Mark Methenitis offers an interesting piece, which Slashdothas picked up, on the possibility that the FTC will regulate end-user license agreements (EULAs) by requiring a "plain language" requirement. He discusses several possible scenarios, then decides that it's all begging the question since one first has to consider whether such regulation is necessary. (It isn't question-begging; the FTC isn't guaranteed to refrain from something just because it isn't really necessary.)
I don't think a plain-language requirement would solve anything. The problem with EULAs arises largely from their origin, in shrink-wrapped software packages that reverse the normal and logical order of contracts: first enter into the contract, then conclude the transaction. With shrink-wrapped licenses, you buy some boxed software, take it home or have it delivered, and then have to "agree" to a contract by opening the envelope or clicking in a dialog box. Under such circumstances, the vendor can put the most ridiculous terms without scaring many people away, and vendors have. Courts should never have upheld such "contracts," but they have. This got people resigned to "agreeing" to anything that might be in a license, especially since they were seldom personally subject to any legal action for not paying attention.
Most people, even if they don't have any idea what a warranty of merchantability is, can glance at a typical license and get the gist of it: "We aren't taking responsibility for anything." If they buy software with existing licenses, they'll keep buying it if it says that plainly. Many people have moved from paying for "as-is" software to using freeware wherever possible; I doubt that a plain-language requirement would either accelerate or slow down this trend.
What would be useful is for courts to refuse to recognize contracts imposed after the sale as valid. "Our one hope for salvation lies, beyond a doubt, in Holy Justice throwing shrink-wrap licenses out."
No comments:
Post a Comment