Companies Don't Even Read Their Own EULAs Carefully

from the so-why-should-we? dept

A couple of funny stories that came out this week illustrate the extent of the problem with the End-User Licensing Agreements that we're constantly being asked to "agree" to every time we use a new piece of software. First, an Italian site noticed that the EULA for Apple's newly-released version of Safari for Windows requires that "The software allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time." Obviously, most Windows users do not have an "Apple-labeled computer," which would suggest that they'd be violating Apple's license (and therefore infringing copyright) if they installed Safari at all. That would be ridiculous, and sure enough, a quick call to Apple confirmed that this was an oversight on Apple's part, and that you can, in fact, install Safari on a non-Apple Windows machine. The same day the Apple story was making the rounds, Chris Soghoian noticed that if read literally, Google's terms of service would prohibit anyone under 18 from using any of Google's websites. It reads "You may not use the Services... if you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with Google." As Chris points out, in most states you have to be 18 to form a binding contract, suggesting that those under 18 are prohibited from using the service. He notes that a lot of other companies, including Facebook, MySpace, and Microsoft, have friendlier terms, either limiting the services to those 13 and over or saying nothing about age at all.

This is another good reason that we should be skeptical about the idea that these kinds of perfunctory EULAs and TOSs should be treated exactly the same way as ordinary contracts signed by two human beings. When it's in their interests, companies try to argue that these kinds of contracts should be strictly enforced, for example claiming that it trumps the first sale doctrine. Yet it's been clear for a long time that users almost never read these agreements. Now it seems that even the lawyers nominally in charge of writing them don't review them very carefully. If neither party to these "contracts" takes them seriously, might that suggest that the courts should be skeptical of considering them to be contracts at all?

Filed Under: eulas, reading
Companies: apple, google

If You Don't See The Terms Of Service Until After You Buy, Are They Valid?

from the seems-a-bit-unfair dept

There have been lawsuits over software packages that only allow you to see the end user license agreement (EULA) after you've already paid for the software, but does that apply in other situations as well? Broadband Reports points us to the news that for people who sign up for Verizon's FiOS fiber optic broadband, you don't get to see the full terms of service until after it's installed. Verizon claims it's just easier this way -- and that all the important points are explained ahead of time. It also says that users can cancel within 30 days with no penalty if they're uncomfortable with the terms. However, that leaves out the fact that a lot of time and effort went into installing the actual FiOS system, which could also disrupt other systems (in fact, in a few cases -- though certainly not all -- a FiOS installation cuts the old copper line). So, in that case, it would be difficult to just go back to what you had before.

Filed Under: eulas, fiber optic, fios, terms of service
Companies: verizon

National Consumer Council Notices That EULAs Are Unfair

from the you-just-noticed? dept

This seems rather obvious at this point, but the National Consumer Council in the UK has released a report pointing out that software end-user license agreements (EULAs) are unfair. The problems with EULAs have been widely discussed before. They're generally dense and full of legal language, so that users have no idea what they're agreeing to. They're non-negotiable, so it's not like a standard contract either. Often people need to agree to them before they can even read all the terms ("by opening his package, you have agreed to..."). The end result, of course, is that no one reads them. If you did, you would probably never agree to what they said anyway. So, while this is nothing new, it's nice to see consumer protection groups shining a light on how EULAs are very often unfair.

Filed Under: eulas, national consumer council, unfair

Supreme Court Allows EULAs On Seeds

from the don't-drop-those-appleseeds,-johnny dept

Richard Ahlquist writes: "A farmer has now felt the wrath of the SEULA or the Seed End User License Agreement! It turns out one farmer who goes by the name Homan McFarling decided after his crops came in to hold some of the seed generated from his produce and use it to replant the next year. Evidently the seed police at Monsanto found out about this (perhaps he didn't buy any new seed the next year) and sued McFarling. That was in 1999. Fast forward to today and you will find that the Supreme Court has decided that he did indeed violate the license agreement by planting his own seeds and he is being fined $375,000.

The story presents an interesting thought. These genetically engineered strains are built to thrive better than our existing crops. Once the seed manufacturers have managed either through attrition or engineering to destroy our natural plants, they will control the agriculture world wide because in order to grow anything you need seeds. If it's illegal to hold seeds from the crop you grew to replant because of the license agreement it would effectively mean an end to many smaller farms as they become unable to compete with the superior seed and the prices charged for it. Now where is that trademark application so I can trademark SEULA....."

We wrote about this case initially a few years ago, when it was going to the appeals court, where we hoped there would be a little common sense applied, recognizing how silly it is to tell someone they cannot replant seeds from the very plants that they, themselves, grew. It's rather unfortunate that the Supreme Court disagreed. The real problem here is yet another artifact of bizarre intellectual property laws. Tangible goods and digital goods are very different. Intellectual property laws try to make digital goods more like tangible goods, but due to the nature of those goods, it actually provides even more control -- such as when it comes to limiting what a buyer can do after they've bought the product. It's quite depressing that, rather than helping people realize how these laws are problematic, they've just made producers of tangible goods start to drool about the possibility of putting similar rights on tangible goods.

Filed Under: eulas, seeds
Companies: monsanto