Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltyDawg
We'll see how this all plays out. While it's true that you are bound to a EULA, it's also true that a EULA has to meet certain criteria in order to be valid.
Remember- Microsoft got smacked down by just about every government in the free world for doing something similar to this with Windows back in the day. Their's was slightly different (they said they didn't want Windows running on hardware that also ran Linux) but it's the same basic principle: once you buy the software you are free to do whatever you want (within reason) with it.
In short- just because it's in a EULA doesn't mean the consumer is bound to that EULA. That EULA still has to follow the laws. Microsoft found this out the hard way, and I'm positive Apple will too if Psystar has enough money to fight them.
|
I don't recall exactly why M$'s EULA terms were deemed voidable/unenforceable. But based on how the software industry has developed over the past decade, I just can't see any court striking terms that limit use to particular hardware. I do see how it can look a bit dark, especially when compared to the "sale of a copy." You know, this whole licensing angle popped up because of the "first sale doctrine," which says a buyer can do anything they want with what they bought. Anyhow, it will be interesting to see how this pans out.