Re: Adobe Reader 8.1.2

[Tom Liotta <qsrvbas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

steelville wrote:

> But it's hard for me to see how that catch-all sight-unseen phrasing 
> could be enforceable, at least legitimately. (Meaning nowadays who knows 
> what a judge is going to do?)

It's hard for me to see it, too.

But then again...

Watch any block of TV commercials with the sound turned off. Look 
only for any little 'small-print' blurbs that appear at various 
places on the screen during a commercial. Count how many commercials 
do NOT have them.

Watching commercials normally, the blurbs are mostly invisible to 
your consciousness. Even with no sound, they're sometimes hard to 
catch due to the presentation design of the whole image.

Yet, I suspect that the commercial producers are keenly aware of how 
to "CYA" through such invisible blurbs. I also suspect that the 
blurbs wouldn't be there at all if there wasn't a perceived (by 
them) economic benefit (for them).

I have extrapolated on my own to how EULAs can include catch-all 
sight-unseen phrasing and how it relates to enforceability. Lawyers 
are regularly involved in approving the EULA terms. I figure that 
they think it's effective, so I better follow their lead.

Again, pure personal preference and IANAL and IMO and YMMV and 
whatever other disclaimer might apply.

Tom Liotta

> > I just got pushed over the edge when Product A's license says that it 
> > "includes Product B (and possibly others) and the acceptance of this 
> > license implies the acceptance of Product B's license (and possibly 
> > others)". There's something about the implied nesting of licenses that 
> > goes against my grain.
> >
> > That gets serious when it gets hard to determine what the "(possibly 
> > others)" covers. If you can't figure out what all is included, it's 
> > very hard to determine what license terms have just been agreed to. 
> > Some of the early spyware stuff got installed under related licensing 
> > terms. It's probably all figured out in legal terms by now.... maybe.