Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Apr 2008 21:44 UTC
Permalink for comment 309624
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-10-12
It is about post sales restrictions on use. They are unlawful in all of the OECD. You cannot tell people what to do with what they have bought, not in a Eula, not in a signed contract. Contrary to anti trust law.
Eulas can be valid. But not where their provisions conflict with consumer protection or anti trust law.
Apple cannot stop you from installing OSX on whatever you want. MS cannot stop you using Office under Wine. You cannot sign away your consumer protection rights by sending in a guarantee form.
Anyone who thinks its not a sale needs to produce a case showing it. Not an Indian or Chinese case, a case from the US, Canada or EU. In the present case, they need to produce a US Court decision. Where is it?
Its a sale. Consequently, you can do what you want with it.
Notice, this may not apply to arrangements whereby in exchange for an annual fee, a company obtains a "license" to software on a certain number of stations. That really may well be a license or a lease or rental or whatever. But going up to the cash register and walking out with a retail copy, that one is a sale. Whatever the Eula says.