=> On Jan 16, 2007, at 11:31 AM, MB Software Solutions wrote: => => >> Whenever someone with deep pockets decides to do so. => Until then, the => >> Golden Rule applies. => > => > But when they (M$) are the deepest pockets for miles => around, that time => > will never seem to come? => => Hence the desire by many to get the government => regulators involved. => => -- Ed Leafe
I think this is all much ado about nothing. First, no one is going to sue M$ because of EULA content. M$ has to start by alleging a breach of contract. So the question then becomes what provision is so onerous that a licensee has no choice but to violate it? This is not a question of "it looks onerous" or "it looks unfair," it is a question of how adherence to the EULA (acceptance of which is purely voluntary) is harming the licensee? Specifically. Does anyone have an example of how the EULA is harmful either to the legitimate needs of a licensee or the public safety and welfare? Let's discuss it! Also, in terms of "deep pockets," the "worst" defendant that M$ could engage, from the M$ point of view, is an individual operating as such, not a corporation. Such a defendant would not need professional legal assistance and could argue his case "pro se." Most lawyers hate "pro se" opponents because the court will usually bend over backwards to help such a person, provided the person is respectful, sincere, and possesses a modicum of the appearance of honesty and is acting with "good" intentions. So please tell us how the EULA is going to hurt you unfairly. B+ HALinNY _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
