Show

EULA Paradox: Apple says you cannot use Safari on Windows

HappyAndyK
27 March 2008 - 12:44
46 Comments
Liked this (3)

In using Apple Software Update to slip his Safari browser onto millions of Windows PCs, Steve Jobs didn't just undermine "the security of the whole Web". He's made a mockery of end user licensing agreements."
As spotted by our Italian friends at setteB.IT, Apple's Safari license says that users are permitted to install the browser on no more than "a single Apple-labeled computer at a time." This means that if you install Safari for Windows on a Windows PC, you're violating the license.

According to Jonathan Kramer, a tech-minded attorney with the Kramer Telecom Law Firm, you aren't in any legal danger if you install Safari for Windows on a Windows PC. Apple can't enforce a contract clause that doesn't make sense. "We call this an impossibility issue," Kramer told us. "You can't enforce a term that's impossible."

Link: theregister

Comments (46)

  1. .Cipher - 27 March 2008 - 12:52

    After all the work they did to get Safari on your computer, they couldn't be bothered to update the EULA to cover their collective rears? How utterly ridiculous.

  2. Thrawn - 27 March 2008 - 12:52

    Har har.

    Fair article. It says "This is wrong, and borders on malware distribution practices." regarding the software update == software installation nonsense that apple is pulling.

    They really should get sued over this. Of course I also feel Steve should be hanged for other reasons. Sorry, but he's ugly.

  3. DreadBoat89 - 27 March 2008 - 12:59


    from http://www.apple.com/safari/download/terms_win.html

    i guess they changed it....

  4. oufc_gav - 27 March 2008 - 15:57

    (Dynames00 said @ #3)

    from http://www.apple.com/safari/download/terms_win.html

    i guess they changed it....

    May say that on the web, still says "single Apple-labeled computer" when you run the software.

  5. Magallanes - 27 March 2008 - 13:03

    In many countries, EULA weight (legally) less that a informal gossip. A EULA in this case is no more or less that a single contract warrant, where they can protect themself but they can't put mandatory/prohibitory rules on it, for example if a can say "it's pesticide and you musn't drink it", then it's not a rule but a suggest, breaking it and you are on your own.


  6. solardog - 27 March 2008 - 15:02

    (Magallanes said @ #4)
    In many countries, EULA weight (legally) less that a informal gossip. A EULA in this case is no more or less that a single contract warrant, where they can protect themself but they can't put mandatory/prohibitory rules on it, for example if a can say "it's pesticide and you musn't drink it", then it's not a rule but a suggest, breaking it and you are on your own.

    Ah, the good old days of personal responsibility.

  7. hotdog963al - 27 March 2008 - 13:43

    Yawn, EULAs are ****ing boring to read anyway.

  8. GreyWolf - 27 March 2008 - 13:50

    I'm obeying it. I won't install any of their magic software on my Windows PC.

  9. ahhell - 27 March 2008 - 14:37

    +1

  10. +Harlem39s Finest - 27 March 2008 - 15:31

    +2

  11. RAID 0 - 27 March 2008 - 15:44

    +3

  12. guruparan - 27 March 2008 - 17:32

    (RAID 0 said @ #6.3)
    +3

    +4

  13. ataris_kid - 27 March 2008 - 21:18

    +5

  14. ajua - 27 March 2008 - 22:08

    +6

  15. Kaidiir - 27 March 2008 - 22:51

    +7

  16. RealFduch - 27 March 2008 - 23:03

    +8

  17. turtledude23 - 28 March 2008 - 01:50

    +9

  18. bob0r - 28 March 2008 - 02:48

    +1  0

  19. marty87 - 28 March 2008 - 10:05

    +11

  20. [deXter] - 16 June 2008 - 10:14

    +12

Please Log In or Register to post a comment.