Sidebar Sidebar
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?

archipellago said:
and again...

I've paid KRCS, they WILL NOT refund me for opened software whether I agree, disagree with the licence think it stinks or whatever.
Click to expand...

Well duh. They aren't a party to the license, again why should they care about Apple's licensees. They are not the licensee - Apple is. They have set return policies and Apple's terms of sale are not hidden in any way before sale. You don't want to agree to those terms that both companies set forth do not give them your money

Apple have received money (I assume) from KRCS at wholesale prices. So for me to get my £25 back where do I go?
Click to expand...
According to Apple's EULA you would go through them probably.

KRCS won't and Apple can't.
Click to expand...
Are you sure Apple cannot?

And again, you do not have to open up the box to see Apple's EULA - it is readily variable on Apple's website for anybody to see. Apple even tells you the website right on the darned box. You breaking the seal is not a required act. You can buy the box, notice that the box says to go to Apple.com/legal for the license, read the terms, disagree, and return it. That is the optimal scenario and it's one that you have to chose not to do.
 
Amdahl said:
UCITA is a modification of UCC, the Uniform Commercial Code. UCITA would make Apple licenses legal. But UCITA is only law in two states, right? It has been shot down everywhere else.
Click to expand...

The relevant principles have been upheld by courts in many jurisdictions.

I'll be attending a presentation of The Copyright Society of the U.S.A. today - "First Sale or First License? The Battle Between Content Licenses and the First Sale Doctrine." (it's a presentation by lawyers for lawyers). It's being moderated by one of my clients, who happens to be a huge Mac fan and also be an attorney who wrote a book on software licenses. I'll see what they say and report back.
 
cmaier said:
The relevant principles have been upheld by courts in many jurisdictions.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but it is telling that the proposed UTICA law exists.

I'll be attending a presentation of The Copyright Society of the U.S.A. today - "First Sale or First License? The Battle Between Content Licenses and the First Sale Doctrine." (it's a presentation by lawyers for lawyers). It's being moderated by one of my clients, who happens to be a huge Mac fan and also be an attorney who wrote a book on software licenses. I'll see what they say and report back.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that would be great. Especially interesting in the Psystar case is whether a license can override copyright law and first sale which (theoretically) allows a system integrator to assemble a software and hardware package and then sell it on.
 
Amdahl said:
Perhaps, but it is telling that the proposed UTICA law exists.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of laws that simply codify what the courts have already done. The first sale doctrine and fair use come to mind in the realm of copyright.

What would be nice is if, like patents, copyright was a federal matter with appeals to the federal circuit - we wouldn't have all these conflicting lines of cases.

PS: Although I am an intellectual property attorney, I am far more knowledgeable about patent law than about copyright law. Nonetheless, my friends in "soft" I.P. are uniformly convinced that Psystar is doomed. When they make that sort of prediction, they're right slightly more often than they're wrong, so take it for what it's worth.
 
pdjudd said:
Well duh. They aren't a party to the license, again why should they care about Apple's licensees. They are not the licensee - Apple is. They have set return policies and Apple's terms of sale are not hidden in any way before sale. You don't want to agree to those terms that both companies set forth do not give them your money


According to Apple's EULA you would go through them probably.


Are you sure Apple cannot?

And again, you do not have to open up the box to see Apple's EULA - it is readily variable on Apple's website for anybody to see. Apple even tells you the website right on the darned box. You breaking the seal is not a required act. You can buy the box, notice that the box says to go to Apple.com/legal for the license, read the terms, disagree, and return it. That is the optimal scenario and it's one that you have to chose not to do.
Click to expand...

I give up....
 
uberamd said:
I wasn't aware OS X discs had a seal inside the box. I purchased both Leopard and Snow Leopard retail copies, and don't recall breaking any seals besides the shrink wrap on the box.
Click to expand...

You mean that the clear plastic envelope containing the DVD can be opened and closed again, without leaving any evidence that it's been opened?

211937-img0017copys_800.jpg

click to enlarge
 
AidenShaw said:
You mean that the clear plastic envelope containing the DVD can be opened and closed again, without leaving any evidence that it's been opened?
Click to expand...

If you can open and close it without leaving any evidence behind, you can't really call it a "seal" that can be broken making your main point that he was replaying to moot.
 
pdjudd said:
If you can open and close it without leaving any evidence behind, you can't really call it a "seal" that can be broken making your main point that he was replaying to moot.
Click to expand...

Yes, my question is "can you use the DVD without leaving any evidence?".

Virtually every bit of software that I buy has some glue or actual sticker on the DVD envelope, so that it would be very, very difficult to read the DVD without leaving a trace.

So, that's my question - is there glue or any other feature in the 10.6 kit to make it hard to open the DVD envelope without leaving a trace?

If the answer is "no", then obviously my interpretation of the language is not correct.
 
pdjudd said:
I never doubted that. Of course the box is sealed - I have stated that many a time. The sleeve that holds the disc however is not sealed.
Click to expand...

so your interpretation of the EULA is the sleeve needs to be sealed (or not)?

if so, then I disagree as do most retailers.

As I've said before the point is moot over here anyway.
 
[
AidenShaw said:
Yes, my question is "can you use the DVD without leaving any evidence?".
Click to expand...

Do you count the wrapped box? If so, than the answer is no (Since the box is sealed). Otherwise the answer is yes.

