Group tries to hold MS responsible for crapware apps and oses

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Imhotep, Aug 10, 2005.

  1. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. Imhotep

    Jbob Guest

    Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain access
    and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the glass because
    it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.

    Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.
    Jbob, Aug 10, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Imhotep

    optikl Guest

    Jbob wrote:
    > Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain access
    > and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the glass because
    > it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.
    >
    > Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.
    >
    >

    The argument is much along the lines that other products will warrant
    their products fit for a particular use. Now, if you misuse it....

    Microsoft would have a tough time right now warranting their product fit
    for a particular use, given the unfortunate security flaws continuing to
    be uncovered. Your argument above, while it's probably a good analogy
    for something else, doesn't apply here.
    optikl, Aug 10, 2005
    #3
  4. Imhotep

    nemo_outis Guest

    "Jbob" <> wrote in
    news::

    > Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain
    > access and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the
    > glass because it was breakable? Well no you of course!!
    > Hypothetical.
    >
    > Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.



    Some time ago I read about a US college student who, while mooning folks
    out his dorm window, fell out. He sued the college for unsafe windows (not
    "moon-proof" I guess). He won!

    Regards,
    nemo_outis, Aug 10, 2005
    #4
  5. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Jbob wrote:

    > Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain access
    > and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the glass because
    > it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.
    >
    > Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.


    No, but if I leave the front door open (and leave some cookies on the table
    for you) and I get robbed It is my fault for being stupid.

    Understand now?
    Imhotep, Aug 10, 2005
    #5
  6. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    optikl wrote:

    > Jbob wrote:
    >> Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain access
    >> and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the glass
    >> because
    >> it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.
    >>
    >> Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.
    >>
    >>

    > The argument is much along the lines that other products will warrant
    > their products fit for a particular use. Now, if you misuse it....
    >
    > Microsoft would have a tough time right now warranting their product fit
    > for a particular use, given the unfortunate security flaws continuing to
    > be uncovered. Your argument above, while it's probably a good analogy
    > for something else, doesn't apply here.


    Microsoft would not warranty their product because that would be they would
    have to test it before releasing it.
    Imhotep, Aug 10, 2005
    #6
  7. Imhotep

    optikl Guest

    Imhotep wrote:
    > optikl wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Jbob wrote:
    >>
    >>>Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain access
    >>>and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the glass
    >>>because
    >>>it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.
    >>>
    >>>Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>The argument is much along the lines that other products will warrant
    >>their products fit for a particular use. Now, if you misuse it....
    >>
    >>Microsoft would have a tough time right now warranting their product fit
    >>for a particular use, given the unfortunate security flaws continuing to
    >>be uncovered. Your argument above, while it's probably a good analogy
    >>for something else, doesn't apply here.

    >
    >
    > Microsoft would not warranty their product because that would be they would
    > have to test it before releasing it.


    They do test it; just not sufficient enough to find all the security
    flaws and correct them. The reason they get away with this is because
    users let them. Microsoft customers continue to reward Microsoft by
    buying their products (and in fairness to Microsoft, lots of other
    software vendors copy this business model) in spite of the long history
    of embedded security flaws. In fact, many are happy to participate as
    beta testers, hoping they'll get to find something amis, before it's
    released. As long as folks continue to tolerate the current Microsoft
    business development model, nothing will ever change. When Microsoft
    home users start moving in droves toward other OSes, you will see a new
    religion take form in the Church of Microsoft. Evolution occurs only
    when unprecedent change repeats itself enough times to get noticed.
    optikl, Aug 10, 2005
    #7
  8. On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 01:15:07 -0500, in alt.computer.security , "Jbob"
    <> in
    <> wrote:

    >Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain access
    >and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the glass because
    >it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.
    >
    >Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.


    If the glass is sold with the claim that it can withstand 60 mile an
    hour winds and it breaks at 20, the manufacturer can be held liable.
    If a car is sold that it is safe and it flips over on any turn, the
    manufacturer can be held liable. Software is no different.

    But it can get worse. Are you responsible if your computers send out
    viruses? You are responsible for pollution. You are required to meet
    fire codes and can be responsible if your building catches fire and
    burns your neighbors. How about if one of your servers is compromised
    and spams?
    --
    Matt Silberstein

    Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.

