PEDRAZA VS. MACINTOSH: WORMS IN THE APPLE

LAWeekly ^ | Published on November 11, 2009 at 6:22pm | BY TIM ELFRINK

[zeugma]

They are installing OS X in contravention of the license. They don't own the software and cannot decide how it is to be used, only the owner can do that. All they own is a license to use it in accordance with the terms of that license.

We're going to have to agree to disagree to this, as noted in my previous post, this stance seems to fly in the face of the doctrine of first sale. 

[Mind-numbed Robot]

If they want to fight piracy they will have to go where the pirates are. That seems to be Yemen.

:-)

[Swordmaker]

The entire idea flies in the face of the doctrine of first sale, which was thankfully fully adjudicated when the US was a Republic was goverened by reason and rule of law and prior to the US becoming a corporatist state where copyright has essentially become eternal.

Yes, it was... but the adjudication hinged on what the agreement said. In the judgement the ruling was careful to make the distinction between a license and a sale. In the case that most people point to and the Bacall case, it was ruled to be a sale because of the language was written wrong. Other cases in which it is explicitly spelled out that the contract is a license have consistently been upheld and the doctrine of 1st sale is not applicable.

[Swordmaker]

We're going to have to agree to disagree to this, as noted in my previous post, this stance seems to fly in the face of the doctrine of first sale.

It would, if it were a sale of the software instead of a sale of a right to access and use the software... an entirely different thing.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Apple is selling the OS to folks.

. . . and your position is that if they want to make their OS function as a loss leader for their hardware, they can do so only by making their hardware in such a way that PC's can't adequately emulate it. Otherwise, they cannot engage in their chosen system business. They must be in the software business and, separately, the hardware business.

Although they could, I suppose, price their OS at $1,000,000 per licensed copy - and give people who own or buy Macs a $999,901 rebate, and a warranty of operability. Would that suit you better than seeing Apple refuse to sell licensed copies of OS X to people who don't own Macs?