[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Microsoft EULA never tested in court ..

From: Doctor Smith
Subject: Re: Microsoft EULA never tested in court ..
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:58:13 -0500
User-agent: 40tude_Dialog/

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:43:06 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

> "Matt" <> wrote in message 
> news:%9Wtl.67797$aZ3.15992@newsfe01.iad...
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> ____/ Doug Mentohl on Wednesday 11 March 2009 15:37 : \____
>>>> 'By using the software, you accept these terms .. You can recover from
>>>> Microsoft and its suppliers only direct damages up to the amount you
>>>> paid for the software'
>>>> 'This limitation applies to .. claims for breach of contract, breach of
>>>> warranty, guarantee or condition, strict liability, negligence, or other
>>>> tort to the extent permitted by applicable law'
>>>> 'The first user of the software may reassign the license to another
>>>> device one time'
>>>> 'The first user of the software may make a one time transfer of the
>>>> software, and this agreement, directly to a third party'
>>> This might also be unconstitutional in the US. As for the UK:
>> Which part of the EULA might be against which part of the Constitution?
> Here's where Roy Schestowitz runs away.
> Or are we to believe Schestowitz in that the founding fathers addressed the 
> Micrososft EULA in the Constitution. These "advocates" keep getting dumber 
> by the day as desperation sets in.

Roy Schestowitz belongs locked up in a mental institution.
He has gone paranoid skitzo....

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]