OK a question of ethics 1088
 |
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:06:44 -0200, Gerhard Fiedler
Tom Scales I understand your point, but it seems also to be a rationalization of some sort to me. We probably all...
Yes. And when was the last time you bought software and the EULA wasn't presented to you in one of those manners or other manner all but impossible to avoid?
The mfgr who prints his EULA under one of the bottom flaps in the cardboard box the shrink wrapped software box ships in will be the mfgr who cannot get any court in the land - including the spaced out 7th and 8th Federal circuits - to support his EULA.
No court would require that. I said "deliberately avoids" above because it literally takes a deliberate effort to avoid seeing software EULAs. They are made very easy to find for a very good reason... namely that the EULA buried in a fourth-level subdirectory on the CD and in TeX format would not be enforceable unless it could be PROVEN the buyer had seen it.
The law is required - by yet more law - to presume the buyer has seen an easy to find EULA, but when the EULA is hidden the plaintiff has acted in bad faith and bad faith is a major black mark against any plaintiff. In such a case absolutely irrefutable proof would be required that the buyer had read the EULA before violating it.
If that ever did happen, I'd guess it's so rare now that no one can cite an example of a software product still being sold in that manner.
Just in case anybody cares about power consumption, here is some interesting (to me, at least) data. For my...
I don't recall ever seeing software without the software agreement or EULA in plain sight and I built my first computer from a kit back when that's the only way you could have a personal computer.