Slashdot Log In
Apple Suit Demands That Psystar Recall OpenMacs
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Jul 16, 2008 01:05 PM
from the give-us-your-cake-and-a-fork dept.
from the give-us-your-cake-and-a-fork dept.
Da'Man writes "The Psystar saga takes another series of turns. Not only is the website down but an examination of the suit filed by Apple shows that the Cupertino Goliath wants Psystar to recall all Open Computer and OpenServ systems sold by the company since April. It seems that Steve Jobs is out to totally sink Psystar and put an end to Mac clones."
Related Stories
[+]
Hardware: $399 Mac Clone Most Likely a Hoax 233 comments
timholman writes "According to Gizmodo, an investigation has shown that the $399 OpenMac is almost certainly vaporware, as is Psystar itself. The company's address has actually changed twice this week, according to its web page, and Psystar is no longer accepting credit card transactions. Too bad for those who may have already ordered an OpenMac."
[+]
First Psystar Mac Clones Ship 466 comments
An anonymous reader writes "According to Gizmodo, Psystar has begun shipping its Macintosh clones, thus proving that the company is not a hoax. Initial impressions seem to be positive, though Software Update does not work."
[+]
Mac Cloner Psystar Ships First Service Pack 468 comments
Preedit writes "Not only is Mac clone maker Psystar continuing to defy Apple's ban on third-party Leopard installations, it's supporting the hardware with updates. Psystar Mac clones shipped as of Monday will include a 'service pack' that features fixes for a range of problems, some of them inherent in Apple's own software, according to InformationWeek. The fixes address a range of troubles, from glitches in Apple's Time Machine backup feature to quirks in the Keyboard Viewer and Character Palette entries in Leopard's system preferences menu. There's also support for the latest version of Java and other updates. According to the story, by offering a full menu of support, Psystar appears to be daring Apple to attempt to enforce provisions in the Leopard license agreement that forbid third-party installations and sales." We've been discussing Psystar clones for a while.
Submission: Apple suit demands that Psystar recall OpenMacs by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Your Rights Online: Psystar Will Countersue Apple 1084 comments
An anonymous reader sends us to CNet for news that Apple clone maker Pystar plans to countersue Apple. We discussed Apple's suit last month. "Mac clone maker Psystar plans to file its answer to Apple's copyright infringement lawsuit Tuesday as well as a countersuit of its own, alleging that Apple engages in anticompetitive business practices. Miami-based Psystar... will sue Apple under two federal laws designed to discourage monopolies and cartels, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, saying Apple's tying of the Mac OS to Apple-labeled hardware is 'an anticompetitive restraint of trade,' according to [an] attorney... Psystar is requesting that the court find Apple's EULA void, and is asking for unspecified damages."
[+]
Your Rights Online: Lawsuit Between Apple and Psystar Moves Toward Settlement 242 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Psystar and Apple have agreed to alternative dispute resolution to keep the public eye away from their disagreements, and to reduce legal costs. This will eliminate any rulings that would set a precedent over Psystar's claim that Apple is violating anti-trust laws by tying Mac OS X to only their hardware and thus creating a monopoly. This could result in a profit for Psystar's business, but eliminate their line of open-computing Mac-compatible PCs. On the other hand, what's to stop a similar company from doing the same thing?"
Offsite: ">
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Oh Yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
The more you tighten your grip, Jobs, the more star systems will slip through your fingers!
Re:Oh Yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Oh Yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
Should that not be "The more you tighten your grip, Jobs, the more psystar systems will slip through your fingers!" :D
Yes, it should be... assuming you're a fan of explaining the joke within the joke itself, thereby rendering it unfunny.
Parent
Re:Oh Yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Oh Yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Oh Yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
Oooo! Oooo!
In Soviet Russia perfect moments for meme use wait and find you!
*crickets*
Parent
IBM PC (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, IBM "got out of the game". No, it was not necessarily bad for them.
Parent
into a different game... Re:IBM PC (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:into a different game... Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Informative)
Though the iPod and iPhone are popular, there is no way Apple could survive on those products alone. Mac is their core business. If they lose their supremacy to cloners, they're sunk.
