Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnFalcon
That's not what is being altered, however, as you'd know with a very little research. What is being altered is not the firmware of the Xbox, but the firmware of the optical drive in the Xbox, which dosn't affect the ability of the Xbox to use Live.
|
Ok. However the point about changing the product still stands. The Xbox 360 is sold as a complete product. It is not sold in parts requiring assembly upon purchase. You change the Xbox 360 and you may very well find you don't have a legal leg to stand on if it doesn't work as advertised.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DawnFalcon
Sophistry. It's directly altering critical phone functions, and it has to gain exceptions from the relevant laws on protecting DRM in various countries. It is considered in the consumer's interest to allow unlocking, which is why there are exceptions for it in some countries.
|
Yes it is allowed in some countries. It's also a requirement that the unlocking is done by an authorised and qualified person in order for you to have any legal recourse should the procedure be stuffed up.
In the case of hacking and modding the Xbox, if you could kindly point to any authorised and, more importantly,
qualified person able to hack and modify the Xbox that would be great.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DawnFalcon
Try reading the EULA in question. And no, the judge does not have to rule anything or the defendent do more that point out that the clause is one on the list. There mere existence puts the burden of proof on the company. Period. Don't try and pretend you know anything about the UK court system when you very obviously don't have a clue, and are simply trolling for the heck of it.
|
1: I think you meant claimant do more than point out that the clause is one on the list correct?
2: That being the case, who would you say has the burden of showing that the clause is in the EULA? The claimant perhaps? Or does the defendant actually have to come along and read the claimants mind and decide which clause they are referring to and point it out for them? Or perhaps the judge has to do it?
3: So assuming you agree the claimant is the one who has to point that a clause that is on the "automatically unfair clause" list is in the EULA, who would you say bears the burden of proof in showing that one such clause is in the EULA?
Quite obviously it is the claimant who bears this burden of proof regardless of what you think.
Then.......
(unfortunately for you the courts don't come knocking on your door at this point and simply ask you to make a ruling.)
MS will have the opportunity to respond to the claim. In law, a single word can make a difference. The order of the words. The "any reasonable man" test can be applied. There are all sorts of things that need to be considered.
So.........
MS will undoubtedly make some sort of argument as to why the clause in question isn't really an "automatically unfair" clause.(however bogus and transparent that argument is)
Then........can you guess what happens now?
That's right........the judge makes a ruling!!! Wow, amazing how law works isn't it? In order to make a ruling the judge must first make a decision based on the arguments in front of him!
So you are clearly wrong about who bears the burden of proof.
You are clearly wrong in claiming there is nothing the judge has to decide.
Cheers,
PKFFW