    Cliff on Cheers
    Matt Silberstein, Aug 10, 2005
    #8
  9. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    optikl wrote:

    > Imhotep wrote:
    >> optikl wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Jbob wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain
    >>>>access and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the
    >>>>glass because
    >>>>it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.
    >>>>
    >>>>Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>The argument is much along the lines that other products will warrant
    >>>their products fit for a particular use. Now, if you misuse it....
    >>>
    >>>Microsoft would have a tough time right now warranting their product fit
    >>>for a particular use, given the unfortunate security flaws continuing to
    >>>be uncovered. Your argument above, while it's probably a good analogy
    >>>for something else, doesn't apply here.

    >>
    >>
    >> Microsoft would not warranty their product because that would be they
    >> would have to test it before releasing it.

    >
    > They do test it; just not sufficient enough to find all the security
    > flaws and correct them. The reason they get away with this is because
    > users let them. Microsoft customers continue to reward Microsoft by
    > buying their products (and in fairness to Microsoft, lots of other
    > software vendors copy this business model) in spite of the long history
    > of embedded security flaws. In fact, many are happy to participate as
    > beta testers, hoping they'll get to find something amis, before it's
    > released. As long as folks continue to tolerate the current Microsoft
    > business development model, nothing will ever change. When Microsoft
    > home users start moving in droves toward other OSes, you will see a new
    > religion take form in the Church of Microsoft. Evolution occurs only
    > when unprecedent change repeats itself enough times to get noticed.



    Agreed. However, Microsoft is trying to force user to NOT have a choice.
    Look at the so-called "IP" laws. Look at what they do with protocols. They
    take a protocol modify it so it does not work with other standards then
    slap an "IP" claim on it. Why? To enforce that you need a MS Web browser to
    view an MS web site, etc, etc. All of this is to force people to buy their
    products. An the stupid "sheep" buy into it...

    In short software IP laws must go....IP laws allow companies to get fat and
    lazy because they shield them from competetors...IP laws also kill
    innovation...and will continue to.

    Imhotep
    Imhotep, Aug 10, 2005
    #9
  10. Imhotep

    optikl Guest

    Imhotep wrote:

    > In short software IP laws must go....IP laws allow companies to get fat and
    > lazy because they shield them from competetors...IP laws also kill
    > innovation...and will continue to.
    >
    > Imhotep


    I guess I'd have to disagree with your analysis. No one in their right
    mind would invest in technology development if they couldn't stake a
    claim to it. What do you think drives venture capital investments?
    Altruism? I'd suggest that if you got rid of IP laws the reverse of what
    you claim will happen. Now that's just my opinion based on my
    experience. We won't know what really would happen without eliminating
    IP laws.
    optikl, Aug 11, 2005
    #10
  11. Imhotep

    Winged Guest

    Matt Silberstein wrote:
    > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 01:15:07 -0500, in alt.computer.security , "Jbob"
    > <> in
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain access
    >>and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the glass because
    >>it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.
    >>
    >>Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.

    >
    >
    > If the glass is sold with the claim that it can withstand 60 mile an
    > hour winds and it breaks at 20, the manufacturer can be held liable.
    > If a car is sold that it is safe and it flips over on any turn, the
    > manufacturer can be held liable. Software is no different.
    >
    > But it can get worse. Are you responsible if your computers send out
    > viruses? You are responsible for pollution. You are required to meet
    > fire codes and can be responsible if your building catches fire and
    > burns your neighbors. How about if one of your servers is compromised
    > and spams?


    One can sue all they like. If you read the license, Microsoft doesn't
    warranty that the software is suitable for any task, further warns folks
    not to use it for real time applications or in any application that
    might risk life or limb.

    They don't even sell you the product, you don't own it, and they can ask
    for the software any time for just about any reason.

    Further the license supersedes any advertised or implied warranty for
    fitness.

    Microsoft is doing us all a favor by letting us use it for a fee.

    I would bet that MS will pay a large number of lawyers some very high
    fees that will be reimbursed by the plaintiff.

    That long gobbledygook license was written by some very high paid
    lawyers, which courts have held binding in precedent cases. I don't
    believe MS could afford to lose a case like this, and I expect they will
    expend serious effort to avoid similar litigations. I would not expect
    MS to settle out of court in this case, further I predict, they will
    break the litigants with fees. Any bets?

