Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 14th Nov 2009 22:32 UTC
Legal As Murphy's Law dictates, this news was destined to come while I'm down and out with the flu, while being miserable on the couch. Dragged my bum to the computer for this one (my iPhone alerted me, oh the irony): Apple has scored a major win in its case against Psystar. Judge William Alsup more or less agreed with just about everything Apple said, granting Apple's motion for a summary judgement. Instant update: Mind, though, that this ruling only covers Leopard. Snow Leopard will be handled in the Florida case.
Permalink for comment 394933
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Crushing
by Abstract on Mon 16th Nov 2009 17:07 UTC
Abstract
Member since:
2009-10-24

It not about "consumer" rights its about generating traffic to a website that not long ago was asking readers to click on ads to help keep this site afloat.

But i'll bite again at troll bait, so do we mean consumers as in people that spend money have rights, and people that do not don't?

If Thom and everyone else rallying behind this excuse to Pirate / Exploit Mac OSX are so concerned about rights of the people, why use any computers at all? Specially considering the vast majority of hardware and their components are manufactured in a nation that has very few if at all human rights and the workers are exploited?

So by your definition anything that applies any kind of term or condition on its use is not a copyright or license?
Copyright only establishes ownership, the License when it pertains to software does not relinquish ownership but grants the purchaser permission to use the product, and in this topic would be software.
Which reinforces my statement that you do not actually own Mac OSX but rather you own a License to use it.
I am not familiar with European laws, but stipulating how a product might be used is not uncommon.

Gas/fuel or any harmful chemical, may only be stored in appropriate containers. Firearms may not be used to murder or harm another person, these terms and conditions of product use happen to also be enforced by laws, or they were promptly addressed due to the fact that improper use and storage of the product might result in harming other people, where as software does not, so it is not, or rather was not a priority.
Won't be long before Laws catch up with technology, and possibly a solution/resolve will be determined on how to handle this.

Back to EULA, has anyone unwrapped and opened the packaging that a software title was distributed in, get to the EULA read it, then decide that they do not agree with it and attempt to return it and not received a refund for their money? If there are enough people that have experienced this, wouldn't a class action lawsuit be in the works?

Or are only License Agreements that you must purchase need to be signed on a physical contract/agreement document? So does cost determine wether or not a License Agreement or Terms & Conditions associated with a License is valid or not?

Do we really want the hassle of having to download a License Agreement (if the software is distributed online instead of a hard copy, physical medium) sign it in front of witnesses and have it notarized sent back and wait for processing before we are allowed to download and use software?
So the real topic to discuss is not wether or not it is wrong to dictate the manner in which software is used, but when the License Agreement and/or Terms & Conditions of the use of the software is presented to the potential purchaser.

Reply Score: 1