Re: Buying a new copy of XP

Shenan Stanley wrote: 
Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:

The End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement.
It is covered by Copyrights laws.  It does not need to have any
court's approval to be a legal and binding agreement.



Alias wrote:

And whether it is legal and binding or not has NOT been proven in a
court of law, now has it? Copyright violation is a civil offense, not
a criminal offence and it is highly unlikely that MS will sue a
private party for copyright infringement because they NEVER have.



My only problem with the call of "it hasn't been proven" is..

Make them prove it..

If you believe in it so strongly that you respond that way everytime.. Challenge them.. Get a case going and make them prove it. You believe it is not valid - sue 'em! You are doing nothing more than the woman who sued for spilling a cup of hot coffee in her lap in her car and won against McDonalds that time - so go for it. Sue Microsoft for an invalid agreement that gives a false impression of your actual rights or that limits it in a way that is not legal or whatever your actual case would be.

If you win - then you have won a great victory. Everyone will remember your name forever.
If you never challenge them, then both sides are just blowing smoke.. Which accomplishes nothing but making a lot of people cough and complain - making for non-interesting reading on the newsgroups.

Either way - if you have actually chosen a side - why not prove your side right once and for all..

Or is that asking too much?


It is not the end user's responsibility to try to uphold Microsoft's eula and try to prove it is a binding contract (or not) in a court of law. It is Microsoft's responsibility to do that because it is their license agreement. If an end user breaks their license agreement by not following it to the letter, then it becomes a contract dispute and the ball is in Microsoft's court to take the next step in that process. It is rediculous to expect an end user to take the next step when it is Microsoft's responsibility to do so.

As a matter of fact, coming into MS newsgroups and other public areas that MS has access to and repeatedly stating over and over that it has in fact not been proven in a court of law is challenging them IMHO. These people who do that are making their opinion known in the public domain. It's not just blowing smoke as you put it. Now it is time for MS to step up to the plate and stand behind their license (which they obviously are not doing when it comes to non-commercial use in the privacy of one's own home). So it seems to me that MS is the only one blowing smoke.

--
geak skwad
.

Relevant Pages