On what do you base this assumption? This article [marketwatch.com] is old, but it shows an opposing point of view:
Leading the charge for Apple was its line of iPods, with the company shipping 21 million of the market-leading devices during the quarter, a 50% jump from a year ago. Sales of the device accounted for $3.43 billion of the company's revenue, or nearly half the total.
Apple's total number of iPod sales now stands at about 90 million units since the device first went on sale in October 2001.
"After five years, the iPod is still going strong," said Shaw Wu, an analyst with American Technology Research. "It's still a very popular product." Wu holds a buy rating on Apple's stock. The results show that demand for Apple's products remains strong despite stepped-up competition from rivals such as Microsoft Corp. (MSFT: Microsoft Corporation News, chart, profile, more Last: 27.26+1.10+4.20% 4:12pm 07/16/2008 Delayed quote data Add to portfolio Analyst Create alert Insider Discuss Financials Sponsored by: MSFT 27.26, +1.10, +4.2%) , which is pushing hard to boost its share of the digital entertainment market with a new handheld media player and other consumer products.
"The iPod sales were shocking," said Gene Munster, of Piper Jaffray. "And the earnings power of this company is reaching record levels."
Macintosh computer sales also surged, rising 40% to $2.4 billion, while Mac shipments rose 28% to 1.61 million units, more than double the growth of the overall PC market. The Mac results were a slightly below many analysts forecasts, as several had expected Apple to sell between 1.75 million and 1.8 million Macs during the quarter.
However, Munster, of Piper Jaffray, said the holiday-quarter Mac sales needed to be taken into context, and were actually solid because they remained almost in line with Apple's September quarter results, which is when Apple sees strong back-to-school PC sales.
"People give iPods for Christmas, not computers," Munster said.
Parent
Re:into a different game... Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think Apple could whether a storm...
"Weather". I know, I could of left it alone, but I'm sure that its bothering alot of people.
I know, I could "have" left it alone, but I'm sure that "it's" bothering "a lot" of people. You should have left it alone.
Parent
Re:IBM PC (Score:4, Insightful)
iPhone anyone?
Parent
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of a WinMo device going into portrait mode by hitting a button or opening a slide-out keyboard, it has a tilt sensor, the Wiimote had one before the iPhone. Instead of a single touch, you can use 2 fingers, like in that Tom Cruise movie with seeing the future. Say it how it is, using terms like "multitouch" glorifies a rather arbitrary concept.
Innovation is 90% efficiency solar panels or 100 MPG cars or even the company that invented the hardware that makes multitouch work, something that doesn't exist, not utilizing things that are already available.
What Apple does is polish concepts, just like Blizzard. Blizzard didn't invent the RTS or MMO but they polished them into something really good (actually I hate WoW, but it is what it is).
Parent
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Innovation is 90% efficiency solar panels or 100 MPG cars or even the company that invented the hardware that makes multitouch work...
I think that's a very limited definition of "innovation."
A better definition might be "solving a problem through the novel application of technology". The technology might be completely new, or it might be existing technology used in a new way. Either one can be innovative.
Parent
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Call it what you like, but handheld multitouch is fairly novel, and the automatic screen-turning isn't too shabby either.
IIRC these ideas and more where being thrown around on the OpenMoko mailing list before the iPhone was announced.
While I'm not going to dispute Apples success in putting everything together, I find it hard to credit them with technological innovation when these ideas were being casually thrown around by a bunch of random geeks on a mailing list.
By restricting the realm of what is an Apple device, this can be seen as an attempt to guarantee consistent quality.
Precisely. Which is why I say their marketing concepts are more innovative than their tech.
Parent
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Call it what you like, but handheld multitouch is fairly novel, and the automatic screen-turning isn't too shabby either.
There's really no competition if one is comparing Apple to IBM in terms of innovation. In one corner, you have a neat interface based on multi-touch (they didn't invent the multi touch sensor itself). In the other corner you have the hard disk.
Parent
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:IBM PC (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Interesting)
In so much as WoW/Glider is a district court opinion, it has a nonbinding, advisory effect. If it was an appellate opinion, it's only limit to that circuit (a few states.)
Shrinkwrap licenses are not a slam dunk. They're better than browse-wrap or even click-wrap, but the circuits are split on them if I recall correctly. They may also be held invalid for being substantively and procedural unconscionable. (I would think especially so in this particular case.)
In particular, shrinkwrap licenses that purport to limit fair use are not a slam dunk. The first amendment is the fount of fair use (Sony v. Betamax) and thus of constitutional dimension. While the first amendment is only binding on government actors, the court itself is a government actor, adn therefore by enforcing a fair-use limiting contract (the EULA) the court is essential depriving fair use 1st amendment rights. That's the argument at least. I think its' the right one. We wouldn't want the court to eforce contracts to permit slavery (13th amendment), and I think limiting free speech is particularly dicey. But hey, it happens ALL THE TIME with contracts (nondisclosure for example.) I just don't think it's right for the courts to enforce it.
The biggest problem here for Apple is monopoly issues and tying, which I see Psystar counsel has wisely raised. (You can be a monopoly of a more restricted relevant market than just OSs in general..)
Just my opinion, as a non-lawyer.
Parent
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the licence is binding, since the product can be returned, for full refund without penalty, as long as the software seal inside the package remains intact. Since the Licence agreement can be read withough installing or operning the software, there is a clear path for the user to take to refuse its terms.
Further, many products have not only use restrictions from the manufacturer, but under penalty of federal law, the use of certain devices in certain circumstances can be prevented. The FCC has a large part in that with anything that could potentially cause interference. The DMV has a lot to do with how a car can be used, loaded with cargo, and more.
In a more direct comparison, it have been held up in court that a software vendor can sue successfully for the use of non-commercial, or student only software in commercial spaces. Also, the resale of licenses for system-specific use, like anti virus and other subscription based packages, has also been protected.
In this case, the use of Apple's software on non-apple branded equipment would mean that the DRM functionality of that software (The requirements of an EFI firmware as well as a special ROM circuit) had been defeated, and thus is a violation of the DMCA as well as the software licence agreement.
Since the purchaser has 1) been ninformed of the licence, 2) been given an opportunity to refuse it without penalty, and 3) agree to the terms by performing a physical action (breaking the seal or clicking accept), then at that point it is no longer a licence, but a contract between parties. Licences can also be revolked, at will, by the issuer, with or without reason or provocation, and the continued use would thus be unlicenced and illegal. Apple has simply unlicenced every Psystar system.
Parent
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing is, it's not really the same thing since Psystar isn't an End User. So Honda might not be able to able to make you sign an agreement saying you'll only drive on Honda approved roads (but I don't know, maybe they can?), but Honda could probably make their dealerships sign an agreement saying they won't engage in certain business practices. The analogy isn't perfect, but analogies rarely are.
Because the thing is that Psystar is installing altering the software, copying it, and then distributing the copies. Hence, this isn't an issue of EULAs, but blatant copyright infringement unless they have a license. If the EULA specifically allowed this, they could try to use the EULA to protect themselves, but the EULA makes no provisions that allow them to do this.
Of course, IANAL, so I could be wrong.
Parent
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Informative)
That's not true, by law, an aftermarket part can only void your warranty if it is responsible for the warranty claim [turnermotorsport.com]. Back to Apple, this comes into play with jailbreaking iPhones, for instance. If you brick your phone, you've likely voided your warranty, but if the power button falls off or something, that's still covered under warranty, even if you've jailbroken your phone.
(including upgrading/replacing the radio or adding aftermarket DVD systems)
Upgrading your radio will not void your warranty unless the radio causes something else to fail. If you upgrade your radio, and blow your speakers, they're probably not going to be covered, but if you upgrade your radio and your wheel falls off, that's still covered.
You also can't exactly install a Honda computer from one car into another Honda and expect it to work...
That's a technological limitation, not a legal one.
Apple has a lot of proprietary technologies in their systems
If you're talking about hardware, that's not even close to true. At one time their systems were significantly different from Windows machines, but now they're built with the exact same hardware. The only difference is Apple motherboards have a chip that OSX looks for. It could be argued that circumventing this security measure is a violation of the DMCA, I suppose...
Parent
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM only produced the hardware, Microsoft produced the software and look where they are now...
Apple produce both, by your reckoning Apple would be selling about the same level of hardware that they are now, but selling millions of units of software.
Also when you talk of retaining control, look at the absolutely farcical situation with AmigaOS 4. They are trying so hard to retain control that they've pushed away any customers they might have ever had.
Parent
really? (Score:4, Funny)
um, you THINK?
Re:really? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
EULA w/ full force of law (Score:5, Insightful)
Notice that Apple filed approx a day after the WoW copyright decision. If there was some doubt on Psystar beating Apple on the validity of of the EULA...it is pretty safe to say that Psystar is about to get slapped down.
Re:EULA w/ full force of law (Score:5, Insightful)
IAALS (I am a Law Student). Having worked with litigators, I can gurantee that yesterday's ruling (which actually sets almost no precedent because it relied on existing copyright doctrines despite what Slashdotters thought) had exactly 0 to do with the filing date.
I know this because:
1. If there had been any real precedent set, the litigators would have taken at least several weeks to analyze the decision, make an educated guess as to whether the decision will survive appeals, recraft the complaint, and make sure all of this was OK with the client (Apple) before proceeding. Litigation takes time.
2. The actual filing date of the lawsuit was July 3rd, and the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field is strong, but it does not enable time travel.
Parent
I think this is the first time I've heard... (Score:5, Funny)
...Steve Jobs called a "suit."
I am keeping mine! Ha, ha, HA! (Score:4, Funny)
Take that Stevie!
Apple demands? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, how about the thousands of us who demand a headless, non-pro, non-laptop computer, with actual desktop/decent parts in it?
Mac mini: piss-poor GPU and low-capacity/slow LAPTOP 2.5" drive in a DESKTOP computer?
iMac: fuckin' all-in-one computer with stupid glossy screens and low quality LCDs with not even average GPU choices.
Mac Pro: are you fucking insane? I don't need that much power (and even the GPU options for that one are ridiculous).
Make the Mac mini taller/bigger, put a 3.5" drive and a half-decent GPU in it (the ability to run Starcraft II and Diablo III at medium settings) and it WILL sell. A lot. You have no fuckin' idea how much people loathe all-in-one computers.
Re:Apple demands? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately the same thousands who make this demand also want this computer to be very customizable and to cost under $500 because that's what Dell is selling. There's not much profitability in this market. I suspect this is the main reason Apple hasn't gotten into the market. They're not going to compete with Dell, Lenovo, and countless others in this cutthroat pricing. Apple isn't in business to make computers that are unprofitable.
Parent
End of a Story (Score:4, Insightful)
If Psystar were rich enough, they could win their case against Apple and we could see Mac clones on the market like we saw IBM PC clones in the 80's. But still, what would be the point in having Mac clones ? We'd start to see an OS (Mac OS) that crashes all the time because the hardware is "not supported officially". So we would be forced to install an alternative OS on the machine, like Linux or BSD. Ok it could work great but it works as great on PCs.
Really I'm not trying to troll/start a flamewar, I'm just wondering.
Re:What would be the point? (Score:5, Informative)
All Macs are expandable, although some require a bit of work.
The Mac mini and Macbook have crippled GPUs, these can not be replaced or upgraded. The Macbook Pro does not have any user accessible internal expansion other than the memory (no, it does not have a swappable hard drive, let alone a swappable optical drive bay).
iMac + Radeon HD 2600 PRO = 1337.
iMac is not a compact Mac, nor a conventional desktop. The only conventional desktop Apple has is the Mac mini, and it's crippled.
By Mac mini Pro, you're pretty much imagining a Cube
Except without being more than twice as expensive as a comparable wintel box. The cube was drastically overpriced, costing more than a G4 tower, and apparently was supposed to succeed purely on its looks because it was far less computer than the G4.
