Before you update Windows

Don''t worry, EULA''s are not enforcable by contract law.


and if the dumbass politicans pass the UCITA, then you can just get someone under 18 to install the software, and you aren''t bound by the EULA.

In fact, you aren''t bound by the EULA if you didn''t install it in the first place.

we know, we saw the same post 8000 times.

quote:

---

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.

---

how about I give you the finger, and I get my phone call...

quote:

---

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.

---

You guys do realize Microsoft is by no means the first company to do this. If this is the first time they had it in their EULA then they are at least half a decade behind the rest of the industry.

quote:

---

Original post by Michalson
You guys do realize Microsoft is by no means the first company to do this. If this is the first time they had it in their EULA then they are at least half a decade behind the rest of the industry.

---

That clause isn''t too new. The only part about the new EULA, that I know of, that''s bad is this:

quote:

---

Win2K SP3 and WinXP SP1 EULA
You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically downloaded to your computer.

---

And that''s only taking the same basic idea from the Windows Media Player EULA and expanding it to encompass all of Windows.

quote:

---

Windows Media Player EULA
"Digital Rights Management (Security). You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ("Secure Content"), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update.

---

I think the new clause is ''euphemized'' much better though.

The performance benchmark ban is still very odd though since AFAIK there is no such clause in the licenses of most J2EE implementations, .NET''s biggest competitors. As far as I have heard in these forums, .NET does seem quite fast so the clause might be more hurtful than helpful for marketing .NET.

A similar clause exists for MS SQL Server (and was used to supress a study that showed the server to run much faster using WinNT than Win 2k), but that clause makes a bit more sense since I think Oracle has it too for its server.

quote:

---

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.

---

One can easily imaging their next step:

quote:

---

You may not disclose or hint to anyone your experience that our software crashes on a daily basis or your frustration about it. By agreeing to this EULA, you are also obligated to only speak well of this product and the corporation that made it.

---

(actually, NT/2k/XP are pretty stable, and I''ve only had two serious crashes with Windows XP this year)

Btw, does anyone know if the performance clause covers the JIT engine that is used to run managed code in .NET? Is that a .NET component? Does it also cover the compilers?

[edited by - HenryAPe on August 4, 2002 6:57:11 PM]

The reason why Microsoft (and many other companies) have the "no published benchmark" clause is because benchmarks are so easy to manipulate (for instance it would be easy to show OpenGL is faster than DirectX or vice versa if you ran them on a machine with no drivers/hardware support for the other). It used to be a common marketing practice for companies to advertise "benchmarks" of their product vs. the competetors. While these benchmarks where "real" in the sense that a computer really did spit out the numbers, they where rigged to either time only those features that product A was best at (or that B was bad at), or where run in an environment where product B could not function correctly.

Yeah, but that''s still really lame. Anyone can fudge benchmarks but this way, MS can control what is said about it. Thank god EULAs are almost totally inadmissable in court right? =D

-=Lohrno

quote:

---

The reason why Microsoft (and many other companies) have the "no published benchmark" clause is because benchmarks are so easy to manipulate (for instance it would be easy to show OpenGL is faster than DirectX or vice versa if you ran them on a machine with no drivers/hardware support for the other).

---

Yes, Microsoft has already had a little fight with IBM over .NET and IBM's J2EE implementation where both companies have used benchmarks to support their products. However, marketing-wise such a cause seems a bit clumsy since it is likely to get the press going when your biggest competitors are not doing it.

The clause is also way out of the ordinary IF it also bans benchmarks for their execution engine, as I have never heard of language benchmarks being banned before (the clause would for instance ban publishing speed comparisons of Managed C++ versus C# or Visual Basic .NET).

[edited by - HenryAPe on August 4, 2002 7:21:39 PM]

I wonder what would happen if someone did a benchmark and told someone else about the results and that other person published the benchmark. It would be odd if the act of telling someone else would be considered ''publishing'', since that would also mean that the clause banned techies who evaluates platforms for their companies to tell their CEOs about the results of their evaluations.

quote:

---

Original post by HenryApe
I wonder what would happen if someone did a benchmark and told someone else about the results and that other person published the benchmark. It would be odd if the act of telling someone else would be considered ''publishing'', since that would also mean that the clause banned techies who evaluates platforms for their companies to tell their CEOs about the results of their evaluations.

