Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Sep 2008 07:50 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 331254
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
IANAL, but the first principle about contracts is that there must be an exchange. In the requests for Apple-store marketing of iPhone products, where is the exchange: what was given back to the developer in response to his request to have a product sold by the Apple store? Nothing! So there is no valid contract at all, hence Apple's NDA claim has no legal standing. Or so it looks to me... and that should be plain to anyone who has had the slightest exposure to either business-school or law.




Member since:
2005-08-18
It's not about wether it was there or not, the questions is wether it's even valid.
Just because a clause is in a contract or license and you have agreed to it doesn't mean it's necessary valid.
What's the natural connection between licensing an SDK and not being able to talk about why your app was rejected from a store entirely unrelated to the SDK?
This is a stretch at best (perhaps even a violation of free speech) and a great example of how companies tries to avoid bad publicity by any means by putting insanely restricting clauses in contracts. Anyone else remember Oracle's license that stated that a review of their product could not be negative?