Originally Posted by
PTravel
As I've explained several times, here in California (and in most other jurisdictions) there is a warranty of merchantability and a couple of other implied warranties. The EULA, itself, is a license to use the software. By de-activating the software without reason, Microsoft has breached that license. By demanding personal information to un-de-activate the software, Microsoft has breached that license.
If I did sue, it would either be in small claims court for fraud (for which punitive damages are available), or as a class action suit.
Well, of course I want to rant. That's why I wrote the OP and put it between \rant and \rant-off. You're kidding, right?
Not trying to be argumentative, but this has truly piqued my curiosity. I am especially interested in your line of thinking in the matter since you are an attorney.
I'd agree on 1 out of three of your points (the one demanding personal info to reactivate) but the EULA explcitly states there is a possibility of a reactivation requirement after hardware changes. How do you see any fraud in any of this? Some sort of MSFT conspiracy to boost sales through deactivation? ... do you really think that is sellable?
The comments I made about ranting were an attempt to soften the post so I wouldnt appear confrontational ... you know .... I didnt want to appear to be being an ... ...
