Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 22:42 UTC, submitted by anon
Legal The legal back-and-forth between Apple and clone-maker PsyStar continues to develop, with the latest news being a move by Apple - the Cupertino company has invoked something with many already predicted Apple would call upon: the DMCA, or the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. This was done in an amendment to the original suit, filed in July this year.
Thread beginning with comment 339212
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
neoanderthal
Member since:
2008-12-04

It is clearly stated in the EULA that you do not own the software:
"The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether preinstalled on Apple-labeled hardware, on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the "Apple Software") are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. ("Apple") for use only under the terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you."

there's tons more, but it lays everything out pretty clearly.
You do not own the software. You are purchasing a license to use it. There's no grey area - you do NOT own the software. You buy the right to use the software within the limits set by, in this case, Apple. You do not own a copy of anything meaningful.

Seriously. It's simple, and it's cut and dried. I'm not discussing the ethics of the situation, merely what rights you are granted by the company that owns the intellectual property.

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla - all of Apple's legal nonsense is there. Read it for yourself. Psystar is doomed, unless the judge decides to throw out the concept of the EULA.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It is clearly stated in the EULA that you do not own the software


You are right, it doesn't matter if it's licensed or not. However...

You do not own the software. You are purchasing a license to use it


Right. So if I buy OSX, go home, unpack the box a few days later, break the seal, put the CD in my drive, get presented with the EULA and disagree with it, I can pack everything back up again, go back to the store and get a full refund? I'd really like for someone to try that and see what happens.

You buy the right to use the software within the limits set by, in this case, Apple.


And that's exactly what this is about, if the terms set forth by Apple in the EULA is reasonable and in accordance with the law (contract law, consumer law etc).

I'm not discussing the ethics of the situation, merely what rights you are granted by the company that owns the intellectual property.


You seem to think that a company can set forth any crazy contracts terms they want and you just have to accept them or not buy the product but that's just not the case.

Read it for yourself. Psystar is doomed, unless the judge decides to throw out the concept of the EULA.


Nonsense. That's like saying one illegal contract invalidates the concept of contracts. The judge only has to state what, if any, terms in the EULA that are not "legal" and then Apple have to remove those. Granted, the legal wheels may turn quite some time before and after that happens but this case is not about the validity of EULA's themselves. It's about the specific terms in one EULA.

Reply Parent Score: 2

neoanderthal Member since:
2008-12-04

You *are* legally entitled to a refund, since you disagree with the terms of the license. In the EULA, it mentions you get your refund from either the retailer, or if they won't do it, from Apple. I suggest you try it, since you're keen to believe that that would not work. Purchase a copy of OS X, take it home, break the seal, and then take it back. Tell the people at the Apple Store or wherever you purchased it that you were unaware you were not allowed to install it on non-Apple hardware.

If the terms of the EULA are not acceptable to you, then you return the software for a refund. That's the legal remedy if you aren't interested in being bound by the terms of the agreement.

This fanciful bull about how the *law* is going to force Apple to let everyone and their brother install the software on any computer is absurd. The *law* will uphold this EULA, as they've done for others in the past, as there is a remedy in place for those who aren't interested in abiding by the terms.

Here's another idea - try to get together a class-action lawsuit against Apple with as many people as you can find who've actually purchased a copy of Mac OS X and were unhappy that they could not install it, by the terms of the license, on a computer of their choosing. I doubt you could even get such a thing into court, but who knows?

Here's the thing with that EULA - it might be the meanest, most restrictive license to use ever created, but if you do not accept the terms, you're entitled to a refund. It says so in the EULA. Therefore, your choices are to use the software on Apple's terms, or get your money back. I don't see how you can think a judge is going to see that as unfair. If Apple denied your refund, that would be another matter, but they're required to refund your money, even if the retailer won't.

As I said, this isn't a defense of the ethics of the EULA - personally I think it's horrible that EULAs have been upheld that strip people of their 'first-sale' rights, among other things. But what I think doesn't matter - this is about the legal enforceability of Apple's license, and since they will refund your money if you do not agree to their terms, it's going to be upheld.

Reply Parent Score: 1