Strange EULA provision Re: C# vs C++ Speed

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael A. Covington
  • Start date Start date
M

Michael A. Covington

Paul Aspinall said:
Can anyone offer any view on the speed of C# compared to C++ (both in ..Net,
and 'native' windows)?

Are there any benchmarks??
Click to expand...

Further to my other message, a quote from the Microsoft .NET EULA:

"You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET
Framework component of the OS Components to any third party without
Microsoft's prior written approval."

Complete text at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnnetdep/html/redisteula.asp

This strikes me as a bizarre and unenforceable provision. Numerous American
and British laws uphold the rights of people in any marketplace is to
comment publicly (and truthfully) on the performance of the products offered
there.

Does anyone from Microsoft care to comment on this?
 
EULAs mean shit all in courts, especially europe, SIGNED CONTRACTS are
CONTRACTUAL LAW; not click through shite.

Never been a test case, i heard there was a challenge to EULAs in the US,
dono the status of that though.

EULA doesnt stand under contractual law.
 
not according GW et al.

Alex Feinman said:
US law means **** all outside the US

--
-_-

Feinman, Alex (WN-D-93274878)
1115 Village Dr., Apt 1
Belmont, CA 94002-3444
US
(650) 306-1417

(e-mail address removed)
(e-mail address removed)
Click to expand...
 
done
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you are, but, crucially, you are not necessarily bound by
agreements you make if they are contrary to law, or if they are made under
duress or deception, or if they are "contracts of adhesion" (a fuzzy term
that basically prevents people from declaring that you have accepted a
contract when you really had no other choice). The last of these might
apply to shrinkwrap licenses, especially those with odd and unexpected
provisions in them.

I'm not a lawyer and have not kept track of what became of the notion --
circulated a few years ago -- that shrinkwrap contracts are contracts of
adhesion. I need to look into this again.
 
I'm not sure where you are, but, crucially, you are not necessarily bound
by
agreements you make if they are contrary to law, or if they are made under
duress or deception, or if they are "contracts of adhesion" (a fuzzy term
that basically prevents people from declaring that you have accepted a
contract when you really had no other choice). The last of these might
apply to shrinkwrap licenses, especially those with odd and unexpected
provisions in them.
Click to expand...

A little more. I just did some digging...

Contracts of adhesion are not inherently invalid, but unreasonable
provisions in them are easily overturned by the courts.

"Clickwrap" and "shrinkwrap" licenses have been attacked on this ground, not
always successfully. Courts uphold the contract unless there is something
in it that is evidently unreasonable (i.e., that a reasonable person would
not accept).

That's presumably the background of the Network Associates case, and it
looks to me like the exact same problem exists in the .NET EULA.
 
Back
Top