10 ms·

> do we really want those inane licenses no one reads, and everyone scrolls down to hit [agree]; do we really want them to legally binding? for commercial inte

> do we really want those inane licenses no one reads, and everyone scrolls down to hit [agree]; do we really want them to legally binding? for commercial interactions in particular between two businesses? Yes, absolutely. How else are two entities supposed to come to legally binding terms without a contract? I'm all for a little bit of lenience when an end user didn't read the terms but you think NSO group doesn't have a lawyer and just scrolls down and clicks accept? The little guy isn't always right because he's little. If the little guy hacks my software to sell spyware to dictators and war criminals you bet I want the right to take him to court

lupire 5y ago
> If the little guy hacks my software to sell spyware to dictators and war criminals you bet I want the right to take him to court Why? How are you the wronged party in this case? You are combining two separate things. What if the little used your software as designed, but to sell to dictators and war criminals? what if they hacked your software for interoperability with non-evil activities?
deathanatos 5y ago
> but you think NSO group doesn't have a lawyer and just scrolls down and clicks accept? I see this in companies I work for all the time, so, yes, I can see that being the case here. (I'm not saying that's a good or professional thing.)
chrisfinazzo 5y ago
(Not a lawyer, but this is the correct answer) As much as people might look at this and think Apple is being heavy-handed, it comes down to the fact that iCloud, iOS, and the App Store are their IP and they can (within legal limits) set whatever terms they please. Especially for these sorts of arrangements, it seems like a problem to me if the platform/IP owner doesn't have absolute, final discretion over what happens. Giving them the right to destroy your business at any time or at least try very hard to make it unprofitable shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
- rektide 5y ago
  This sits so unwell with me, gives such limitless tyrannical & dictatorial control to a company. > As much as people might look at this and think Apple is being heavy-handed, it comes down to the fact that iCloud, iOS, and the App Store are their IP and they can (within legal limits) set whatever terms they please. Agreed. That's exactly what it seems like. And that sounds like immoral, unjustifiable, sickening hell. That Apple gets to hold all the cards, no one else on the planet gets any say in how a device might be used. It seems to me like the law is immoral. The law is heavy handed, an idiot, and wrong. And it seems like Apple is a user/abuser of unjust power which it does not have any moral or ethical right to wield. > Especially for these sorts of arrangements, it seems like a problem to me if the platform/IP owner doesn't have absolute, final discretion over what happens. This sounds like a nightmare hell world to me. It contravenes the idea that any of us can ever be owners of anything. This sounds like the logic that says that only Tesla can repair Tesla cars, the logic that says only John Deere can repair John Deere tractors. This is an anti-human world, this is a bad world, this is immoral, this is wrong, this destroys & rots away at humanity as a can-do toolmaker, as an improver of the world about them. It consigns power away to fragile, remote, limited corporations. That is not a world I ever want to let happen to us. I tend towards aethism/agnosticism, but if there is a god, this flies against what graces the gods have given us to let ourselves be constrained so. It is unnatural & against the spirit of the human enterprise. I have no love for NSO Group. It feels great seeing such a group of shady, underhanded, anti-democratic punks get served. But this is absolutely going to be yet another move in the ongoing shift towards top-down combined technocratic/legal control. It's absolutely a demonstration of Apple wielding legal power to obstruct & defend that which it simply doesn't want to have to deal with, brushing aside something inconvenient. It's absolutely a battle over what terms of service mean & whether the world has any rights of their own. I for one am not cheering for Apple's victory in having their massive iron-clad armor further enhanced.
  - ziddoap 5y ago
    >Agreed. That's exactly what it seems like. And that sounds like immoral, unjustifiable, sickening hell. That Apple gets to hold all the cards, no one else on the planet gets any say in how a device might be used. I'm not a big proponent of IP, but you're basically saying it is immoral, unjustifiable, and sickening as hell that Apple enforces the rules that Apple wants on Apple products/services, which were created and offered by Apple? Who should be making the rules if not the creator and maintainer of the product/service? Why is using another product/service not an acceptable alternative? I agree with the general direction of your comment, but certainly not with the same voracity that wouldn't allow my own company to create the rules for my own service offerings (within the confines of state/national law).
riedel 5y ago
There's always the problem with a little one that has to accept the big one's terms. Actually in Germany and probably elsewhere there is clear jurisdiction what is allowed in a terms and conditions type contract. It actually applies to any contract that is not created from scratch on an eye to eye basis. Other laws like the GDPR also restrict what can be part of a contract. So while nobody is reading all this stuff at least we have some assurance that it's not totally unfair. Otherwise is typically safe to assume that companies try to shape everything to their own benefit. So it boils down to trusting a company in general. Not being a lawyer and having no clue abou US jurisdiction: I am really curious if this EULA thing works though. Normally under copyright law wrongdoing would normally just mean that your licence is terminated. Illegal use typically just requires paying damages twice the licence cost afaik. I would actually find it kind of scary if I could be pulled into any kind of jurisdiction about something not directly related to the contract just because I accepted a software licence agreement.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> How else are two entities supposed to come to legally binding terms without a contract? The question is what's the threshold for the existence of a contract. You both go into a conference room with lawyers and negotiate over the terms and sign it in ink, that's some pretty good yes vibes. Somebody clicks a button on an un-negotiated text form in a piece of software, maybe it should take more than that. > I'm all for a little bit of lenience when an end user didn't read the terms but you think NSO group doesn't have a lawyer and just scrolls down and clicks accept? Tons of bureaucracies do exactly that. The boss says they need a way to do this thing, so some Danny from the IT department finds some software to do that thing, it's free or costs less than the amount he's authorized to spend from petty cash, so he clicks accept and installs it on the user's machine.
- salawat 5y ago
  >Somebody clicks a button on an un-negotiated text form in a piece of software, maybe it should take more than that. My litmus test is I don't consider a contract valid unless I've actually had a chance to do a counteroffer.
mkl 5y ago
> but you think NSO group doesn't have a lawyer and just scrolls down and clicks accept? Yes! They don't seem like people who think through or care about the consequences of their actions.

