>>Remember when I asked someone if they thought it would be a good idea if Ford put a clause in their sales agreement that prohibited buyers from publishing accounts of their personal experience with rollovers while driving the Ford they purchased without advanced permission from Ford to do so?
>
>And remeber how someone thought it was an extremely flawed analogy? Guess what, it still is.
>
>>How about just prohibiting characterizations of the purchased vehicle as a 'lemon' without Ford's permission to do so. Puts the concept of free speach limitations in a contract in a whole new light....
>
>Well, its a whole new light unless you've heard of slander and libel before.

Two terms you apparently don't understand very well. Saying something bad about a product is NOT libel or slander if you can demonstrate what your are saying is true. Like Ford's and Firestones problems with tires blowing out...

So, if the PR hype is that product X will do such and such, but the reality is that it won't do it well, but to relate your experience in a public forum is illegal because of a clause in a EULA. Such clauses violate the 1st Amendment, which the Declaration states to be "unalianable" -- meaning, they can not be alianated, or made illgal by federal, state, local or commerical law.