Once Apple fills out the rest of their hardware offerings, I hope most of the whining stops. The only major problem I ever had with Apple using PowerPC was the performance gap, which is now moot. The little extra cost involved in designing their own hardware is easily offset by the lack of driver problems Apple tech support and their customers have to deal with.
If Apple offers a tower with a dual core proc, 1GB ram and an nVidia 7800 with 256 MB ram for ~$1599, I will shut up.
Looking at the powermac line, I dont see that happening because Apple seems addicted to ardificial handycapping.
nope. i was simply asserting and subsequently supporting that end user license agreements are not necessarily based on copyright. on the other hand you seem to have been attempting to tailor definitions and history to make your statement more reasonable.
"If you want to bring everything else into it, fine, we can talk about license plates too."
i was perfectly happy with my statement implying that contracts don't necessarily have anything to do with copyrights and would have thought a couple examples would have been sufficient to point that out.
"In its area, it's correct."
it's area being contracts, which would include all eula's.
"You could write a license based on that, but it wouldn't have automatic protection as based in law that has laid down the parameters over two centuries."
assuming that the 2 centuries of law you're referring to is copyright law, you'd be wrong again. the material would still enjoy the same protections as a any printed material. by the same token one, one could not use it to bludgeon someone to death with. are you claiming that such a eula would also be based on murder statues?
"I have never seen a EULA for copyighted materials (or patented, or trademarked) that wasn't based upon the laws earmarked for that purpose. Maybe you have. I'm curious. Have you an example?"
yep. the most common of which are nda's.
"The examples shown reflect that shrinkwrap has the force of law."
and of course, one would want to note that i never asserted that shrinkwrap licenses could not be legally binding. my assertion was simply that there is a significant distinction between shrinkwrap and clickwrap licenses. due to the lack of any affirmative action the general concept of a shrinkwrap licenses does not constitute a binding contract and must rely on other factors. a clckwrap license, by definition, requires an affirmative action, so it doesn't suffer from this deficiency.
so let's do a quick review of my 3 rather simple assertions (all of which you've taken exception to).
1) eula's aren't necessarily based on copyright law - they aren't, they're based on contract law.
2) clickwrap licenses exist, differ from shrinkwrap licenses and are superior to shrinkwrap licenses - shrinkwraps rely on other factors which may or may not provide an affirmative action, while clickwraps do not. this is probably why there has been a shift to the use of clickwrap (including but not limited to apple software).
3) binding contracts can be formed via shrinkwrap and clickwrap licenses in most states - the ucc (which has been adopted in 49 states) "a contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such a contract". while shrinkwrap licenses may or may not be covered, clickwraps definitely are. la passed a statute that expressly recognized the validity of shrinkwrap licenses, but it was later deemed to be unenforceable.
If Apple offers a tower with a dual core proc, 1GB ram and an nVidia 7800 with 256 MB ram for ~$1599, I will shut up.
Looking at the powermac line, I dont see that happening because Apple seems addicted to ardificial handycapping.
Yes! Totally. Not that you should shut up, that is.
But the $999 tower is something I so agree with. I even gave a couple of designs to friends in Apple's engineering management. Problem was that they liked the concepts, but said that "upstairs" wouldn't want to do one.
The fact is that OS X will be hacked to run on generic intel boxes and before Leopard 10.5 OS X UB/Intel goes on sale it will be SO cracked that nothing Apple can do will prevent it's running on generic boxes. The reason is, is that you can home build a white box for less than retail even Apple's retail and with larger hard drives and more ram than apple sells using the SAME high quality parts Apple uses. This exercise is simply allowing the crackers like Maxxus to exhaust Apple's possibilities to prevent it BEFORE Leopard OS X 10.5 goes on sale. Which means that excepting the iPod Apple will become eventually a software company in SOME respect, as there will be an underground market involved in building clones expressly for the purpose of putting cracked OS X on them. Hackers will continue to do as they wish. As they always have done. Nothing you or I or anyone can do will change this fact. At least Apple can expect the revenue from sales of Leopard OS X UB/Intel........unless even THAT is pirated and downloaded. But I expect that it will sell if it is priced reasonably......
