Licence question about Indemnification

[Georg Wrede]

Kagamin wrote:
> BTW, how do you understand Microsoft EULA?
> 
> "you will indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft from and 
> against any claims or lawsuits, including attorneys’ and experts’ 
> fees, that arise or result from the use or distribution of your 
> Application"

That's clear enough. You write an app, your customer uses it for a
while, and then it formats everybody's hard disk /because/ of an error
in the Microsoft file handling library. They sue you for damages, and of
course you'd have to sue somebody else to save your damn /life/. But,
sorry, you've "promised" not to sue M$. And you've promised to be M$'s
witness, not the customer's.


Does anybody know if there are court cases where stating things in the
EULA have been honored?

I mean, it's not a written agreement, and I don't know if the user of
some software (or, here also, development tool) can be demanded to read,
understand, and explicitly decide to agree -- by merely using such a
product?

Or, while I know some istalling programs make you check a box stating 
you agree, but say you buy a PC with the OS already installed, and then
start programming, say, using this PowerShell thingy, and the crap hits
the fan -- because of some Microsoft blunder (like I haven't been there
quite a few times already, but in Finland we can't sue around just
frivolously). You,ve then never seen this EULA, and I wonder if you can
be expected to, either.

Of course "you should have understood, it's public knowledge", yeah. But 
then cars have this text in the rear view mirror stating things may be 
closer, or whatever. Geez, like /that/ wouldn't be common knowledge. 
(People that stupid shouldn't even get a driver's licence, IMNSHO.)