Virtually every bit of software that I buy has some glue or actual sticker on the DVD envelope, so that it would be very, very difficult to read the DVD without leaving a trace.
Click to expand...
True - but that doesn't make it a requirement because not everybody does this

So, that's my question - is there glue or any other feature in the 10.6 kit to make it hard to open the DVD envelope without leaving a trace?

If the answer is "no", then obviously my interpretation of the language is not correct.
Click to expand...
Again, One should ask - "Does the "kit" include the box. The box arguably protects the envelope that is unsealed. The box is plastic sealed.

I think I might have misunderstood this phrase:

There's no contradiction. You can open the outer box, read the license, and return it as long as the seal on the DVD is intact.
Click to expand...

To mean something more than you may have been asking. In the case of OS X, once the seal on the box is broke most retailers will not accept it back. Of course Apple will point out that the box instructs you about the terms located at the Apple Legal website.
 
archipellago said:
so your interpretation of the EULA is the sleeve needs to be sealed (or not)?

if so, then I disagree as do most retailers.

As I've said before the point is moot over here anyway.
Click to expand...
No - I am not trying to make that argument. How the disc itself is sold is up to the retailer. Retailers mostly act separately from licensees (they are not party to the terms) so it's up to them how they will accept any returns or how they sell the product.

Apple's EULA is a different component to the sale of the disc. Apple's obligation is to present terms that you can either accept or reject. They are presented either on the web (as stated on the box online at Apple Legal) or on the disc itself during the installer. Never having rejected an Apple EULA, I do not know what standards they set for license termination/return of open boxes, but I have done it with Adobe. They required me to sign a statement stating that I either returned or destroyed the disc/download and swore that it was not still installed before they would refund me.

My interpretation is that it doesn't matter how or if the disc is sealed or not. The seller of the disc has their own standards that they set. Apple probably doesn't care that the box is sealed (Apple Inc, not Apple Retail). They are concerned if you agreed or not. Apple's license provides for return conditions if you disagree. That doesn't include your reseller/retailer. It's a separate action.

ETA: The EULA does not say a thing about sealed or unsealed boxes because you can view the EULA separate from the purchase/opening of the box. How the product is returned is based on the retailers terms or based on what the licensee's terms are. Apple (and most software sellers) just say that you have to return them somehow. I don;t think they have to lay that out. After all, Apple is providing them for the world to see.
 
pdjudd said:
Do you count the wrapped box? If so, than the answer is no (Since the box is sealed). Otherwise the answer is yes.
Click to expand...

Please don't blow this out of proportion....

I suggested that the phrase "if the seal or sticker on the software media packaging is broken" could refer to the DVD envelope, not the outer box. In that case, there'd be no contradiction.

Since people who have 10.6 boxes are saying that the DVD envelope has no tamper-resistant features - clearly my suggestion is wrong, and the contradiction remains.

Whether a court would accept that a URL on the outside of the box that points to the license agreement is adequate, that's a question that I can't answer. I do know that most software that I buy have a seal on the DVD envelope.
 

Attachments

  • untitled1.jpg
    untitled1.jpg
    122.2 KB · Views: 84
AidenShaw said:
Please don't blow this out of proportion....

I suggested that the phrase "if the seal or sticker on the software media packaging is broken" could refer to the DVD envelope, not the outer box. In that case, there'd be no contradiction.
Click to expand...

Yea. I figured that out. I am not trying to blow anything out of proportion here but I am trying to fend off attacks here. Your phrasing was misunderstood by me and is moot anyway since there is no disc envelope sealing. My thought is that is not a necessity - nobody made this argument back in the days of floppies either...

I misjudged your intent and that is my bad - apologies extended to you. I am not gonna continue down this road since it going to become a distraction to the overall discussion at hand that we don't need since its moot. <extends hand in agreement>
 
KnightWRX said:
Bolded statement is a big uh ? The trial is set for January in Apple vs Psystar.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about the lawsuit, i'm talking about the fact that they haven't blocked updates to the Psystar computers, or broken functionality intentionally.

harlinator said:
Isn't it a drag to be broke? Damn, all that nice stuff out there and you can't have it so you compromise... what a drag you poor thing... you poor, poor thing!
Click to expand...

I like to be poor actually. It keeps me humble, so i don't become pretentious and spend my time on forums making fun of poor people. ;)

But to answer your question, no, i'm not broke. thanks for your concern though, it was comforting.
 
For what it's worth, the copyright lawyers at the conference generally agreed that the issue is that 117 is a red herring, and the fundamental issue is whether there is a sale or a license when you "buy" the disk. The general feeling was it's a license under any of the relevant lines of case law, because it meets the shrink wrap license requirements, it limits and expands your rights, and there is a "return" provision.
 
AidenShaw said:
Please don't blow this out of proportion....

I suggested that the phrase "if the seal or sticker on the software media packaging is broken" could refer to the DVD envelope, not the outer box. In that case, there'd be no contradiction.

Since people who have 10.6 boxes are saying that the DVD envelope has no tamper-resistant features - clearly my suggestion is wrong, and the contradiction remains.

Whether a court would accept that a URL on the outside of the box that points to the license agreement is adequate, that's a question that I can't answer. I do know that most software that I buy have a seal on the DVD envelope.
Click to expand...

There is no contradiction. Your suggestion was mostly correct. The terms are that if there is a written license outside of the sealed software package (whether it's the box or the DVD envelope), then breaking the seal would prevent you from returning the software for a refund. If there is no written licensed outside of the sealed package, then you can return the software for a refund despite breaking the seal. Standard retail boxes of OS X do not include a written license agreement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back