Label:… An affication to or making on a manufactured article, giving information as to its nature or quality, or the contents of a material, package or container, or the the name of the maker, etc. Higgins v. Keuffel, 140 U.S. 428; 11. S. Ct. 735, 35 L.Ed. 470. The informational content of such labels is often governed by federal and state laws; e.g. Fa8ir Packaging and Labeling Act. 15 U.S.C.A. Section 1457.

And you don’t find Apple-labeled within the context to be plain?

As defined by Merriam Webster, none of the verb meanings of “labeled” suggest anything other than the obvious meaning — a distinctive mark affixed to an object. To the best of my knowledge and experience in the field of software and computer technology, the verb “labeled” has no special meaning which would be applicable in this case.

Once again, in the context, the meaning is clear using the reasonable man standard, not the pedantic man standard.

If Apple had used wording like “manufactured by”, “sold by,” etc., there would be no question.

Oh no Mr. Clinton, I would bet my petunias that you would be arguing that it was manufactured by a Chinese plant or sold by a reseller. Pedantry knows no bounds. I would pay money to see you try to make this argument to a Federal judge.

The only ambiguity is the hyphenated “Apple-labeled”. If that implies that the labeling was done by Apple, rather than an object which is labeled with an Apple, there may be some room there.

Oh please. Seriously, you are delusional if you believe that is a reasonable interpretation. In the entirety of the context (which is what Courts construe), it is clear by the reasonable man standard.

Certainly long, drawn-out legal battles have been fought over the meaning of punctuation more than once in the past.

Yes they have, and many times precious tax dollars are wasted because of pedantics such as yourself. Just because things have happened don’t mean they should have or are correct.

As for the Psystar case, I expect the validity of applying such a restriction will be tantamount, and only should the judge find such a restriction valid would such minutia as the meaning of the hyphen come into play.

Apparently you skipped over the part where the Judge has already stated:

Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers (Compl. ¶ 28). It is certainly entitled to do so.

And cited case law.

Admittedly, I’m being pedantic with the interpretation of “Apple-labeled”.

You think? That is an understatement.

That should in any case be moot considering that Apple oversteps what they can do with a contract of adhesion with that entire clause.

Case law please? As I said above, I do not believe you can prove that this is a contract of adhesion. Psystar’s attorneys have not argued that it is, do you know more than they do about the law? They may eventually make that argument, but they have not so far. I think there is a reason for that.

As far as entering into a contract with me personally, if your intent is to infringe upon my basic legally protected rights, then you should absolutely take some pause before putting ink to paper. If there’s any possible way that I can legally prevail with what I believe are my rights, you’d better believe I’m going to take that option. Again, though, in this case, the minutia are meaningless as far as I’m concerned. Any attempt to constrain my use of a sold good as Apple attempts to do in their EULA is invalid on its face under UCC.

Case law please? The Judge (whom you apparently think you know more than) has already stated in a Court Order citing case law that he does not agree with you. Now perhaps Psystar’s latest amendment might raise some new issues, but so far, all you have is bluster. And frankly, I find it smoke and mirrors.

You see in your statement above, you agreed that if you can “legally” find a loophole, no matter how ridiculous or ethical, you will take it. You are right. I would never enter into a contract with you. I see you design software. I would not make a purchase either since you seem to think that whatever may be legally permissible is morally right.

Psystar and YOU know full well what Apple-labeled means. You are not that stupid. And neither are they.

As defined by Merriam Webster, none of the verb meanings of “labeled” suggest anything other than the obvious meaning — a distinctive mark affixed to an object. To the best of my knowledge and experience in the field of software and computer technology, the verb “labeled” has no special meaning which would be applicable in this case. If Apple had used wording like “manufactured by”, “sold by,” etc., there would be no question. The only ambiguity is the hyphenated “Apple-labeled”. If that implies that the labeling was done by Apple, rather than an object which is labeled with an Apple, there may be some room there. Certainly long, drawn-out legal battles have been fought over the meaning of punctuation more than once in the past.

As for the Psystar case, I expect the validity of applying such a restriction will be tantamount, and only should the judge find such a restriction valid would such minutia as the meaning of the hyphen come into play. Admittedly, I’m being pedantic with the interpretation of “Apple-labeled”. That should in any case be moot considering that Apple oversteps what they can do with a contract of adhesion with that entire clause.

As far as entering into a contract with me personally, if your intent is to infringe upon my basic legally protected rights, then you should absolutely take some pause before putting ink to paper. If there’s any possible way that I can legally prevail with what I believe are my rights, you’d better believe I’m going to take that option. Again, though, in this case, the minutia are meaningless as far as I’m concerned. Any attempt to constrain my use of a sold good as Apple attempts to do in their EULA is invalid on its face under UCC.

