“It is technically possible to install a purchased retail copy of OSX [sic] or some other software on a number of different machines,” Nescio writes for OSNews. “Will the courts uphold a click through agreement in which, in order to perform the installation, we agree not to install it on some categories of them as listed in the EULA?”
Nescio writes, “We will all have views on this, and we will have views on what differences different jurisdictions will make to what the courts rule. Let us leave that interesting subject and ask: What do we think the law ought to be?”
Nescio writes, “My view is that suppliers should in general not be able to restrict the use buyers make of their products except in cases where the public interest in terms of health and safety is a significant factor… What we should not want the law to allow is for vendors to restrict our ability to use the products in ways which have no such justification, but perhaps benefit only them. We should not, for instance, want the vendor of an attractive software package to be able to use its attractiveness to force people who want to use it to buy hardware they do not need, as a condition of its use.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: We’re left with a couple of questions of our own: Why would any company commit talent and treasure to develop software if they could be compelled by courts to simply license it to anyone who wished to use it to sell their own wares? If so, Apple should license Mac OS X for $1.29 trillion per copy. $1.99 trillion for the Family Pack. And, while exploring this vein, does Microsoft also get force Nintendo to license them the Wii system software to deploy on Xbox hardware?
