Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PEDRAZA VS. MACINTOSH: WORMS IN THE APPLE
LAWeekly ^ | Published on November 11, 2009 at 6:22pm | BY TIM ELFRINK

Posted on 11/12/2009 1:41:18 PM PST by Swordmaker

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last
To: Swordmaker
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. 

21 posted on 11/13/2009 7:17:18 AM PST by zeugma (Raise the IQ of the planet: Nuke mecca during haj.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

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

:-)


22 posted on 11/13/2009 7:45:59 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
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.

23 posted on 11/13/2009 12:47:54 PM PST by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
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.

24 posted on 11/13/2009 12:49:22 PM PST by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
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?


25 posted on 11/13/2009 3:26:30 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (Anyone who claims to be objective marks himself as hopelessly subjective.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson