Moderator,

I would beg you to have a care here - the specific thrust of the article in question is "self-help" - and how Vista's EULA runs roughshod over this concept.

It is my own considered opinion that this kind of "DRM" "Activation" or whatever is absolutely germaine to the thread.

If one is going to talk about Vista's EULA, then it is likewise perfectly legitimate to discuss Symantec's EULA, McAfee's EULA, even the XP activation process - these are all merely different facets on the same crystal.

Quite frankly this both annoys me and (IMHO) raises potentially serious Constitutional concerns regarding "due process" and "taking of property" without just compensation. And, I am sure that courts would agree that unilaterally deciding that your "property" (the computer hardware) can be specifically and essentially totally disabled by bricking the software - is a classic example of "improper taking". This is further compounded by the fact that the majority of computer users are NOT savvy enough to simply change operating systems at the drop of a hat. (ref: U.S. et.al. vs Microsoft - findings of fact, U.S. et.al. vs Microsoft - conclusions of law - where in both documents the court finds that "the average computer user is not savvy enough to 'simply change operating systems' "

Jim
.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/423/34842#34842