Prev: How long does it take to re-install Vista and the Dell programs/drivers?
Next: XPS420 tv tuner problem
From: S.Lewis on 6 May 2008 20:16

"Ben Myers" <ben_myers_spam_me_not(a)charter.net> wrote in message
news:kp9124lr4tmjut60019tt7dkl0mptv32o7(a)4ax.com...
> True. One must keep in mind that a Microsoft EULA is tantamount to a gun
> at
> ones head. There is never an opportunity to negotiate the EULA with
> Microsoft.
> If you want whatever Microsoft has provided under its EULA, usually
> corrections
> and patches to its earlier screwups, you have no choice but to accept the
> EULA,
> whatever it may say. Given the perfect storm of software failures and
> consequent damages, just about any judge or jury would find against
> Microsoft.
> So far, whatever damages caused by failures of their software have not
> been
> serious enough for someone to sue... Ben Myers
>


The EU took them to the extended woodshed over multiple issues recently and
won concessions, I believe.

Too lazy too google.


From: Ben Myers on 6 May 2008 14:52
True. One must keep in mind that a Microsoft EULA is tantamount to a gun at
ones head. There is never an opportunity to negotiate the EULA with Microsoft.
If you want whatever Microsoft has provided under its EULA, usually corrections
and patches to its earlier screwups, you have no choice but to accept the EULA,
whatever it may say. Given the perfect storm of software failures and
consequent damages, just about any judge or jury would find against Microsoft.
So far, whatever damages caused by failures of their software have not been
serious enough for someone to sue... Ben Myers

On Tue, 6 May 2008 09:27:47 -0500, "S.Lewis" <Gossamer(a)interesting.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>>
>> Doesn't MS's EULA specifically exempt them from business losses, IIRC
>> their limit is the cost of the software.
>
>
>
>Even if true, a prepared corporate legal team would tear that disclaimer to
>pieces - particularly in front of either a sympathetic judge or jury - in
>the face of deaths and/or millions of dollars in losses by a
>surreptitious/forced update imo.
>
From: S.Lewis on 6 May 2008 22:22

"Ben Myers" <ben_myers_spam_me_not(a)charter.net> wrote in message
news:jd0224lf31qlhvrnqmtqfcr7fppjdlrkk4(a)4ax.com...
> That's a different woodshed. The anti-trust one, not the one where you
> take
> someone who has done damages... Ben Myers
>


True. Was just pointing out that MS isn't invincible in a courtroom.


From: Tony Harding on 6 May 2008 07:07
Colin Wilson wrote:
>> Or, better still, what if we're talking about a hospital install base and
>> patients die?
>
> Hospitals shouldn't be so stupid as to use windows on critical
> systems. Indeed, it's against their EULA IIRC to do so.
>
> So, after they've already broken who knows how many point of sale
> systems with their last broken SP3 update for XP, and done the same
> for Vista, your point was... ?

Doesn't MS's EULA specifically exempt them from business losses, IIRC
their limit is the cost of the software.
From: Tony Harding on 6 May 2008 07:09
Ben Myers wrote:
> So SP3 is really a POS that should not be installed on a POS??? ... Ben Myers

Very succinctly put, Ben!
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: How long does it take to re-install Vista and the Dell programs/drivers?
Next: XPS420 tv tuner problem