Also, the MacBook Air will probably take advantage of Atom and up it's specs to better compete with the ThinkPad
The kind of Thinkpad I'm talking about costs less than the Macbook (non pro, non air), but has a real GPU, a better keyboard than any Apple laptop, two (actual, usable) buttons on the trackpad, a trackpoint mouse, an optical ultrabay (so you can swap out the optical drive, or replace it with a hard drive caddy or an extra battery), a docking port[1], and a physically more rigid case. Oh, and it doesn't have that stupid 'magsafe' connector that keeps pulling out of my Macbook Pro when I'm using it as an actual laptop.
You ask for a conventional, average-specced desktop, then you ask for, essentially, a tiny Mac Pro.
Um, that would be "no, that's not what I'm asking for". A Mac Pro is an 8 core ultra-high-end workstation. I'm talking about a 2 core desktop, comparable to the kind of box you can get (except for Mac OS X, of course) for $300-$400 from anyone but Apple[2]. I'm not sure where you get 'a tiny Mac pro' from that.
[1] Of course a docking station is not available for any Mac laptop, and no the "bookendz" monstrosity doesn't count.
[2] With Apple's 40% markup that would still be cheaper than the Mac mini.
Parent
Begun it has... (Score:4, Interesting)
...the clone war.
What are the odds of people actually returning their much-less-costly Mac clone?
Yup, they're taking the money & running... (Score:5, Insightful)
If The Shoe Were on the Other Foot... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If The Shoe Were on the Other Foot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, no. Microsoft would have every right to go after vendors who were including unlicensed, modified versions of Windows in their systems. How is this any different?
Psystar buys a license of OS X for each machine they sell? Apple may claim that the copies aren't licensed since they violate the EULA, but US copyright law doesn't limits copyright holders rights to prevent installation of software. Furthermore, the doctrine of first sale gives Psystar the right to resell OS X.
Parent
Apple is... (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect Apple is every bit as evil as Microsoft, just less successful.
Re:Apple is... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Success" can be relative.
If I was an investor right now, I'd argue AAPL is more successful than MSFT.
MSFT has a gazillion bucks, but the ROI for their stockholders has suffered recently. Whereas AAPL under Jobs just keeps making stockholders money. Good money. If you bought AAPL and MSFT one year ago, you would have made 24% on AAPL, and lost 10% of MSFT.
Parent
Re:Apple is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect Apple is every bit as evil as Microsoft, just less successful.
Suspect? Imagine a world where Apple won the PC wars rather than Microsoft. Imagine what we'd be paying for computers with only a single supplier.
Of course, if Apple *had* won, they probably would've been broken up long ago as a monopoly, but it would've set the computer industry back at least a decade.
Say what you want about Microsoft, but at least they never leveraged their OS dominance by producing a "Microsoft PC" and then "phasing out" all the other hardware manufacturers. If Steve Jobs, through some twist of fate, had been in charge of Microsoft rather than Apple when he returned, that's exactly what would've happened.
And let's not even get into the fact that Apple competes via lawsuit orders of magnitude more often than Microsoft.
Apple is *far and away* more evil than Microsoft ever dreamed of being. They're fortunately just not the dominant player.
[And no, I'm not defending whatever evil Microsoft has done, only that they are not nearly as evil as they could've been.]
Parent
How is that going to work? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I bought something, it's now mine (the hardware anyway). I doubt Pystar can actually repossess any of the boxes. The entire demand by Apple is pretty silly. Apple's copyright claims can't possibly cover the possession of physical hardware. Very bizarre. I think Apple only has a claim against Psystar itself over copyright infringement (the distribution of hacked Apple patches). Personal use of OS X in breach of Apple's license would have to be an issue that Apple would have to deal with on a per user basis, which I doubt they are willing to do.
Re:Apple particularly doesn't like things like thi (Score:5, Insightful)
Has the price changed that much? Last I looked, Apple was actually competitive (within $100, sometimes cheaper) with commodity hardware. The only difference is, you can't get a Mac without the bells and whistles.
In other words, you get exactly what you pay for, which includes $1k of hardware you don't actually need.
Parent
Not so much these days (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny you should mention that. I've been saying for a while that when my current laptop finally dies, I plan to get a Macbook. Not for the looks, the spec or the OS, but simply because I wanted a 13.3 inch form factor. I carry my laptop around a lot, so a 17'' monster is out of the question, but I also use it as my primary machine, so an ultra portable is no use either. 13.3'' is, for me, the sweet spot between portability and usability. But no one seemed to make them except apple, so it looked like the macbook was the best option.
