109(a) gives you rights, as do other sections, when you are sold a copy of a copyrighted work, on a particular media produced by the copyright holder. If OS X wasn't for sale, yes, no one would have any rights to it unless they got a contract license with Apple.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Disabling Support for Intel Atom Processor in Latest 10.6.2 Build?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
109(a) gives you rights, as do other sections, when you are sold a copy of a copyrighted work, on a particular media produced by the copyright holder. If OS X wasn't for sale, yes, no one would have any rights to it unless they got a contract license with Apple.
Wrong. You have the right to possess the disk, and to return it if you don't agree to the license agreement. Once you agree to the license agreement, you trade your right to return the disk for a refund (a legal right) as consideration for the right to use the software. Consideration need only be a legal detriment, and need not be something of monetary value.
Fine. You have the right of first sale. Now how about we ignore useless rights and focus on rights that actually matter - the right to copy the software into memory and actually use it?
You also have that right. 117(a)(1).
That isn't a right under UCC. Under UCC, when you've paid for the copy, you've got the right to use the copy. They don't get to collect the money, give the product, and then get additional contract agreement later.
You legally agree to those rights the minute you click "agree" on the Install. A copy of the license agreement is shown there. If you don't agree then you have the right to return the software for a full refund.
(my boldface)Snow Leopard EULA said:
Oh and by the way the Snow Leopard license has changed the term to Apple Branded Hardware. That removes the Apple Sticker clause, as only Apple have the right to brand their hardware.
If that is true, than would you agree that upgrade licensing is useless? I could install a OEM or upgrade version with the same rights as a full version?
can't we discuss the fact that we desperately need 10.6.2 and they are worried about this small community of hackers instead of giving us the update.
For the purposes we've discussed, yes, it is useless. Apple could still deny updates, support, or other secondary benefits. Just as using a car incorrectly may void certain parts of the warranty. Trying to sell it as a fresh install, like Psystar, would probably still be something you can sue over, especially if you actually require a file from the original product in order to produce the subsequent version in the installed copy. A true binary patch.
This is no different than the reality today, as Apple typically does updates that work without verifying an original.
The point is, it is all idle speculation until this has been released.
And there cold be other very good reasons for not releasing this update yet. Like maybe other bugs have been discovered that are deemed showstoppers.
So any hackintosh owner who installs an update through Software Update would then be in violation of copyright law according to your statements.
Apple will accept returns of open software if you don't agree to the license agreement.
What is the amount of the refund?
If I buy a MacBook Pro to wipe the disk and run Windows 7, what is my refund for refusing to accept the Apple OSX license terms?
That metaphor is irrelevant because you would never buy a MacBook Pro.
There is no metaphor.
If I do not accept Apple's EULA, what is the refund?
Or, OMG, is Apple tying the hardware sale to the software EULA?
You would receive a full refund. If the software was included with hardware that you purchased, you have to return the complete software/hardware package in order to obtain a refund.
So Apple is tying the software to the hardware? Uh-oh....
I have to visit one of the three nearby malls with Apple stores this week - I think it will be interesting to see what kind of discount they'll offer for an Apple without Apple OSX....
Uh oh what? Are you stating that tying is illegal? I hope you can show that is definitively the case because I doubt that you can...
Is it news to you that Apple ties its hardware and software? It sells them as a single consumer product. If you don't agree to the license, you can feel free to delete OS X and install Windows 7 or return the complete package for a refund. I can't think of a case where you would return part of a product for a refund.Under what principle?
As I see it, they presumably lawfully possess the full version. Apple sends them the update file from a website with no limitation. Where's the copyright violation?
What I was referring to was a hypothetical entity buying a hypothetical update disk that actually will not function without a part of the original version, they then add the original version and install the upgraded version, and then try to sell it on a computer with the update only disc as their original copy, and no actual original version original copy. Is that protected? No. Copyright infringement has occurred that Sega v. Accolade and 117 aren't going to protect.
In the post that I was quoting, you pointed out that Apple "could still deny updates..." After I thought about that, I realized that none of the copyright limitations that we have discussed would allow modification to the installed computer program. Additionally, updates delivered through Software update or downloaded from Apple.com feature their own license agreements.
I meant to say anecdote?
Anyway, its still not valid, because you'd never buy a MacBook Pro!
Yes, you might be correct if Apple was actually doing an active denial of updates, via serial number or some other registration. But since they aren't, it can't be a copyright infringement when Apple itself is the one sending the user the file, and the user has a legal possessed copy of the original.
If it ever happens, it would probably be challenged in a civil lawsuit, on the basis that Apple received the money for the product, and the updates go with it.
But I do think you are right. It could go that way.