I shouldn't have to agree to a contract for an OS I don't care to use in order to boot into the OS of my choice. Nor should I have to read the thing in order to see what I'm agreeing to just to boot into the OS of my choice.
Make no mistake, I have not been one of the hand-wringers over this whole secure boot thing. But this recent development could turn me into one.
A EULA is a legal document, it can contain myriad of terms. Indeed, most EULAs bind you to future as-yet-disclosed terms as well. That's no small thing.
Most EULAs cannot validly bind consumers to future as-yet-disclosed terms.
As above, in this specific situation, where you are agreeing because that is the only way to effectively remove the software, i have trouble seeing any court holding you to those terms.
If you were trying to get around agreeing to the license but still using windows 8, sure.
Going to court at all is a loss. Why should I have to risk having to pay for a lawyer and take time out of my day to convince a judge that I shouldn't be bound to the terms.
You can always be taken to court, they just don't often take you when they are going to lose. Since that is, here, independent of whether you agree, ...
Note that I commented above that I am in disagreement the way MSFT arranged this. However, to be fair to the one posing the question, the actual outcome of clicking through the EULA to install the OS of your choice is probably nothing (well, you won't be getting your money back for that Windows license). EULA or not, nothing will happen. It's "the principal of the thing". In this case, it's a pretty big matter of principal, though.
It doesn't matter that the outcome is nothing. What matters is that you agreed to give up your rights. It's an opening for them if they should choose to pursue action against you.
What's wrong with me setting my user-agent to "By allowing me access, you waive all rights and policies regarding my access." and then viewing your website? Hint: it's about as enforceable as a EULA, but just as obnoxious and offensive because it presumes too much and oversteps bounds. Still, in the grand scheme of things, my UA string makes more sense, as putting something online is practically tantamount to putting it in the public domain, whereas you can't perform perfectly reasonable and otherwise legal acts with your legally owned property unless you violate most EULAs.
MS was the creator of the license that was 'activated' by opening the box in which the license resided. No way to even view the license without 'activating' it.
I don't see why this comment is being downvoted. Certainly, agreeing clicking through the EULA isn't ideal, but is it anything other than a theoretical nuisance?
I'm genuinely curious - does there exist some relevant and concerning precedent here?
If this turns out to actually become an issue, it would probably harm Microsoft more than anyone - and would be a boon to manufacturers willing to bundle Linux on pre-built machines (such as the Alienware x51 or "developer" x13). However, I sincerely can't see anything coming of this threat.
If this turns out to actually become an issue, it would probably harm Microsoft more than anyone . . .
It would probably harm Microsoft eventually. It would harm whoever gets turned into a legal test case immediately - which is the sort of thing you avoid by not electronically signing randomly selected legal documents.
This would actually be a wonderful case that i'm sure lawyers would love to take on.
Given your actual intent is to get the keyboard working enough to boot from CD (or whatever), not to agree to the agreement, and you didn't actually avail yourself of any of the benefits of the software, any retailer on the other side would have a hard time winning any class action lawsuit.
Fair. This is a legitimate concern. I guess I'm a fairly uninformed consumer, as I've never actually sought a refund for a Windows license (nor known this was a possibility).
'PC' ('personal computer') is a general purpose computing device, based on the original IBM architecture. The point is, it was never tied to any particular operating system.
Any attempt to 'tie' the hardware to a proprietary OS can be met with a legal challenge on these grounds. So, regardless of what manufacturers would like customers to think, it is possible to obtain an OS-free computer, even if it entails refusing an EULA and getting a refund for the unused OS.
Many people think this argument applies to Apple, too. But that's a mistake: Apple computers are not marketed as 'PCs'; and their computing system, from hardware to OS, is Apple throughout.
Microsoft works with PC manufacturers to pull off this anti-competitive hoodwink on an ignorant computing public. If it were tested properly in court, the whole corrupt practice would be torn to pieces.
Historically correct (IBM offered three different operating systems) but it stopped being true a long time ago. PCs are sold as integrated systems, and they are designed and manufactured to run Windows.
You can claim it's an "anti-competitive hoodwink" but Microsoft just spent a decade with the US Justice Department's foot on its neck, specifically to prevent any anti-competitive hoodwinking.
There's also nothing to prevent PC manufacturers shipping whatever they like. Many if not most now sell Android tablets, some sell Chromebooks, the server suppliers support Linux, and so on. Some sell Linux on PCs, including Dell and Asus.
The idea that the market failure of Linux is down to some sort of evil conspiracy might make you feel better but it doesn't square with the facts.
I'm drawing attention to the fact that tying an OS to (what should be) generic hardware is anti-competitive, and in many countries, illegal. If it the hardware is OS-specific, it shouldn't be marketed as a 'PC'.
Furthermore, the fact is that if I want a particular laptop PC, Windows is bundled in almost every instance, and I have to jump through hoops to force the manufacturer to take it back.
Your understanding is wrong: there is no generic hardware. Nowadays, companies design laptops and qualify parts specifically to build Windows laptops. They follow design demands and specifications laid down by Microsoft and Intel, which is why they are all doing UEFI and many did netbooks and Ultrabooks.
Also, these are integrated packages so the idea that the OEM should take Windows back is illogical and nonsensical. It is a delusion that bears no relation to reality.
If you want a comforting thought, price is largely a function of volume, so you are getting massive benefits by riding on the back of the economies of scale created specifically by and for Windows. You are gaining far more in real cash savings than the trivial amount that you pay the OEM for its version of Windows.
In the long term, however, you should try to see this for what it is: a very pragmatic business. It's not religion.
You appear to be entirely unaware that Microsoft has spent the best part of a decade responding and working with a Justice Department who was acting on behalf of frustrated or outraged consumers and competitors who believed exactly that. They came to a partial agreement with your position, whilst dismissing other claims entirely.
Conversely, in 2010 I had to resort to issuing a court summons to Samsung (UK) before they finally relented and gave me a refund on the unwanted Windows OS that was bundled with my laptop.
It was annoying. Reading the headline, it appears that a similar annoyance is continuing even now.
They'd have been better off taking it back and charging you a restocking fee, and if the court actually considered the issue, it got it wrong. I'd be interested to know whether you said you didn't want Windows in the first place, or whether you were, in effect, a deceptive customer.
Either way, dealing with unprofitable customers is a losing strategy for any business.
Speaking of the EULA, couldn't I just lie to my tablet?
Assume there's no communication back to Microsoft and no need for a license under copyright law. Couldn't I just click the "I agree" button while not actually accepting the EULA? Surely, the tablet itself can't be a party to a contract, right?
Well, in this case, the signed paper is never actually delivered to the other party, and the other party has no knowledge that you ever signed it in the first place.
A signed piece of paper is neither necessary nor sufficient to form a contract. It's prima facie evidence that an agreement took place, but that's not the same thing.
At least in previous versions of Windows you could click "no" to the EULA and you could use the draconian terms as an argument to get a Windows refund.
