EULAs - time for change
EULAs have, for a long time, flown against all that's sane and sensible in a legal contract. Typical clauses:
* You may make one backup copy of the software [so presumably customers must abandon a Towers-of-Hanoi backup mechanism, and keep reusing one tape/disk? Ain't going to happen];
* Our liability to you under any circumstances is limited to the price you paid for the product [so even if you destroy our business through bugs in your software, I get £39.95 back?];
* You agree to indemnify us and hold us harmless against any or all claims of any nature arising out of use of the Software [eh? You cause massive financial damage, and _I_ have to pay to defend _you_ against it?];
...and the final glory:
* WE MAKE NO WARRANTIES, CONDITIONS, INDEMNITIES, REPRESENTATIONS OR TERMS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WHETHER BY STATUTE, COMMON LAW, CUSTOM, USAGE OR OTHERWISE AS TO ANY OTHER MATTERS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS, TITLE, INTEGRATION, ACCURACY, SECURITY, AVAILABILITY, SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE [in other words, if it's crap, a rip-off or illegal, tough titty].
Lawyers have been laughing it up at our expense for too long. If the tide is turning in the courts, and contract terms such as these start to be seen as injurious, unreasonable, unfair and unenforcible, then maybe - just maybe - big software firms might start to face up to a responsibility to create products that are fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality.