Talk:ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Stub‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What happened?[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]