User sues Microsoft over planned end of Windows 10 support

[pcnthuziast]

Let's. Go. Champ!

 

[jeffbert]

The issue is not necessarily the end of life of win10, but the tpm 2.0 requirement for win11 that renders a lot of capable computers outdated because they can't upgrade

I am one of those who cannot upgrade.

 

[amghwk]

No single individual can go against the might of corporate hired lawyers.

 

[Mirielle]

How about opting for alternative OS, something that is open source and free. Ubuntu is viable alternative.

 

[dualkelly]

I am one of those who cannot upgrade.

Windows 10 wont stop working on you. Also windows 11 its freaking horrible man. its literally a nightmare so your not missing anything.

 

[monkeylove]

That's not really an objection.

It is my understanding that agreeing to the terms of an EULA is not the same thing as taking a pledge under oath, about the validity of your agreement with the terms listed. Which is to say, an EULA that contains anti-consumer clauses does not become "legal", just because you can either only "Agree" to the whole thing or simply not use the product. Company policies do not supersede the law. If a company puts unethical clauses in their contract, such as "you agree to enter into indentured servitude, by signing this document", that's not legally-enforceable.

Furthermore, EULAs are often extremely verbose and filled with technical jargon and legalese, for the express purpose of providing legal cover for the corporate entity. Most people don't or can't even read those things and a lot of companies bank on this probability, to hide dark patterns in their terms and conditions, and then use this lack of knowledge to go after customers, because "ignorance of the law is not an excuse". You might retort with "well, that's a you problem", but I disagree. Using people's lack of legal or technical understanding against them, is a manipulation tactic. EULAs should be easy to read, short and concise in their explanation of the terms of the product usage.

You should not require a law degree, to make an email account or install an operating system—especially if something like that is necessary just to function in society.

I don't think the court will accept that argument.

 

[acrossthestars]

I don't think the court will accept that argument.

What part of it, the part where I say that EULAs that contain immoral clauses are not legally-enforceable or the part where I say that EULAs should be more concise in their wording?

 

[monkeylove]

What part of it, the part where I say that EULAs that contain immoral clauses are not legally-enforceable or the part where I say that EULAs should be more concise in their wording?

It is my understanding that agreeing to the terms of an EULA is not the same thing as taking a pledge under oath, about the validity of your agreement with the terms listed. Which is to say, an EULA that contains anti-consumer clauses does not become "legal", just because you can either only "Agree" to the whole thing or simply not use the product. Company policies do not supersede the law. If a company puts unethical clauses in their contract, such as "you agree to enter into indentured servitude, by signing this document", that's not legally-enforceable.

I don't think courts will accept the argument that you agreed to something that you think is not legal, especially given the point that you should not have agreed to it in the first place. And I think the excuse that it was too long won't be accepted, too.

 

[acrossthestars]

I don't think courts will accept the argument that you agreed to something that you think is not legal, especially given the point that you should not have agreed to it in the first place. And I think the excuse that it was too long won't be accepted, too.

That depends on the court. Most EULAs have a clause mandating "forced arbitration", for this very reason. Forced arbitration is basically just "letting HR dictate the law", because the arbitrator is going to do everything in their power to side with the company—especially considering the arbitrator is hired by the company. If arbitration was eliminated as a corporate safeguard and all manner of legal disputes, regarding corporate behavior, was mandated in a court of law, presided over by a jury, then companies would lose the overwhelming majority of their cases.

Take Adobe, for example: their entire product line is subscription-based. You literally cannot buy a copy of Adobe Photoshop, as a one-time purchase. If Adobe was brought before a jury instead of an arbitrator, they would have long since been mandated to offer a subscription as an option in their product stack, as opposed to the exclusively time-limited model it currently is.

 

[monkeylove]

That depends on the court. Most EULAs have a clause mandating "forced arbitration", for this very reason. Forced arbitration is basically just "letting HR dictate the law", because the arbitrator is going to do everything in their power to side with the company—especially considering the arbitrator is hired by the company. If arbitration was eliminated as a corporate safeguard and all manner of legal disputes, regarding corporate behavior, was mandated in a court of law, presided over by a jury, then companies would lose the overwhelming majority of their cases.

Take Adobe, for example: their entire product line is subscription-based. You literally cannot buy a copy of Adobe Photoshop, as a one-time purchase. If Adobe was brought before a jury instead of an arbitrator, they would have long since been mandated to offer a subscription as an option in their product stack, as opposed to the exclusively time-limited model it currently is.

I don't think you addressed the point. Instead, you're talking about arbitration, which I think takes place outside courts.

As for your example, I don't understand how Adobe could be forced to offer one-time purchases.