Talk:ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg

What happened?

Umm. soo.. What happened? I don't get it. The article is rather unclear and confusing. SeriousWorm (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently he forgot to argue that they tried to force him to agree to this contract after he paid for the product, and that a refund would not be issued should he refuse to pay. If he had mentioned this fact, even if only briefly, in court, he would have won. Once someone pays for the product, you can't make them sign a contract before they can use it. That's extortion ("if you don't agree to our terms, we'll steal your legally-owned property"). If a EULA is to be valid, it needs to be agreed to before payment is rendered. It is not legally binding if it's agreed to after payment is rendered. I don't care if every court in the world says I'm wrong. If they do, they're not reading the laws they're paid to enforce.76.29.225.28 (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Except the article clearly states "The court stated that Zeidenberg could have rejected the terms of the contract and returned the software." meaning could have gotten a refund if he didn't agree with the EULA, which is enough for it to be valid. The court was well aware he had agreed to the contract after paying for the product. SevenSapiens ^talk 18:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)