[eitland]

> Existing contract law is perfectly capable of handling two adults agreeing to a mutually beneficial set of restrictions.

I think you'll find that most people - and a number of leading law experts - don't consider click through EULAs for valid binding contracts and clicking next is not the same as signing.

You'll also find that many (most? I stopped reading EULAs years ago) contains something about "the following might not be applicable in your jurisdiction".

Besides, just think of it: can a click on a button, placed in a way that makes it easy to click through for someone who accepts the defaults, can such a click really be considered a meeting of minds?

And do we really think people can be expected to read a number of pages of dense legalese? I remember one EULA filling 13 A4 pages with text in a small font after I gave up and printed it two decades ago when I was young and still believed they were valid.

Besides: Expecting non lawyers to read and understand legalese is as crazy as expecting non programmers to read basic Java or Python: within reach for many after basic self study, but still not something I'd bet much money on random people being able to do on the fly.

[sangnoir]

> I think you'll find that most people - and a number of leading law experts - don't consider click through EULAs for valid binding contracts and clicking next is not the same as signing.

If you feel like you're potentially a target of a lawsuit, the only opinion that should matter to you are your lawyer's and the the court's. Some EULA restrictions are not enforceable, but some definitely are. No US court has ruled on whether EULAs are binding, or not - so there is no precedence.