3 ms·
It is your computer; you have a right to that hardware. But they only licensed you the OS and the hardware only supports that OS (which you acknowledged and agr
by pb7 6y ago
It is your computer; you have a right to that hardware. But they only licensed you the OS and the hardware only supports that OS (which you acknowledged and agreed to when you bought it) so you can call it what you want, but you can’t force another entity to do what pleases you. The courts will decide that and it will set a pretty significant precedent.
- donmcronald 6y agoYou're arguing for a future where you own nothing and rent everything. Look at how many industries are using the idea of software licenses to retain control over your devices after you buy them so they can render them useless, or at least less useful, unless you pay for a subscription of some type.
- innagadadavida 6y agoThe answer to this is to build a better iPhone and better iOS and make it open. Not legislature - this is assuming all the users are for this (at best it seems they don’t care much about the developers). All this is difficult to accomplish. Epic should try this instead of feeding their attorneys the billions of revenues they collected from their users.
- dwaite 6y agoEULAs have existed since the 80s, with no clear distinction on when software must be considered a product equivalent to a physical good, vs when it must be considered a service. The internet did not help with the ambiguity around this distinction. I've always felt the start of a proper solution would have been to have the author distinguish whether they were selling products or services - choosing between copyright, patents and first sale doctrine for products, and trade secret protection only for services. Now that the global economy is based on computer software, it would be a long and difficult process to make changes.