    Winged
    Winged, Aug 11, 2005
    #11
  12. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    optikl wrote:

    > Imhotep wrote:
    >
    >> In short software IP laws must go....IP laws allow companies to get fat
    >> and lazy because they shield them from competetors...IP laws also kill
    >> innovation...and will continue to.
    >>
    >> Imhotep

    >
    > I guess I'd have to disagree with your analysis. No one in their right
    > mind would invest in technology development if they couldn't stake a
    > claim to it. What do you think drives venture capital investments?
    > Altruism? I'd suggest that if you got rid of IP laws the reverse of what
    > you claim will happen. Now that's just my opinion based on my
    > experience. We won't know what really would happen without eliminating
    > IP laws.


    Sure we do know what it would be like without IP, we did not have IP laws
    (like they are being used now) during the 70s, 80s, and most of the 90s. We
    also saw some of the most explosive growth of the Internet and PCs during
    this time. Coincidence? I think not.

    First as a person who, partally, owns a small software company I will tell
    you that I am still against software IP laws (in there current form). I am
    obviously against software piracy also. However, IP just does not make
    sense. MS is trying to copywrite, via IP laws, IM smileys. Come on! You do
    not see how this is getting way out of hand? As a software developer how
    can I develop when everything under the Sun is protected by IP laws, that
    were not even invented by the company trying to copywrite it. Does that
    make sense?

    This is how you correct it. IP laws only cover a product for 5 years. It
    must be shown that it is truly unique to be covered by the IP laws. You
    MUST publish ALL APIs to you software. You do not need to publish your
    software, only the APIs to interface with it. After 5 years it is no longer
    covered. This should also be applied to hardware as well.

    Furthermore, if you write software the APIs should be publically accessible.
    You can hide the code of you algorithm but you must provide your APIs to
    interface with it.

    Imhotep
    Imhotep, Aug 11, 2005
    #12
  13. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Winged wrote:

    > Matt Silberstein wrote:
    >> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 01:15:07 -0500, in alt.computer.security , "Jbob"
    >> <> in
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain access
    >>>and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the glass
    >>>because
    >>>it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.
    >>>
    >>>Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.

    >>
    >>
    >> If the glass is sold with the claim that it can withstand 60 mile an
    >> hour winds and it breaks at 20, the manufacturer can be held liable.
    >> If a car is sold that it is safe and it flips over on any turn, the
    >> manufacturer can be held liable. Software is no different.
    >>
    >> But it can get worse. Are you responsible if your computers send out
    >> viruses? You are responsible for pollution. You are required to meet
    >> fire codes and can be responsible if your building catches fire and
    >> burns your neighbors. How about if one of your servers is compromised
    >> and spams?

    >
    > One can sue all they like. If you read the license, Microsoft doesn't
    > warranty that the software is suitable for any task, further warns folks
    > not to use it for real time applications or in any application that
    > might risk life or limb.
    >
    > They don't even sell you the product, you don't own it, and they can ask
    > for the software any time for just about any reason.
    >
    > Further the license supersedes any advertised or implied warranty for
    > fitness.
    >
    > Microsoft is doing us all a favor by letting us use it for a fee.
    >
    > I would bet that MS will pay a large number of lawyers some very high
    > fees that will be reimbursed by the plaintiff.
    >
    > That long gobbledygook license was written by some very high paid
    > lawyers, which courts have held binding in precedent cases. I don't
    > believe MS could afford to lose a case like this, and I expect they will
    > expend serious effort to avoid similar litigations. I would not expect
    > MS to settle out of court in this case, further I predict, they will
    > break the litigants with fees. Any bets?
    >
    > Winged



    I think what would be great is to see the publicity from it. M$ might win
    the case but they are getting more and more bad press by the day. It is all
    building up...watch.

    Im
    Imhotep, Aug 11, 2005
    #13
  14. On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:21:08 -0500, in alt.computer.security , Winged
    <> in <52dc4$42fab656$18d6d91e$>
    wrote:

    >Matt Silberstein wrote:
    >> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 01:15:07 -0500, in alt.computer.security , "Jbob"
    >> <> in
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain access
    >>>and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the glass because
    >>>it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.
    >>>
    >>>Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.

