Hacker News Reader

Comment by nescioquid | Hacker News Reader

I have been under the impression that EULAs have not really been tested in court and that there is probably some reticence to actually attempt enforcement in case the result would invalidate the practice of EULAs altogether.

Normally, when you agree to a license, it is available for review and is agreed to before the purchase has been completed. Software EULAs -- presented after purchase -- seem more like a mugging.

Would be lovely to provide or deny consent for each of those actions detailed in the EULA -- the EULA becomes configuration.

View on HN

> EULAs have not really been tested in court

In Europe they do not need to be tested in court. They are not part of the contract of sale because you cannot see them before you complete the purchase. They are unenforceable.

They may be enforceable even in Europe. The situation in the Netherlands is explained at <https://blog.iusmentis.com/2008/04/05/de-rechtsgeldigheid-va...>; in short, for general terms and conditions that apply to everyone, you merely need to have been suitably informed beforehand and the terms cannot be unreasonably burdensome. In Belgium, a judge ruled in October last year that an EULA cannot prohibit decompilation of software, <https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&do...>, a ruling that rather directly implies that EULAs are valid in general in Belgium, it is only specific clauses in EULAs that may be deemed invalid. I do not know where this idea that EULAs are invalid throughout the EU comes from. It is simply not true.

On consumer relations that is very clear. Any rule that isn't on the marketing material does not exist.

But on business relations, things are way more complex. I wouldn't be surprised if some rules were perfectly enforceable.

It's not part of the contract of sale if it is not possible to read it before agreeing to buy. You can't impose extra conditions on the buyer after the sale.

I suppose I should point out that I'm not a lawyer and that the US situation might be very different. The OP should consult a lawyer or return the camera for a refund if he feels unsure about the meaning of the agreement.

> You can't impose extra conditions on the buyer after the sale.

Yes, but B2B sales come on all kinds of shapes. On some cases there is clear not an agreement on the EULA terms, but I'm not sure that is a universal rule.

Meanwhile in the USA, we prioritize corporate profits over consumers. "Caveat emptor" is the motto. It's your own fault for not doing research!

I find this questionable. You buy the hardware, then get 'the software' for 'free' after the fact. I imagine crypto miners would throw a fit after nVidia made it harder to mine some coins, but none of them ever did? With the amount of money they earn I'd imagine they would.

From https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2021/05/18/lhr/

Because these GPUs originally launched with a full hash rate, we want to ensure that customers know exactly what they’re getting when they buy GeForce products. To help with this, our GeForce partners are labeling the GeForce RTX 3080, RTX 3070 and RTX 3060 Ti cards with a “Lite Hash Rate,” or “LHR,” identifier. The identifier will be in retail product listings and on the box.

This reduced hash rate only applies to newly manufactured cards with the LHR identifier and not to cards already purchased.

Weren't some old (1xxx and 2xxx series) cards also reduced and promptly 'hacked' a few days later?

The rule is the same in the USA. Which in practice doesn't matter much.

I vaguely remember computer magazines in the early 2000s talking about that: some lawyers suggested that EULAs were of questionable enforcability because they were negotiated solely by one party with legal resources and signed by one party without. The general status quo seems to have been "make threats and settle out of court" ever since, avoiding any sort of legal precedent being set.

I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps I'm unaware of a high profile case where such a thing happened, but as far as I'm aware EULAs are very similar to the state of DMCA takedowns: widely used as a cudgel against the little guy, since most people don't have the resources to fight it out in court, and in the rare cases of resistance they go for an out of court settlement.

I'm not from the USA, but why hasn't someone actively gone through the law system to take EULAs to their final consequences (hopefully being dismissed by a court as one for a). I understand that companies would try to settle out of court, but why hasn't someone setup a company that doesnt settle just for the sake of establishing precedent?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com