Sign away your life -- Downloading PREVX

[o0--0o]

1.
Yes ... this title is a provocation.

2.
I don't know PREVX so far and I am excited to test it.

3.
I would like to mention the following issue:

If you want to download PREVX you enter into an agreement by stating: "I have read and accept PREVX's Terms and Conditions".

See here for the Terms and Conditions: https://www.prevx.com/terms.htm

According to section 12 of the Terms and Conditions you may never be able to link to PREVX's site again. Never ever: "You agree to immediately remove any link to the Site at any time upon PREVX's request." and "You may not link to an internal or subsidiary page of the Site located one or several levels down from the Site's home page".

Most probably, the above Terms and Conditions are null and void due to the fact that they come as a surprise and unfairly restrict your right to set links to whereever you like. (Under the laws of most jurisdictions links to a website's front page and also deep links are permissible.) However, I am unable to rule out that this agreement may indeed be legally binding and, therefore, your legal rights may have been restricted if you have already downloaded PREVX.

4.
After reading the above you will probably think. Gee ... what kind of idiot is posting here. Does s/he want to bash PREVX? If not: is this the most boring thread I ever read? Who cares for terms and conditions?

5.
Well ... I do and I do not intend to bash PREVX's software (before testing it). However, I would like to call your attention to the problem that more and more software developers adopt lengthy and unfair software agreements and try to force you to enter into such agreements. This does not only relate to PREVX. PREVX is just an example.

6.
I do not think that we should stay silent if we encounter such a situation. We should not be satisified if a software developer creates brilliant software for us but at the same time disrespects us by forcing us to enter into an unbalanced, unfair agreement. A software developer should tell its lawyers to not draft any provisions which are clearly inappropriate.

It seems to me that the only effective thing we can do in order to stop this unfair practice is to raise our voice (semi-anonymously or not) and make this issue public.

7.
Now I will download and test PREVX. Perhaps it's a great software.

[Hyperion]

-{ Quote: "I would like to call your attention to the problem that more and more software developers adopt lengthy and unfair software agreements and try to force you to enter into such agreements." }-

You 're right about that.In fact i tried to read all terms ,but it was late night and the text was toooooo long to bare so i skipped it.

Oh well,i can even live without linking to their site.lol.All i care is to visit their site maybe and that is something no terms and services can can prohibit me to do.

[spiff5000]

Umm... if you actually read section 12, it refers to posting a hyperlink to Prevx from your homepage (assuming you host a web site). This is perfectly reasonable as they don't want dead links floating in cyberspace; nor links to their "beta" software after it's retired.

[tazdevl]

You read EULAs? I think about less than 1% of all users for MS' products have read theirs. Most people just see it as a matter of process rather than a binding contract.

If the information in the EULA does contain something that is not in the best interest of users, it can be contested because no reasonable person is going to read the EULA for every software product and most EULAs are not written in a manner that a reasonable person can understand.

[o0--0o]

@spiff

a)
I believe that your statement is not correct. Subsection 12.2 is an additional provision which does not necessarily relate to 12.1.

12.1 covers links from any website you may have and is more or less o.k..

12.2 does the same but also covers any other links (e.g., links posted in this forum).

12.4 does not merely refer to links posted under 12.1. Like 12.2 it is a separate provision to which you agree. The broad language of the Terms and Conditions is nasty.

b)
I also disagree that section 12 may be justified due to the fact that "dead links floating in cyberspace" must be prevented.

[optigrab]

-{ Quote: "You read EULAs? I think about less than 1% of all users for MS' products have read theirs. Most people just see it as a matter of process rather than a binding contract.

If the information in the EULA does contain something that is not in the best interest of users, it can be contested because no reasonable person is going to read the EULA for every software product and most EULAs are not written in a manner that a reasonable person can understand." }-Taz,

Is there in fact a legal precedent for this viewpoint? I think what you wrote sounds reasonable, but that does not necessarily mean any court would agree.

Until I am comforted to know that I can safely ignore EULAs if they are unduly complex, I remain concerned and agree with the first poster with the unpronouncible name.

-O

[Ailric]

I think the point is they don't want people placing direct links to the program. Sounds fair to me.

[Notok]

Doesn't sound unreasonable to me either.

While I agree that most EULAs should be formatted to be much clearer, companies do have to cover their butts, too. Otherwise you'd get people downloading it just to break their system so they could sue the company. They just need to make better regulations, or set better standards, for making the important info more clear without the aid of a lawyer.

While I don't read the entire EULA of most programs, I do at least check sections regarding privacy and skim the rest. You pretty much have to these days.

[WilliamP]

I agree whole heartedly with keep it simple. But after just getting home from having 3 stents put in and having to go back for another I'm not going to worry about what is in a reputable companies EULA.

[Infinity]

I do not understand this whole discussion. While I can understand we have to be very carefull what we download and to what we agree with using.

I wrote an email bout this discussion to wether it is OK to post a link in a website because I did in another forum and again in 30 minutes I received an answer.
It is OK to post a link, they were pleased that I informed them about it and this is just something they have to do (regarding the links and eula).
it is just a matter of principle. some have other principles and some don't.

aren't we making an elephant of a little thing here??
it is a great app with great support, they wouldn't let this product fail by this eula??? this is a thrusthworthy company. I wished they were all this consumer friendly.

bye

[tazdevl]

-{ Quote: "Taz,

Is there in fact a legal precedent for this viewpoint? I think what you wrote sounds reasonable, but that does not necessarily mean any court would agree.

Until I am comforted to know that I can safely ignore EULAs if they are unduly complex, I remain concerned and agree with the first poster with the unpronouncible name.

-O" }-

There is precedent... it's based on what a reasonable individual would understand. Another example is credit card companies having to go back and rewrite their terms of agreement a couple years ago because there was so much legal jargon in it no reasonable person could understand it.

William were those by chance Neuroform stents? ;D

[WilliamP]

They were Taxus Express Paclitaxel-Eluting stents.

[tazdevl]

-{ Quote: "They were Taxus Express Paclitaxel-Eluting stents." }-


Good stuff. I'm working as a consultant with their Neurovascular group, coils and stents.

[WilliamP]

Glad to know that. Didn't think I would ever need any.