Practically all other software (such as where you buy software as an individual item – boxed) – does not have such specification in their licenses. Which is why Autodesk lost their lawsuit and the license was fond to have not been breeched.

Even after I install Apple’s OS-X on Apple hardware, it becomes a sale, not a license as first sale doctrine still prevails as long as if I sell it, I ensure the buyer abides by the license.

Which brings-up the next legal battle: I agreed to and oneyed the license. If I sell OS-X DVD to you, does that meed you have made an agreement to Apple, Inc. with regard to the license when you are purchasing from *me* and not Apple, Inc.?

LOL Gotta love legal BS, hey?

“On Tuesday, Judge Richard Jones of the U.S. District Court in Seattle handed down an opinion in Timothy Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., handing Vernor victory in an important exposition of the first sale doctrine. (H.T. and congrats to Greg Beck). The case also illustrates why notice and notice is a better system for safe harbor regimes than the U.S. notice and take down approach USTR is trying to force on other countries.”

This is from an article that was posted in May 2008:
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/05/first-sale-victory-in-vernor.html

This has been the case with companies that make their phones sync to iTunes by explicitly spoofing apple hardware without a license) or companies like Pystar who sell machines with OSX installed when the license that accompanies the OS they buy explicitly forbids this. They’d get the same treatment from Microsoft for selling OEM versions outside of license, or other such companies.

There are plenty of arguments that perhaps Apple’s approach is anti-competetive in this instance, but it’s perfectly legitimate business – in fact it is the norm. I’ve found Apples licensing compliance fairly light in comparison… you don’t even need to enter a key to install the OS from memory. Microsoft is somewhat different – every time I need to reinstall XP or Vista I need to call an indian call center and convince someone I actually own it.

When the fellow finally got his app approved by apple and launched on the store I purchased it in support of his project, thinking i’d tinker with it while out and about during nano. Apple took the money yet failed to deliver the application. I now have a license, but no software, and this problem has persisted for all of his customers for 19 days now. http://auteureist.posterous.com/day-19-no-fix

The developer has responded with good humor, even running a competition for an ipod nano for whoever guesses when apple will resolve the issue. Still we’re faced with a conundrum. The developer has delivered, even producing updates and refinements during this period in response to user desires, yet apple, despite taking our cash is yet to deliver. Nanowrimo is almost over.

Now I have a conundrum. Do I ask for my money back, punishing the developer, who _has_ delivered? Apple, the merchant who has screwed up delivery is only minimally invested and would lose a small commission. The developer, who has done exactly what they said they would, is the one who would be punished for apples lapses – both in their tardy approval process, and more so in their tardy response to fixing the delivery of the app.

More confusing still – legally, given the confusing legal status of software sales – what exactly has taken place here? Do I now own it? Who has sold it to me? Who is responsible for the current situation… etc.

I was still afraid to pull the disk off the stem and was in an actual cold-sweat when I did so…. Only to find the 64-Bit disk right behind it on a stack-able stem. (=_=)

Oh, what has our market become? (._.)