Agree there is some vaguess. So would printing "Upgrade for Apple Macintosh computers" on the box make the legal challenges go away? I suspsect Apple would still need to incorporate some addtional security. Windows Activiation hell, here we come!
Well, it would clearly stop computer makers from legally installing OS X. As soon as they would re-sell an upgrade as a full version, this would be a criminal act. Nobody would even try it.
Hopefully Apple will be intelligent enough (they have been in the past) to see that activation is only damaging the legitimate users, hackers and criminals will find a way around it. As soon as nobody can legally purchase and re-sell full versions of OS X, the clone market will be dead.
I have a Mac and look at the terms of Snow Leopard and don't like something. You are suggesting that I return Snow Leopard for a FULL refund and install FreeBSD or Linux on my Mac? Are you nucking futs?!
Your understanding of "rights" is high up in the academic ether. In the real world, the writers of the EULA's have us over a barrel. Happily for me, Apple's EULA doesn't offend me -- I believe that Apple's tight (some might say monopolistic) integration of hardware, software and OS is a valuable advantage in reliability, ease-of-use and consistency. I willingly buy into the monopoly. Anyone who wants to install OS X on non-Apple hardware is going to get screwed, one way or another. Barring the remote possibility of getting your illegal clone confiscated and being fined or jailed for that, the most realistic downside of using non-Apple software is your loss of support from Apple. For some go-it-alone self-reliant types, that's no big deal, but for most people, that would be a devastating loss.
Did you read "LEGALLY"? it is the first word in my post. Furthermore, do you think Apple is going after every single individual who violates the EULA?!!
What you might/want/think is not relevant in the court of law. Other than using it on Apple-labeled computer what would you object to in the EULA? Everything else is not an issue here and if you have a Mac then that part is not an issue either. You will have an issue with Apple EULA if you want to install it on non Apple computer and in this case you can choose Linux based OS or Windows.
By the way, no one returns software because of the EULA because most people already know what they are getting into. Like what the judge in Psystar case said, people who buy Mac OS DVDs already know that they can only use them on Apple computers before they buy them.
I have a Mac and look at the terms of Snow Leopard and don't like something. You are suggesting that I return Snow Leopard for a FULL refund and install FreeBSD or Linux on my Mac? Are you nucking futs?!
Your understanding of "rights" is high up in the academic ether. In the real world, the writers of the EULA's have us over a barrel. Happily for me, Apple's EULA doesn't offend me -- I believe that Apple's tight (some might say monopolistic) integration of hardware, software and OS is a valuable advantage in reliability, ease-of-use and consistency. I willingly buy into the monopoly. Anyone who wants to install OS X on non-Apple hardware is going to get screwed, one way or another. Barring the remote possibility of getting your illegal clone confiscated and being fined or jailed for that, the most realistic downside of using non-Apple software is your loss of support from Apple. For some go-it-alone self-reliant types, that's no big deal, but for most people, that would be a devastating loss.
It's "unlikely" to happen simply because you AGREE to buying and using such a product. There are no legal problems with EULAs and shrink-wrap licenses, as they simply state conditions that are supposed to be accepted by the buyer beforehand, similarly to what already happens with any adhesion contract out there.
You are NOT entitled to change its terms, and you take it if you want to (apart from certain statutory rights, of course). This is the principle of contractual freedom, guys...nothing else. If the stupid germans don't like it, they should buy a PC.
Exactly. I've never seen such a weak argument as that presented by the stupid germans...EULAs are, BY DEFINITION, supposed to be read and agreed upon BEFORE you open packages and/or start using a company's products...this is the essence of a shrink-wrap license anywhere in the world.
This one won't even get past the preliminary hearings.
I don't think you are a lawyer and even if you are, you seem to be forgetting this thing called "countries" wherein different countries have different laws and stuff.
I am also not a lawyer, but it hardly seems a "lock" that the EULA is legal because of the statement on the box to that effect.
