Re: ATTN an MVP that is against the MS EUA
From: David Candy (.)
Date: 02/03/05
- Next message: Sharique: "Windows xp start up problem"
- Previous message: TNM: "icon names in blue"
- In reply to: kurttrail: "Re: ATTN an MVP that is against the MS EUA"
- Next in thread: kurttrail: "Re: ATTN an MVP that is against the MS EUA"
- Reply: kurttrail: "Re: ATTN an MVP that is against the MS EUA"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 16:37:22 +1100
No. It must meet the 6 elements of a enforcable contract. Plus courts won't enforce slavery (at least Australian courts won't - they won't compel labour though companies aren't given this protection).
-- ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.uscricket.com "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message news:esFqDGbCFHA.4008@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > 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" > >
- Next message: Sharique: "Windows xp start up problem"
- Previous message: TNM: "icon names in blue"
- In reply to: kurttrail: "Re: ATTN an MVP that is against the MS EUA"
- Next in thread: kurttrail: "Re: ATTN an MVP that is against the MS EUA"
- Reply: kurttrail: "Re: ATTN an MVP that is against the MS EUA"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
