I get why a licence is required to receive software updates as software is being distributed to you outside of the original sale of the device, and I get that Apple can sue Corellium as they are making unlicensed copies of iOS.
You have pointed out that the legality of Apples’ EULA hasn’t been tested, but I’m having a hard time of understanding how an EULA could be used to restrict how a device could be used. Does anyone know of the legal theory behind this?
Can contracts or licence agreements be used to restrict use of something even if you now own it? I’m not a lawyer, obviously, but I thought as long as you buy something up front the contract can be deemed to have been successfully performed and thus ends? I.e. there is no longer an ongoing relationship.
You have pointed out that the legality of Apples’ EULA hasn’t been tested, but I’m having a hard time of understanding how an EULA could be used to restrict how a device could be used. Does anyone know of the legal theory behind this?
Can contracts or licence agreements be used to restrict use of something even if you now own it? I’m not a lawyer, obviously, but I thought as long as you buy something up front the contract can be deemed to have been successfully performed and thus ends? I.e. there is no longer an ongoing relationship.