At least Apple can expect the revenue from sales of Leopard OS X UB/Intel........unless even THAT is pirated and downloaded. But I expect that it will sell if it is priced reasonably......
No, that will be pirated too, just like all* the people running OSX on non-Apple kit today do.
* except for the mad ones that have bought an Intel DevKit, iMac or MacBookPro and have deleted the copy on the Apple kit.
Comments
Originally posted by strobe
Once Apple fills out the rest of their hardware offerings, I hope most of the whining stops. The only major problem I ever had with Apple using PowerPC was the performance gap, which is now moot. The little extra cost involved in designing their own hardware is easily offset by the lack of driver problems Apple tech support and their customers have to deal with.
If Apple offers a tower with a dual core proc, 1GB ram and an nVidia 7800 with 256 MB ram for ~$1599, I will shut up.
Looking at the powermac line, I dont see that happening because Apple seems addicted to ardificial handycapping.
yep, not one word mentioned about licenses.
"We were talking about copyrights and such."
nope. i was simply asserting and subsequently supporting that end user license agreements are not necessarily based on copyright. on the other hand you seem to have been attempting to tailor definitions and history to make your statement more reasonable.
"If you want to bring everything else into it, fine, we can talk about license plates too."
i was perfectly happy with my statement implying that contracts don't necessarily have anything to do with copyrights and would have thought a couple examples would have been sufficient to point that out.
"In its area, it's correct."
it's area being contracts, which would include all eula's.
"You could write a license based on that, but it wouldn't have automatic protection as based in law that has laid down the parameters over two centuries."
assuming that the 2 centuries of law you're referring to is copyright law, you'd be wrong again. the material would still enjoy the same protections as a any printed material. by the same token one, one could not use it to bludgeon someone to death with. are you claiming that such a eula would also be based on murder statues?
"I have never seen a EULA for copyighted materials (or patented, or trademarked) that wasn't based upon the laws earmarked for that purpose. Maybe you have. I'm curious. Have you an example?"
yep. the most common of which are nda's.
"The examples shown reflect that shrinkwrap has the force of law."
and of course, one would want to note that i never asserted that shrinkwrap licenses could not be legally binding. my assertion was simply that there is a significant distinction between shrinkwrap and clickwrap licenses. due to the lack of any affirmative action the general concept of a shrinkwrap licenses does not constitute a binding contract and must rely on other factors. a clckwrap license, by definition, requires an affirmative action, so it doesn't suffer from this deficiency.
so let's do a quick review of my 3 rather simple assertions (all of which you've taken exception to).
1) eula's aren't necessarily based on copyright law - they aren't, they're based on contract law.
2) clickwrap licenses exist, differ from shrinkwrap licenses and are superior to shrinkwrap licenses - shrinkwraps rely on other factors which may or may not provide an affirmative action, while clickwraps do not. this is probably why there has been a shift to the use of clickwrap (including but not limited to apple software).
3) binding contracts can be formed via shrinkwrap and clickwrap licenses in most states - the ucc (which has been adopted in 49 states) "a contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such a contract". while shrinkwrap licenses may or may not be covered, clickwraps definitely are. la passed a statute that expressly recognized the validity of shrinkwrap licenses, but it was later deemed to be unenforceable.
Originally posted by a_greer
If Apple offers a tower with a dual core proc, 1GB ram and an nVidia 7800 with 256 MB ram for ~$1599, I will shut up.
Looking at the powermac line, I dont see that happening because Apple seems addicted to ardificial handycapping.
Yes! Totally. Not that you should shut up, that is.
But the $999 tower is something I so agree with. I even gave a couple of designs to friends in Apple's engineering management. Problem was that they liked the concepts, but said that "upstairs" wouldn't want to do one.
Originally posted by applewiz
At least Apple can expect the revenue from sales of Leopard OS X UB/Intel........unless even THAT is pirated and downloaded. But I expect that it will sell if it is priced reasonably......
No, that will be pirated too, just like all* the people running OSX on non-Apple kit today do.
* except for the mad ones that have bought an Intel DevKit, iMac or MacBookPro and have deleted the copy on the Apple kit.