Right, but approximately 0 people are going to buy a new computer just to get Windows 11.
That is: If I've got to have 11, I'll buy a new computer to get it, but my goal isn't a new computer, it's Windows 11. Selling a new computer vs selling me Windows 11 for an old computer doesn't put a lot of extra money in Microsoft's pocket, so why do they care?
But if they did it the other way, they'd get all the people who buy new machines, and they'd be able to sell upgrades to people who wanted 11, but didn't want it bad enough to buy a new machine.
>Right, but approximately 0 people are going to buy a new computer just to get Windows 11.
No, but people who need a new PC won't be able to get one with any Windows other than W11, and if the Legacy BIOS CSM option is removed from UEFI motherboards then those who need Windows 7 will no longer be able to run it on the bare metal.
So there will be reduced possibility of mass awareness among busineses where speed is an issue, about how much faster W7 is compared to W11 on the exact same hardware.
The hardware is definitely getting faster and Windows is getting slower.
As Windows performance slows down for W11, a lot of businesses still are licensed to use W7 if they wanted to switch back, it's a viable option for the majority of PC's that don't need to be on the internet, and of course it's a breeze to dual-boot to W10 when you need the web right now.
When W7 was finally very mature & reliable I see the purpose of rushing to W8, w10, & W11 as simply the same anti-competitive forced hardware obsolescence as if there was a competitive offering from a different company which couldn't keep up.
But Linux is not a threatening competitor yet, plus it's open source and already infiltrated by Microsoft.
Tne only real competition is W7.
As we have seen W11 can actually function ideally on a BIOS mainboard. Plus some UEFI boards do not fail to support Microsoft SecureBoot even when the Legacy CSM is enabled.
Whoever would ultimately benefit from running older Windows on a brand new PC, that possibility is targeted for extinction with the continued movement in this direction.
Not sure how this constitutes fraud? Since when can't you alter the terms of a contract? It's not his fault they didn't read it. They sure hold other people accountable when they don't read theirs.
In common law systems (including the UK and US) a contract is a "meeting of minds" (that is, you and I both agree on the terms). The writing merely makes clear what has been agreed, but if one side has been tricked then its still fraud. So if a salesman says "never mind the fine print, it just says you can cancel the contract at any time" when in fact the fine print locks you in to paying silly amounts for the next 5 years, then that is deception and hence fraud.
In this case its reasonable to suggest that by submitting his altered contract without drawing the banks attention (e.g. by putting at the front "here are my proposed terms") then not only does the bank not have to abide by them, but he was guilty of deception by trying to trick the bank into signing up to them.
Normally these rules are used to protect consumers from fine print proffered by suppliers. For instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfoto_Picture_Library_Ltd_... established that unusual or onerous terms cannot be hidden in a page of fine print and still be enforceable. But the rules apply the other way around too.
Perhaps what was sent was two things: a form with various parameters (name, birth date, amount of credit, etc), and the contract.
The bank then only noticed the changes in the form (since they have to input it to their systems anyway), and didn't notice the changes to the contract (since it's a contract of adhesion, and thus not supposed to be modified).
Good points. Sucks that there aren't more facts available.
Contract of adhesion: Wow very interesting point. If Tinkov's offer is construed as a unilateral offer, acceptance was only possible by performance (signing and returning the offer).
You answered your own question. EULAs are often not strictly enforceable in many countries. Hence the "to the fullest extent permissible by law" phrase that keeps popping up in them.
Not to nitpick, but I remember an interesting case where the EULA was only available after opening the software... which made it ineligible for return at the retailer.
So? I purchased my kitchen appliances from a retailer, but went to the manufacturer's warranty when I needed repairs, even though the retailer has my money.
You made an agreement with the retailer- software sales are final. You make the EULA with the publisher/manufacturer/etc- you seek compensation with them.
It's really hard to return software, especially after it's been opened, as the retailer, who don't have anything to do with the EULA, are (rightfully) protecting themselves against people who install/copy the software then return the physical media for a refund.
For software acquired from a retailer. Microsoft provides limited support
services for properly licensed software as described at (aka.ms/mssupport).
If you purchased the software from a retailer and are seeking a refund, and
you cannot obtain one where you acquired the software, contact Microsoft for
information about Microsoft’s refund policies. See (aka.ms/msoffices), or in
North America, call (800) MICROSOFT or see (aka.ms/nareturns).
I don't want to! I simply want my transaction to be governed by same laws as with physical goods. Where they don't tell me what to do with my purchase.
> A few years ago (>|decade?) music sales and video games were final at my local BB because they assumed you just burned yourself a copy.
Most places I've shopped just say something to the effect of no returns on opened merchandise. No mention of why. I assume you're assuming what they're assuming.
I don't like returning, generally, unless the product really didn't meat expectations. However, I've never had a problem returning opened hard merchandise.
> Would a big retailer (Best buy, say) accept the return of software whose seal has been broken.
Probably not. However, if you read a EULA, you will notice most of them have a clause to the effect of "if you disagree with this EULA, you can return the software" and AFAIK its usually with the company with whom the EULA is and not with the retailer (eg if you buy Microsoft software, the EULA (and therefore the return if you disagree with the EULA) is with Microsoft and not Best Buy).
If you modify a form letter before sending it back without notifying the other party of the changes, I'd say it's reasonable that the contract is either invalid or should be treated as unmodified.
I don't know, having been through a number of B2B contract negotiations (in Australia). It is not at all surprising for one party to make changes without highlighting. I've even seen track changes on a word document disabled, changes made, and then reenabled so as to intentionally hide word changes.
