Patronising companies

[Gorgon]

Turn off automatic updates. Don't upgrade unless you are ready for a reboot.

 

 

Or alternatively, break the circle of evil and migrate to another OS. It has to start somewhere.

 

 

Anywho, the question is pretty academic for me, I have never payed for an OS in my life, my updates consist of installing newer packaged releases that include more service packs.

Edited December 26, 2007 by Gorgon

[kirottu]

Sorry for being unclear, taks. I entirely accept that I may have to shut down for an update to work. What i don't accept is that I should have to download the update, install it and then have only the following options

 

1. restart immediately

2. indicate that I want to restart later then be asked again in FIVE MINUTES if I would like to restart now. Again and again.

3. [missing third option] restart when it is convenient for me and not be constantly interrupted while I'm trying to work.

 

I get this about once a month on "my" work laptop. It

[jaguars4ever]

Those EULAs have still to hold up in any court. From what I've read, the general idea is that they are a nice try, but if anyone pushed the issue they EULAs will probably not hold up.

It depends.

 

The courts will enforce EULAs when the user ticks that little "I agree" checkbox on the dialog box of installation wizards, but they won't enforce agreements when clicked through URL links.

[Gorgon]

Has any user ever, in the history of computing, read one of those things they were agreeing to ?

[jaguars4ever]

Probably not, but they should. Some of them are pretty crazy in what they get you to agree to. i.e. obtaining your consent to leach a tiny bit of your bandwidth for their network lattice-frame purposes.

[Walsingham]

Has any user ever, in the history of computing, read one of those things they were agreeing to ?

 

Assuming I wasn't supposed to I began reading them years ago. It's actually quite an education. My favourite was spybot S&D which insisted I accept the author's girlfriend was the best women in the universe. Luckily I had just split up with mine or there could have been ructions.

[Spider]

Those EULAs have still to hold up in any court. From what I've read, the general idea is that they are a nice try, but if anyone pushed the issue they EULAs will probably not hold up.

It depends.

 

The courts will enforce EULAs when the user ticks that little "I agree" checkbox on the dialog box of installation wizards, but they won't enforce agreements when clicked through URL links.

 

Are you sure? From my understanding, they haven't actually been tested. But I've read that they force you to agree to give away rights that you really can't give away making them kinda pointless.

 

They basically say you can't sue the company if anything goes wrong, but if you install a game and it wipes out your harddrive (PoR2) I'm pretty sure you can sue no matter what you agreed to, at least if the contents of your harddrive was valuable enough.

 

The biggest concern is with online games, such as WoW. Since the EULAs basically say an account can be terminated at any time for any reason. Since those accounts can be quite valuable in the second market, that is something that can cause a bit of a stir.

[Walsingham]

I was discussing this with a lawyer the other day. Apparently in a UK court you can argue that a contract is unreasonable. So if a EULA obliges you to act as surrogate mother for IBM's CEO then our geriatric wig-wearers will see you alright. However, in the bright shiny rational New World* what you sign is what you get.

 

BTW, on this subject has anyone checked the privacy section of Facebook?

 

 

 

*This is me being sarcastic about America.

[thepixiesrock]

There's a privacy section on Facebook? Was I not invited or something?

[jaguars4ever]

Those EULAs have still to hold up in any court. From what I've read, the general idea is that they are a nice try, but if anyone pushed the issue they EULAs will probably not hold up.

It depends.

 

The courts will enforce EULAs when the user ticks that little "I agree" checkbox on the dialog box of installation wizards, but they won't enforce agreements when clicked through URL links.

 

Are you sure? From my understanding, they haven't actually been tested.

I'm positive. Well, at lest in our good 'ol USA.

 

Any additional terms raised in the digital iteration of the agreement that the user assents to are called "click-wrap" contracts, and there is a split of opinion of when they're enforceable. Note that these are different from "shrink-wrap" contracts, such as box-top licenses. Those are considered to act as mere confirmations. So if the company sneaks in additional terms on the box of your software, then they won't be enforceable (Step-saver vs. Wyse Tech).

 

But going back to the "click-wraps", if the user assent is provided via the EULA dialog box, then the terms are binding (ProCD vs. Zeidenberg). However, agreement to terms via clicking through URL links are not enforceable: (Specht vs. Netscape Communications)

 

^a direct wiki link to the last url won't work for whatever reason, but if you scroll down there should be a link to the case.

Edited December 28, 2007 by jaguars4ever

[Spider]

Second link doesn't work.

 

Anyway, it seems I was a bit misinformed then. Although we're not talking about exactly the same thing. When talking about EULAs I've been told not that the agreement isn't valid as such, but that they make you sign away rights you as a consumer basically can't sign away.

 

But that's not to say this is correct either. I've got no source and only passing knowledge about US laws, so I could be misinformed about that as well.

[jaguars4ever]

Thanks for letting me know about that third link. Stupid wiki put a full-stop at the end of the url botching it up.

 

But I think I know what your asking now. Here in the US, the courts will enforce contracts of adhesion ("take it or leave it" deals from the offeror which leaves the offeree no capacity to negotiate), UNLESS the term being assented to is objectively outside the scope of teh offeree. That is to say, a person not creating the contract (but agreeing to the contract) would reasonably be expected to agree to that term given the surrounding circumstances of the purported deal.

