Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats

From: Jeffrey Siegal (jbs@quiotix.com)
Date: 02/14/02 

From: Jeffrey Siegal <jbs@quiotix.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:31:39 -0800

magical@rahul.net wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2002 10:17:04 -0800, in ba.internet, Marty Fouts
> <usenet-user@usa.net> created:
>
>
>>You left out the part where I pointed out that a EULA qualifies as
>>
>
> No, the EULA *claims* to qualify as prior notification. I don't
> believe that US commercial law allows them to conduct business in
> this fashion. I believe that EULA are generally unenforcable,

The analysis of ProCD decision holds that commercial law does permit it,
relying on the concept of acceptance. You receive the goods with the
conditions attached, and you have to either accept or reject the goods.
  If you accept them, then the conditions apply.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats
    ... >>You left out the part where I pointed out that a EULA qualifies as ... the EULA *claims* to qualify as prior notification. ... The analysis of ProCD decision holds that commercial law does permit it, ... and you have to either accept or reject the goods. ...
    (comp.security.unix)
  • Re: Local Store - Supermarket Goods
    ... And the retailer's conditions of sale that you accepted when you ... bought the Goods. ... If you can't read the EULA before unwrapping, then it has no force in ... Not that many retailers necessarily honour that :-( ...
    (uk.legal)