Lately though, I've noticed more and more 13.3'' laptops showing up in stores. A quick search on dabs turns up these results [dabs.com]. As you can see, they have twelve 13.3'' laptops that are cheaper than a macbook. The Toshiba U400 [dabs.com] for example, compares very favourably with the cheapest macbook in terms of specs. The macbook had a faster processor, but the toshiba has a DVD writer and is lighter, so it's pretty much a toss up. On price though, the Toshiba trounces the apple. £498 against £699. A £200 pound difference. Looks like I won't be buying a mac after all.
I won't get into the the relative merits and value of vista compared to OSX. I'd be formatting it and installing Linux anyway.
Parent
Re:Apple particularly doesn't like things like thi (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
There is no TPM. (Score:5, Informative)
Cribbed shamelessly from an Ars Technica discussion on the same issue:
"TPM DRM" In Mac OS X: A Myth That Won't Die
Amit Singh
http://www.osxbook.com/book/bo...chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/
Beating a Dead Horse
"In October 2006, I wrote about the TPM and its "use" in Mac OS X. Since Apple provided no software or firmware drivers for the TPM ...
"Apple's TPM Keys"
"The media has been discussing "Apple's use of TPM" for a long time now. There have been numerous reports of system attackers bypassing "Apple's TPM protection" and finding "Apple's TPM keys." Nevertheless, it is important to note that Apple does not use the TPM."
In short, while there was a TPM chip in some of the early shipping Intel systems, there were no drivers for it, and Apple did not use it. Current shipping Macintel systems don't even have the TPM chip, so there's no possible way for them to use one.
Dan Aris
Parent
Re:Lame (Score:4, Funny)
I agree. This morning my Dualcore G5 booted, installed and update and then insulted me on how I was dressed and dissed me for not buying a new iPhone already.
I'm getting tired of how condescending OSX keeps getting after each release.
Parent
Re:Lame (Score:5, Funny)
An EULA is a licence contract between 2 parties. It is clearly spelled out, presented both before and after the sale, able to be declined without penalty within given terms (do not open to refuse licence). Further more, it HAS been held in court that a licencing body may, at it's own discretion, require the return of said licence or contract for use at will.
You are NOT buying the software. The software is provided BY the licence, not the other way around. You may keep the physical media, but the software is considered a seperate entity, and the use of it can be revolked. this is no different from the DMV, or a credit card company. You PAID a fee to get it, but you do NOT own it, (it says so on the back of your drives license and credit card both) you are only LICENSED to USE it, under their strict rules that you are legally bound to as soon as you accept said license, and can be ordered to return it, without refund, for any violation of its permissible applications.
The grant of an EULA is backed by the US Code of Commerce, a document backed by the direct power of the US constitution, and the commerce department of the united states. they DO have the power to enforce it, and the rules for the creation of a license and what can and can't be included in one are deeply rooted in this piece of legislation.
undoing the EULA would castrate the power of multiple government agencies, and wreak havock on the software and services sections of business. The ramifications of undoing licence use and trade restrictions by simply stating that software becomes an individual piece of property on purchase will cost the US BILLIONS in trade.
Keep in mind, (if it works the way I see it) if you get your way, then we're no longer legally liable to FIX what's broken with what you bought (only to fix what didn't work as advertised on the day it was advertised), we'd only be liable to return it to original working order. If someone hacked your software, we'd not be responsible or liable for it anymore! It would be like requiring car companies to replace your engine because it won;t run E85, even though it wasn't originally speced out to.
Parent
Re:Lame (Score:5, Interesting)
presented both before and after the sale, able to be declined without penalty within given terms (do not open to refuse licence).
I don't know what fucking planet you live on, but on this one software boxes don't have the 50 page EULA's printed on them.
The big issue with EULAs is you have to open the box to see it, yet you can't open the box and see it until you buy it, at which point no store will refund an opened software box if you disagree with an EULA.
Parent