By Scott Dunn You all know the story of how adult pop-ups almost sent a substitute teacher to jail for 40 years. In a follow-up to his original Feb. 22 story, our contributing editor Ryan Russell reports on a possible reprieve.

New trial ordered for Julie Amero

Russell givesus this update on Connecticut teaching assistant Julie Amero, who was convicted in January of four counts of "risk of injury to a minor" because adult material kept popping up on a computer in her classroom:

• "I am extremely pleased to be able to bring you good news. After several sentencing delays, on June 6 Judge Strackbein granted Julie a new trial. As quoted by Greg Smith in his article for the Norwich Bulletin, the judge said, ‘The jury may have relied, at least in part, on that false information,’ referring to the evidence presented by the prosecution’s expert. In short, as I had said in my original article, the prosecution had bad evidence. Smith’s article has a PDF of the motion, if you would like to read the whole thing.
  
  

  Insider tips, how-tos, best security practices, and more

  Subscribe to Windows Secrets — free!

  The Windows Secrets Newsletter brings you essential tricks for running Windows XP, Vista, 7, Internet Explorer, Firefox, Windows Update, and more — weekly, free.

  

  Bonus: get this free download when you subscribe
  Interested in Windows 8 but don't know where to start? You have a friendly guide in My Windows 8 Consumer Preview: A Sneak Peek at the Windows 8 Public Beta, by Katherine Murray. This month, all subscribers can download Chapter 1 and Chapter 5. In this excerpt you will learn about the new look of Windows 8, how to make things happen in it, how to use the apps that come with it, and how to get more apps.

  We guarantee your privacy: We will never sell, rent, or give away your address to any outside party, ever. We will never send you any unrequested e-mail. Unsubscribe requests are honored within one business day. Privacy Policy

  
  
  "She’s not out of the woods yet. A new trial could go the wrong way as well. However, Rick Green, writing for the Hartford Courant, speculates that she may not be tried again. He writes, ‘Today, [prosecutor] Smith said state would take no position on [defense attorney] Dow’s motion for a new trial, making it unlikely she will be tried again.’ I hope that will be the outcome.
  
  "I have had some limited contact with Julie’s family, and when I asked specifically, I was told that they are still accepting donations for her defense fund. You can find the link to donate on the Julie Amero blog.
  

Windows Secrets will continue to report on this story as it develops.

Many users never have a chance to see a EULA

Regarding my June 7 story on EULAs (end-user license agreements) and interview with expert Ed Foster, reader Chip Burkitt indicates that many software users never even get to read the EULA:

• "My experience is that most people installing software pay no attention to the EULA. It is merely an extra click on the way to installing the software. I don’t know much about legal challenges to the enforceability of EULAs, but I know that often the end user never even sees it.
  
  "For example, I work for a software and services company as a field services technician. One part of my job is to install our software on our clients’ systems. Do you think I pause the installation when I get to the EULA and invite the user to read through and agree to it before continuing? Of course not. I just do what most users do. I click ‘Agree’ and continue with the installation.
  
  "So precisely who has agreed to the EULA in this case? I represent the company whose software is being installed. So, the company agrees to its own EULA, and the client never sees it. I doubt very much that any provisions of a EULA agreed to under such circumstances would be legally enforceable."
  

It does seem odd that the user should be saddled with one-sided requirements simply because they, or someone they hire, clicks an "I Agree" radio button. Unfortunately, as Ed Foster has pointed out in his column, at least some courts these days are doing just that.

Reader Jay Garden points out another common problem with EULAs:

• "One aspect of some EULAs that I particularly hate is when you cannot print, copy, or otherwise access them later on (but of course the vendor can). You rarely get a chance to see the EULA until you have paid for the product and have it half-installed.
  
  "Maybe they should have to put the EULA on the outside of the box (or in clear sight on the e-shop Web page) in 100 words or less (and reasonable font size) for it to be legal? That way we could make an informed choice before we select and buy."
  

Jay isn’t the only reader to suggest the EULA appear outside the packaging. Reader Marat Bandemer makes the same suggestion, adding, "Who wants to pay $50 to $500 (or more) for software only to find that they disagree with the EULA, but now the box has been opened and they can’t return the software?"

Reader A.B. Di Cyan has a similar complaint:

• "Can we see a list of known good and known bad EULAs for programs people may be likely to download? I use the EULAlyzer too and I agree it is not enough, but the alternative is to spend all one’s time reading legalese.
  
