Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 10th Jun 2011 21:46 UTC
Permalink for comment 477007
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 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
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
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-05-06
I don't see how Apple can actually enforce that with a company they are not in contract with in the first place. A company like MacMall should be more worried about it, since apple could cut of there shipments if they don't like the way they use there product. But a TV station could acquire the equipment from any reseller, and if they want to give it away, they should be able to do so.
I don't think it would stand up in court. The article is pretty vague on what action was taken against the TV station. It only implies that they run afoul of the the rules stated in a contract that the station did not actually enter into. It points out that resellers (who are more likely to be bound by that contract) did not seem to be actively held to it.
If Apple is suing the station I would like to hear how it turns out.