Linked by Nescio on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:05 UTC
Apple Numerous irrelevant issues and feelings about them are ventilated in comments on the case. However, there are only two important issues. One is what the law is, the other is what we think the law should be.
Thread beginning with comment 352272
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: The right question
by lurch_mojoff on Mon 9th Mar 2009 12:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The right question"
lurch_mojoff
Member since:
2007-05-12

No, thus it is not a valid contract until I actually install and read the EULA, if even ten.

The EULA is not a contract, per se. It is a document describing the terms under which you are given the license you've purchased. The license always comes with these terms (well unless a court deems some of them illegal). In most jurisdictions (for example, as it seems according to Thom, in the Netherlands) the licenser needs to make the terms generally available and doesn't have to get your agreement prior to purchase. If the law where you live differs then you may have a point. In most places it doesn't though.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: The right question
by Soulbender on Mon 9th Mar 2009 13:27 in reply to "RE[3]: The right question"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

<Awesome double post>

Edited 2009-03-09 13:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: The right question
by Soulbender on Mon 9th Mar 2009 13:27 in reply to "RE[3]: The right question"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It is a document describing the terms under which you are given the license you've purchased.


I haven't purcased a license. Does it say on the box that I do? Does the clerk inform me of this? Does the box say that where I can find the contract terms?
Not counting the Dutch, who are apparently morons, most countries has limitations on how much a company can deceive the customer.

In most places it doesn't though.


I'd argue that in most places it does, especially when it comes to post-sale limitations. In no other industry can a company impose restrictions on what you can do with a product after you've purchased it. Sure, they can void your warranty but that's all.
T

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: The right question
by lurch_mojoff on Mon 9th Mar 2009 14:16 in reply to "RE[4]: The right question"
lurch_mojoff Member since:
2007-05-12

I haven't purcased a license. Does it say on the box that I do? Does the clerk inform me of this?

You never purchase software. Ever. You purchase a license to use said software. I mean, I don't even know what you think you're purchasing. It's a virtual product. There is nothing tangible (except for a license and sometimes a distribution medium) that you can own.

I'd argue that in most places it does, especially when it comes to post-sale limitations.

The burden of proof is on you.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: The right question
by rhavyn on Mon 9th Mar 2009 16:42 in reply to "RE[4]: The right question"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

"It is a document describing the terms under which you are given the license you've purchased.


I haven't purcased a license. Does it say on the box that I do? Does the clerk inform me of this? Does the box say that where I can find the contract terms?
"

Yes, the outside of the box does. You really should go to a store and actually look at the boxes of Apple's software, you seem to be completely ignorant on the topic.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: The right question
by alcibiades on Mon 9th Mar 2009 14:33 in reply to "RE[3]: The right question"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

The EULA is not a contract, per se. It is a document describing the terms under which you are given the license you've purchased.

This is evidently not true in the US, and it is probably not true in other Anglo Saxon jurisdictions. In the case of Softman, the defendant had bought a copy of Adobe software. He then broke up the package and resold it one bit at a time. There was no claim that he had violated copyright by duplicating it unlawfully. He had simply bought a CD with packages A and B on it, then sold package A to one person and package B to another, which was explicitly forbidden in the EULA.

Adobe sued on the grounds that the EULA forbade such behaviour. The EULA was said to be binding for exactly the reasons given above, that the copies were transferred as licenses not sales of copies, so the EULA simply recorded the conditions of license. The court ruled against Adobe on the grounds that Softman had only bought a copy of the software, but not installed it. Not having installed it, Softman had not entered into the contract whose terms are given in the EULA, and was thus not bound by it. He had however bought his copy, and thus had the right to resell it as a bundle or in detail.

There was no breach of the EULA because Softman had not clicked through and entered into that contract.

So in the US the situation is interestingly different from what Thom describes for Holland. There is no doubt that until you click through, you have not entered into the EULA contract and are not bound by it. This is why Softman won.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[5]: The right question
by Moulinneuf on Mon 9th Mar 2009 21:11 in reply to "RE[4]: The right question"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softman_v._Adobe

"selling as individual units the software titles that were purchased from Adobe as a single boxed ***"Collection" ***. The individual titles had their own CDs."

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5628

"So does this mean Linux users can break up a hardware/software bundle, keep the hardware to run Linux on and sell the software? Yes, says attorney Wendy Seltzer, Fellow of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. "It makes a strong case that the licenses purporting to restrict resale in this manner are not valid licenses--so the transactions are in fact sales, and the buyers are not subject to the "license" conditions. It helped that Softman hadn't even had to click a clickwrap", Seltzer said in an e-mail interview."

-----

#1 Psystar install the OS and Agree to the term of EULA.

#2 they are not breaking an Apple system/bundle as they buy the OS *upgrade* only and not the hardware

#3 Apple is not suing Psystar over it's EULA.

Charges copyright, trademark infringement, violation of OS X software license ( << not the same as EULA )

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleB...

"In an order signed on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup gave Psystar the go-ahead to amend its lawsuit against Apple. According to Alsup, Psystar may change that countersuit, which originally accused Apple of breaking antitrust laws, to instead ague that Apple has stretched copyright laws by tying the Mac operating system to its hardware."

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleB...

Reply Parent Score: 2