Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows 8: More EULA, Fewer Rights.

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the you-shall-submit dept.

Windows 470

sl4shd0rk writes "Microsoft has adopted a brand new licensing scheme for Windows 8 which effectively removes your right to file a class-action lawsuit against them should you feel the need. '...Many of our new user agreements will require that, if we can't informally resolve the dispute, the customer bring the claim in small claims court or arbitration, but not as part of a class action lawsuit.' Class-action lawsuits are intended to help individuals stand up to corporate law-breaking but this new EULA model simply nullifies that course of action for the consumer."

cancel ×

470 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

not sure (5, Informative)

yagu (721525) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155525)

Not sure that that's even legal -- would be surprised if it held up in court.

Re:not sure (2)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155543)

Many of these types of EULA's note that legal matters will be handled via Arbiter not Court.

I think CA has overturned them, but IDK the exact details.

Re:not sure (5, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155545)

There was a recent Supreme court case that made this legal.

Now all 3 of our branches of government have officially sold out. We might as well replace all civil courts with a comparison of the defendants and plaintiffs net worths. Would not change the outcome much and save us a lot of tax money.

Self interest (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155607)

Now all 3 of our branches of government have officially sold out

You say that as if there was ever a time when government was driven by anything but self interest.

Re:Self interest (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155735)

Or course not, but they at least kept up the pretense. They no longer even bother with that.

Re:not sure (5, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155779)

>>>There was a recent Supreme court case that made this legal.

Which one?
I find it hard to believe. During the Paypal case, the U.S. judge crossed-out most of the EULA saying customers can not sign-away legally protected rights..... such as the right to sue a company for stealing money (that's what Paypal was guilty of).

Re:not sure (5, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155829)

>>>There was a recent Supreme court case that made this legal.

Which one?

Hopefully you can get through the paywall ... here [nytimes.com] . Failing that, google for "AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion".

SCOTUS ruled on this last year.

Re:not sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40156103)

Plain English Holding: Under the Federal Arbitration Act, California must enforce arbitration agreements even if the agreement requires that consumer complaints be arbitrated individually (instead of on a class-action basis).

from here [scotusblog.com] .

Re:not sure (4, Interesting)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40156113)

Another great ruling by Scalia. Seriously someone should do a Kennedy on him. He's the one who organized the scotus coup on Gore in 2000. No I really don't think that someone should do a Kennedy on him. Sorry if that gave anyone ideas. But the guy is an asshole and is hurting the people of the U.S. You know the people: The general populous who he is supposed to help by ensuring the law is applied fairly. Oh wait, he was one of the (ahem, so called) justices that ruled that corporations are people. Go figure. I do hope he has an aneurysm or heart attack though. I don't wish someone would die very often, I can make an exception for him and even Clarence Thomas; come to think of it, maybe especially Thomas... another fucktard of the supreme court of the US.

Re:not sure (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155847)

"bust a deal? face the wheel!"

maybe that would be more fair. I'd take my chances with even a real, actual mafia boss (corleone style) than the current US 'justice' system.

the US has sold out. it does surely seem that way, doesn't it? to give up a right to sue and be forced into a 'corporate owned court' is just an admission that our 'justice' system is fully broken, at this point.

we used to be the policemen to the world. but now that *we* need fixing, who will come to OUR aid?

Re:not sure (0)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155863)

the supreme court said you can't clog the court system with minor nonsense about billing issues or service issues. you can still file a class action for the reason they were created if some company inflicts major financial or physical pain on you. like an insurance company denying legit claims of thousands of people as a matter of corporate strategy

Re:not sure (2)

grahamm (8844) | more than 2 years ago | (#40156013)

But surely the court would be more clogged by N thousand individual cases than by a single class action with (the same) N thousand plaintiffs.

Re:not sure (2)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155969)

Time to move to Iceland? Imagine a land of Vikings and Geeks, as far as the eye can see, and all the halibut a man can eat!

Re:not sure (4, Informative)

IDtheTarget (1055608) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155575)

Not sure that that's even legal -- would be surprised if it held up in court.

Actually, the Supreme court has already ruled [nytimes.com] that this is, in fact, legal.

Re:not sure (4, Insightful)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155689)

Ah, the legal wisdom of Antonin Scalia. The man isn't fit to judge traffic court.

Re:not sure (2, Informative)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40156047)

As juxtaposed by Ginsberg, who likes to cite the laws of foreign countries as the basis of her legal argument? At least Scalia uses the U.S. Constitution for his legal justification.

Elsewhere (2)

phorm (591458) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155893)

Elsewhere things are more sane. I believe in EU that enforced arbitration is not allowed, and in BC Canada you can't be forced to give up your rights to class action in this manner.

An EULA isn't a contract (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155901)

There are numerous requirements for something to be a contract in US law and the EULA fails a number of them. The biggest is contracts have to happen before the exchange of goods/money. They can't be ex post facto. So if a company requires you to sign a contract before you buy the software, that's a real contract. An EULA that you are introduced to after the sale, not a contract.

Easy to see here at work too. I work for a state university so they are very big on the "only approved people can sign contracts for the university" thing. Any contract has to go through the contracts office and be approved by the lawyers. EULAs? They tell us don't worry just click through. In other words, they are confident the EULAs don't bind us to shit. If they though they did, we'd have to get them all approved.

Re:An EULA isn't a contract (3, Interesting)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40156011)

If the current Republican-controlled SCOTUS is willing to rule that corporations can take away your right to a jury trial in a contract, and that they count as people for purposes of unlimited political bribes, and that they don't count as people for purposes of being exposed to lawsuits for overseas human rights abuses, what makes you think that they wouldn't also rule EULA's to be enforceable should a case every present itself?

This is the most corporate-friendly court in history. Whenever any case comes before them, you can bet your ass it'll be decided on what will most benefit their corporate buddies. I just hope no EULA-related cases reach the court prior to at least a couple of them kicking the bucket.

Re:not sure (2)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155951)

And if anyone's surprised that almost every license will include a "no class actions" clause after such a clause was ruled legal, I have a bridge to sell you.

This is not something specific to Microsoft; legal teams would be foolish not to take advantage of this corporate rights giveaway.

Re:not sure (1)

MikeMacK (788889) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155583)

Yeah, because our current Supreme Count is sooo anti-corporation...

Re:not sure (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155597)

I thought the courts already ruled in favor of allowing this?

I agree it shouldn't be legal, but I'm pretty sure it's too late.

Re:not sure (4, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155623)

Not legal in Canada, or in Germany. Various other parts of the EU either.

Re:not sure (2)

Galestar (1473827) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155837)

Living in Canada, this simple fact make me very happy to be living here instead of a mere 30km south. Nice to know our legal system actually holds the rights of private citizens above those of corporations - note we also do not have "corporate person-hood", it is widely recognized as a legal fiction useful in things like civil suits, but they do not have intrinsic rights, just as buildings or cars do not have rights.

Re:not sure (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40156049)

To be honest, I'd be happier if they let me get a gun as easily as they do in the US. Otherwise I do agree with ya. I miss hitting the range. At least I don't need a permit for my compound bow...yet.

Re:not sure (4, Funny)

An ominous Cow art (320322) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155625)

Darth Ballmer: "I will make it legal."

Re:not sure (1)

Wattos (2268108) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155641)

Yes ist is. If you had taken the time to read the article you would know that there was a court ruling

Microsoft is capitalising on a 2011 US Supreme Court ruling that upheld a company's right to include a clause in a contract that prohibits customers from suing as part of a class action. The case had been brought against AT&T.

Re:not sure (3, Insightful)

cob666 (656740) | more than 2 years ago | (#40156115)

Yes but that was for an actual contract. Not sure if an EULA is a valid contract...

Re:not sure (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155773)

in the UK at least contract law forbids you from signing away statutory rights which i would expect to protect me from move ssuch as this. basically any contract contains a clause that removes your rights becomes null and void... but of course IANAL...

Re:not sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155807)

Not sure that that's even legal -- would be surprised if it held up in court.

Well one thing for sure someone will find a way round it got to keep the option of screwing MS to the boards open

Re:not sure (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155887)

The courts (even SCOTUS) has not been terribly consistant in this regard, and it seems to currently be decided on a case by case basis. The few cases that have made it up to SCOTUS have generally been pretty narrow in their rulings and thus a universal answer has not been sorted out yet.

Re:not sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40156005)

I've seen EULAs hold up in court almost always. One small firm had a EULA that the computer that their software runs on becomes the software maker's property should a dispute arise about licensing. And yes, the constable did come and seize customer machines as per the EULA.

good (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155551)

Good - class action lawsuits are bad for the individual consumers anyway, only make money for the law firms. I'd rather 200 people file small claims suits than someone file a class action.

Re:good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155645)

i'm glad it didn't take long for reason to surface. class action suits are a huge waste of money and time, lining lawyers pockets and producing hardly any benefit for those harmed in the suit, and really are just a drop in the bucket for the offending companies.

Re:good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155727)

If small claims was so great versus class action then this clause in the EULA wouldn't be necessary. MS again proves how evil they are and right on clue the useful idiots stand up for them.

Re:good (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155753)

im glad it didnt take long for bad cliches to surface. Cliches are a huge waste of time and all they do is line the posters karma and produce hardly anything worth reading.

Re:good (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155763)

You like the GP are a moron.
Not everyone impacted can take the day off to go to small claims court. This means the company can abuse untold numbers of customers and never pay a dime. A class action is to punish the company while not over burdoning the members of the class as their each individual claim is very small.

Re:good (3, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155923)

They're a much bigger drop than small claims actions though. Since most people don't bother with the small claims stuff.

Sure the money ends up going to the lawyers, and there's no real benefit to those harmed. There is some cost to the company involved though, which they'll avoid almost entirely without class actions and just keep it for themselves.

Value added is perception of legitimacy (4, Insightful)

Picass0 (147474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155781)

If one man has a grievance and sues a company he's portrayed in the press as crackpot. A class action takes the same grievance and because numerous people are involved there's the appearance of wrongdoing, no matter if it's real or not. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs try the case in the court of public opinion until a settlement is forced because the defendant feels their reputation is becoming tarnished. A settlement will mean pennies on the dollar for the numerous plaintiffs, and that's after the attorneys take out their costs.

Microsoft thinks they are clever enough to circumvent this cycle. Does anyone think they class action lawsuit industry will let Microsoft's new license stand? Not without a fight.

Re:Value added is perception of legitimacy (2)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155825)

Not to mention that though class action suits don't much help individuals they can hurt the corporation if it loses.

Re:Value added is perception of legitimacy (2)

fortfive (1582005) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155981)

Note too, that there is another way than class action to gain status: multiple party "joinder." Many parties can band together as plaintiffs and sue jointly, without it being a class action. They can even share attorney expenses.

Re:good (2)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155987)

However 200 people in small claims court won't deter any large company from misbehaving. Now a multi-state class action suit would not benefit the class, but it would sure as heck help keep Microsoft in line.

Re:good (3, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#40156059)

They might not net the consumer much, but they do punish the company, something small claims almost never does. Class action lawsuits do what the DoJ SHOULD be doing... bringing consequences to companies that misbehave by pooling enough people's resources to actually have a chance in court.

EULA's are not the law. (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155581)

Just because something is in a EULA, it does not mean it's actually legal.

I hope to see a class action for allowing class actions.

Class Action Lawsuits suck anyway (5, Insightful)

sapphire wyvern (1153271) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155595)

There needs to be a better mechanism for keeping corporations in line, anyway.

I'm not endorsing MS's attempts to weasel out of liability here (although I guess once Sony took a bite of that particular poison apple, it's only a matter of time before the other tech giants decide that class action immunity is too awesome to pass up).

But class action lawsuits never deliver anything of real value to the people who actually suffered from whatever prompted the class action suit. They often hurt the target company, a lot, but that's vengeance & retribution rather than justice - the only people who actually benefit from the "restitution" and "settlement" are the lawyers.

Really, it would probably be better all round to just have regulators & ombudsmen with real teeth rather than relying on lawyer feeding frenzy class actions to provide a punishment system for corporations. The big problem with that is regulatory capture. I don't have a solution, but I wish I did. The present state of affairs isn't really satisfactory to anyone IMO.

Re:Class Action Lawsuits suck anyway (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155683)

Anything that has the potential to stop the perpetrator and make them think twice before victimizing someone else again is far better than ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Be careful what you wish for. You just got it.

Re:Class Action Lawsuits suck anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155777)

Yes.

The other thing is that we're now at a point of "take it or leave it" and if we screw you over either intentionally or not, tough shit. And the sucky thing is, for under a $1,000 for laptops, you're pretty much stuck with Windows - at least with well known sellers - which means, if you want a cheap laptop when Win 8 comes out, you're stuck with this license until the warranty runs out. Yeah, try to get your laptop serviced under warranty when you've replaced the Windows install with Linux.

Class Action Lawsuits are important (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155785)

Yes, class action lawsuits don't help the victims. Neither does putting murderers in jail. But the goal is to give people and businesses a reason to think twice before committing a despicable act. Thanks to SCOTUS's decision that companies can stick a "you can't sue us!" clause in any and all contracts, there is now no mechanism by which companies can be made to pay for abusing their customers. Day-dreaming about alternate mechanisms is pointless. This is the one that we have (or had, at any rate), and for all its flaws, it did work. Companies that abused people were made to pay. But no longer.

Re:Class Action Lawsuits suck anyway (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155823)

Really, it would probably be better all round to just have regulators & ombudsmen with real teeth rather than relying on lawyer feeding frenzy class actions to provide a punishment system for corporations. The big problem with that is regulatory capture.

The problem isn't just regulatory capture.
It's also that we do not sufficiently fund our regulatory agencies.
They just don't have the money to pursue legal cases that generate mountains of paperwork and require a small army of lawyers.
So instead, we get settlements for a fraction of the real damage and a promise not to do it again... without any admission of wrongdoing.

You sure as shit wouldn't raise a child that way.

Re:Class Action Lawsuits suck anyway (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155905)

It would probably be better all round to just have regulators & ombudsmen with real teeth

I have to assume you are unaware that any "regulator" or "ombudsman" is beholden to whatever powers that be that employ them and serve solely at their discretion.

And I'm also assuming you are oblivious to the fact that "regulators" and "ombudsmen" are empowered to do fuck all until such severe damage has been done that the Government MUST get involved or be made the culprit by mens of their continued complacence and non-action.

So it doen't matter what sorts of razor sharp teeth you give a "regulator" or "ombudsman" -- that will do nothing about the fact that people will suffer great harm before the government takes any action at all, and even if the government takes action, if the offending party is in the good graces of the true power, then those razor sharp teeth will be quickly muzzled in favor of a token wrist slap.

Re:Class Action Lawsuits suck anyway (1)

bbbaldie (935205) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155935)

I was informed of a class action lawsuit regarding Ocwen Mortgage Company. I opted in. I have received some very nice settlement checks for interest overcharge. So clearly, "class action lawsuits never deliver anything of real value to the people who actually suffered from whatever prompted the class action suit" is not a valid statement.

Regulatory capture can be solved with ethics rules (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#40156009)

It's simple: Add rules to any position of public office restricting the revolving door of private industry. Make those in power commit to avoid working for those they are regulating or accepting "contributions" from them.

Of course, such rules would require those in power to sign off on them, which will never happen unless they're replaced.

Re:Class Action Lawsuits suck anyway (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#40156095)

Part of the problem is that DA elections rarely focus on going after corporations... instead they win or loose based off violent crime stats or claims of how many sex offenders they put away. If people started voting for DAs who went after companies that defrauded customers then we would see the DoJ acting on these claims a lot more... at which point the taxpayer picks up the bill of justice rather then the victims having to pay for their day in court.

Class Action Lawsuits suck less than alternatives (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40156125)

But class action lawsuits never deliver anything of real value to the people who actually suffered from whatever prompted the class action suit.

Sure they do, they provide notification of a potential cause of action that they are quite likely to have overlooked on their own. Potential class members are provided notice and an opportunity to opt-out and preserve the right to file individual, direct-action lawsuits.

Class actions are far from perfect, but they exist to deal with an economy of justice problem with diffuse harms (cases where they are available overlap, to an extent, with cases where regulatory agencies and states attorneys-general have the right to file claims on behalf of the public or affected specific citizens, but regulatory capture and other effects of corporate influence on government make them necessary.)

The reason corporations want to foreclose them is because they are often the only effective method of addressing harms, especially where the harm to each individual is fairly small. Mass direct actions have a lot more overhead to coordinate than class actions, and individual direct actions require essentially each plaintiff to bear the full cost of an action to prove the same points. This makes direct action, particularly individual direct action, impractical where the individual harm isn't very large but lots of people are affected.

Attempts to use an EULA to foreclose class action lawsuits ought to be void as contrary to public policy, since class actions are provided as a mechanism for economy of justice.

