Difference between single license vs faimly pack

[Macky-Mac]

...It us perfectly valid for a contract to not be negotiated. Sign it or don't sign it. Agree or don't agree. A provision can't be unconscionable because it is not negotiated. However, an unconscionable provision (a provision that is unconscionable on its own merits, like all the arbitration clauses that you have cited) is more likely to be found unenforceable if it is in a non-negotiated contract.

I don't think limiting an installation to one computer can rationally be considered unconscionable on its own.

"Unconscionable" clearly involves more than just the lack of a negotiated contract. From the inevitable wikipedia article;

...Unconscionability in standard form contracts usually arises where there is an "absence of meaningful choice on the part of one party due to one-sided contract provisions, together with terms which are so oppressive that no reasonable person would make them and no fair and honest person would accept them...."..

wiki article

I've always heard that judges will uphold or overturn "contracts of adhesion" based on whether or not the terms are reasonable......it seems such contracts can indeed be perfectly valid and enforceable

 

[fleshman03]

A lot of stuff.

ZDnet forums are rough, huh? It’s really quite hard to have a civil debate here. Usually it ends up just turning to mush. So I thank you for having the discussion with me. Same to BaldiMac.

Now onto the rates issue.

You can speak with your bank to get better rates. You can say “I had a better offer with Bank A, will you beat it?” I know I have gotten many rates lower than the average simply with a phone call. Also - you are on an equal footing since you didn’t shell out the $80 to view the terms.

Your credit union contract is valid. While you had the choice to negotiate, you didn’t. With clickwrap, that choice isn’t there.

What are you terms for the stock photo usage? I’d say that it is legal. Are they charging you per user view? Per day? I don’t really know enough about it. However, I’d equate the iLife/iWork terms to those of a per view basis. That is why the negotiation is important. I can argue for more views. If it was on a time basis, then I could simply extend the period.

Negotiation can work both ways. If I work at a newspaper and want to use the image, I can buy a one day- print license. Blast it all over the cover of the NYTs under the title “worst pictures ever” and kill the ability of the company to license it again. (or use it in some other manor that would harm the companies ability for resale.)

This is my biggest gripe with licensed software. I almost wished it was a “you bought it, you own it, do what you wish” world.


There wasn’t much of a difference there. (Between the breach of contract and breaking of copyright law)


I was actually going to talk about M$’ office license....I think that is the best way to enforce something like this. I’m glad Apple doesn’t do anything like this, but it works. You do raise an interesting question. What constitutes usage? With iLife/iWork, we don’t have this problem. The products won’t work unless the user chooses to run them. (i.e., Pages doesn’t open unless I want it to.) I would also say that if a person pays the license fee, there should be some leeway. If someone opens a document by accident, allow only read access. For office files, they have viewers. We have preview.

The no-negotiate contracts happen. No one is 100% sure of the legality. The high court still has to rule on something like this. We have some lower court decisions, but nothing in terms of a final say so. (At least not to my knowledge.)

The deal you have with your “”dro” supplier is your deal. With food/water you are buying a product. There isn’t a license required. I’d say you could negotiate your car/health insurance. Give them a call and say you’d like to negotiate a better rate. Having other offers is usually a good idea, but it can be done.

Taxes is a whole different story....

Last comment - for now. You said “...but that is also what happens with Apple. If you walk in with an order for 1000 licenses, guess what.... you get to negotiate.” That speaks to my point about equal footing. For the common man, they make it impossible to negotiate better terms.


I’ll get back to baldiMac a little later... It’s been a long day.


Edit - I feel like we're writing a book here.... lol.

 

[Winni]

Putting aside what is morally right, or legally right, is there honestly a difference between a the single license compared to the Family Pack of OS X or iLife 09?

Technically, there is no difference between the single-license retail box and the Family Pack. And now that Apple removed the serial numbers from iWork, it's simply impossible for them to track on how many machines you've actually installed your "Mac Set" (Leopard/iLife/iWork).

Of course, you will be "under-licensed" if you install a single-license version more than once.

You can also not use the Family Packs for your business - you either have to purchase a single-license version of their software for each machine or ask Apple if they offer volume licenses for businesses (and at what price).

So when you use a Family Pack commercially, you are also "under-licensed".

All that being said, I have a bunch of Family Packs at home; from Tiger, over iWork 05 and iLife 06 to Leopard, iLife 08 and iWork 08. iWork 09 was the first edition where I only bought a single license - and that's because I'm only using it on one computer.

It's an ethical thing: You want to be paid for your work. So pay others for theirs. If you don't want to pay for a product, use something else. There are alternatives for everything.

 

[sidewinder]

fleshman03,

Not being able to negotiate does not make a contract invalid or unenforceable not matter how hard you say no one is sure of the legality.

And no court is going to disallow a a provision in a contract that limits the purchased software license to being valid on one machine at a time. Why? Because it is not unreasonable. Otherwise, a company would in effect be selling a site license which would not be fair to the seller.