To have a situation where the user is buying something, and before they do, they have to agree to a contract that they can't actually read, and don't know the contents of, seems completely untenable to me. It denies informed consent for starters. The Germans agree it seems since this is the thrust of their provision.
That being said, Apple just has to move the provision for not using it on non-Apple hardware to the box front IMO.
Did you read "LEGALLY"? it is the first word in my post. Furthermore, do you think Apple is going after every single individual who violates the EULA?!!
What you might/want/think is not relevant in the court of law. Other than using it on Apple-labeled computer what would you object to in the EULA? Everything else is not an issue here and if you have a Mac then that part is not an issue either. You will have an issue with Apple EULA if you want to install it on non Apple computer and in this case you can choose Linux based OS or Windows.
By the way, no one returns software because of the EULA because most people already know what they are getting into. Like what the judge in Psystar case said, people who buy Mac OS DVDs already know that they can only use them on Apple computers before they buy them.
eh..??
I returned MS software to Toshiba once because I didn't agree with the EULA.
I returned MS software to Toshiba once because I didn't agree with the EULA.
I got a refund too.!!!!
That was my point. If you don't agree to the EULA you have the legal right to return it and get a refund. Furthermore, few user did not want Windows on their new PCs and successfully refused Windows EULA and return the software for refund.
What's wrong with people of this generation? They don't follow rules, they don't create ANYTHING from scratch, yet they want everything for free and screw the creators of that IP. No self respect or honor, and definitely NO common sense.
What's wrong with people of this generation? They don't follow rules, they don't create ANYTHING from scratch, yet they want everything for free and screw the creators of that IP.
Huh? I'm not saying it is right or wrong if someone installs Mac OS X on a clone, but they have paid for Mac OS X either through the clone manufacturer or a retail box from an Apple store. Both Psystar and this company are buying copies of OS X and are not using pirated versions.
The question at hand is whether Apple's EULA can be held up in a court of law, and apparently in Germany it can't.
On PearC's website, the FAQ section includes the question "Is the PearC legal?" The answer reads, "Yes. According to european laws Apples EULA is void."
Not that they have a vested interest in giving an answer that favors their side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
Legally you can reject the EULA and return the product for a refund. In case of Mac OS the EULA gives buyers the right to reject the EULA and return the product for a refund. It is written in the first paragraph of the EULA.
The problem is that once opened, most stores won't accept returns. I've heard, but not verified, that the software makers don't accept returns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by i386
They are offering 9800 NVidia, is there even drivers for this in OSX?
I've heard from nVidia fans and others that the 9xxx series really doesn't change much over what's in the 8xxx series, that you can use the same driver files.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2
A federal law applies to all people residing or staying in a country. An EULA hidden in the box is a contract that only one party has signed. EULA <> Law and Apple <> Federal Government. I think (hope) not even Apple is confusing this
Is it really a contract? I'm not up to date as to whether opening the package or installing a program is binding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marokero
What's wrong with people of this generation? They don't follow rules, they don't create ANYTHING from scratch, yet they want everything for free and screw the creators of that IP. No self respect or honor, and definitely NO common sense.
It's an aside, but just about nobody really creates anything from scratch.
I don't know if these guys are getting anything "for free", if they're like Psystar, they do pay for the retail box.
Is it really a contract? I'm not up to date as to whether opening the package or installing a program is binding.
Well, according to German courts any terms that are clearly visible before purchase (that is: on the outside of the product or in the shop, Web links and references do not count), as long as they are not illegal themselves and "understandable", automatically become part of the terms and conditions of business, and are therefore contractual (part of the sales contract). Terms become invalid (and can be ignored, no need to return for a refund) if they are illegal, hard/impossible to understand for somebody without a degree in contractual law, or do limit essential rights/functionality being the purpose of the contract/purchase. Hiding an upgrade requirement in the EULA and in the box is a clear violation of the latter.
Any restricting terms that are only available inside the box, or presented in a license dialog during installation are absolutely null and void.
P.S. Opening the box or clicking "I agree" anywhere is not at all binding in Germany. Companies still print this on every sealed envelope to scare users though.