You only have to notify people of a change, if it's already signed (and generally that's because your contract will have some form of amendment system that involves notification).
>It is not at all surprising for one party to make changes without highlighting. I've even seen track changes on a word document disabled, changes made, and then reenabled so as to intentionally hide word changes.
I'm sure it happens. This says nothing about whether these actions would hold up in court, though.
either Australia is either much more permissive about that or your negotiations got really nasty.
I've been through many B2B negotiations, many of them reaching awful levels of yelling, but the lawyers always red-lined their changes as they undid other side's changes dozens of times.
Whether or not there is redlining, when you go back and forth in a negotiation, it’s clear that there might be changes, and you would check for changes and perhaps do a complete review at the end of negotiations, before signing. It’s somewhat different if the initial contract offer is a preprinted form contract and it is returned apparently signed.
Akamai has done this to me; with their salesmen making material changes to terms and conditions without redlining (and without any related discussion), despite redlining other changes in the doc.
Akamai's abuse on this front is the reason that we stopped trusting 'track changes' and started doing full-text diffs.
IMHO there's a difference between two parties negotiating from a clean slate, adding and removing things back and forth, and someone sending out a "take or leave it" contract form with clearly no intention on modifying the terms.
Rarely do two parties negotiate from a clean slate, in fact the beginning of most contract negotiations I've seen is who's slate should we start with, mine or yours.
That's precisely the sort of thing we have courts, and vast quantities of precedent, to decide.
Don't make the classic programmer's mistake of expecting everything in the law to need to be as well defined as things are in mathematics. Judges will quite happily decide what a term means on the fly, consistent with precedent and reasonableness, to stop you getting away with anything completely ridiculous.
Exactly. I think programmers assume that law is a simple application of rules to facts, and that a computer could do it better/faster/cheaper than humans.
But in fact there is so much subtlety and nuance to it that I don't understand how computers could ever do it. I mean, you're trying to persuade a human being that your version of the facts is more compelling than your opponents. Last time I checked computers were not very persuasive orators or writers....
The usual process is to conspicuously red-line a contract, so your changes are clearly visible (traditionally, highlighted in red ink), along with a notification up front that you're sending back a revised contract.
From the article it's not entirely clear to me what form his modifications took:
> [He] scanned it into his computer, altered the terms and sent it back to Tinkoff Credit Systems.
By this do they mean he did something like "photoshop" the scanned contract, producing a result that looks as similar as possible to the original, but with some parts digitally modified? That would be a bit more misleading, if so.
My guess is that he wanted substantially similar terms, except for a few modifications. It's far easier to modify the existing contract than to write up an entire new one in that case. The other party still has the right of refusal. If they still do not wish to sign the contract after reading it, that is a choice available to them. If they choose to sign the contract without reading it...well...many people are bad at contracts...not the least of whom, are often banks.
Obviously, none of us know what specific language he used in talking to the bank, and IANAL, but if the bank said something along the lines of "here's the contract we'd like you to sign", and he replied along the lines of "here's the contract I've signed that I'd like you to sign", it would be acting in bad faith to not tell the bank you've changed the contract.
They did not receive notification under the hypothetical scenario I described (the hypothetical scenario where he doesn't tell the bank that he changed the contract).
I don't know of any banks that process CC contracts by email.
My guess is that he filled out the application forms, set the terms of the contract how he desired them, left a note on top of it all to the effect of, "BTW, I changed the terms, lol. You should probably read them.", stuffed it in an envelope and mailed it to the bank. A bank clerk probably received the envelope, looked to make sure the application form was filled out and the contract signed, then marked in the bank's database that the requisite documents had been received.
Consider an extreme case. Micro printing terms that unless you use a magnify look like a horizontal line between sections. If those terms are onerous and benefit only the side that added them, It's arguable (pretty easily IMO) that the side added them did so with intention and belief the other side would not notice them and sign contract whose terms they were not fully aware of. Fraud.
Less extreme is reprinting contract to look as close as possible to the original but with added extremely one sided terms. It's debatable how much that side intended for those new terms to be overlooked.
Life is a spectrum. That is why we have courts to argue where on that spectrum a particular example lies.
Contracts aren't deals with the devil. They are never meant to support "haha I tricked you now you are fucked" deals. They are legal support for an agreement between two cognizant and willing participants. Further more, at least in US, unsophisticated parties are protected from contracting away certain rights and from contracts which are wholly one-sided.
>> "...with intention and belief the other side would not notice them and sign contract whose terms they were not fully aware of."
This is a complete and accurate description of every contract I've ever been asked to sign. My apartment lease, my phone bill, etc were all written such that in practice I have no choice but to sign them blindly.
"All written such that in practice I have no choice but to sign them blindly"
I'm guilty of just clicking through in the general case but I've always read apartment leases. My wife's first apartment she just signed without reading and then when we went to move in together discovered there was no clause in the contract for early termination (apart from the required stuff for Reservists who are called up). The office's stance was quite literally: "sure, you can get out of your lease early - by paying us all the remaining rent or putting your name on this subleasing waitlist and waiting for someone to take your spot."
At the very least, find that part of the leasing contract and read it.
In Germany, for instance, if you fail to advertise important clauses correctly, the contract may void. This is often applied in cases like "download sites" which allow you to download Firefox and likes for free - but in the contract you sign up for some kind of subscription for 4.99 Euros a month.
Edit: abonnement -> subscription, thanks to @taejo.