lupire 5y ago

> If the little guy hacks my software to sell spyware to dictators and war criminals you bet I want the right to take him to court Why? How are you the wronged party in this case? You are combining two separate things. What if the little used your software as designed, but to sell to dictators and war criminals? what if they hacked your software for interoperability with non-evil activities?

deathanatos 5y ago

> but you think NSO group doesn't have a lawyer and just scrolls down and clicks accept? I see this in companies I work for all the time, so, yes, I can see that being the case here. (I'm not saying that's a good or professional thing.)

chrisfinazzo 5y ago

(Not a lawyer, but this is the correct answer) As much as people might look at this and think Apple is being heavy-handed, it comes down to the fact that iCloud, iOS, and the App Store are their IP and they can (within legal limits) set whatever terms they please. Especially for these sorts of arrangements, it seems like a problem to me if the platform/IP owner doesn't have absolute, final discretion over what happens. Giving them the right to destroy your business at any time or at least try very hard to make it unprofitable shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

rektide 5y ago
This sits so unwell with me, gives such limitless tyrannical & dictatorial control to a company. > As much as people might look at this and think Apple is being heavy-handed, it comes down to the fact that iCloud, iOS, and the App Store are their IP and they can (within legal limits) set whatever terms they please. Agreed. That's exactly what it seems like. And that sounds like immoral, unjustifiable, sickening hell. That Apple gets to hold all the cards, no one else on the planet gets any say in how a device might be used. It seems to me like the law is immoral. The law is heavy handed, an idiot, and wrong. And it seems like Apple is a user/abuser of unjust power which it does not have any moral or ethical right to wield. > Especially for these sorts of arrangements, it seems like a problem to me if the platform/IP owner doesn't have absolute, final discretion over what happens. This sounds like a nightmare hell world to me. It contravenes the idea that any of us can ever be owners of anything. This sounds like the logic that says that only Tesla can repair Tesla cars, the logic that says only John Deere can repair John Deere tractors. This is an anti-human world, this is a bad world, this is immoral, this is wrong, this destroys & rots away at humanity as a can-do toolmaker, as an improver of the world about them. It consigns power away to fragile, remote, limited corporations. That is not a world I ever want to let happen to us. I tend towards aethism/agnosticism, but if there is a god, this flies against what graces the gods have given us to let ourselves be constrained so. It is unnatural & against the spirit of the human enterprise. I have no love for NSO Group. It feels great seeing such a group of shady, underhanded, anti-democratic punks get served. But this is absolutely going to be yet another move in the ongoing shift towards top-down combined technocratic/legal control. It's absolutely a demonstration of Apple wielding legal power to obstruct & defend that which it simply doesn't want to have to deal with, brushing aside something inconvenient. It's absolutely a battle over what terms of service mean & whether the world has any rights of their own. I for one am not cheering for Apple's victory in having their massive iron-clad armor further enhanced.
- ziddoap 5y ago
  >Agreed. That's exactly what it seems like. And that sounds like immoral, unjustifiable, sickening hell. That Apple gets to hold all the cards, no one else on the planet gets any say in how a device might be used. I'm not a big proponent of IP, but you're basically saying it is immoral, unjustifiable, and sickening as hell that Apple enforces the rules that Apple wants on Apple products/services, which were created and offered by Apple? Who should be making the rules if not the creator and maintainer of the product/service? Why is using another product/service not an acceptable alternative? I agree with the general direction of your comment, but certainly not with the same voracity that wouldn't allow my own company to create the rules for my own service offerings (within the confines of state/national law).

riedel 5y ago

There's always the problem with a little one that has to accept the big one's terms. Actually in Germany and probably elsewhere there is clear jurisdiction what is allowed in a terms and conditions type contract. It actually applies to any contract that is not created from scratch on an eye to eye basis. Other laws like the GDPR also restrict what can be part of a contract. So while nobody is reading all this stuff at least we have some assurance that it's not totally unfair. Otherwise is typically safe to assume that companies try to shape everything to their own benefit. So it boils down to trusting a company in general. Not being a lawyer and having no clue abou US jurisdiction: I am really curious if this EULA thing works though. Normally under copyright law wrongdoing would normally just mean that your licence is terminated. Illegal use typically just requires paying damages twice the licence cost afaik. I would actually find it kind of scary if I could be pulled into any kind of jurisdiction about something not directly related to the contract just because I accepted a software licence agreement.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> How else are two entities supposed to come to legally binding terms without a contract? The question is what's the threshold for the existence of a contract. You both go into a conference room with lawyers and negotiate over the terms and sign it in ink, that's some pretty good yes vibes. Somebody clicks a button on an un-negotiated text form in a piece of software, maybe it should take more than that. > I'm all for a little bit of lenience when an end user didn't read the terms but you think NSO group doesn't have a lawyer and just scrolls down and clicks accept? Tons of bureaucracies do exactly that. The boss says they need a way to do this thing, so some Danny from the IT department finds some software to do that thing, it's free or costs less than the amount he's authorized to spend from petty cash, so he clicks accept and installs it on the user's machine.

salawat 5y ago
>Somebody clicks a button on an un-negotiated text form in a piece of software, maybe it should take more than that. My litmus test is I don't consider a contract valid unless I've actually had a chance to do a counteroffer.

mkl 5y ago

> but you think NSO group doesn't have a lawyer and just scrolls down and clicks accept? Yes! They don't seem like people who think through or care about the consequences of their actions.