Topic: Will the validity of the EULA finally be fought out in court?

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

As expected, the 54-page complaint, filed in US District Court for the Northern District of California, charges Apple with restraint of trade, unfair competition and other violations of antitrust law.

Miami-based Psystar, owned by Rudy Pedraza, requests that the court find Apple's end-user licence agreements (EULA) void and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

"The present litigation is more complex than the misinformed and mischaracterised allegations of copyright infringement," attorney Colby Springer, of antitrust specialists Carr & Ferrell, said in a statement. "The litigation involves the anticompetitive nature of the Apple EULA and similar anticompetitive tactics related to the misuse of Apple's copyrights."

[Rod ONeal]

I hope Psystar is in the right.

[Pestalence_XC]

Well, At least it isn't MS this time.

[Nemesis]

Well, At least it isn't MS this time.

I object to the EULA in principle. 

When I go into a store and say to the clerk "I would like to buy a copy of that program" they sell it to me with there being no mention of it being merely licensed.  The receipt is just a bill of sale with nothing to indicate a license has changed hands.  I doubt very much they have negotiated a deal with the software company to act as their agents and as such they don't have the legal standing to sell a license.  I doubt that at any step between myself and the publisher there is even any mention of the software being licensed not sold.  Without that explicit chain of people authorized to sell licenses I doubt the validity of the EULA under contract law.

I see no reason that software unlike other copyrighted material should have the rights that software publisher take for themselves.  Specifically the right to limit the way you use the product you buy. 

What do you think the courts would say if upon entering your newly purchased house a EULA popped up with the type of restriction commonly placed on software in it?  Especially the "This House is merely licensed you may not sell or transfer the license". restriction.  So why is software different?  (Note house designs are commonly copyrighted so you CANNOT make an exact copy of most newer houses without permission of the copyright holder).

[Dracho]

Another interesting one will be when someone is charged for violating the DMCA for making a copy of a DVD they own a physical copy of (by bypassing the security using a rip program), but are entitled to make a copy of under fair use.

[Nemesis]

The DMCA is another issue.  It deserves a thread all its own.

    :hint: