Your example is a good one. If a person stands in the door, it is the
clause in the agreement that provides grounds for the software vendor
to get the court order. Without it, the software vendor has no
recourse. Historically, the vendors don't go after people that are
trying to stay within the law. They do go after people who violate the
agreements or commit fraud. The software license provides a mechanism
whereby the software vendor can build a case against such fraud. I
believe the official term is "due diligence"
Typically, the ones that complain the most are the ones who are most
worried about getting caught doing something underhanded. I make it a
point of reading the agreements. I try to read them ahead of an
installation if possible. Clearly, most of us do not have the time to
read them, let alone understand them but I do believe they are a
necessary evil to protect the intellectual property of the people who
make the software.
I wonder how many web sites Paul has signed up to without reading the
fine print. There are several sites I have just walked away from
because I was not willing to accept their terms. If a large company
doesn't like the terms and conditions, they typically negotiate with
the vendor and make adjustments in addendums. This is common practice
but is beyond the resources of a small company or single user. I have
not found the same level of hostility between legal departments that
exists in Paul's article. Before jumping to conclusions, I would like
to see the facts in the case. Are their any cases where the clauses in
the contracts resulted in a company's or individuals rights being
violated? I don't know. Are there cases where the clauses resulted in
perpetrators being brought to justice? Yes.
So, is Paul trying to make a case or is he just trying to stir things
up. I would not attempt such an endeavor without spending significant
time with a contract law lawyer and I can ill afford the cost of that.
As I think about it, I would probably approach the vendors legal
department for clarification before proceeding at all.
Jeff Howard wrote:
With all due respect, if you are going to chide Autodesk, you should
first read the fine print in the Microsoft license agreement.
Dare say, I doubt that Paul is a barrister or lawyer; he should stick
to what he knows how to do or he will find himself with a restraining
order at least.
-------------------------------
Personally, I think it's time to take one of the last bastions of the
techno-bubble, software vendors, to task over these issues and a few more
if normal market competition can't bring them about. I doubt that some of
the EULA clauses would stand up to legal challenge. Can an audit be
conducted without a court order if the user stands at the door and asks for
one? Is the audit clause antiquated and superflous when hardware license
validation methods are available? Do the worst offenders have a license or
subscription to put at risk? Maybe it's a good thing someone is standing
up and asking questions, flapping contracts in users faces.
I keep thinking I should take a look at Linux anyway... 8~)
