NO, NO, NO, Try this one on for size. This is the beginning of a new sentence.
You shall have sole responsibility to defend Comodo against any claim,
What part of “ANY” do you not understand?
You shall have sole responsibility to defend Comodo against any claim, but you must receive Comodo’s prior written consent regarding any related settlement.
Would not the second part of the sentence imply that the claim was against you if you were settling it? Implying that this second sentence was still referring to the first sentence(claim made against YOU).
The way I am reading it is that someone would have to be suing YOU personally over YOUR use of Comodo Boclean. Of course, Comodo would have to become involved in this suit where it is their product and they have to defend their interests as the outcome of the case would set a precidence should the party that sued you then decide to go after Comodo. Comodo certainly would not want you settling in a way that would have a negative impact on them thus leaving them wide open to a suit. That is why they are insisting on their consent as to a settlement. As far as you having to pay for their legal fees, it is because of something that you have been alleged to have done (remember you are innocent until proven guilty) using Comodo’s product to cause damage to a third party causing that third party to take action against you in the first place.
Thats “MY” take on it in a nutshell. Remember, lawyers wrote this up and they are often not the best in the world making things an easy read for the average person. And, I could be seeing this wrong and others could have a better take on it than I do. But I don’t really think Comodo is doing anything nefarious and is just protecting their own interests.
Very well put Threedog,
That’s how I see it too.
It’s such a pity that these things are not drawn up in the ‘Plain English’ format like our government in the UK is pushing for.
Guess the lawyers would not be able to spend so much time arguing over interpretations of these sort of agreements, and getting well paid for it.
Do think this particular one could have been better worded.
Mike.
Right Mike, I strongly suggest that Melih gets the wording re-written so that it doesn’t appear that the end user is holding the bag.
Or better yet, get it rewritten so the end user isn’t holding the bag. 
Personally I think this is a storm in a teacup but it makes me wonder that Melih remains silent on this issue.
I agree with you mozart. Never thought this subject would be so hot (well, I started the thread concerning other matters, now most of the posts addresses other EULA issues, perhaps since my thread was merged with an other one).
/LA
Because he’s not a lawyer?
/Come the revolution, they’re first against the wall. ;D
Thanks Mike.
These contracts are drawn up by lawyers for lawyers. Their job is to make sure the company is well protected as possible in this lawsuit crazy world. I am not a legal expert but after reading the whole EULA it seems Melih’s lawyers have done a pretty good job. There have been many companies forced out of business by someone looking to make a quick buck in court because the company’s lawyers left loopholes.
You hit the nail right on the head “Cat”. Melih is smart enuf to not to make comments on things that aren’t in his area of expertise.
Hi guys
What I don’t understand is that people who have problems with the EULA post here. This is a users forum. If you have problems with the EULA you should not install CBOClean, and if you install CBOClean you agree with the EULA. If you have problems with the EULA you should email Comodo, everything else makes no sence 
Greetz, Red.
The fear mongers have to have a soapbox somewhere, Red, LOL!!!
I beleve you are right ;D
Greetz, Red.
Ahhh logic! Let us bask in the warming glow of its warming glow.
If you have problems with any EULA or similar contract, either don’t install or use the product in question or seek legal advice before you do. Even Mr Spock wouldn’t need logic to see that.
(:NRD)
Yep, break out the tinfoil! ;D
After all the “deleted by moderator” posts over there, is there really any question about where the feces flinging is coming from?
That said, one would think the lawyers could get together with Melih, Kevin and PR and get this thing worded in a more palatable way.
The last time I had any dealings with Comodo Legal it took at least several weeks for their response.
I’ll bet Melih gets a better response time.
I fully understand this but as he is Mr. Comodo, I am sure he can get some form of feedback from someone within the organisation to stop all this silly nonsense on this and other fora.
And re having the right of not accepting the Eula, that is fair enough. But quite frankly I think this is not what Melih will have in mind with respect to marketing his company’s products (assuming my interpretation of the issue is correct and there is nothing intrinsically sinister in the Eula).
Heh…I dont know of any legal team that is known for its fast response time.
It would pretty well be up to Melih to get togeather with them to make any changes where he is the CEO of the company. I am getting the feeling that Kevin has happily assumed the role of programer and legal, managerial, and PR problems are not his department. Remember, it was Nancy that handled all the legal stuff for Privacy Software. From what I have gathered over the years, she was pretty darned sharp at it too.
True but Kevin was one of the pioneers of privacy issues and I believe we would be remiss in not drawing from that well.