Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> ____/ Mark Kent on Sunday 03 August 2008 10:21 : \____
>
>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>> thufir <hawat.thufir@xxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:36:51 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As someone else wrote, the refund will be on the whole system, not each
>>>>>>> individual component. It's bundled and normal return policies apply.
>>>>>>> Doesn't mean that's a good situation, just that the guy who got the
>>>>>>> refund read what he wanted into the EULA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not fully bundled, though, because you have to agree to a licence
>>>>>> before you can use it (Windows), so quite clearly, Microsoft consider
>>>>>> their Windows to be a separate entity from the computer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Microsoft are not in a position in a Windows Eula to state the returns
>>>>>> policy with respect to a 3rd-party product (an HP computer) as sold by a
>>>>>> 3rd party vendor (whoever this was).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Certainly, in the UK, this would not hold any water. Adding conditions
>>>>>> after a sale is not allowed here, as far as I know.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be alot clearer if the requirement was to *sign* the EULA at the
>>>>> time of purchase. IANAL, but I agree with you that it sounds suspect to
>>>>> add conditions after the sale.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I remain astonished that nobody has yet tested this issue legally.
>>>
>>> It is tested, at least in germany. Any EULA you get to see *after* the sale
>>> is worth far less legally than used toilet paper
>>
>> Ah, good! I believe that the same situation would apply here.
>>
>>>
>>>> The practice appears to be quite reprehensible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is. But some countries still have those backwater laws
>>
>> quite.
>
> See this article from last year:
>
> Do Microsoft's EULAs have any real legal basis?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| "Microsoft has no special exemption from the sale of goods act." Well,
>| no, probably not - but it might still be selling you "services"
>| instead of "goods". But the real point to remember is that it doesn't
>| matter a jot what the "logical" position is, it is what the courts
>| decide that matters.
>|
>| As far as I know, no one has tested Microsoft's EULAs in a UK court
>| and, until someone does, Microsoft will just go on assuming that they
>| work. And I don't fancy the risk of taking on Microsoft's expensive
>| lawyers in court myself...
> `----
>
> http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/04/25/microsoft_eula/
>
> Germany, by the way, also forbids what Microsoft did to Linux last year
> (slander around patents without any proof... never even mind if software
> patents are suitable as toilet paper replacement in the country).
Ah, yes, I recall the debate going on now. It's a sensible law, and
serves to put restrictions on what are considered to be acceptable forms
of trading. The rest of the planet should follow suit here.
--
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |
|
|
