>> Quoting the Supreme Court is "copyright junk." ROFL!
>>
>>> Some is not relevant and is only posted so you could divert you
>>> answer.
>>
>> All of it is relevant, as what I quoted, with the exception of your
>> use of the word "it," is directly quoted from Supreme Court rulings!
>> MS doesn't possess the exclusive right to limit an individuals "fair
>> use." So while MS may have the intention to limit an individual to
>> install MS software on only one computer through their EULA, it
>> really doesn't legally possess the right to do so.
>>
>> And I believe that MS's EULA is a legally valid commercial use
>> contract, but they have yet to legally prove that they have the
>> right to dispossess individuals of their "fair use" rights through a
>> post-sale shrinkwrap license.
>>
>> And in case you didn't notice it, I did kinda end up answering your
>> question in this last section in a round about way. MS has no
>> intent in their Windows XP EULA to allow the buyer to install on
>> more then one computer at the same time, but that does not mean that
>> MS has the LEGAL RIGHT to limit individuals to install Windows XP on
>> only one computer at a time. And to convince me otherwise, MS would
>> have to sue me and win! From Brucey Chumpers favorite web site on
>> Fair Use:
>>
>> "Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use
>> interpretation, the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or
>> arbitration." -
>> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html
>>
>> So my interpretation of "fair use" as I understand it though the
>> SUPREME COURT stating, "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted
>> work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess the
>> exclusive right to such a use," stands for me, at the very least,
>> until the copyright owner, in this case Microsoft, sues me and wins
>> in court or through arbitration! And believe me, if the time ever
>> happens where I'm sued over my interpretation of "fair use," I fully
>> intend to fight for my interpretation to the bitter end.
>>
>> --
>> Peace!
>> Kurt
>> Self-anointed Moderator
>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
>> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei" 

-- 
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pystar costs the same...
    ... installing it on any single computer that I wish to install ... tested in the courts, but until some higher authority rules on it, ... I will interpret the legality of Apple's EULA as I see fit. ... The notion that copyright owners should be able to impose ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Pystar costs the same...
    ... installing it on any single computer that I wish to install ... tested in the courts, but until some higher authority rules on it, ... I will interpret the legality of Apple's EULA as I see fit. ... The notion that copyright owners should be able to impose ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Activation code
    ... Yes, it is, you *can* install it on another machine. ... You're not *supposed* to do that, according to the EULA which, of course, doesn't apply for fair use in the privacy of one's home. ... In Spain, the courts recently ruled that downloading music, dvds, software, etc. using programs like eMule for home use is not illegal. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Shrink Wrap my EULA ?
    ... >> You may refuse to accept it and the install will be cancelled. ... >>> You have the right to refuse the EULA. ... >>> permits you as a party to the contract to refuse the terms of such. ... >>> you wanted an OEM version that included all the license documentation, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Shrink Wrap my EULA ?
    ... Your right to decline the EULA also occurs during install - that is why we ... You may refuse to accept it and the install will be cancelled. ... > you as a party to the contract to refuse the terms of such. ... and other materials in the OEM package then you need to ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
Loading