Quote:
Originally Posted by Recursion
I don't recall exactly why M$'s EULA terms were deemed voidable/unenforceable. But based on how the software industry has developed over the past decade, I just can't see any court striking terms that limit use to particular hardware. I do see how it can look a bit dark, especially when compared to the "sale of a copy." You know, this whole licensing angle popped up because of the "first sale doctrine," which says a buyer can do anything they want with what they bought. Anyhow, it will be interesting to see how this pans out.
|
Well there were a number of things that MS got in hot water over, but one of the main things was they forced OEM's to agree that they would not install Windows on any hardware that they also installed Linux on (even if they were not installed at the same time, MS did not want Windows being installed on identical hardware to Linux machines- knowing the Linux machines would be cheaper and pose a competitive threat).
That is almost exactly what Apple is doing here. If it wasn't okay for MS to do it, I can't imagine it will be okay for Apple to do it either.
You can read about it here:
http://db.tidbits.com/article/6980
So if Microsoft is not allowed to lock OEMs into only Microsoft software, then I can't imagine Apple will be allowed to lock OEMs into only Mac hardware. I am positive Apple will lose that case if Psystar has enough money to actually fight it. If Apple somehow wins, you can bet Microsoft will be using it as grounds to appeal their antitrust cases all over the world.