Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 12th Oct 2009 18:25 UTC
Legal Now that all the nastiness of the discovery phase is behind us in the Apple vs. Psystar case, both parties are trying to get the case settled before it goes to court, much like the recent Vernor vs. Autodesk case. Both Apple and Psystar have filed motions asking for a summary judgement.
Thread beginning with comment 388846
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Suppose?
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 12th Oct 2009 19:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Suppose?"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

The funny part is, software makers are perfectly capable of presenting its customers with a contract they have to explicitly sign, in which it is exactly detailed what the customer may do and what the software maker will do. In fact, contracts like this are signed all over the world, every day.

...in the enterprise world.

Software companies know full well that they can screw over individual customers like us, because we don't have the legal power and financial reserves to take them on. However, large enterprises who sign software support contracts are a different story. Here, software makers need to take all the proper legal precautions to avoid getting sued.

It's a simple case of software companies not needing to act to the letter of the law with mere end users, because we pose no threat to them. However, in the enterprise world, this is different, and all of a sudden, software companies *magically* do it properly.

It's a dirty business.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Suppose?
by boldingd on Mon 12th Oct 2009 19:48 in reply to "RE[2]: Suppose?"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

You, the individual customer, are not the powerless victims of Big Software. If the licensing terms of one vendor are too onerous, you can switch to a different vendor's products, or use Free/Open-Source software (ideally, anyway; sometimes it's more difficult than others, I admit). If the terms of a specific vendor's EULA starts to cost them large numbers of customers, if they are rational, they'll change those terms.

In a capitalist economy, it's you-the-consumer's job to keep large companies honest as much as it's anyone else's.

Edited 2009-10-12 19:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Suppose?
by lemur2 on Tue 13th Oct 2009 09:37 in reply to "RE[2]: Suppose?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Software companies know full well that they can screw over individual customers like us, because we don't have the legal power and financial reserves to take them on. However, large enterprises who sign software support contracts are a different story. Here, software makers need to take all the proper legal precautions to avoid getting sued.

It's a simple case of software companies not needing to act to the letter of the law with mere end users, because we pose no threat to them. However, in the enterprise world, this is different, and all of a sudden, software companies *magically* do it properly.

It's a dirty business.


Agreed. Precisely so.

The only thing I could possibly add is that it is perhaps a moral duty for those of us who know these facts to advise other mere end users who may not be as aware that they have an attractive alternative which completely avoids all of this dirty business.

Reply Parent Score: 2