Re: Operating System Licenses and Consents - OT / with correction

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Operating System Licenses and Consents - OT / with correction

Edward A. Dauer
I inadvertently failed to sign my post.  Here's the signed version:




Not quite right, for at least two reasons.  First, in my post I described the matter not as a legal issue -- that is to say, not what it is technically legal to do -- but as a jurisprudential question -- that is, given the broader and deeper traditions of American law, what should the operative legal principles be.  Second, even on the question of waivers and consents and the like, take a look sometime at what became known as the shrinkwrap problem.  Briefly, even before operating system manufacturers created even less accessible license and waiver texts, manufacturers of consumer electronics and other goods included their warranty limitation language inside the box, wrapped in plastic, which the buyer could not in any practical way read before making the purchase.  Manufacturers nonetheless attempted to enforce their warranty limitation terms when defect problems arose.  Some court decisions -- the better ones, in my view -- said no way; that's flat-out contrary to more fund
 amental principles of American contract law.  
   
    As a practical matter, Windows 10 is sold to millions of people in an effectively equivalent way.  As one example I bought a MS Surface laptop at an MS kiosk in a mall.  When I bought it it had been fully loaded by MS's representatives and handed to me, ready for me to key in my passwords.  I never saw nor had a chance to see anything disclaiming or waiving or defining anything before they charged my account.  I therefore in fact agreed to nothing.  Period.  To say that I impliedly agreed because I should have known there was some pro-vendor verbiage somewhere inside is not a valid legal argument: it's the sort of argument that could legalize anything that was common usage no matter how nefarious.  So I stand by my point that from a jurisprudential point of view, who should have what rights to change something in my computer without legally adequate notice to me and an opportunity to decline is a serious question worthy of some deeper analysis.    

Ted, KN1CBR
 ------------------------------
       
        Message: 21
        Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 14:10:38 -0400
        From: w3ab <[hidden email]>
        To: [hidden email]
        Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Elecraft K3 USB Drivers
        Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
        Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
       
        . . .
       
        Your own the hardware, you license the software/firmware from the owner.
        The owner can make any changes they want without your input. But you can
        turn off updates.
       
        When you first load a program you have to agree to terms and conditions
        before you can proceed. You should read those, quite enlightening.
       
       
   
   
   

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]