(Still cannot find 'sell' in any EULA so far)
Once again, I do apologise for mentioning tin hats, & it's Tea time for me.
[h=3][/h]
You have my apology also sir...and thank you. I'll extend my apology to admin whom, by now, are accustomed to my occasional eruptions and continue to tolerate my presence on this forum.
Nick and Paul, this rather innocuous thread has evolved into an investigation into the minutia of language. It is a fine topic and worthy of the time invested in its exploration.
To be clear, I am not a lawyer nor a law scholar. My limited knowledge in these matters is based upon the modicum of understanding I have acquired through my own personal investigations.
I'll use the use of the word "sell" as a example, since it has been the focus of this discussion.
I quoted Blacks Law Dictionary in my earlier reference. While the volumes are not considered law, they are agreed upon to be the language of the BAR. Entering a courtroom without understanding the court's specific language can be compared to traveling to a mysterious country, armed only with the language of your own land. Things can go nuclear in a hurry.
zswobbie1. You point out, correctly, that the world sell is not utilized in the EULA. The use of the noun "share", as defined by Blacks Law,
may (another incredibly important term) be interpreted by the bench to read ..." In the law of corporations and joint-stock companies, a share is a definite portion of the capital of a company."
At this point, the term no longer acts as the verb, as Nick has interpreted the word. The context favors the noun, a portion of capital. When MS says they "may share" your information (data), are they saying that they might or might not allow an affiliate to view your phone number, or are they saying "Hey...we have permission from the bench to monetize everything about you and distribute it amongst ourselves. And by the way, if we profit in the boot...that's OK too."?
The ambiguity of the language, and it's intended use is deliberate. The obfuscation of the intent has been constructed in such a manner that allows the corporate entity to operate, so long as they remain within the boundaries of the contract that you entered into with them.
This is why I said they sell your data.
Further exploration of the verbiage, literally every word, is an illuminating experience.
When I used the word "uninformed", my intent may or may not have been to insult you, but the context indicated that my intent was to cause harm.
In reality, I may have used the word in the context of "Agnostic", which translates "ignorant" (an insult), but in the original Greek it is simply "not knowing".
Again, it's the language. I intend "not knowing"...you hear "ignorant". We go to court to hash out the damage and the "bench" (actually "bank") decides whom to award damages.
At the end of the day...it's
always about the money.
IMO