Paul-B said:
What do you mean by proof? I'm not saying that the Microsoft EULA is
not enforceable, just that any part of any EULA which seeks to deprive
the consumer of his or her right to use legally-acquired software is
unenforceable.
Under EC law any terms and conditions which do not comply with EC
directives are unenforceable within the EC.
By proof, I meant the EC directive which says that when purchasing
software, the license which goes with the software is not enforceable.
Or, one which suggests having an EULA which says "this gets installed on
one device and not transferred" is not enforceable.
Why, for example, does the part of the OEM EULA which says 'you cannot
transfer the license to another device' become unenforceable, but the
bit which says 'may not install this on multiple machines
simultaneously' *is* enforceable?
If one part is unfair, surely the other part is unfair too!
Why shouldn't I be able to install Vista on my home PC and my work PC?
I only use 1 machine at once (either at work or at home, not both).
Surely that's an unfair restriction! If I'm allowed to uninstall the
software and re-install on another machine (ie. only have 1 copy
installed at once), then that's functionally no different to only using
1 machine at once - it just takes longer!
I know that under UK law (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations
1999) unfair contract terms to consumers are not binding. This does not
apply for businesses. However, only a court can decide if a term is
unfair. So if no one has ever taken it to court, then the term is
deemed to be fair.
Reading through the Office of Fair Trading's website on unfair contract
terms, the sort of things in the EULA appear fair. You accept a
reduction in rights (ie. ability to transfer the OS to another machine)
for a reduction in price. It's standard and fair contract terms. You
pay less, you get less. You pay more, you get more.
The sorts of things which are unfair contract terms are things like,
ability for the supplier to arbitrarily increase costs without warning
or ability to cancel, or requiring 3 months cancellation notice, binding
the user to terms not supplied before purchase.
Read through the documents on the OFT site, including their 'examples of
unfair terms' document.
As it stands, I've not seen anything unfair with the restriction on OEM
software to not be transferred to another machine, provided that you get
a reduction in price because of it - which you do - a signficant one!
D
