On Apr 28, 2005, at 3:39 AM, Gerald Wilson wrote:
Clearly we're not going to agree.
Glad you picked up on that.
I can see numerous counter-arguments. Amongst these are:
Yeah - but they do not apply to the statements you previously made that I disagree with, making them ... in a word - unrelated.
1. The licence for Mac OS X Public Beta. Which is explicitly time and version-limited. Which shows that Apple are perfectly capable of specifying these matters in a licence when they choose to do so.
Capability does not alone dictate implied intent. As I said before, neither the buyer nor the seller assumed that what the buyer was buying entitled them to later reference releases.
2. The selling of Mac OS X 10.0, and 10.1, and their server equivalents. People buying these *expected* that their money would buy useful, working operating systems - that they would "get what they paid for". That was the "spirit of the agreement", as you put it.
Not at all how I put it. The spirit of the agreement was Apple would provide you the right to use a particular version of Mac OS X. The product itself said it would do several things. If it didn't do those - fine, complain you didn't get what you paid for, etc ... and go ask for your money back - as people did. But just because I buy something and I feel it does not meet the expectation, that does not entitle me to get other products for nothing. A refund is one thing, what you have said is:
The license agreement from 10.2 Family Pack entitles me to use 5 installations of ANY version of Mac OS X.
Basically you are saying its OK to steal the use of 10.3 and 10.4 and later versions because of the wording of the license when in fact, at the time of purchase you did not believe you were buying that right and Apple did not believe they were providing it. Since neither party had the expectation of getting later reference releases at no cost, it is in fact dishonest, although it *may* not be illegal.
In practice, 10.0 is so crippled as to be unusable. 10.1 is just useable as an evaluation system, but has so many limitations that I found - after extensive evaluation - that I was obliged to advise clients against any attempt to use it in a production environment. Likewise 10.1 server. Runs without falling over, but simply fails correctly to provide all the functions it claims on the box. In fairness, Apple recognised the limitations of 10.0 and provided the updates to 10.1 automatically at nominal cost. But Apple did not provide any affordable upgrade path to 10.2, which is the point where OS X became useable. This is especially galling for users of 10.1 server who find that they have shelled out serious money for an essentially unusable product, with no resale value. A quick glance at afp548 shows how completely it has been abandoned.
Regarding 10.2 being when OS X became useable - this is an opinion not a fact. It might be true, it might be widely held, but it is in no way part of the software license agreement. What you note here is akin to saying:
"I bought an Oldmobile Alero and I do not feel the performance matched what it should be, therefore, GM should give me a Bravada or an Intrigue."
That is well ... nuts. The license was for a particular version of the product - your expectation when you bought the license was that it was for a particular version. On this point you were not misled. To say the product did not itself did not live up to your expectations, OK. That is fair, but it does not entitle you to another product.
On the note of 10.1 Server not being resellable for a good price ... that is generally the fact with software. So goes the world, things depreciate, standards change, and while we may or may not find it convenient, I fail to see how it is a company's fault if their product does not resell well because it is later considered outmoded. My car depreciates thousands of dollars when I remove it from the lot even a mile - does that somehow mean the car dealer or car maker owes me? No - it is a market pressure and has nothing to do with them.
Don't lecture me on honesty. I have always been scrupulously honest in my procurement and allocation of software licences. My honesty has not always been rewarded by similar fair play on the part of my suppliers, who have sometimes supplied me with far less than what I paid for. There are words for this in English. "Rip-off", "con", "corporate scam" all leap to mind.
Don't claim to be honest when you are knit picking EULAs to try and find justifications to claim your 10.2 family license somehow applies to 10.3, 10.4, and later yet to be announced versions.
Oh - and those words in english also apply to what one is doing when they are trying to get more than they paid for.
If you want to keep arguing, try doing it in a mirror. I'm not interested in wasting anymore time on this.
And as far as citing court cases? You have access to Google, feel free to look, I am not inclined to do your research for you.
David
-- Unsupported OS X is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/>
Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html>
Unsupported OS X list info <http://lowendmac.com/lists/unsupported.html> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive <http://www.mail-archive.com/unsupportedosx%40mail.maclaunch.com/>
iPod Accessories for Less at 1-800-iPOD.COM Fast Delivery, Low Price, Good Deal www.1800ipod.com
