Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th Apr 2008 15:01 UTC
Legal When PsyStar announced they would be offering their own Macintosch clone, pre-installed with Apple's Mac OS X Leopard, they opened up a whole can of worms. Despite the fact that the company itself was shrouded in mystery and dubiousness, the possible implications of their actions sparkled an interesting debate here on OSNews as well as other discussion venues: can PsyStar and its users just discard Apple's End User License Agreement for Leopard? Instead of relying on my own limited layman's understanding of Dutch Common Law, I decided to contact Dutch legal experts, and ask for their opinions on Apple's EULA, and EULAs in general.
Permalink for comment 311707
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
rajan r
Member since:
2005-07-27

So, if I want cereal, but I don't want the box, could I discard it and demand the supermarket charge me less because I'm not buying the box? What about if I go to a car dealership and say, "Hey, I don't want your tires - give me a cheaper car sans tires".

Tying (or "force-sell") isn't subject literal application on every case. It is probably more for unreasonable cases, where products tied together are unrelated - like, when you buy a car, they throw in a fridge for you. Or a bookstore forced to buy unwanted books to stock up on bestsellers.

I'd be hard pressed to convince a court that Mac OS X is unreasonably tied to Apple-labelled computers. And even in civil law countries, judges are mindful of the precedence that will be set - if an OS and a computer is unreasonably bundled, maybe OSes would be forced to strip out, say, printer drivers?

Reply Parent Score: 1