A Contract Only Microsoft Can Break
,----[ Quote ]
| What kind of contract includes a provision that one of the parties has
| the right to violate the contract with impunity? Well, the Windows XP
| EULA for one, as an interesting analysis of Microsoft's legalese points
| out.
|
| [...]
|
| In plain English, what this paragraph means of course is that Microsoft
| isn't responsible for any damages caused by their software. But because
| the list of things the company is not responsible for includes breach
| of contract, LinuxAdvocate's article points out that this also means
| "Microsoft is not liable even if they break the terms of this agreement."
| I must have read this damage limitation paragraph half a dozen times,
| since it's common to many of Microsoft's EULAs, but that little irony
| had escaped me.
|
| [...]
|
| The real point here though is just how absurd it is talk about software
| EULAs as if they were real contracts. An agreement that one side can go
| back on at any time is no agreement at all. That is the real plain
| English message of the Windows XP EULA - if only a few more judges
| would get it.
`----
http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/archives/2006/09/a_contract_only.html
|
|
