Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 14th Nov 2009 22:32 UTC
Legal As Murphy's Law dictates, this news was destined to come while I'm down and out with the flu, while being miserable on the couch. Dragged my bum to the computer for this one (my iPhone alerted me, oh the irony): Apple has scored a major win in its case against Psystar. Judge William Alsup more or less agreed with just about everything Apple said, granting Apple's motion for a summary judgement. Instant update: Mind, though, that this ruling only covers Leopard. Snow Leopard will be handled in the Florida case.
Thread beginning with comment 394933
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Crushing
by Abstract on Mon 16th Nov 2009 17:07 UTC
Abstract
Member since:
2009-10-24

It not about "consumer" rights its about generating traffic to a website that not long ago was asking readers to click on ads to help keep this site afloat.

But i'll bite again at troll bait, so do we mean consumers as in people that spend money have rights, and people that do not don't?

If Thom and everyone else rallying behind this excuse to Pirate / Exploit Mac OSX are so concerned about rights of the people, why use any computers at all? Specially considering the vast majority of hardware and their components are manufactured in a nation that has very few if at all human rights and the workers are exploited?

So by your definition anything that applies any kind of term or condition on its use is not a copyright or license?
Copyright only establishes ownership, the License when it pertains to software does not relinquish ownership but grants the purchaser permission to use the product, and in this topic would be software.
Which reinforces my statement that you do not actually own Mac OSX but rather you own a License to use it.
I am not familiar with European laws, but stipulating how a product might be used is not uncommon.

Gas/fuel or any harmful chemical, may only be stored in appropriate containers. Firearms may not be used to murder or harm another person, these terms and conditions of product use happen to also be enforced by laws, or they were promptly addressed due to the fact that improper use and storage of the product might result in harming other people, where as software does not, so it is not, or rather was not a priority.
Won't be long before Laws catch up with technology, and possibly a solution/resolve will be determined on how to handle this.

Back to EULA, has anyone unwrapped and opened the packaging that a software title was distributed in, get to the EULA read it, then decide that they do not agree with it and attempt to return it and not received a refund for their money? If there are enough people that have experienced this, wouldn't a class action lawsuit be in the works?

Or are only License Agreements that you must purchase need to be signed on a physical contract/agreement document? So does cost determine wether or not a License Agreement or Terms & Conditions associated with a License is valid or not?

Do we really want the hassle of having to download a License Agreement (if the software is distributed online instead of a hard copy, physical medium) sign it in front of witnesses and have it notarized sent back and wait for processing before we are allowed to download and use software?
So the real topic to discuss is not wether or not it is wrong to dictate the manner in which software is used, but when the License Agreement and/or Terms & Conditions of the use of the software is presented to the potential purchaser.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Crushing
by alcibiades on Mon 16th Nov 2009 17:30 in reply to "RE: Crushing"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Do we really want the hassle....

I don't know why people have so much trouble getting their heads around this. This is not what it is about. Whether you want or don't want this is irrelevant. Whether the company should or should not take steps to spare you is irrelevant, it is not what the question is about. The question is not about what you want when you buy Apple software. It is not about Apple's business model either. No-one is arguing for any limits or changes to what they make or sell.

The only question is about what powers any software supplier (not just Apple) should have. Should they, in particular, have the power to set as a condition of purchase and use of their software, where you source the some or all of the hardware you run it on? Should they be able to ban you from using some hardware for no other reason that they do not care for where you bought it?

This is the issue. Think hard and long before you say yes, of course. Think long and hard about who might like to have such powers, and what they might use them for. Hint: its not Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Crushing
by Abstract on Mon 16th Nov 2009 17:54 in reply to "RE[2]: Crushing"
Abstract Member since:
2009-10-24

The only question is about what powers any software supplier (not just Apple) should have. Should they, in particular, have the power to set as a condition of purchase and use of their software, where you source the some or all of the hardware you run it on? Should they be able to ban you from using some hardware for no other reason that they do not care for where you bought it?

This is the issue. Think hard and long before you say yes, of course. Think long and hard about who might like to have such powers, and what they might use them for. Hint: its not Apple.


The answer is Yes. If a company requires my agreement to Terms and Conditions that I am not willing to accept in order to use their product, then guess what I don't purchase their product therefore I do not use their product. This is one of the things I love the most about Capitalism and that is freedom in the sense I am allowed to choose wether or not I want to purchase and/or use any product. I am not forced to use any Company's product (excluding Utility Companies (gas, electric, etc..), for obvious reasons).

As I have stated before, a restriction is a restriction regardless of the degree/amount in which you are restricted. Spit or swallow, but pick one can't have both in this case.

Either you want absolutely no restrictions, (and yes this would include being forced to also GPL the code you added to an existing project under the GPL as a restriction) or you are Ok with allowing software developers to place a restriction on how their software / code is used.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Crushing
by sbergman27 on Mon 16th Nov 2009 18:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Crushing"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

The only question is about what powers any software supplier (not just Apple) should have. Should they, in particular, have the power to set as a condition of purchase and use of their software, where you source the some or all of the hardware you run it on? Should they be able to ban you from using some hardware for no other reason that they do not care for where you bought it?

I'm sure that this will get a lot of "Corporations have the right to..." type responses. Folks, these days, are conditioned to really thinking of "corporations", fictitious "people" created to bear the financial and legal liabilities that the real decision makers don't want to be subject to, should really and truly be treated as people.

Clearly, the authors of the US constitution were more concerned with the General Welfare of We The People of the United States. It's really hard to imagine Franklin speaking passionately about the Rights of fictitious "people", to the exclusion of how that impacts the welfare of The People, who in this case can be accurately referred to as Consumers.

This big, huge, powerful Fictitious Person, with more money than God, the ability to purchase Laws, Legislators, which controls a legal department which goes through more money in a second than most of us make in a year, lays down terms that we can either agree to or go somewhere else (to some other Gigantic Fictitious Person) to make our purchases. People will seriously argue that this is a good thing for all of us. Which only goes to show just how well trained, and what good little boys and girls, We the People of the United States have become.

We accept our servitude. We get slapped in the face and dominated. And we say "Thank You, Sir! Can I please have some more, Sir!"

Such is modern America.

I've pondered writing a science fiction short story, along the lines of Isaac Asimov's "The Immortal Bard", in which the Philedelphia Convention is swept through a time warp during the signing ceremony, and the framers of the Constitution end up in Washington DC in the year 2009, viewing the consequenses of their decisions, the interpretations of their wordings, and the loop-holes which have grown into major facets of the daily lives of We the People.

Suggestions for quotable Ben Franklin one-liners accepted.

Edited 2009-11-16 18:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3