As to the enforceability (or not) of EULA’s, I think the most relevant point is that EULA’s which contain terms contrary to the Universal Commercial Code are largely found to be unenforceable as to those conflicting terms. In particular, the over-the-counter sale of software (that is a sale without a separate signed contract governing the terms of the sale) has been largely considered to be the same as any sale of goods (non-software) for cash. Attempting to limit what a buyer can do with a purchased good is a contract of adhesion and is generally found invalid. In order to apply such limitations, you need the buyer to explicitly sign a contract giving up various rights under UCC. EULA’s don’t work for that purpose.

Apparently you feel you know more than the Judge at this point.

Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers (Compl. ¶ 28). It is certainly entitled to do so.

And as far as contract of adhesion, IMHO you do not know what you are talking about. Adhesion contracts require some very specific factual situations which I do not believe apply here. The consumer has a wide range of choices for such services, including open source alternatives. The service is not one involving basic necessities. The duty is not “onerous,” and no, once you buy something it is not your “right” to do with it what you please. For instance, you cannot make copies of it and sell it.

Lastly, you are not buying the software. You are buying a license. There is a difference. You may not like that reality, but sometimes reality bites.

You have GOT to be kidding me. That has to be one of the most retarded things I have read yet. It is because of people like you that the legislature has to wrote tomes on something which is simple common sense. If you don’t know what is intended by Apple-labeled hardware, then you are hopelessly obtuse or looking for a loophole. That is not a good faith interpretation whatsoever, and if that is how you operate, I pity anyone who enters into contractual agreements with you since you obviously will obfuscate the common sense to your own liking when it suits you.

I guess it all depends upon what “is” “is” right Mr. Clinton?

And you are correct, the EULA isn’t limited to upgrades. I don’t know where that commenter got that information.

The only relevant language that I can find is:

This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.

As far as I’m concerned reading that, if I take one of the two white Apple stickers included in the box and stick it on the side of a Dell, I’ve created an “Apple-labeled computer,” and that should be the end of that.

The only references to “upgrade” in the entire license are:

The terms of this License will govern any software upgrades provided by Apple that replace and/or supplement the original Apple Software product, unless such upgrade is accompanied by a separate license in which case the terms of that license will govern.

I presume that’s intended to cover to software updates like 10.5.6. Specifically, the original license still covers patches. Perfectly sensible there.

I. Use of Adobe Color Profiles. You may use the Adobe Color Profile software included with the Apple Software pursuant to this License, but Adobe is under no obligation to provide any support for the Color Profiles hereunder, including upgrades or future versions of the Profiles or other items.

Clearly, that has nothing to do with the OS itself.

Searching for “update,” I get:

Updates: If an Apple Software update completely replaces (full install) a previously licensed version of the Apple Software, you may not use both versions of the Apple Software at the same time nor may you transfer them separately.

That bit seems so vague as to be meaningless. Granted, if I install Leopard over Tiger, it’s a complete replacement. But I could just as easily install Leopard on a completely blank hard drive and have no such replacement. My reading of that term is that it’s intended to attempt to invalidate the license of any existing previous version; but it has no effect regarding rights of the current licensed product at hand.

Apple is not obligated to provide any updates, maintenance, warranty, technical or other support, or services for the resultant modified Apple Software.

You agree that Apple and its subsidiaries may collect and use technical and related information, including but not limited to technical information about your computer, system and application software, and peripherals, that is gathered periodically to facilitate the provision of software updates, product support and other services to you (if any) related to the Apple Software, and to verify compliance with the terms of this License.

It seems pretty clear that Apple has made no attempt to claim that the boxed version of Leopard may only be used as an upgrade for a previous version of the product.

As to the enforceability (or not) of EULA’s, I think the most relevant point is that EULA’s which contain terms contrary to the Universal Commercial Code are largely found to be unenforceable as to those conflicting terms. In particular, the over-the-counter sale of software (that is a sale without a separate signed contract governing the terms of the sale) has been largely considered to be the same as any sale of goods (non-software) for cash. Attempting to limit what a buyer can do with a purchased good is a contract of adhesion and is generally found invalid. In order to apply such limitations, you need the buyer to explicitly sign a contract giving up various rights under UCC. EULA’s don’t work for that purpose.

The EULA as a whole certainly still holds, but when a company attempts to limit what buyers can do beyond what a reasonable person would expect, courts generally find the EULA invalid. I personally believe that a reasonable technically minded individual would expect to be able to install a purchased operating system on any piece of hardware capable of running it. I would further expect it reasonable that a person possessing the knowledge to do so could freely work around any mechanisms which exist solely to artificially limit the types of hardware on which a particular piece of software can run. Vis., Linux on PlayStation’s. Granted in that case, the restrictions are placed on the hardware rather than on the software, but I think the basic case stands. Once you’ve paid money for it, what you do with it is your business.