Need software only availiable on Windows? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155605)

Start a class action over the onerous EULA before agreeing to it.

How's that Microsoft?

Re:Need software only availiable on Windows? (1)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155841)

You must be aggrieved before filing suit usually, no? Good luck proving that the "no class action suit" clause hurts you and hurts a class of people to boot. (Note, proving. Yes, it's obvious to me, but there have been stupid rulings in similar issues.)

Re:Need software only availiable on Windows? (1)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | more than 2 years ago | (#40156037)

So maybe it has to wait until the end of Windows 7's lifecycle. At that time, users will be being forced to upgrade which requires them to agree to the EULA that strips them of the right they previously had to file a class action suit.

Re:Need software only availiable on Windows? (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155947)

Fuck suing over the EULA.

Sue the entire nine-member panel of the Supreme Court. Sue them until they're so broke they don't WANT to act as judges any longer.

The Supreme Court is nothing but a bunch of traitors right now, selling our rights away.

Waiting for Win9... (1)

killfixx (148785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155609)

Just when I thought I couldn't be less excited about Windows 8.

One more reason to skip it.

Even more unsettling, server 2012 (server "8") will have the same stupid-ass "Start Screen".

Blech.

Secondly, how the hell can this be allowed? AT&T did it, MS did it with the xbox.

How many more ways can they screw us out of our rights?

Re:Waiting for Win9... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155747)

You have the right to not buy their crap. Money talks the loudest. So don't do business with companies you don't like.

You don't have the ability, though. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155927)

Since you have to have Microsoft Office, businesses have to get it. If you're taking work home, you need it too.

If you connect to a video on demand service, you have to use an Approved And Blessed OS. Like Windows.

If you play games, you need Windows.

If you work for yourself, you need Windows to fill in your taxes.

ISPs often refuse to support your non-Windows/non-Mac computer connected to their internet.

But the short of it is: not buying windows means you cannot buy so many other things there's little reason to go to work: you can't, and aren't allowed, to use so many things you want to get paid money to get.

Re:Waiting for Win9... (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155787)

Server 8/2012 will be command-line first.

Slashdot spend more than a decade bitching about Windows requiring a GUI, and now that MS is pushing the command line, suddenly Slashdot bitches about how they don't like the optional GUI. This is just one more example in a long pattern f Slashdot constantly moving the goalposts in regards to MS.

Also, Win 8 will be great. Faster, smaller, uses less power, more features, etc. What's not to like?

Re:Waiting for Win9... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155929)

What's not to like?

That crap gui? Im sorry. Its *bad*. Really bad. Not 'oh its just different' bad. No it is 'how in the H does this thing work' bad. This is along the lines of 'how do I explain to everyone who comes to me and asks how does this work?' bad. Even on a tablet I would see this as a 'meh' compared to iOS or androids tablet offerings...

They did a bunch of cool stuff under the hood then slathered a bad GUI on it. I will wait for 9 and see. I have used every OS they came up with since DOS 2.x. This one I am going to skip. It is that bad.

I am for the first time actually realistically considering moving to linux or apple.

Re:Waiting for Win9... (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155939)

the userid you are referring to is "killfixx", not "slashdot".

OH I'M SO UPSET (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155637)

Now I can't join the class action against Microsoft where I'll win a 50 cent voucher in the Windows App Store and the law firm will win 700 billion dollars in cash.

Fark class action lawsuits.

Re:OH I'M SO UPSET (0)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155719)

That's it. That's the crux of the issue here.

This is all about how you don't personally get a pay day.

I like my Zorin linux installation even more... (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155685)

but I'm not sure it matters. When was the last time you were part of a class-action suite against Microsoft? Moreover, this won't stand up in many other countries so it amounts to an attempt to minimize legal exposure in the USA. Given the increased availibility of Linux/Android/Web applications, we're all at a stage now where we can "vote with out feet" if Microsoft does something too buttheaded, and that's exactly what will happen if they overreach.

Options (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155687)

Remember, you don't NEED to use Microsoft Windows. Linux is a viable option. Red Hat Linux works well on the desktop.

Re:Options (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155831)

Remember, you don't NEED to use Microsoft Windows. Linux is a viable option. Red Hat Linux works well on the desktop.

You do if you are a gamer.

But if they don't use the same stunt as DX11 is only for teh windows Vista/7 you can keep your old version.

