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.
Thread beginning with comment 311472
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Somes clauses don't stand everywhere.
by Ishan on Fri 25th Apr 2008 16:17 UTC
Member since:

In France you can't "force sell" products together (it's purely illegal even if Microsoft is doing it for years with Windows hehe).
So, in theory, you can buy Mac OSX and install it on whatever computer you want, Apple or not, mainly because that clause imply if you buy OSX you must have or buy an Apple computer to use it which is illegal over here.
That's the way I understand it.
The same goes if I already have a Mac OSX license, and want to buy a Mac, I should be able to buy it without OSX.

Edited 2008-04-25 16:18 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Manik Member since:

Yep, there is that law prohibiting joint sales. Probably one of the least enforced in France. Just try to buy a computer without Windows installed. Tell the seller it is illegal to force you to buy Windows (or OS X for that matter).

I tried. I even found a seller who accepted to take out the hard disk and put another one without Windows. But the computer without Windows ended costing a lot more than the computer with Windows.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Anacardo Member since:

Well this depends on how MacOSX and the Mac are marketed. If a Mac is sold as a "personal computer", then you have a point. If otherwise is marketed as a platform, a combination of both hardware and software, then your assumptions are not valid. In Italy for example, Macintoshes were always marketed as platforms and as such the idea of buying a mac without osx was never considered viable or legal. This is reflected on pricing as well. Macosx is priced relatively low (for the low numbers compared to windows counterparts) because part of the developement costs were already heavily charged on the original mac purchase.

Reply Parent Score: 3

unclefester Member since:

Australia has the same rules. We have white box PC sellers in almost every suburb and PCs are always available with out an OS. White box PCs are also far cheaper than mainstream brands.

Reply Parent Score: 1

rajan r Member since:

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