Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 4th Jul 2009 00:40 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Now this is interesting news that hit my inbox at 2:22 AM (don't ask). It seems like the concept of selling Mac clones is more lucrative than many have anticipated, as I've just been informed via email that the German PearC has expanded its business into the BeNeLux (Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg) and France. Together with the news that Psystar emerged from chapter 11, it looks like the market for Mac clones is more lucrative than many of us had imagined.
Thread beginning with comment 371708
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Great news, but not about OSX
by alcibiades on Sat 4th Jul 2009 07:54 UTC
alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

Yes, this is excellent news, and the bigger PearC gets, and the more places it operates in, the better. And the more companies join it in defying the Apple EULA, the better. And the reason has nothing to do with 'the Mac experience' or OSX, or the fortunes of Apple. It has to do with companies that think they can sell copies of their software at retail, and then tell us what we can do with it after we have bought it. Whether this is what environment we may install it in, or what we may do with the files we generate with it, or what content we use it to access....and so on.

Or for that matter, companies that think they can sell us tools, and then tell us whether we can use them in way of trade, or only for DIY.

Or for that matter, companies that think they can sell us appliances, and then tell us what clothes we may wash in them and what parts we may repair them with and what soap powder we may use in them.

I have no problem at all with Apple restricting the use of OSX to Apple sourced machines. Feel perfectly free to do that. I don't think its a sensible business strategy, but its their own business. Just like I have no problem with Maytag making machines that require a special sort of soap powder.

What I have a problem with is them insisting on selling retail copies that are installable on non-Apple sourced machines, and then demanding legal powers to prevent this rather than implementing the restraints by technical means.

There is no reason why we should give the entire software industry, or manufacturers in general, draconian powers to limit our freedom, just so Apple can implement their business strategy in this one particular technically lazy way.

They want to restrict OSX, feel free. Do some work, and do it. Don't try to take legal powers against buyers of your retail packages which no supplier should have against his customers.

Edited 2009-07-04 07:55 UTC

Reply Score: 8

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

While far-fetched, if the terms of the purchase were such then there would have to be a very compelling reason to go ahead with the purchase; you cannot simply sign a contract and claim some percieved right to simply ignore it just because you feel your freedoms are being trampled on, man.


Blah blah blah.

The terms of purchase when buying Mac OS X are regular, normal unaltered terms of purchase, which apply to toothpaste, tires, and dildos. These terms of purchase go into effect the moment I hand over my money, and get the product.

The EULA is agreed upon *post-sale* and and as such, are by definition NOT terms of purchase. In many countries, imposing post-sale restrictions is illegal.

Reply Parent Score: 4

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

The problem with this line of argument is that as a matter of fact, in all OECD jurisdictions, limits on what contracts a seller may impose on a buyer are accepted and part of sale of goods law.

For example, the obvious one, in the UK if you buy mail order, the distance selling regulations give you the right to return for refund within 7 days, no questions asked. It does not matter what contract you sign, it will not be enforceable against this. Similarly, you have various rights under the Sale of Goods laws, and even if you sign a contract renouncing them as a consideration for getting a more generous warranty, this renunciation will not have any legal effect. The same applies to anti competitive practices.

What you are basically doing is adopting a libertarian attitude, but restricted to powers you want Apple to have, without considering what effect giving everyone including Apple those powers. This is why I say that it is not primarily about Apple. Of course, what you would like is for Apple but no-one else to have those powers. That is not going to happen, and should not happen.

Now, it may be reasonable to say that any seller should be able to impose any conditions of sale and that buyers' only recourse should be not to buy. One can imagine societies which regulate consumer purchases in this way. It is just that our societies have chosen a different way, and in them it is not a reasonable argument to say, of one particular company, that "you cannot simply sign a contract and claim some percieved right to simply ignore it just because you feel your freedoms are being trampled on, man".

It depends on the conditions. Some will be enforceable under consumer protection and contract and competition law, others not. There is no reason why you should comply with contractual conditions which have no legal validity in your jurisdiction.

I have two views on this. One is that Apple's specific clause about where you may install or cause to be installed will not in fact be enforceable in the EC.

The second is that it should not be, because, like the ability to incent people to give up their rights under the sale of goods acts, it is not good for society or consistent with the way we run retail sales at present.

One can amusingly turn your argument on its head. Yes, if Apple loses exclusivity on OSX and this causes you not to want to buy Macs or Apple shares, well, sell the shares, don't buy the machines. Yes indeed, follow your own advice!

Reply Parent Score: 3

dmantione Member since:
2005-07-06


That's my biggest beef with this entire argument; that a vocal minority feel they are entitled to ignore contractual requirements like the End User License Agreement. This isn't just a problem in IT, but in banking, telecommunications, oh… the list just goes on. It may seem harsh and unfair, but the consumer always has the option, nay a right to choose not to sign the dotted line, or click the tickbox confirming that they have read the EULA and agree to it!


Well, it can be explained with a simple analogy. You sell me a television, I can do with it what I want. It's mine, mwuhuhahahahahaaa!!! In other words, a television manufacturer that puts a note in the box that by switching on the television I agree with not watching television on saturday will have wasted its time, he has no right tell what I can do with *my* television. It's only me who has the authority to say who can do what with my property.

For the same reason, Apple cannot tell people what to do with its software. It has no authority at all to do that, after it sold the software, it's no longer Apple's program, it's mine. Sure there is copyright on it, but the copy of the program has been sold and Apple can in no way tell people what to do with the copy.

You are right this is a problem in IT: EULA's are a plague that are being used to take away the consumers rights. IT should become a normal industy that sells software like a supermarket is selling apples: Without 10 pages of legalese.

Edited 2009-07-04 11:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5