Windows 8: More EULA, Fewer Rights. 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."
good (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Time to put a EULA on everything. (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
Forget class action (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:An EULA isn't a contract (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:not sure (Score:5, Interesting)
As opposed to the infinite "Legal Wisdom" of mbone, I'll take Scalia any day of the week.
FYI: The Supreme Court exists to INTERPRET LAW, not to create it. So unless there is a law on the books that says that you can't put a clause preventing the signatory party from engaging in Class Action suites in a binding agreement, then how can any Court rule that you can't?
If you start letting judges making up laws, what sort of law shall we have? Easy: You get Kangaroo Courts where the laws are made up to fit the ends of the Court.
Re:Class Action Lawsuits suck anyway (Score:2, Interesting)
In some cases, I can't help but feel the class action ends up being a GOOD thing for the company. Look at the class action against ticketmaster recently. So what was the settlement? Well, it was in the form of a discount off a future ticket purchase. That's right, in order to "cash in" your settlement, you had to give ticketmaster EVEN MORE money. But, if your settlement amount was large, then you could get a free ticket to something, right? That would show them, right? Well, no. As I recall, the settlement was in the form of multiple coupons worth $2.50 each, and I think you could only use 2 coupons on a purchase. So to cash in, you might need to make 10 or more additional purchases from ticketmaster. Yeah, I'm sure they're hurting over that one.
Re:not sure (Score:2, Interesting)
Except when he doesn't. This article [theusconstitution.org] lays out a good argument that Scalia, and so called conservatives, are upset only when they don't agree with SCOTUS using foreign rulings to guide, not justify, their decision but have no problem when doing so will benefit their ideological viewpoint.
As the article relates, if it were up to Scalia, he would interpret laws based on the state of the country in 1789, not as things exist now. Which is what this country needs, someone who thinks things should be frozen in time, never changing and kept as they were.
What's that a definition of?
I'd suggest (Score:5, Interesting)
Just by not buying Windows, Microsoft won't see they lost a sale.
Everyone go out and buy a copy of Windows 8, open the box so it can't be resold, then return it for a full refund with the reason that the EULA you can't see until you try to install it was an unacceptable attack on basic civil rights.
This is about the only way Microsoft would get a clear message and see how much its costing them.
Re:not sure (Score:2, Interesting)
You do realize that it takes 4 private sector employees to pay for 1 public sector employee in Canada right? So just tell me something, how do you turn around and cause a recession by reducing the overhead of the biggest tax grab on the average person.
Re:not sure (Score:5, Interesting)
It may well depend on what state you live in.
Personally, the better option would be to just not bother with Windows 8, and demand a refund (or if the OEM allows it, demand a non-Windows 8 preload). If Microsoft refuses to refund your money, take them to small claims court for that refund [linuxjournal.com].
I wonder though - can an enterprising lawyer raise up a class-action lawsuit over the EULA clause itself?
Re:not sure (Score:4, Interesting)
When you can put a corporation in prison for life or better yet, publicly execute it, then we can start talking.
Actually, you can do both (if any judge would have the cojones to actually do it):
Analogue to imprisonment? We got options:
* Legally require a company to fire its executive employees (from the CxOs down to VP level or so) minus any severance or other compensation, and replace them with new hires from outside the company, and approved by a court trustee.
-or-
* Require that all stock trading in the company (we'll call it "CORP") be suspended for n years.
-or-
* Require all stock holders of CORP to pay a fine of x% of the aggregate value, with all trading on CORP frozen at the time of verdict. If you own 100 shares of stock of CORP at $10/share, and the fine is 10%, you then, personally, owe the court $100.00. Hedge/mutual finds are treated the same way. What, not fair? Well, you're a shareholder, you partially own the company, you are therefore partially responsible, in proportion to your holdings. Suck it down and use your head the next time you buy stock.
Analogue to the death penalty? No problem:
Revoke any and all corporate charters. Terminate all positions outside of whatever you absolutely need to handle the corporation until all assets are sold. Put the assets up for public auction. Dissolve the value of any existing stock to $0.00, with no compensation given. The sale, jobs, etc. are supervised by a court-appointed trustee until the final asset is sold or destroyed.