Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Jan 2009 10:16 UTC
Legal And so the court case between Apple and clone-maker Psystar continues. Claims are being thrown back and forth between the two companies, ranging from Apple invoking the DMCA, to Psystar claiming Apple's Mac OS X copyright is invalid. We can add a new one to the list. Court documents reveal that Psystar claims it has bought its copies of Mac OS X fair and square - including some directly from Apple.
Thread beginning with comment 343677
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Bernhard
by Bernhard on Thu 15th Jan 2009 11:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Bernhard"
Bernhard
Member since:
2008-11-12

"1) Do Apple have the right to limit your use of the purchased software at all? i.e. is the "licensed not sold" paragraph valid for a contract?

Of course, they don't.


No.1) would still turn EULAs around the world into scrap paper...

There is no need to jump to conclusions.

Keep in mind that countless provisions in EULAs and other private contracts have been ruled to be invalid by the courts, but these rulings don't affect other provisions in the rest of the contract, nor do these rulings affect other private contracts that exclude the invalid provisions.
"

How can you agree and disagree to the question at the same time?

If i BUY the software, then it's my PROPERTY. I can do whatever i damn well want to do with it, including but not limited to using it on non-Apple hardware, using it for the construction of nuclear weapons and so on. It would really invalidate the whole point of writing an EULA in the first place!

And to make my point clear again: I can't believe that any judge would EVER rule towards something like that, so Psystar can't be trying to get one to do so. Right?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Bernhard
by tupp on Thu 15th Jan 2009 17:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Bernhard"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

How can you agree and disagree to the question at the same time?

Please explain explicitly how I am agreeing and disagreeing.

Again, most EULA's (that only prohibit) are meaningless, but the few licenses that grant extra permissions are important and valuable.


If i BUY the software, then it's my PROPERTY. I can do whatever i damn well want to do with it,

That is mostly true with the exception that you cannot violate copyright law -- you own the copy, but not the copyright.


It would really invalidate the whole point of writing an EULA in the first place!

Again, this assertion is correct with most EULAs -- the ones that only prohibit. However, there is great validity to the few licenses that grant extra permissions beyond those rights allowed by copyright.


And to make my point clear again: I can't believe that any judge would EVER rule towards something like that, so Psystar can't be trying to get one to do so. Right?

Our beliefs have nothing to do with a judge's view of the facts of this case nor with what Psystar is attempting.

It appears that the law is plainly on Psystar's side. Of course, such a condition doesn't preclude the possibility that Apple's lawyers could pull off some absurd travesty of law/justice.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Bernhard
by Bernhard on Fri 16th Jan 2009 07:22 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Bernhard"
Bernhard Member since:
2008-11-12

Please explain explicitly how I am agreeing and disagreeing.

Again, most EULA's (that only prohibit) are meaningless, but the few licenses that grant extra permissions are important and valuable.


Oh. How... convenient. So everything in an EULA that limits your rights is meaningless, while everything that grants you rights is valid?


"If i BUY the software, then it's my PROPERTY. I can do whatever i damn well want to do with it,

That is mostly true with the exception that you cannot violate copyright law -- you own the copy, but not the copyright.
"
No it isn't. And it's also not what i was trying to say. What i DID mean is that: if software is sold but not licensed, EULAs are meaningless. BUT if software is licensed and not sold, then EULAs are very well binding contracts. Of course single clauses can be ruled out by a judge if they are deemed too restricting or plain illegal, but that won't touch the validity of the rest of the license.


"And to make my point clear again: I can't believe that any judge would EVER rule towards something like that, so Psystar can't be trying to get one to do so. Right?

Our beliefs have nothing to do with a judge's view of the facts of this case nor with what Psystar is attempting.

It appears that the law is plainly on Psystar's side. Of course, such a condition doesn't preclude the possibility that Apple's lawyers could pull off some absurd travesty of law/justice.
"

Again: NO. The law is NOT clearly on the side of Psystar. It all comes down to the whole "is software sold or licensed" debate.

Reply Parent Score: 1