S-

 

[Macky-Mac]

....
The no-negotiate contracts happen. No one is 100% sure of the legality. The high court still has to rule on something like this. We have some lower court decisions, but nothing in terms of a final say so. (At least not to my knowledge.)
......

the no-negotiation contract has been around for years and years....it's not really a matter of "No one is 100% sure of the legality." because it's well established in law and indeed something most people deal with quite frequently.....cel phone contracts, the warranty on appliances, your cable TV service, your bank's rules about your checking account, your health insurance, your auto insurance, .airline tickets, how your stock broker handles your account, etc, etc.

 

[snberk103]

ZDnet forums are rough, huh? It’s really quite hard to have a civil debate here. Usually it ends up just turning to mush. So I thank you for having the discussion with me. Same to BaldiMac.

Now onto the rates issue.

You can speak with your bank to get better rates. You can say “I had a better offer with Bank A, will you beat it?” I know I have gotten many rates lower than the average simply with a phone call. Also - you are on an equal footing since you didn’t shell out the $80 to view the terms.

I don't think you understand.... while I can go into my credit union to ask for a better rate.... they are obligated not to. They advertise that all rates advertised are the best that they can do, and that the fat cats don't get better rates than I do. They are big, I am not, all I can do is take my business elsewhere.... except that they do have the best rates. I have negotiated with banks in past, so I know that it's possible. Just not with this company. I can call Apple and ask for a loosening of the license - I can negotiate. And they can say no.

Your credit union contract is valid. While you had the choice to negotiate, you didn’t. With clickwrap, that choice isn’t there.

see comment above.... my negotiation is the same with the credit union as with Apple.

What are you terms for the stock photo usage? I’d say that it is legal. Are they charging you per user view? Per day? I don’t really know enough about it. However, I’d equate the iLife/iWork terms to those of a per view basis. That is why the negotiation is important. I can argue for more views. If it was on a time basis, then I could simply extend the period.

Traditionally stock agencies would have a menu. Use it for one publication, one issue - its costs $this much. Use it Nationally for a year, it costs $that much. The online versions don't have a "call and talk about rates" section, its all spelled out ahead of time.... you can call and ask for a reduction. But they won't. They have a contract with the photographer as well. Does that make their licensing terms unenforceable? No. And this issue has gone to court many times. This is probably the closest example of the Apple terms. Its pure licensing, with no real "product".

Negotiation can work both ways. If I work at a newspaper and want to use the image, I can buy a one day- print license. Blast it all over the cover of the NYTs under the title “worst pictures ever” and kill the ability of the company to license it again. (or use it in some other manor that would harm the companies ability for resale.)

I suspect you would get in trouble in other ways..... but that's a different discussion.

This is my biggest gripe with licensed software. I almost wished it was a “you bought it, you own it, do what you wish” world.

There is some software like that - NeoOffice and other open source software. But, the people who write the software - need to make a living somehow. If they gave it all away, who would write software?

There wasn’t much of a difference there. (Between the breach of contract and breaking of copyright law)


I was actually going to talk about M$’ office license....I think that is the best way to enforce something like this. I’m glad Apple doesn’t do anything like this, but it works. You do raise an interesting question. What constitutes usage? With iLife/iWork, we don’t have this problem. The products won’t work unless the user chooses to run them. (i.e., Pages doesn’t open unless I want it to.) I would also say that if a person pays the license fee, there should be some leeway. If someone opens a document by accident, allow only read access. For office files, they have viewers. We have preview.

If Apple ever did start restricting the open usage of the Single License for iLife and iWork, that would be an interesting way to do it. If a 2nd copy opens up, allow it to read - but not to save or print, or anything else.

The OS is a different thing, because it actually does a lot of "stuff" even when you aren't sitting there.

The no-negotiate contracts happen. No one is 100% sure of the legality. The high court still has to rule on something like this. We have some lower court decisions, but nothing in terms of a final say so. (At least not to my knowledge.)

Others have commented on this, and I agree with them. No Negotiation contracts are common, and I'm not aware of anyone serious challenge to their validity. The one place where you can get in trouble with one is under exceptional circumstances e.g. a disaster, where the sole supplier of water triples the cost of water. But there is specific legislation for this kind of gouging.

The deal you have with your “”dro” supplier is your deal. With food/water you are buying a product. There isn’t a license required. I’d say you could negotiate your car/health insurance. Give them a call and say you’d like to negotiate a better rate. Having other offers is usually a good idea, but it can be done.

Can't negotiate car or medical here. I'm in Canada, and in this province all basic auto insurance is provided by a Crown Corporation.... an entity of the provincial government. You must buy your basic insurance with them (3rd party and liability, essentially. Optional insurance i.e. loss of use, collision, etc you can go to the private market). There is no negotiation. Same thing for medical. Its universal health insurance. I pay my $54/month for basic health care. I have no choice about the rates (though I can use it anywhere in province). They don't negotiate. Its still valid.

Taxes is a whole different story....

Last comment - for now. You said “...but that is also what happens with Apple. If you walk in with an order for 1000 licenses, guess what.... you get to negotiate.” That speaks to my point about equal footing. For the common man, they make it impossible to negotiate better terms.

Most places make it impossible for the common man or woman. Try negotiating at McDonalds, or Starbucks, or number of large companies where you have no leverage.

I’ll get back to baldiMac a little later... It’s been a long day.


Edit - I feel like we're writing a book here.... lol.

Do it! (The book that is...)