Alias

Gene Fitz wrote:
> Again Donald,
>
> Not to sound combative, but Microsoft does have the right to liscense, their
> product as they see fit. This is business.
>
> I can sell pinecones. If I choose to charge $150.00 for them, I have all the
> right to price them at that rate. If I am, as Microsoft puts it, "Leasing"
> the pinecone to you at that price, I have the ability to lay out the terms of
> the lease. It is your choice whether to accept those terms and sign it, or
> not to accept it, don't sign it, and get your pine cone somewhere else.
> It isn't really much different than leasing a house. If you are leasing a
> house from me, and I tell you that you can only have one car in the driveway,
> or are not allowed to paint the walls or hang pictures, and write that down
> in the lease agreement, I have the right to do so.
> And as far as others being able to control your property, I see it no
> differently than what i have to deal with where I live, having deed
> restrictions. Yes, I own the house, yes, I own the land, but if I don't cut
> my grass, Someone cuts it and charges me for it. Or as the restrictions say,
> I can not have more than one car in the drive way for any length of time over
> 3 days, without moving them. It is my car, my house, my land, but I still
> have to abide by the deed restrictions, because that was part of the contract
> I signed when buying the land.
>
> Microsoft puts the EULA up in big print for you before set-up. It is done
> that way because:
>
> 1. Before you check the "I Agree" box, you should have read the terms.
> 2. Once you click the "I Agree" box, you have signed and agreed to those
> terms.
>
> Can you take it to court? Well, this is America, you can take anyone to
> court over anything.
> But my honest opinion is that the judge will most likely say, "If you didn't
> like the terms of the contract, why did you sign it? Moreover, if you knew
> the terms of the Liscense Agreement before you bought it, you disagreed with
> it, why did you buy it?
>
> End User Liscense Agreement = If you choose to use use this liscense, you
> must agree to these terms. If not, you are not allowed to use it.
> Explaination in a nutshell.
>
> Now understand, I am not trying to be mean about this, but that is what the
> EULA is all about. They have the right to lay out their liscense agreement,
> and you have the right to accept it, and use it, or don't accept it and don't
> use it. Call it how you want, but that is the way it goes.
> Now I am no lawyer, but I do know that it is a Microsoft program, it is
> owned by the Microsoft coperation. There is no legal statement that I know of
> that can dictate how Microsoft liscenses their product.
>
> And as far as the "If you don't like the Liscense agreement, don't buy the
> program" statement, Well, yes, that is what Microsoft is saying, and they
> have every right to say that. Are they that rich and powerful? Well, yes, but
> that is a different topic. They can be that arrogant, because they own the
> program. When you have the best hand at the table, you can afford to raise
> the stakes. If you lose a couple players, fine, but those who stay at the
> table will most likely make up forthe losses.
>
> But again, this isn't supposed to sound mean or combative, but you can look
> for a legal standing against this EULA, but I don't think you will find it.
>
> Oh, and by the way, I am not british, I am in Washington, and a Sailor in
> the US Navy. Sorry for any confusion in my post. :-)

You've laid out what you think a company's rights are. Can you do the
same for consumers' rights when dealing with a de facto monopoly?

Using your "logic", prohibition would still be in place because the way
it was overturned was *breaking the law*.

Using, your "logic", the USA would still be a colony of England because
the revolutionaries *broke the law*.

Using your logic, blacks would still be sitting at the back of the bus
because Rosa Parks *broke the law*.

It is time honored tradition in the USA to change laws by breaking them.

Alias