On Wednesday 05 December 2001 09:46 am, Brian Densmore wrote:
> Yes,
>   The California Federal District court (next stop US Supreme),
> recently ruled exactly this in the "other" DMCA case.
> Basically they said 'It's a sale stupid.'

That makes the most sense. I've always looked at any EULA as silly and not 
worth the screen real estate it's displayed on (or the paper it's printed on, 
if it's also included in a manual or other peice of paper in the box). I 
never did understand how someone could be bound by terms they only find out 
after the started installing the software they bought.  It's pretty much 
common sense in the business world that you can't hide part of the contract 
from the client until after the sale is final. That would be like buying a 
car, and as you're ready to drive it off the lot the salesperson says to you 
"You can do anything you want with the car you just paid $30,000 for except 
drive it."

Rich