Linked by David Adams on Mon 3rd Oct 2011 17:33 UTC, submitted by Adurbe
Legal Apple has the right to continue restricting its operating systems to its own hardware thanks to a decision handed down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday. Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder wrote in her opinion that Apple's Mac OS X licensing agreement was indeed enforceable against Psystar, which had sold non-Mac computers with Mac OS X installed.
Thread beginning with comment 491751
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: It's their OS
by rhavyn on Tue 4th Oct 2011 05:24 UTC in reply to "RE: It's their OS"
rhavyn
Member since:
2005-07-06

Disagree. As long as I, or anyone else, buys a copy of the software, I can use it whatever way I want. It's none of Apple's business how I use the software I bought.


Apple doesn't sell copies of software, they sell a license to the software. If you'd bothered to read the judgement:

"This argument falsely assumes that Apple transferred ownership of Mac OS X when it sold a retail-packaged DVD containing software designed to enable Apple’s existing customers to upgrade to the latest version of the operating system. The buyers of that DVD pur- chased the disc. They knew, however, they were not buying the software. Apple’s SLA clearly explained this."

And:

"The DVD purchasers were licensees, not owners, of the software. The Mac OS X SLA, states that the software is “li- censed, not sold, to [the customer] by Apple Inc. (Apple) for use only under the terms of this License.” Thus the SLA pro- vides that Apple “retain[s] ownership of the Apple Software itself.” The SLA also imposes significant use and transfer restrictions, providing, inter alia, that a licensee may only run one copy and “may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or subli- cense the Apple Software.” Cf. Wall Data, 447 F.3d at 785 (“Generally, if the copyright owner makes it clear that she or he is granting only a license to the copy of software and imposes significant restrictions on the purchaser’s ability to redistribute or transfer that copy, the purchaser is considered a licensee, not an owner, of the software.”). The license thus satisfied Vernor’s three factor test for demonstrating the exis- tence of a licensor/licensee relationship."

Can it be any clearer that EULAs are valid?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: It's their OS
by jimmy1971 on Tue 4th Oct 2011 16:14 in reply to "RE[2]: It's their OS"
jimmy1971 Member since:
2009-08-27

Blah, blah, blah.

I don't use OS X, but if I did PURCHASE the DVD I would use/install it the same manner as I use a book. Just because some judge has sided with the party with drastically-deeper pockets doesn't mean it's settled.

Further to the book comparison...if I purchased a book and it came with a scrap of paper saying I could only read it under a light approved by the publisher, I would go ahead and read it under any damn light I wish. If the publisher (or Apple, in this case) wishes to contest one's use of their product, they're going to have to take them to court and risk a legal crusade, along with any bad publicity to go with it. The "cool" of the Apple logo has gone unquestioned long enough.


"As we noted in 2009, when Apple won its first round against Psystar, the decision will certainly limit companies that try to make a commercial business out of re-selling Apple's software with unauthorized hardware. What it won't limit will be hobbyists creating their own hackintoshes at home using their own PCs and OS X installations. In fact, the commercial industry has largely moved on already by selling tools to those at-home hackers (instead of the software and computers themselves), making enforcement of Apple's licensing agreement effectively moot for those users." --Jacqui Cheng, arstechnica.com

"One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law." --Martin Luther King, Jr.

"The difference between a criminal and an outlaw is that while criminals frequently are victims, outlaws never are. Indeed, the first step toward becoming a true outlaw is the refusal to be victimized.
All people who live subject to other people's laws are victims. People who break laws out of greed, frustration, or vengeance are victims. People who overturn laws in order to replace them with their own laws are victims. (I am speaking here of revolutionaries.) We outlaws, however, live beyond the law. We don't merely live beyond the letter of the law--many businessmen, most politicians, and all cops do that--we live beyond the spirit of the law. In a sense, then, we live beyond society. Have we a common goal, that goal is to turn the tables on the nature of society. When we succeed, we raise the exhilaration content of the universe. We even raise it a little bit when we fail."
-- from Still Life With Woodpecker by Tom Robbins

Edited 2011-10-04 16:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: It's their OS
by rhavyn on Tue 4th Oct 2011 16:27 in reply to "RE[3]: It's their OS"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

Blah, blah, blah.

I don't use OS X, but if I did PURCHASE the DVD I would use/install it the same manner as I use a book. Just because some judge has sided with the party with drastically-deeper pockets doesn't mean it's settled.


Sorry, this isn't some judge, this is a 9th Circuit Appeals Court judge. That means in the western United States this is the law. Unless someone appeals it to the Supreme Court of the United States, there is no higher judge that can look at this. It doesn't get much simpler than this, EULAs are valid. The Supreme Court is not going to overturn this ruling. Read the judgement, it explains in detail why EULAs are valid in the Unite States.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: It's their OS
by Alfman on Tue 4th Oct 2011 16:59 in reply to "RE[3]: It's their OS"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

jummy1971,

"Further to the book comparison...if I purchased a book and it came with a scrap of paper saying I could only read it under a light approved by the publisher, I would go ahead and read it under any damn light I wish."


Haha, sounds like you guys are talking over one another. You are not completely denying that they may be enforceable, it's simply that you don't care at all whether they are. You'd rather live by your own moral code than by laws set down in favor of wealthy corporate interests. At a moral level, that's perfectly defensible. Rhavyn is just saying that, as much as it may suck for us, anti-consumer corporate contracts are enforceable. As far as I can tell he hasn't provided an opinion on whether he believes they should be.

Edited 2011-10-04 17:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2