    >>
    >>
    >> If the glass is sold with the claim that it can withstand 60 mile an
    >> hour winds and it breaks at 20, the manufacturer can be held liable.
    >> If a car is sold that it is safe and it flips over on any turn, the
    >> manufacturer can be held liable. Software is no different.
    >>
    >> But it can get worse. Are you responsible if your computers send out
    >> viruses? You are responsible for pollution. You are required to meet
    >> fire codes and can be responsible if your building catches fire and
    >> burns your neighbors. How about if one of your servers is compromised
    >> and spams?

    >
    >One can sue all they like. If you read the license, Microsoft doesn't
    >warranty that the software is suitable for any task, further warns folks
    >not to use it for real time applications or in any application that
    >might risk life or limb.


    And those licenses have never been tested in court. If will be
    interesting to see how they stand up. I suspect that the software
    companies will get themselves a special law if the EULA ever get to
    court.

    >They don't even sell you the product, you don't own it, and they can ask
    >for the software any time for just about any reason.


    Which I think weakens their case. If it is their software that causes
    the problem, then they have liability.

    >Further the license supersedes any advertised or implied warranty for
    >fitness.


    Again, not tested in court. You don't get to see the EULA until after
    you have made the purchase. It is not clear that there is a valid
    contract.

    >Microsoft is doing us all a favor by letting us use it for a fee.
    >
    >I would bet that MS will pay a large number of lawyers some very high
    >fees that will be reimbursed by the plaintiff.
    >
    >That long gobbledygook license was written by some very high paid
    >lawyers, which courts have held binding in precedent cases. I don't
    >believe MS could afford to lose a case like this, and I expect they will
    >expend serious effort to avoid similar litigations. I would not expect
    >MS to settle out of court in this case, further I predict, they will
    >break the litigants with fees. Any bets?
    >

    Likely, but it would save them money to buy off a few senators.



    --
    Matt Silberstein

    Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.

    Cliff on Cheers
    Matt Silberstein, Aug 11, 2005
    #14
  15. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Matt Silberstein wrote:

    > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:21:08 -0500, in alt.computer.security , Winged
    > <> in <52dc4$42fab656$18d6d91e$>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Matt Silberstein wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 01:15:07 -0500, in alt.computer.security , "Jbob"
    >>> <> in
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Interesting! So if I go to your house, break your windows to gain
    >>>>access and rob you blind, are you gonna sue the manufacturer of the
    >>>>glass because
    >>>>it was breakable? Well no you of course!! Hypothetical.
    >>>>
    >>>>Now apply that to ones car, or front door, etc.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> If the glass is sold with the claim that it can withstand 60 mile an
    >>> hour winds and it breaks at 20, the manufacturer can be held liable.
    >>> If a car is sold that it is safe and it flips over on any turn, the
    >>> manufacturer can be held liable. Software is no different.
    >>>
    >>> But it can get worse. Are you responsible if your computers send out
    >>> viruses? You are responsible for pollution. You are required to meet
    >>> fire codes and can be responsible if your building catches fire and
    >>> burns your neighbors. How about if one of your servers is compromised
    >>> and spams?

    >>
    >>One can sue all they like. If you read the license, Microsoft doesn't
    >>warranty that the software is suitable for any task, further warns folks
    >>not to use it for real time applications or in any application that
    >>might risk life or limb.

    >
    > And those licenses have never been tested in court. If will be
    > interesting to see how they stand up. I suspect that the software
    > companies will get themselves a special law if the EULA ever get to
    > court.
    >
    >>They don't even sell you the product, you don't own it, and they can ask
    >>for the software any time for just about any reason.

    >
    > Which I think weakens their case. If it is their software that causes
    > the problem, then they have liability.
    >
    >>Further the license supersedes any advertised or implied warranty for
    >>fitness.

    >
    > Again, not tested in court. You don't get to see the EULA until after
    > you have made the purchase. It is not clear that there is a valid
    > contract.
    >
    >>Microsoft is doing us all a favor by letting us use it for a fee.
    >>
    >>I would bet that MS will pay a large number of lawyers some very high
    >>fees that will be reimbursed by the plaintiff.
    >>
    >>That long gobbledygook license was written by some very high paid
    >>lawyers, which courts have held binding in precedent cases. I don't
    >>believe MS could afford to lose a case like this, and I expect they will
    >>expend serious effort to avoid similar litigations. I would not expect
    >>MS to settle out of court in this case, further I predict, they will
    >>break the litigants with fees. Any bets?
    >>

    > Likely, but it would save them money to buy off a few senators.
    >
    >
    >



    Excellent comments. Especially about not seeing the EULA until AFTER the
    purchase...

