Do Microsoft's EULAs have any real legal basis?

As we discussed in the forums a while back, the EULA has a refund clause. This is the reason it is in the EULA. I know little about British law but in the US it would be tough to challenge the EULA so long as the refund clause exists. Now, if Microsoft refuses to give a refund or makes it difficult to get a refund, that's another story completely.

No, this is even better. If the EULA is flat-out unenforcable, then *all* the clauses go out the windows. Clauses against reverse engineering, decompiling, etcetera would all be gone so reverse engineering would become legal. Moreover, you'd be able to sue MS if you suffered damages from a crashed machine and hold them responsible. Got your Windows zombified? Sue MS. Did WGA kick you out of your box? Sue MS. Etcetera, etcetera. A legal copy of Windows sans EULA is way too much fun to give back for a refund :-)

>Moreover, you'd be able to sue MS if you suffered damages from a crashed machine and hold them responsible.

How do you figure?

Let's see...

If the EULA is uneforcable, then it has no effect, meaning you have no right to use the software. Tell me about your lawsuit for damages caused by something you used illegally.

They don't sell products, they want to duck product liability. They sell leases that last as long as they feel like supporting / patching. The ownership model is that of the rat infested slum lord, you have to live there and they do the minimum afa maintenance goes.

At one point there was a clause in one of Microsoft's many EULAs that said "you can't sue Microsoft for anything, including breach of contract" which means the contract is binding only on YOU. I think that one got around on the internet and they may have backed off on that. Prolly got some states attorney's general interested.

dino: Without EULA, Windows would fall back to standard copyright. You'd be able to use it, but not reproduce, distribute, etcetera. It's just a copy of a copyrighted work, much like a book.

sander -

No. You wouldn't be able to use it. Check the law. Using software on your own computer requires making a copy of it.

The book example is over-used with software, anyway. The book, as a physicial medium, guarantees that somebody paid for it. What do you think your rights would be to read an illegally published book? Nobody would sue you for it, but, but the powers that be could come and snatch it out of your hands.

As a practical matter, that doesn't happen. Economics and bang for the buck makes prosecutors target distributors, but, technically, they could go after you.

Microsoft sells the license to "lease" or "use" their software as long as they allow you too.

Which by clicking "I agree" on the EULA, you are then allowed to use at their discretion and with their supervision, so to speak.

They then give discounts on the cost of those licenses to the OEM's which offsets the cost of the hardware in the computer which then becomes cheaper in price for the buyer, hence the "MS Tax", correct?

Which is why for some reason it is more expensive to buy a computer without an OS already installed then one that doesn't.

Its like going to the reservation to buy untaxed cigarettes but you had to spend the time, buy the gas, have car insurance and all that jazz, when you could have just gone down the street to the local store and bought the taxed ones with much less hassle. That makes Microsoft the city, county, state and federal government of computers..

Wait a second...I am experiencing Deja Vu...this has been said before...

I think I am going to throw up..

;-)