Re:Options (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155899)

Yeah, but many corporations depend on ms office. Until there is a viable option to ms office, they'll be stuck with windows.

Re:Options (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155931)

depends.

I couldn't get certain apps that I use working under wine, including my D&D character generator and netflix.
they work perfectly fine under a virtualbox win7 install, so yeah I do kinda "need" windows for that. linux will handle just about anything else I want to do natively, sure. That's just on my laptop though.

On my desktop? windows 7 native install is pretty much a given, because I'm a gamer. I'm sure you've seen the state of video card drivers under linux, not to mention the distinct lack of AAA game titles. Steam is coming to linux, to be sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's bringing Skyrim, portal 2, civ 5, etc with it. That's not even to mention the ice cube's chance in hell linux is likely to see native versions of non-steam titles like mass effect or diablo (for various reasons). Yes a few of these can be made to work through wine, but take it from somebody who did just that for a year and a half... stepping back into windows for gaming is like a breath of fresh air after standing in a tent full of beer farts.

and before someone mentions it... no, "get a console for gaming" is not a valid solution.

Windows 8? (2)

pappastech (1891440) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155691)

Is there anyone actually considering using Windows 8? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Re:Windows 8? (1)

jdastrup (1075795) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155839)

Uh, as long as its not broken out of the box, like Vista, then I'm sure most corporations that are currently using Windows 7 will upgrade to it. Those companies still using Windows XP probably won't. How do I know? Because they are still using Windows XP.

Re:Windows 8? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155845)

This will depend on the release candidate. If I can skip metro for our office we will continue to buy laptops with win 8 as they come out. If not, it's going to be 7 for awhile - that means a few extra purchased this summer.

Re:Windows 8? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40156055)

At least as many people as those who use Linsux.

Has anyone read the whole thing yet? (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155713)

I have a suspicion this might not be the only nasty thing to lurk in the small print.

Don't Care Anymore (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155717)

Switched to Linux Mint a couple of months back, it's good and it's free.

Fuck off, Microsoft, I'm done with your crap.

As many people pointed out when sony did this... (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155737)

...EULAs can't effectively hold up with something like this in court.

Re:As many people pointed out when sony did this.. (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155869)

...EULAs can't effectively hold up with something like this in court.

Depends on the country. In EU it won't, not so sure about other 3rd world countries.

P.S: We also hate our politicians. :)

Re:As many people pointed out when sony did this.. (3, Informative)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#40156069)

As cited in TFA, The US Supreme Court has already decided [wikipedia.org] this kind of EULA clause may hold up.

The specifics of that case seem somewhat applicable: The "you can't sue us, you have to use arbitration instead" type of clause was being prohibited by state law in certain states (California, in the specific case), but the Supremes held that Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 [wikipedia.org] takes precedence and overrides state law. That federal law says that binding arbitration is valid if both parties agree, and the presumption seems to be that both parties agree if the user agrees to the EULA by using the product.

IANAL, but it sure looks that ruling supports MS's position on this. If there's some substantial reason why this case is any different than the AT&T Mobility v. Conception, I'd sure like someone to point it out.

Windows...pfffft (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155751)

Between Mac and so many awesome Linux distros why would anyone sign up for abuse from M$?

Oh please... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155817)

Apple is a even bigger money grubber than M$ is.

Re:Windows...pfffft (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155857)

Because I haven't been able to find a pen computer system which works as nicely as Windows Tablet PC.

Time to put a EULA on everything. (5, Interesting)

Eldragon (163969) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155789)

So does this mean I can put a sticker on my car that says:

"By Reading this Bumper Sticker you agree to the following Terms and Conditions:
In the event of an accident the operator of this vehicle shall be held harmless for any damage or personal injury incurred to any person involved. You agree to take full personal and financial responsibility for any damage incurred to this motor vehicle and belongings."

Re:Time to put a EULA on everything. (2)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 2 years ago | (#40156003)

So does this mean I can put a sticker on my car that says: "By Reading this Bumper Sticker you agree ...

No, but I think the Blizzard judge pretty much established that you can bind someone to a EULA if you sell your car to them. Furthermore, you don't need to disclose the contents (or existence!) of that EULA, until after you already have their money.

If you hate people who buy things from you, then you can probably have some good fun with that.

