We've certainly seen some pretty bad terms in our discussions of software license agreements here. Sometimes, though, it's not so much a matter of how bad the EULA's terms are as it is how badly the software company wants to use those terms to force more money out of its customers. That's what one reader discovered in his dealings with a software company called Mixzon.
"Here is a prime example of a bad EULA," the reader wrote, pointing to the posted license agreement for Mixzon's Cormix outfall modeling software. "We purchased a license of this product in January 2004, paying about $1,300 including one year of technical support. The machine that we put it on had been replaced since the user had last needed the product. We still have the software, but when we called them to provide a new activation code, they refused."
Mixzon support acknowledged to the reader's staff that their records show the 2004 license purchase for the same user who wants to use it now, but Mixzon insisted they would not re-activate the software because it's no longer the most current version. "We own version 4.2 but their latest version is 4.3," the reader wrote. "Basically they refuse to service any changes to the underlying hardware or software. Once it's on a machine, you cannot move it anywhere. They state they are well within the rights of their EULA based on provisions 5-I and 5-J."
Interestingly, those two provisions are the only two in the Mixzon EULA that are in bold type, perhaps indicating that Mixzon cites them a lot. The two provisions read:
"I. MixZon, has no obligation under this agreement to support the following: Non-current versions of the Product, Software problems created by customer negligence, software problems resulting from hardware update/upgrade/malfunction, software problems resulting from operating system update/upgrades/re-installations, software installed or used on a computer system not authorized under this agreement."
"J. MixZon is not required to supply new unlock keys to Licensee due to hardware/software changes/updates/upgrades/failure or operating system updates/upgrades/failures. In such cases, MixZon may require the Licensee to obtain a Software Maintenance Agreement or new licensing terms for new software unlock keys."
The reader's company would have been willing to pay for renewal of its technical support agreement if that would entitled them to re-activate the software, but Mixzon insisted it would only support the latest version of its software. "If we got another support contract, we would still not get support the non-current product," the reader wrote. "Their suggestion is we purchase a current version of the software at $6,500 including a support contract to cover installation and activations after 30 days. Then they can provide an activation code."
Now, certainly it's true that the language of Mixzon's EULA says it can do this. It makes you wonder, though. If a software company's EULA were to say that "we have the right to hold a gun to your head and take your money whenever we want," would that actually give them the right to do so? As this reader learned, the only thing more unfair than a bad EULA is a bad EULA in the hands of a company that only cares about extracting more money from its customers.
Read and post comments about this story here.
8:46:47 AM 
|
|
