Re: Microsoft EULA never tested in court ..

[Ezekiel]

"Matt" <matt@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote in message 
news:%9Wtl.67797$aZ3.15992@newsfe01.iad...
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> 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'
>>>
>>>
>> http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Ultimate_English_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf
>>
>> 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.