as to your argument about the word "and", i read the sentence in question as stating that you may install the software only on one machine at a time AND you may use the software one machine at a time. it seems perfectly clear to me. the "and use" merely reinforces that you can only install the software on one machine at a time. in case in wasn't clear,
That is your opinion, which I disagree with. In my opinion, you are reading something that is not there.
If you are meant to install the software only on one machine at a time AND use the software one machine at a time, then the EULA should specifically say that in the clear and consise words, similar to what you wrote. The EULA doesn't use your wordings, the EULA states "install and use."
To me (and many others) this usage of language is akin to the statement "dont drink and drive"... You are allowed to drink, and you are allowed to drive, you just aren't allowed to do both at the same time.
it goes on to say that the software may only exist on one machine at a time. exist is again are more english word and most people will understand this to mean installed and would not the somewhat absurd line that it must be in RAM to exist.
Now I admit my reasoning here comes from being a software designer rather than a common man. Because of my knowledge, I know that software is a process that demands the usage of the CPU and RAM and many other computer components. The file on your computer that you double click is more like a recipe that tells the machine how to execute and display things the user wants. The execution and display is the software 'existing.'
An analogy would be a cook baking a cake. The cook uses a recipe to tell him how to do it, but in and of itself, the recipe is not a cake.
if you don't take the ordinary english interpretation of the agreement, you have to next look at the intentions of the parties. are you suggesting that apple intend that this software may be used in whatever way by one person on different machines?
I cannot comment on Apple's intentions, however, by giving the EULA the title "single user licence" they give the impression to others that the software is to be used by one person, and not many people. If they wanted to give the impression that the software is to be used on only one machine, they should have entitled it "Single Machine Licence."
if they did why would they not specifically and expressly state that the software may be used by one user on multiple machines? you will not[e] that some single user software allows the user to install on a desktop and laptop and expressly states so in the agreement.
Again, I am only guessing here, but the idea that I can use software that I have a licence for anywhere I want is implicit to the idea of softare; so long as I do not share the software with others who do not have a licence.
why do you think the agreement is one of adhesion and/or (like that?
) unconscionable?
The EULA is Unconscientious Dealing because
1) Enforcement of the contract would require an invasion of my privacy, which is unfair
2) It is unfair for me to buy multiple "single user licences" if I (a single user) am only using a single instance of the software at a single time
3) It is unfair for me to buy a family licence, since I am not a family.
Add these unfair contractual wordings towards the fact that this is a take it or leave it deal formed from a boiler plate (all Apples EULAs are essentially the same and use complicated legal language which often seems irrelevant). Also, there is no real alternative at this point to iWork 08... MS Office for Mac is buggy and often crashes (and is therefore not an acceptable alternative), while NeoOffice/OpenOffice does not have full compatibility to MS Office (which is nearly universally used by businesses, making oOo unacceptable). The points I make in this paragraph demonstrate that Apple is using strong arm tactics to get you to accept their conditions.
