Comments on: Creeping EULAs

By: Wesley Snider

Wesley Snider — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:49:54 +0000

Yes, I have seen the legal prompting in Cadillac Escalades and Lexus LS onboards. Also, the onboard GPS systems really are NEVER as good as separate models (read: TomTom). Yeah, it is nice to have it integrated for asthetic reasons, but its even nicer to be ble to bring it with you in another person’s car if you happen to be riding with a friend.

And MOST important as Craig said….No Legal Vomit!!

By: Craig Stuntz

Craig Stuntz — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 08:30:29 +0000

I note the Car Talk guys (http://www.cartalk.com/) recommend against buying a built-in navigation system in any car, since the non-built-in kind are cheaper, upgradable, and can be moved from car to car.

Plus they don’t give you legal vomit when you start up the car.

By: EULA

EULA — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 08:20:50 +0000

It’s crazy. But fortunately there’s an easy solution: just don’t buy that specific piece of crap. Or return it to the shop as soon as you find out this feature. I’ve never heard of this crap in Europe though, might be the result of that American ’sue them’ tendency.

By: Martijn Tonies

Martijn Tonies — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 03:57:56 +0000

Reminds me of having to go through the same "you're not allowed to pirate this movie" on DVDs EVERY TIME you start the DVD.

Let alone the damned trailers that cannot be skipped.

Heck, I'm better off using a pirated copy!

These things annoy the *** out of people who actually bought the product!

By: Craig Stuntz

Craig Stuntz — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:40:13 +0000

Xepol, your arguments are no more or less true for navigation systems than for paper maps. Similarly, the notion that different drivers require new EULA agreement is no different for software in your car than on your desktop.

All of this presumes that the EULA provides any legal shelter whatsoever, and *that* presumes that any is needed, and *that* presumes that the cost to the company is higher from lawsuits than from annoying legitimate customers. All might be true (well, except for the first, which is demonstrably false in some countries), but it’s far from proven AFAICS.

Regarding supposedly lawsuit-prone Americans, I don’t believe it’s necessary for companies to design their products for the least common denominator. I won’t buy CDs designed for music thieves, and it’s an established fact that people steal music. A lot of people agree, and the market has done a pretty good job at rejecting malware-laden CDs.

As far as I can see the real reason for the EULA-explosion is paranoia and laziness. Why bother to design a system which is useful when it’s easier to design one people will become trained to ignore? If a luxury car can remember my preferred seat position, why can’t it remember I’ve already seen a EULA?

By: Xepol

Xepol — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 17:28:23 +0000

Considering that if things go totally wrong, people can be put in jepordy or even die (damnit, that wasn't the way to the hospital after all, or if only it had picked a shorter route, grandma might still be here!), you can hardly be surprised that they want protection.

One driver sits in the car, oks the EULA once. Fine, now the company is protected against the driver. Now little Timmy borrows the car and oh, no eula, and damnit, he ended up dead in a carjacking in the bad part of town, lead there by a bad route from the device.

Time to sue!

Nope, since the driver can change but the liability doesn't, the device decides to renew the eula compliance every time.

Considering how litigeous your average American is, can you really blame a company? The only reason you don't see an EULA every time you run your text editor is that the liabilities are very low, it is very hard to see where someone might start suing you for loss of life or limb if the app crashes.

By: Nico

Nico — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:41:07 +0000

I wonder what would happen if someone crash because he’s distracted by the EULA dialog. He could sue the manufacturer, couldn’t he?

By: Craig Stuntz

Craig Stuntz — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:23:45 +0000

"Legal requirement" and "required by the lawyers" aren't quite the same thing. Has anyone ever seen a US law which required a EULA on *anything?*

Yes, you can get *sued* for not having warning stickers on stuff, but that isn't the same as a legal requirement; you can get sued for *anything,* whether or not it has merit. Since the default answer to any dialog box is cancel (http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2003/09/01/54734.aspx), I wonder if this will be a defense in the future, if indeed it ever was.

The real question is, does beating all customers over the head with a EULA repeatedly save enough money in actual legal expense to annoying customers.

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:17:17 +0000

I think you’ll find that’s a legal requirement, since most navigation systems have it.

Blame the American courts.