because they acquired a set of permissions to copy for
*reasonable*
purposes when they
purchased the software.
No
they didn't. Apple supplied the software to them on the condition that
they
accepted
the terms of the EULA. If you reject the EULA you don't acquire any
permissions to use the
software whatsoever.
Now, if you think that is a
sneaky, disingenuous end-run around the clear
intent of
copyright law then I
agree with you. Unfortunately, it has been upheld
wherever EULAs have
been
legally tested, not just for Apple, so its sneaky, disingenuous and
legal.
If you buy a PC from a major brand that includes a copy of
Windows, the
EULA says that
you can only use that copy on the specific PC you
bought (and the Windows
CD is often
locked to only work on that hardware). If
you buy a Windows "upgrade" then
the EULA says
you can only use it on a PC
which already has an older version of Windows
installed. If you
buy an XBOX,
Wii or PlayStation game you can only use it on an XBOX, Wii or
PlayStation (I
don't know but I'd wager that at least one of those will state that in the
EULA).
So its not just
Apple doing this, and if the court had looked like
ruling in favour of Psystar
they'd have had
a sackload of amicus briefs from
major software and hardware vendors who's
business
model relies on EULAs.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
