OSNews

I can tell you that in the US, AT&T doesn't use any sort of click-through regarding their broadband "service". And if you sign a broadband contract one evening... and then cancel the next morning due to total lack of any working broadband service... they don't cut you any slack. Their representatives dress up in outfits right out of Dante's Inferno (Well, they sound like it, on the other end of the line.) and tell you so, in no uncertain terms. "Bwah! Ha! Ha! Ha!", they say. "Is there anything else I can help you with on this call? It may be recorded for quality assurance, you know. Bwah! Ha! Ha! Ha!".

And yet Apple acts like they have all our signatures on file, in blood. Go figure...

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. "

Is a mobile phone not a product? Or a wireless broadband dongle? What about the SIM card that you have to put in to the phone or dongle to make it work? I can go buy a SIM card for $10 over the counter and never agree to anything, the license agreement is presented when I go to activate it. Sound familiar?

And some countries have progressed beyond making your mark in blood for an agreement to be binding, otherwise those with severe physical impairments would continue to be discriminated against.

Oh, and for the record, I'm NOT a proponent of the EULA. I would love to see them all scraped but not by law because I believe someone who invests their time and resources into developing something has every right to determine it's use if they so wish. What I am a proponent of is doing what you agreed to do. If you click the AGREE button but you don't agree, you have no honour. If you don't agree with it you have the right to click the I DON'T AGREE button and not use the product - there is nothing forcing you to use the product. That is often lost on those who have no concept of Respect, Rights and Responsibility other than how it relates to THEM.

Edited 2009-11-03 01:13 UTC

So, in this thread, we've learned that Mac fanboys don't understand the difference between stealing vs. buying something, or the difference between goods & services. Now we can apparently add another one to the list: the difference between post-sales restrictions for a product and terms of use for a service.

Has someone at Apple accidentally bumped into a switch on their Reality Distortion Field generator? It looks like they've had it set on "pure BS" mode for the last few months.

Edited 2009-11-03 17:27 UTC

The point you're missing is that it's already been paid for. For a contract (written or click-through) to be binding the terms need to be agreed at the point of the transaction.

With your earlier example of phone service you still have to agree to the contract on-line before they'll send you your phone. In most countries you can 'sign' a contract using click through, it's still legally binding.

However you can't impose terms after sale, unless there was a contract at the point of sale explicitly stating that specific terms might change (like interest rates on a credit card for instance).

Apple are within their rights to impose usage terms on their products, but only if it's in a contract at the point of sale, not after sale.