Please provide a cite that licensing is on the whole invalid. I doubt that you will.
Before you criticize my posts, I suggest you lay your hands on a dictionary. I did not say Apple's licensing was invalid. I said it was under contention. If you'd read and understood the piece of my post you quoted, you would have realized that.
And yes, Apple's licensing is under contention. That Psystar case you cited, remember?
Until it has been ruled invalid, it is assumed to be valid. And business operate under a higher standard than individuals are held to. Businesses cannot just go and violate licensing or abuse copyright.
That's an arguable truth. Just because something is in writing does not make it uniformly valid. You can put whatever you want in a contract, but if those clauses violate the law, they are not valid. So just because the law is not clear, does not automatically make those clauses in the EULA valid. It simply makes them untested.
That is laughable and an invalid comparison. The statements you make are not even comparable. You understand nothing about how licensing and copyright actually work.
🙄 It's called an analogy. Maybe when you're looking up "contention", you can look that one up too. The point is, you bought something. Now the person you bought it from is trying to tell you how you are allowed to use it. Whether that product is software or a physical product makes no difference. You paid money for it, you should have the right to use it as you see fit (within the confines of the law, obviously). It has nothing to do with copyright.
If a BMW came with an EULA that said you could only drive it in California, would that be acceptable? Because if they were so inclined, BMW could very easily sell you a "license" to use the vehicle, and they could say "may only be used in CA". But that does not by itself make that "license" valid.
product...
