Kinda upset at the lack of response to GBe issues

[pfeerick]

I do this with my software all the time.  I write it; and I hope that you use it, and even find it useful. But don't come back to me with any complaints, or law suits, or whining, nor anything else--- because my fine print in the header of all of my software says, this is not guaranteed to be useful for anything (the language is rich, and full and it takes three paragraphs to say it, but it all boils down to "use my stuff at YOUR OWN RISK ENTIRELY"

Yes, that is true. HOWEVER, in the case of software, there is a clear place to sign your agreement to the contract which you are entering into (which is what a EULA actually is - a contract that you agree to be bound to). In the case of software, you digitally affirm the contract by pressing the 'I Accept/Agree/' option. Nowhere on the packaging of the pine64 does it indicate that breaking of the seal signifies acceptance of any term. And in contracts cases where the terms and conditions have not been clearly brought to the attention of the intended signee, the majority fail, as insufficient notification of the terms of a the contract is deemed equate to the contact being null and void. 

If you read the back of the box very carefully you will note that it actually does in fact say what I'm telling you--- " ... does not warrant that the products are error free or will function without interruption".  That sentence right there says, (in so many words) "We do not warrant that GbE will work accurately (without error), nor that it work without interruption"

Partly treated with above, but I will again reiterate that consumer legislation can and does render this statement void. I'm not versed in US law (and more specifically, California's), but I find it hard to believe that you have no consumer protections in place to prevent all warranty conditions from being stripped. And we have not been talking about 100% reliability, we have been talking about ANY usability - which is completely different! Additionally, that warranty is incomplete to say the least - it has reference to terms that are not present, such as the time period that the warranty period is valid for - as it is specifically mentioned, but not defined. Uncertainly such as this also breaks contracts, as any ambiguity leads to the parties not being of a like mind in all things (ad idem). For example, the very first line reads "Except for the extent set forth above in this limited warranty"... um... this is the top line? So whilst the sets out, clearly omitted is what IS covered! And saying that the word was meant to be below also makes no sense, as again, if you're talking about what isn't covered, then what IS?

The EULA is very specific, and yes, it will fly in court... in the United States. (it is standard language and it flies all the time, in the United States).  And here's the deal... like it or not... you're supposed to read that agreement before you open the seal on the box.  The truth is that most people are so excited to open the box, they don't even know there is an agreement under there !   I've tested this many times now... I have not found even ONE person yet, that new the EULA was on the bottom of the box... true story.  If you knew, you are the exception.

lol... I'm unlikely to be the exception... the box was upside down when I opened it... but there is a difference between knowing it's there, remembering it's there, and understanding what it means. And language like that usually flies only because people don't have to resources to fight it in court. Not because it is right/legally valid. 

However, you are still missing the point entirely. I was pointing out that a company that tried to rely on legalise like this, even if they managed to make an argument that is was legally binding, would become a very broke company indeed, as they would be boycotted by the community as a company that just takes your money and runs. Unsurprisingly, they haven't been relying on this, and when you report it to be faulty in some major manor, a replacement has been sent out. 

Now, can we get back to the matter at hand, as this really isn't what this thread is about. If you really believe that this so-called EULA is worth anything more than the cardboard it is printed on, I'm happy to argue the point further, and throw several hundred pages of case law at you in another thread devoted just to that.