    Imhotep
    Imhotep, Aug 11, 2005
    #15
  16. Imhotep

    Winged Guest

    Imhotep wrote:

    > Excellent comments. Especially about not seeing the EULA until AFTER the
    > purchase...
    >
    > Imhotep




    Actually the EULA has a provision for that in the EULA.

    "By installing, copying, downloading, accessing or otherwise using
    the SOFTWARE, you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA.
    If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, you may not use or
    copy the SOFTWARE, and you should promptly contact Manufacturer
    for instructions on return of the unused product(s) in accordance
    with Manufacturer's return policies."

    Hrrmm I wonder if I can ask for a refund?

    But I came across another clause that I found curious.

    "The five (5) Connection Maximum includes any indirect connections made
    through "multiplexing" or other software or hardware which pools
    or aggregates connections."

    Last time I went to CNN I believe more connections than this were
    aggregated through the connection...Ok folks turn your XP versions over,
    you violated the EULA (actually I am safe as my system refused to
    connect to the other sites :p).

    **********separate issue*******

    What I found most interesting however is immediately after doing a local
    search for the EULA txt file on my local machine, explorer.exe
    repeatedly attempted to access the Internet, though it is not allowed to
    connect to the Internet by MS XP settings and firewall block.

    The user has chosen to "block" communications.
    Outbound TCP connection.
    Remote address,service is (sa.windows.com(207.46.248.249),http(80)).
    Process name is "C:\WINDOWS\Explorer.EXE".

    This irritated me however as my firewall was not supposed to ever see
    explorer.exe.

    I googled the remote site and found out the search assistant contacts
    MS..you know to assist you..

    I found the info below on the issue:

    http://www.neuro-tech.net/archives/000345.html
    *******************
    Unwanted Windows XP connections to sa.windows.com

    This is probably an old piece of information, but it was fairly new to
    me. I've found that my computer was periodically connecting to (and
    attempting to connect to) a site called sa.windows.com. After many
    Google Groups searches it appears that the Windows "Search Assistant" is
    constantly updating itself through a web service located at that
    machine. Thankfully it's easy to turn off. Go to the registry key
    "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Cabinet
    State" and add a String key named "Use Search Asst" with the value "no".
    Do it for all the users on your system that login.

    This is one of the things that piss me off about web services - they're
    a total bitch to block with a firewall since they all use port 80 and
    most of them use the system URL fetching utilities.

    **********************

    I couldn't agree with the author more! The information above was new to
    me too.

    I told you I didn't use the search feature often..lol

    Winged
    Winged, Aug 12, 2005
    #16
  17. On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:49:55 -0500, in alt.computer.security , Winged
    <> in <5ec16$42fc0082$18d6d91e$>
    wrote:

    >Imhotep wrote:
    >
    > > Excellent comments. Especially about not seeing the EULA until AFTER the
    > > purchase...
    > >
    > > Imhotep

    >
    >
    >
    >Actually the EULA has a provision for that in the EULA.


    If it is not a legitimate contract it does not matter if it claims
    that it is a legitimate contract.

    But thanks much for the rest.

    --
    Matt Silberstein

    Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.

    Cliff on Cheers
    Matt Silberstein, Aug 12, 2005
    #17
  18. Imhotep

    Winged Guest

    Matt Silberstein wrote:
    > On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:49:55 -0500, in alt.computer.security , Winged
    > <> in <5ec16$42fc0082$18d6d91e$>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Imhotep wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Excellent comments. Especially about not seeing the EULA until AFTER the
    >>>purchase...
    >>>
    >>>Imhotep

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>Actually the EULA has a provision for that in the EULA.

    >
    >
    > If it is not a legitimate contract it does not matter if it claims
    > that it is a legitimate contract.
    >
    > But thanks much for the rest.
    >

    We'll guess we'll have to watch. I will be very surprised if the courts
    overturn precedents.
    Winged
    Winged, Aug 12, 2005
    #18
  19. Imhotep

    Moe Trin Guest

    In the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
    <5ec16$42fc0082$18d6d91e$>, Winged wrote:

    >Imhotep wrote:


    >> Excellent comments. Especially about not seeing the EULA until AFTER the
    >> purchase...


    I'm surprised someone from Europe hasn't chimed in on this - such a
    license is illegal in many jurisdictions. Some countries (the UK being
    one) also have a implied warranty of fitness. You bought it, you have
    an enforceable expectation that it will do something useful.

    >Hrrmm I wonder if I can ask for a refund?


    google is your friend - it's been tried, not very successfully. The
    normal wiggle is that the manufacturers policies require the software
    as part of the hardware purchase. Don't want the software? Fine, you also
    have to return the hardware. It's a rip-off, especially for those of us
    who don't use windoze. That's one (of many) reason we build our own
    systems from parts.

    >But I came across another clause that I found curious.
    >
    >"The five (5) Connection Maximum includes any indirect connections made
    >through "multiplexing" or other software or hardware which pools
    >or aggregates connections."


    My understanding is that refers to connection sharing on your end, not
    on the other end. IANAL. YMMV.

    >What I found most interesting however is immediately after doing a local
    >search for the EULA txt file on my local machine, explorer.exe
    >repeatedly attempted to access the Internet, though it is not allowed to
    >connect to the Internet by MS XP settings and firewall block.


    They're just trying to make your Internet experience more enjoyable ;-)
    And maybe see that you don't have any illegal software or anything.

    >Remote address,service is (sa.windows.com(207.46.248.249),http(80)).


    If you do a whois for 'MICROSOFT' at ARIN, you get something like 190
    address assignments, just in "North American" IP space. RIPE, APNIC,
    LACNIC, and AFRINIC are not as convenient to use, but microsoft has more
    address space from them as well. Note that I am NOT including the proxy
    services like Akmai (which hosts some windoze updates servers among
    other services). ARIN has assigned close to 3/4 million addresses (the
    equivalent of 11.22 "CLASS B" or /16 networks) to microsoft, in blocks
    as small as /29s (8 addresses, six usable) up to a pair of /14s (262144
    addresses). These are scattered from 4.42.190.0/29 to 216.222.104.224/29
    for some reason. Because of Classless Inter Domain Routing (so-called
    Class A, B, and C were deprecated in 1993, and replaced with those /nn
    style), and variable sized network masks, you'd need to block 174 different
    networks just to get these 735 thousand addresses in North America alone.

    >Process name is "C:\WINDOWS\Explorer.EXE".


    Hmmm, what is this "C:\" crap? ;-)

    By the way, in another article in this thread, you reprinted the microsoft
    EULA - did you get permission from them, or are they gonna come after you
    for violating their copyright or something ;-)

    Old guy
    Moe Trin, Aug 13, 2005
    #19
  20. Imhotep

    Solbu Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Imhotep sent the following transmission through subspace:

    > Excellent comments. Especially about not seeing the EULA until AFTER the
    > purchase...


    In my country (Norway) such an EULA is invalid and not enforceable.

    If the seal on the software says that by breaking the seal
    you accept the license inside, which you must break the seal to read,
    you are not legally bound by the license agreement
    and the software company therefore can not pursue you
    for not abiding by the license (EULA).

    - --
    Solbu - http://www.solbu.net
    Remove 'ugyldig' for email
    PGP key ID: 0xFA687324
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFC/sBbT1rWTfpocyQRAuwtAJ9z6tQs+Xw2oPypXuHRH9yEIwQGhACgpICF
    fMoeJqlXCE36XAnQz6mVkIQ=
    =9Hsy
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Solbu, Aug 14, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?c21sYW1hcnJl?=

    Dual-Boot and running Applications on both OSes

    =?Utf-8?B?c21sYW1hcnJl?=, Oct 7, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    527
    John Barnes
    Oct 8, 2005
  2. Mickey Mouse
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    407
    Gordon
    Jul 22, 2007
  3. Malcolm
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    343
    Malcolm
    Jul 22, 2007
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    679
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. Clogwog
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    494
    Clogwog
    May 9, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page