Hacker News Reader

Comment by joosters | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand how practically all commercial software can get away with claiming that it isn't fit or warranted for any purpose. Apple's product demos and website advertise the OS performing lots of different tasks. If I bought a Mac and found I couldn't use it to browse the web or store photos, surely Apple's marketing is direct proof that they are warranting that it should be able to do these things?

View on HN

Nothing like that appears in the plain text license here. Are you reading it from somewhere else?

In any case, almost all warranty disclaimers start with "TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW" which, under consumer laws in most countries, requires the company to provide a product that can work as shown in all its advertising materials.

> In any case, almost all warranty disclaimers start with "TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW"

Which is an invalid clause in Germany and probably most other European countries. Any clause that goes beyond the extent permitted by the applicable law is automatically void in Germany. This is due to consumer protection laws. Therefore, most of these EULAs are probably void if it ever comes to law suit...

Is it actually? Because this is basically saying, "these are the conditions. if all or part of these conditions extend beyond the applicable law, then only the part that is within the law is applicable".

You are forgetting what the word "clause" means.

See my other post containing the actual text (all-caps). You're right about the 'permitted by law' bit but who knows what that actually covers? I've never seen a clear summary anywhere.

License agreements are long, the consumer laws are probably an order of magnitude bigger (and that's assuming you even know which bits are relevant)

Those are all valid points, but it isn't Apple's job to solve them, so it simply puts 'permitted by law' and moves on.

Well, it's a bit of an irrelevance whether or not they state 'as permitted by law', since everything in any license is restricted by the law. Nothing changes.

My point is that Apple (and every other company) makes no attempt to define what their software is meant to be able to do. The license tries to wash their hands of everything that they can.

If I buy a camera and it can't take photos, it's not fit for purpose and I can return it. If I buy a computer to be able to (say) Facetime chat with my relatives, and it doesn't do that due to a bug or incompatibility, it's a murky legal quagmire whether or not I could get a refund.

The distinction arises when the full text of a clause is not possible to claim by law, but some weakened or lesser version is OK: If you missed the 'maximum extent permissible' part, your clause would be completely invalidated. Its a hedge.

It doesn't do anything and you can't use it for anything.

[I agree]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com