OSNews

"Right now, I could buy a copy of OSX, come home to my nice computer, and in the process of installing it, find out that they arbitrarily decided to forbid me from installing it on certain of my computers."

they most certainly can. You don't have a right to software that will always work with the hardware it used to work with.

That is so dishonest, it must have hurt to write it. Nobody is saying that the software has to work with my computer. If it doesn't, I'm out of luck. The question is - can they forbid me from even trying it. Even in an "Emperor Steve has such beautiful clothes" world, you must admit is somewhat strange to forbid people from using Apple software on machines the user owns. Very strange.

By the way, I do not have an Apple, I do not have OSX, and I am not trying to run it on my machines. I just find it wierd in a "free" society that people could support such a tyrannical concept.

What, exactly, is involved in providing support for a processor which supports all the x86 instructions that their supported hardware products do? Doesn't it come down to selectively breaking it?

How come when it comes to what big corporations do, we always hear about what "it" has the "right" to do.

(And exactly what is "it", anyway? A virtual person? Some bizarre legal entity masquerading as a person? Something else? What rights, exactly, should "it" have?)

But when it comes to what the users do, we hear so much about how we don't have a right to... whatever.

And when it comes to "rights"... how many of you folks have a department of attorneys on retainer to fight for yours? Because Apple ("it") sure has one. And is not afraid to use it. Though it does tend to send in its PR department first, as the actual deliverers of the legal threat:

http://www.osnews.com/story/21937/Apple_Tried_to_Silence_Exploding_...

Edited 2009-11-02 21:44 UTC

Actually, if you've been following along lately, that's known as a post-sale restriction. You can't take somebody's money, and then, as they are using the product, impose some wierd restiction that they did not agree to _in writing_ at the time of the sale. That's really the whole point. "

So I don't have to worry about those pesky fair use terms that I agreed when I took out my mobile phone and broadband internet accounts online because I didn't sign anything right? Nice to know.

Oh, and I'm going to take those so-and-so's to the cleaners because they went and did a credit check on me! When I clicked that button that said they could I didn't really mean it - I certainly didn't sign anything!

And of course any amendments they make to the terms are also invalid because the initial terms that I agreed to that allow them to make amendments aren't valid, and even if they were any changes to things like the fair-use policy would be a post-sale restriction and wouldn't be valid anyway would they? Again, nice to know.

Thanks for that insight, I now know I can go use as much mobile data as I like and they won't have a leg to stand on in court when they try to get the cash out of me - I'll just give them your contact details for reference ok?

In The Netherlands, you actually DO sign mobile contract and broadband contracts. As in, with a signature.

On top of that, the comparison is off, because you are comparing a PRODUCT (OS X) to a SERVICE (connectivity). This distinction is often lost on proponents of the EULA.

Wow, what a completely useless analogy.

Those aren't post-sales restrictions, for one. And second, mobile phone carriers sell you services. An operating system, such as OS X, is a good, NOT a service. If you can't understand a distinction that basic, you should probably just stay out of these discussions altogether.