Federal Court Slaps Down Autodesk Arguments, Favors eBay Seller

They aren't that difficult to understand if you actually take the time to read them.

Then why do we have all these contract attorneys in this country? Sorry, but things have gone far beyond an honest handshake, and plain language just doesn't work anymore.

Don't need an attorney for that either. The internet is a marvelous thing.

Good, and while you're doing that you can look up the precedent for those laws to see how they've been applied to such contracts. Are you going to do this for every instance that you face such contract? Nobody has that much free time, and few have money for the team of lawyers to follow them around.

The terms aren't that hard to understand. Read them. If you don't want to abide by them, don't buy the software.

And back to an original problem -- what if the terms aren't enforceable? A copyright holder only has so many rights to his works. They can say they want your first born for slavery, and you are absolutely free to ignore them.

Then why do we have all these contract attorneys in this country?

Because companies want their contracts written by attorneys. (Doesn't mean they aren't understandable. We're talking about a couple of pages with shrinkwrap terms.) Also, many business contracts are more complex then the two page shrink wrap terms.

Good, and while you're doing that you can look up the precedent for those laws to see how they've been applied to such contracts.

LOL They aren't that complicated. You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, and it just doesn't work with someone who has read these shrink wrap terms. If you are that afraid of them, it's simple. Don't buy the software.

And back to an original problem -- what if the terms aren't enforceable?

That is, of course, up to a court to decide. But for a consumer who is not a first time buyer of software, trying to claim they didn't know about the terms and should therefore be excused from abiding by them is ludicrous at best.

(Doesn't mean they aren't understandable. We're talking about a couple of pages with shrinkwrap terms.)

Microsoft Windows XP Home license, 3962 words, 7 pages, single-spaced, of just the English content. Let's look at just one sentence:

ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE.

I see four legal terms that I bet 99%+ of people have no idea what they mean. Warranty most people know (except how that's affected by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act), and I'd guess at least half have a general idea of what non-infringement means. How many people know that disclaiming "correspondence to description" basically means they don't guarantee that you get what you thought you were buying (Windows XP Home in this case)?

That is, of course, up to a court to decide.

So basically they should be able to get away with their illegal terms because everybody should just follow them?

I see four legal terms that I bet 99%+ of people have no idea what they mean.

That may be true. We do seem to have a rather stupid population (as witnessed by the election of so many Democrats last election cycle, as well as the American obsession with those silly 'reality' shows).

So basically they should be able to get away with their illegal terms because everybody should just follow them?

LOL Again, you are jerking your knee instead of reading what I typed. Try reading it again.

That may be true. We do seem to have a rather stupid population

I don't expect a layman to know the technical terms of a profession. For example, I know to avoid terms such as generics, inheritance and polymorphism if I'm talking about programming to a non-programmer because I know there's little chance he'll know what I'm talking about. That doesn't make him stupid, that just makes him not knowledgeable in a field of expertise that is not his own. Even if I explained the terms, he's not likely to know their nuances -- where they apply, how, etc.

Lawyers also have their own language, as do pilots, civil engineers, physicists, etc. I would expect only a tiny percentage of even a relatively intelligent lay population to fully understand all the terms in that snippet of the XP Home license. Luckily for us, we don't need to know the language of pilots, civil engineers, programmers and physicists to get through our daily lives. Somehow though, we're expected to understand the language of lawyers.

"Where did I say I was a lawyer? Do you get all your exercise jumping to unfounded conclusions?"

I meant the word "lawyer" as an insult, not as a profession. Though I still don't see you specifically refuting what you apparently took as an accusation. Even if you're not a lawyer by trade you come across as someone who'd be good at it.

If not, why did you try to claim I said you weren't conservative when all I mentioned was that your position does not fit with the conservative philosophy of personal responsibility?

Your accusation that my position does not fit with conservative philosophy (as if that had anything to do with this issue - hidden contracts have nothing to do with "personal responsibility") could be taken as an insinuation that I am not a conservative. You tried to specify what you meant after the fact. A day late and a dollar short.

Once again, anyone who has ever used software knows there are terms associated with its use. It's not a secret.And most probably think those terms are agreed to by clicking the "I agree" button on the installer's EULA screen, not by opening the box.

Anyone who has ever used software has more than a 'vague awareness' that terms of use exist. A person who has never used a PC at work and has just bought their first PC might be excused. No one else should be - that is, if one believes in the philosophy of personal responsibility.

As I said before, most probably think they're making a conscious decision to agree to those terms of use by clicking the "I agree" button on the installer, not before. I myself thought that until I read this thread for the first time. There's a difference between knowing you're getting screwed with an adhesion contract that you click on, and knowing you don't even have the right to sell your legal copy of the software to someone else if the box is so much as opened. But none of that has to do with "personal responsibility." It's not someone's "personal responsibility" to bend over and accept whatever unfair and unreasonable terms a company wants to spring on them without even presenting the adhesion contract to their face first.

If this was the first piece of software that person ever purchased and they had never used a PC in the work environment, sure, I'd agree. After that, forget it.

I've used a computer countless times, but I wasn't even aware that adhesion contracts for software start as soon as you open the box until I read this thread, so no, forget it, "personal responsibility" doesn't have anything to do with this.

Though I still don't see you specifically refuting what you apparently took as an accusation.

Where did I say it was an accusation? Again, you are jerking your knee.

Even if you're not a lawyer by trade you come across as someone who'd be good at it.

Thank you. Good to know I come across as having had years and years of education. ;)

Your accusation that my position does not fit with conservative philosophy (as if that had anything to do with this issue

It has everything to do with it. They aren't 'hidden' as you claim. I've told you at least two ways to get to the terms in case you didn't know them before. You no longer have any excuse except laziness.

. . .could be taken as an insinuation that I am not a conservative.

You can shove that shoe on if you want to. I didn't even lay it out there.

And most probably think those terms are agreed to by clicking the "I agree" button on the installer's EULA screen, not by opening the box.

Which would only mean they are too lazy to read, because the terms state when they become effective/when you're considered to have agreed to them.

I myself thought that until I read this thread for the first time.

Which means you didn't read the terms.

It's not someone's "personal responsibility" to bend over and accept whatever unfair and unreasonable terms a company wants to spring on them without even presenting the adhesion contract to their face first.

Like I said, it is if they've ever used software before, because they KNOW there are terms. They can get hold of them before they even purchase the software. There's no excuse but laziness.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.