Re:Time to put a EULA on everything. (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#40156017)

If you're a giant corporation, sure. (And you could be; corporations are people, after all, so why shouldn't they have /. accounts?) But if you're a regular mortal, sorry, you're SOL.

Re:Time to put a EULA on everything. (1)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 2 years ago | (#40156019)

nope. Users of the software have to agree to the EULA to use the software. The sticker gives no way for the driver who reads it to refuse the deal (opt out).

Re:Time to put a EULA on everything. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40156023)

You may jest, but something like this may be what's required for real reform. When you have any absurd system, the best way to ensure a quick fix is to make the issue as obvious as possible. What better way than to abuse the hell out of it and make sure it affects as many people as possible?

captcha: litigant

Re:Time to put a EULA on everything. (2)

Bumbles (2573453) | more than 2 years ago | (#40156097)

There are two major differences between your statement and the EULA from MS.
First, Windows is something you can use or not, you driving is not something that I use. You do not have to use Windows on your personal computers. You may have to use it for work but your employer would be the entity following up with MS regarding issues. I do not have a choice if you drive.

Second, Windows is unlikely to cause physical harm on its own. That is quite different than some numbnuts running a red light and T-boning my car then saying - see my bumper sticker.

Re:Time to put a EULA on everything. (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#40156101)

So does this mean I can put a sticker on my car that says:

"By Reading this Bumper Sticker you agree to the following Terms and Conditions:
In the event of an accident the operator of this vehicle shall be held harmless for any damage or personal injury incurred to any person involved. You agree to take full personal and financial responsibility for any damage incurred to this motor vehicle and belongings."

Well .. if you are in the US then you'd have to take into consideration that given the state of the school system that there is a reasonable possibility that the driver following you can't read. So all the person who crashed into you would have to do is to feign illiteracy to show that the couldn't have agreed to the stated terms and conditions.
 
However a bigger issue is that your bumper sticker would only be visible from one particular angle, so once again how could people who hit you from the opposite side have consented to your terms?
 
I'd suggest that the best approach is to totally cover you car with these bumper stickers to guarantee that every approach angle is covered. However as noted before you'll also have to do some in pictorial form for the illiterate, also differing point sizes for the visually challenged, and in a variety of languages to compensate for those pesky foreigners who haven't yet learnt your mother tongue. If you do this I'd say there was a great chance that people would be avoiding you en masse when you drive down the road.

Re:Time to put a EULA on everything. (1)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | more than 2 years ago | (#40156105)

Good luck proving the other drive took the time to read a text heavy bumper sticker before the impact.

Re:Time to put a EULA on everything. (1)

bbbaldie (935205) | more than 2 years ago | (#40156109)

Dumptrucks in many states have those: "Attention! Stay 200 feet back! Not responsible for windshield damage!"

I'd like to change that to "Warning! This truck is being driven by an inbred asshole with no regard for your safety! Stay clear!"

Re:Time to put a EULA on everything. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40156111)

No, but you can make one which reads:
"By reading this sticker while in motion relative to the earth, you agree to accept full personal and financial responsibility for any damages induced by attempting to read this bumper sticker. Where damages in the primary clause are not limited to physical property damages, but also include potential injury and psychological trauma that may be induced from specified behavior. This bumper sticker is known by the state of California to cause cancer, which is also covered in the scope of damages which are the responsibility of the reader."

XP... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155879)

Really, is there a reason to move beyond XP ?
It does everything I need, plays all games, including
my legacy investment.

Forget class action (4, Interesting)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155889)

Forget about class action. Go with crowd action. Let 100,000 people file in small claims court at the same time. Assuming the courts can handle the load, I'm guessing even MS doesn't have enough lawyers to appear personally in each suit.

They don't allow plaintiffs to pay out coupons in small claims court.

I just can't stop thinking... (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155911)

"Windows 8 bit"

:P :P :P

Windows 9 (2)

DanZee (2422648) | more than 2 years ago | (#40156133)

Windows 9 will require you to hire an licensed operator to actually use Windows. You will not be allowed to actually interface with Windows without an operator. Hey, could happen!

Class action lawsuits (1)

tobiasly (524456) | more than 2 years ago | (#40156143)

Class-action lawsuits are intended to help individuals stand up to corporate law-breaking

Class-action lawsuits are intended to make lawyers rich while individuals get worthless token compensation

FTFY.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>