 

As such, the enforceability of say, signing away a right, cannot be conclusively absolute in the abstract, but is dependent on the facts of the case.

 

So in your previous example of termination of WoW accounts, they would do an objective test of whether a WoW user would reasonably expect the termination of his/her account to be within the scope of the his contract with Blizzard. And very likely the courts would indeed deem it to be so (as opposed to say giving Blizzard permission to bulldoze your house).

 

The above is the majority way the US handles contracts of adhesion. The minority way a few states do it is via a subjective test of whether the seller knew that if the buyer was aware of the term (i.e signing away a right) then he/she would not have agreed. But that's only done in a couple states so it's not very prevalent.

[Walsingham]

There's a privacy section on Facebook? Was I not invited or something?

 

Sorry. My sloppy language. I meant the their privacy policy. In short you hand Facebook complete license to:

 

1) Gather as much information on you as they deem fit

2) Gather information on you by any means they see fit (even outside facebook)

3) Sell said information to any third party they see fit

 

I don't consider this approach to be justifiable by any wholesome business model. Nor does it fit within Parliament's guidelines of what constitutes legal behaviour in the UK*. It's insanely intrusive, and why I will NEVER open a facebook account.

 

*Facebook isn't UK based, but the guidelines are intended to reflect best practice also. Data gathered by any organisation should be specified, and limited to pre-defined and reasonable areas of interest. Your doctor can note how many hours of exercise you do, but not jot down what brands you're wearing so they can sell on the information.

[thepixiesrock]

What kind of information would Facebook get from me, the fact that I call all of my friends that are guys gay and stalk all of my freinds that are girls?

[Spider]

So in your previous example of termination of WoW accounts, they would do an objective test of whether a WoW user would reasonably expect the termination of his/her account to be within the scope of the his contract with Blizzard. And very likely the courts would indeed deem it to be so (as opposed to say giving Blizzard permission to bulldoze your house).

 

The above is the majority way the US handles contracts of adhesion. The minority way a few states do it is via a subjective test of whether the seller knew that if the buyer was aware of the term (i.e signing away a right) then he/she would not have agreed. But that's only done in a couple states so it's not very prevalent.

 

Thanks for the info. Most interesting.

 

Of particular interest here would be the Bragg vs Linden case, but I'm guessing that one is ongoing. At least the Philadelphia Court found the part in the TOS about arbitration to be unenforcable. It will be interesting to see the end result of that case though, but I suppose that could take a while.

[jaguars4ever]

So in your previous example of termination of WoW accounts, they would do an objective test of whether a WoW user would reasonably expect the termination of his/her account to be within the scope of the his contract with Blizzard. And very likely the courts would indeed deem it to be so (as opposed to say giving Blizzard permission to bulldoze your house).

 

The above is the majority way the US handles contracts of adhesion. The minority way a few states do it is via a subjective test of whether the seller knew that if the buyer was aware of the term (i.e signing away a right) then he/she would not have agreed. But that's only done in a couple states so it's not very prevalent.

 

Thanks for the info. Most interesting.

 

Of particular interest here would be the Bragg vs Linden case, but I'm guessing that one is ongoing. At least the Philadelphia Court found the part in the TOS about arbitration to be unenforcable. It will be interesting to see the end result of that case though, but I suppose that could take a while.

Thanks for letting me know about the Bragg v. Linden case. It does seem pretty interesting although I wasn't aware of it until you mentioned it to me.

 

You're also very astute in noting that arbitration in a TOS is a point of contention for enforceability. Here in the US, any additional term deemed to be a material alteration is not enforceable. The "big four" determinants of materiality are, like you've said, arbitration clauses (i.e where the location should be held for a legal dispute), in addition to finance charges (i.e. when the additional term involves an interest charge, etc), retention clauses (for retaining attorneys, etc), and warranty clauses:

 

Warranty clauses are deemed to be material alteration as a matter of law (Union Carbide v. Oscar Meyer Foods).

 

Finance charges are NOT deemed to material alterations (Rangen v. Valley Trout Farms).

 

Arbitration is a split decision: Some courts will deem it to be a material alteration as a matter of law (Marlene v. Carnac). Other courts will leave the issue of materiality as question of fact, and allow the jury to decide (Dorton v. Collins & Aikman).

 

Unfortunately, I can't remember how they handle retention clauses or the relevant cases of the top of my head.

[Spider]

Thanks for the additional information. I have a weird interest in legal matters. Weird because I'm not from the US and have no actual intention (or wish) to become a lawyer. I do like to understand the world around me however, so I guess there's that.

 

Therefor any thread that is actually educational is a winner for me.

 

(which is also why I skimmed through the entire document in the Bragg vs Linden case where the court discussed the arbitration. 46 pages of it. The term unconscionable was thrown around a lot)

[Walsingham]

What kind of information would Facebook get from me, the fact that I call all of my friends that are guys gay and stalk all of my freinds that are girls?

 

It can find out ANYTHING IT WANTS TO. You give it permission to establish who you visit, what you say, where you bank, what kind of icecream you like... ANYTHING. I could pay them to stare vacantly up your nose, man.