OSNews

"If apple win this in a judgment there will then be precident to enforce all EULAs! I fear that will turn into a free for all.."

Actually no. Some EULA's have already been tested in court and proved valid. Each EULA is it's own entity, and will need to be tested separately. The most this will do is test Apple's EULA, nothing more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg

Note that "clicking through" has been legally enforced as valid.

Some of you really need to read this link. Precedents have already been set. Granted this is only in the US, however that is where this case will be tried.

ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996), is a United States contract case involving a "shrink wrap license". The issue presented to the court was whether a shrink wrap license was valid and enforceable. Judge Easterbrook wrote the opinion for the court and found such a license was valid and enforceable. The Seventh Circuit's decision overturned a lower court decision.

Can you please clarify for me if the Seventh court (appeals court) decision was in favour or against the validity of the licence?

It has never been in doubt that Eulas and shrink wrap and click through are valid means of obtaining a contract. There are lots of other means - a simple verbal acceptance is also sufficient in many jurisdictions.

The issue is, and always has been, whether the particular clauses Apple will have to rely on are lawful under US or EU competition and consumer protection law. If they are not, they will not be enforceable, and it will not matter a bit how you signed up to them.

The case cited turns on the question of shrink wrap and click through for only one reason: the lawfulness of the terms were not disputed.

As an example, suppose Apple or anyone else were to include in its shrink wrapped click through Eula a clause saying that UK customers by opening or clicking through or by signing a contract waived their rights under the various sale of goods acts. This would not be enforceable, not because of how they agreed to the contractual terms, but because the contractual terms are not lawful in the UK. In fact, it might even be unlawful under the sale of goods act to state that you had waived your rights by proceeding: it would be misrepresentation.

This is why, in the UK, all vendor warranties will be found to be followed by the explicit statement that your statutory rights are not affected by sending in this warranty. They cannot be affected, and it will be unlawful to represent that they have been.

What the case may test, if it comes to court, is a very narrow and rather simple question: can a vendor sell goods at retail, and prohibit a customer from using those goods in certain ways, by contractual conditions on sale?

A similar issue would be posed, for instance, if a vendor of power tools were to introduce a 'professional' and 'DIY' range. He would then have a Eula inside the shrink wrapped box, and it would prohibit a buyer from using the 'DIY' range in way of trade. The issue would not be shrink wrapping, the issue would be a vendor's power to restrict use post-sale. A similar issue would occur if a DVD vendor would seek to prohibit, by contract, playing of the DVD on players made by other manufacturers than one, or more than 20 times, or after the year 2020....and so on.

I believe the answer is no. But whether you agree with this or not, this is the issue.