Man reads EULA

In a highly unusual incident a man actually read the end user license agreement of a software program. He had bought the Family Pack of Apple’s iLife software so that he could install the programs on multiple computers in his home, and yet, the EULA that appeared during the installation insisted that the version was NOT authorized for use on multiple computers. To complete the installation he had to “AGREE” to this term.

   Finding nothing on the disk itself that indicated it was a Family Pack product, he was concerned. He had also heard stories of electronic products being switched in boxes, so that features and capacity were misrepresented to unwary consumers. He then sought to clarify that his use of the product was legally authorized.

  

  The help he needed was difficult to find. The Apple online support turned out to be a forum of other users, one of whom gingerly explained that the software was authorized for multiple USERS, on ONE computer, not for installation on multiple computers. When informed that the box specifically mentioned installation on up to five computers, the helpful person admitted he had no idea, and had never bought or used a Family Pack. Among other questions he saw on the forum was one about whether a .Mac account could be used for a business website. The responses generally said, in effect, Why not? Sure. Go for it. But the terms of a .Mac account, the man knew, specifically forbade commercial use.

  E-mail support proved even less helpful, as the responses took days longer than promised, and insisted on misunderstanding the question as a technical issue with installing the software. When he explained that no, he had successfully installed the programs, but the EULA seemed to contradict the point of buying a Family Pack, the support replied that they were happy the issue had been resolved.

   Eventually he reached an Apple employee by phone, Sean. The man liked Sean, and, from his own experience in service jobs, felt he recognized Sean, by something in his voice, as a kindred spirit. Sean found the question unusual, and seemed interested in finding out why the terms of use contradicted the stated purpose. He admitted the legal department was difficult to reach, and proposed going down to the floor, and asking. It might take a while, he warned.

  

   When he returned, Sean explained that yes, the installation disk was identical to the Single-Use disk, but the box itself over-rides the terms the man had to  “Agree” to. The legal department had simply not changed the language from Not Authorized, to Is Authorized. But, he said, they had said, it was a good thing the man was reading the license agreement.

    At this time, it remains unclear how, or why, or for whom, exactly, it was a good thing the man was reading the license agreement.