Has the Supreme Court ruled on this?
For a contract to be enforceable, It has to be presented prior to money changing hands, agreed upon, and signed. No matter what some judges may have falsely ruled in the past.
You are completely wrong. It is a fundamental basis of contract law that contracts do NOT have to be signed. Every time you go to the supermarket and buy a box of cereal you are entering a contract with the supermarket to exchange cash for cereal, and no one signs anything. There are traditional exceptions to the "no signature required" rule, and, as I mentioned, these are listed in what is traditionally called the "Statute of Frauds." These include things like transfers of real estate and contracts for marriage. There are also various other types of contract that, by modern statute, require signatures, but these are the exception, not the rule. The Supreme Court and every other court has ruled consistently with this basic concept.
If someone tries to tell me I'm subject to a contract that was never presented to me prior to money changing hands, they're out of their mind and I will take it up to the Supreme Court. Theres no way any sane person would agree to a contract post purchase, and no right minded judge will uphold such a contract.
Again, you are wrong. Again, every time you purchase a good you are engaging in a contract without seeing something in writing prior to exchanging money. These contracts are governed by the Uniform Commercial Code which defines the rules for these contracts.
There are furthermore at least two common law contract theories - implied-in-fact and implied-in-law - that mean you don't have to see the contract first. If you see someone building a fence in your yard for your benefit, and you don't stop him, you have to pay him. You are subject to an implied-in-law contract even though you didn't know the terms ahead of time.
If someone does something for you, and you pay them, even without knowing the terms of a contract, you are both acting like there is a contract, and thus you may be bound by an implied-in-fact contract, even though you didn't even know the terms of the contract.
You say you'll take it up with the Supreme Court, but you'll never get there - there are 500 years of consistent case law undermining your position.
Imagine going to a car mechanic, getting the estimate, paying for the service, then after everything is done and you're ready to take your keys back, the mechanic says "by the way, you have to agree to these terms to be able to drive your car again
" and won't give you your keys back. You know how long that would stand up in court? Exactly.
But that's not at all the same thing. In this situation you have a contract, and one party is attempting to modify the terms. He can't do that.
Only in certain instances, like the Psystar case, and they were incorrectly upheld. In other instances, they haven't held up so well. Not too long ago Microsoft was told that EULA have to be made available prior to purchase, thanks to a woman suing Best Buy and Microsoft over EULAs.
You are wrong. Psystar was absolutely correctly decided, and there will be no appeal because the appeals court will refuse to hear the case.
Please cite the Microsoft case. The courts have generally held that a EULA can be presented post purchase as long as if the consumer refuses the EULA he can return the software for a refund.
I DO own the software. I can't modify it and sell it as my own, the way Psystar was doing. But I DO own that copy.
You contradict yourself. You claim to own the software. If you owned it you could modify it and sell it as you own. So clearly you don't own the software.
You may own the copy - you certainly own the physical medium. That's a licensing issue.
And I can do with it what I please as long as I don't try to pass it off as my own creation, copy it illegally, or anything like that. No one is in any place to tell me what I can or cannot do with it as long as I don't try to pass it off as my own creation or modify it and sell it.
There is no such prohibition as "pass it off as my own creation." Copyright law says you cannot copy it, create a derivative work, distribute it, perform it in public, etc. except for certain exceptions (you can create a copy in memory in order to run the software, for example). The DMCA says you cannot circumvent technical measures.
And the EULA, which is perfectly legal in the U.S., and which is an enforceable contract (if you choose not to agree to it, you cannot use the software), places further limitations on your use.
[QUOTE}
In the end, Apple canNOT tell me what I can or cannot do with my devices that I PURCHASED with MY money.[/QUOTE]
Yes they can. You are creating a legal framework that does not exist. You are like one of those people who claims the Constitution forbids federal income tax, and thus refuses to pay. As a Federal District Court judge once told me, those people can refuse to admit that the law is the law, but that isn't going to stop him from throwing them into jail.
You may not like the law, but the correct path would be to try and get it changed and not to deny that the law is the law.
endures.
