Many of those provisions are unenforceable in the USA as well (it varies by state). But there's no rule that says that boilerplate contracts can't contain intimidating-but-ineffectual language simply to discourage people.
Re:A Silly Anti-Disassembly Trick
by matheusmoreira on Saturday April 24, 2021 @09:42PM
(#26929654)
> Many of those provisions are unenforceable in the USA as well (it varies by state).
Good to know. I've been told otherwise... Wonder if this is documented somewhere.
> But there's no rule that says that boilerplate contracts can't contain intimidating-but-ineffectual language simply to discourage people.
Yeah, it sucks. Most customers aren't really familiar with law and yet they're forced to resolve these ambiguities. There's also the fact legal proceedings are extremely disruptive and costly for the average person but are routine for large companies. So even if they're unenforceable in court they can still force compliance by threatening to take people to court in the first place.
It's essentially bullying in my opinion.
Re:A Silly Anti-Disassembly Trick
by TheGeminon on Saturday April 24, 2021 @11:53PM
(#26930238)
A big part is (AFAIK) many of these contract clauses have never been fully tested in court, so companies leave them (why not, they are potentially effective, and not definitely illegal), and consumers don't want to be the trial case.
The reverse engineering prohibitions became standard contract boilerplate because apparently in the USA corporations can require people to "voluntarily" relinquish their rights in order to do business with them. They require all customers to agree not to exercise any rights that could lead to economic disadvantage for them. In any sane country, I'd expect such conditions to be considered abusive by courts.