  "For example, browsers: There are differences among the EULAs of IE, Netscape, Opera, and Firefox. I’m suspicious enough of Netscape’s not to download their browser. Are my suspicions justified? How about QuickTime or products from Adobe or Real Networks? What media players, weather programs, toolbars carry snakes in the grass? Experts know the answers, and we need to hear from them."
  

For now, your best bet for checking out EULAs before purchase remains a Web browser and a search engine. For example, many major software companies have EULAs available on their Web sites, including Netscape, Adobe, and others.

For another reader (who asked to remain anonymous), the article on EULAs brought to mind a legendary EULA from many years back. The following is an alleged excerpt from the HavenTree Software Company’s EasyFlow program, as found in a Word document on the Candadian Department of Justice Web site:

• "If EasyFlow doesn’t work: tough. If you lose millions because EasyFlow messes up, it’s you that’s out the millions, not us. If you don’t like this disclaimer: tough. We reserve the right to do the absolute minimum provided by the law, up to and including nothing. This is basically the same disclaimer that comes with all software packages, but ours is written in plain English and theirs is in legalese. We didn’t want to include any disclaimer at all, but our lawyers insisted."
  

This bit of candor is so memorable that someone enshrined the story in a Wikipedia entry.

ZoneAlarm’s ‘Vista Ready’ label is criticized

The newsletter’s WSN Security Baseline recognizes the ZoneAlarm Internet Security Suite as the security package currently holding the greatest number of editor’s choice awards, as described in our May 4 issue. More than one reader, however, was dismayed at the product’s misleading label. Here’s reader Jack Freeman’s experience:

• "I purchased ZA Internet Security Suite (retail) because it clearly stated ‘Vista Ready’ on the packaging. Yet when I tried to install it, I got an error message that the product is not supported by the OS. When I tried to take it back, the retail store refused to refund the price but did state that the phrase on the package meant it would install on Vista OS.
  
  "I then tried ZA support. All I got there was a referral to customer service, who stated they would ‘consider’ a refund only if I returned all packaging with the product and sales receipt. If I do that, then I have no proof of the false advertising on the package. I had to go with another antivirus suite or use no antivirus at all, which left me no choice but to buy another suite."
  

Sorry to hear of your bad experience, Jack. If you are considering legal action, you may want to hang onto the box, receipts, and any other documentation you have. Otherwise, keeping a photocopy of these materials should be a sufficient backup when pursuing a refund.

Another reader, Lance Druger, had a similar experience. In his case, however, the ZA rep offered to extend his subscription free of charge for five months in deference to the delay in updating the product for Windows Vista.

When is a repair an upgrade?

In our last issue, we reported that users of OEM software don’t need to obtain a new license if they replace a defective computer component, but must do so if they upgrade their systems with newer parts. Reader Leisha Wharfield finds this disturbing:

• "Who would actually acquire a new Windows license just for a simple upgrade like more memory? We would go broke if we did that. I’m shocked by this requirement, even for system builders."
  

As it turns out, this is one of those areas in which Microsoft has given contradictory advice. Microsoft’s PDF document on the subject, called the Channel Discussion Guide, clearly includes "adding to the memory" as a change that requires a new license (see page 2). Yet a number of postings from the Microsoft OEM System Builder Licensing Team (compiled on the Michael Stevens Tech Web site) indicate that the only upgrade that requires a new software license is the replacement of the motherboard. Even a new hard drive does not require a new license, as long as the software is removed from the old hard drive before being installed on the new one, according to this source. So the answer apparently depends on which source you believe.

A stickier question comes from reader Mike, who points out that if a component fails after a few years, it may not be possible to get an identical replacement. And, the new replacement may be faster and possibly considered an upgrade or a "refurbishing." In that case, are you obligated to buy a new copy of your OEM software? Or can you consider it covered by the defect policy?

One could always attempt to contact the Microsoft legal department in these cases. But, I suspect most users just follow their own judgment on whether to keep or reinstall their OEM product.

Related posts:

1. EULA Robot
2. Software Reads EULAs (So You Don’t Have To)
3. More Fine Print Follies
4. Microsoft’s Controversial New EULA Terms
5. Fine Print Gotcha Results In $16,000 Bill