---

Interesting point, as if the person that is told, isn''t bound to the EULA, nothing should stop him/her from publishing it.

quote:

---

Original post by CWizard
Interesting point, as if the person that is told, isn''t bound to the EULA, nothing should stop him/her from publishing it.

---

No, but if you publish a product revise, like benchmark results, you need to back it up with something. You cannot say "someone told me that..."



Forever trusting who we are
And nothing else matters - Metallica

So EULA''s forbidding publishing benchmark results are old hat - that still doesn''t make it ok. So anyone can fudge the results - they can also lose credibility doing that as well - and untrusted benchmarks might as well be marks on a park bench...

At any rate - the new clause giving MS "root" is the part that really stinks. What they are confessing to is basically that this latest patch puts a trojan on your box.

Picture this dis-advert - Bill Gates munching on a carrot, with the caption "I Got Root" or "I own jooz" (in proper haxor of course)

quote:

---

No, but if you publish a product revise, like benchmark results, you need to back it up with something. You cannot say "someone told me that..."

---

How many benchmarks actually say that it is the one that has written the report that has conducted the benchmark? In other words, you could just publish the benchmark and leave out the detail that the results were told to you by someone else.

These licenses must have some way of solving this issue, it might even be that they are technicly banning techies from reporting results to their CEOs but practicly ignoring that when it happens, one would have to have a lawyer (or a court) look at the specific wording in the license to tell for sure...

quote:

---

So EULA's forbidding publishing benchmark results are old hat - that still doesn't make it ok.

---

One should also remember that banning the publication of benchmark results is certainly not old hat for consumer products as various tests are part of most computer magazines for consumers. What if Nvidia had a similar clause that banned performance comparisons between Geforce and ATI's Radeon.

.NET is not as clearly an enterprise product as for instance MS SQL Server since .NET is included by default in WinXP and is meant to be used by many consumer-level applications.

[edited by - HenryAPe on August 5, 2002 6:24:18 AM]

quote:

---

Original post by HenryApe
One should also remember that banning the publication of benchmark results is certainly not old hat for consumer products as various tests are part of most computer magazines for consumers. What if Nvidia had a similar clause that banned performance comparisons between Geforce and ATI''s Radeon.

.NET is not as clearly an enterprise product as for instance MS SQL Server since .NET is included by default in WinXP and is meant to be used by many consumer-level applications.

---

Many companies use benchmarks as marketing tools - which is naturally suspect. But I can just imagine this kind of thing extended to prevent Consumer Reports from testing a toaster oven or an automobile. These kinds of tests are a crucial part of a market economy. How better for a potential buyer to assess the value of a product than to ask previous buyers? "By purchasing this product, you give up the right to provide others information regarding the performance of this product during your time of ownership." But then again, MS doesn''t want people to own their copy of Windows, they want them to rent it from MS.

So ... the OS can check the versions of various components, and automatically download stuff. Not install, just download. Fair enough.
Personally, I''d be more worried about something like this (from the J2RE 1.4 license agreement):

quote:

---

5. Notice of Automatic Software Updates from Sun. You acknowledge that the Software may automatically download, install, and execute applets, applications, software extensions, and updated versions of the Software from Sun ("Software Updates"), which may require you to accept updated terms and conditions for installation. If additional terms and conditions are not presented on installation, the Software Updates will be considered part of the Software and subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

6. Notice of Automatic Downloads. You acknowledge that, by your use of the Software and/or by requesting services that require use of the Software, the Software may automatically download, install, and execute software applications from sources other than Sun ("Other Software"). Sun makes no representations of a relationship of any kind to licensors of Other Software. TO THE EXTENT NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL SUN OR ITS LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOST REVENUE, PROFIT OR DATA, OR FOR SPECIAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, HOWEVER CAUSED REGARDLESS OF THE THEORY OF LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE OTHER SOFTWARE, EVEN IF SUN HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

---

Interesting.

quote:

---

IN NO EVENT WILL SUN OR ITS LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOST REVENUE ... OR FOR SPECIAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES [...], EVEN IF SUN HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES

---

This thread is one of the scarier ones...

[edited by - CWizard on August 5, 2002 2:30:24 PM]