The add a custom PA Semi chip argument breaks down at the point Apple can't sell upgrades to those who own earlier Macs without the chip. And that's a big $ stream for Apple.
However, if they started adding such a chip now, without making upgrading contingent on the chip, about 3-4 years down the road 95% of the market which upgrades would be comprised of Macs with the chip, and then in Ocelot (or whatever, they could build in the code that ties installation to that chip being there. No connection or hassle with outside parties required.
They could sell a UBS dongle with the chip to the remainder (which, since it's a tiny revenue generator could be made a bit more onerous to get so that IT couldn't be used on clones).
That, of course risks that over those years someone could reverse engineer the chip, AMD in the 80's style.
The EULA appears before the OS can be installed on the computer screen, btw, so the "clone consumer" is agreeing to it. And if not, can take it back for a refund.
Changes made to the box implies people are expected to read everything on a box before they buy it. That would imply that there's an implicit EULA on every packaged product with text on it ever sold. And would make for some interesting legal precepts. For one, think of the many products which say "may contain traces of nut products" - which can be harmful to deadly for the allergic.
But with modern checkout technology, the EULA could be made to print out and be signed at the POS terminal, and the signing automatically be sent to Apple via sig capture - or in another way for online orders (and if necessary for legal doctrine the signing could be an acknowledgment the buyer knows s/he is receiving a copy of a EULA restricting the product's use rather than a more dicey "legal contract" - this provision could be used against cloners, especially against PearC's interpretation of German Law) without being pursued against Hackintosh Hobbyists).
Certainly less onerous than serial # registration (which requires an active iNet connection, presumably before the install, no??, as in huhh?) or other schemes making the product harder to purchase and install legitimately.
The point someone made about minors is really interesting, though. One sees a world where you get carded to buy alcohol, tobacco, pornorgraphy and.... ....iPhoto.
The charge more for the OS and less for the computer (to whatever degree) also has its problems. Again, how does that not harm the vibrant Mac upgrade market (a much higher %age of Mac owners upgrade than do Win users)?
Which gets back to "editioning" OSX (Upgrade/replacement/other) which is Win-like and undesirable. But who (among those who follow the EULA) buys a $129 version of OSX except legitmate upgraders? After all, it's included with every new Mac, and if you lose your discs, Apple has a lower-priced replacement option already. So if the word "upgrade" is a key part of the legal issue, I get a little lost in why if no one except upgraders are expected to buy it, why the boxed version can't be called "OSX Snow Leopard (and in smaller text) - For upgrading Apple Macintosh Computers Only"?
One place where verification should work would be in prohibiting the clones from being able to access software update in any way, denying fixes, security updates, etc.
Withholding all support is also obvious - meaning clone companies would either have to spend to ramp up their own (raising their sales price) or restrict the universe of buyers to fairly self-sufficient and geeky types on a budget. Aunt May wouldn't buy one and if she did she would rue the day loudly enough so that none of her friends would buy one soon enough.
So maybe all in all a manageable set of issues and partial solutions for the big A....
Huh? I'm not saying it is right or wrong if someone installs Mac OS X on a clone, but they have paid for Mac OS X either through the clone manufacturer or a retail box from an Apple store. Both Psystar and this company are buying copies of OS X and are not using pirated versions.
The question at hand is whether Apple's EULA can be held up in a court of law, and apparently in Germany it can't.
1 I don't think it's gone to court in Germany. This company is getting out in front of itself legally.
2 Remember that Apple's different in most respects than most hardware and software manufacturers. They make a combined package. The software sells the hardware. Rip that away for cheap hardware solutions and how would Apple support its premium software OS? It's a business model that's unique. Ironically, these companies trying to do this might, if successful, in the end destroy their own businesses as a result.
3 There are international intellectual agreements/treaties countries (including Germany) are party to.
4 If you don't like the law, you're not forced to participate...owning a Macintosh isn't one of life's necessities...it's a nice to have, not a need to have. Pick a number and get in the complaint line.
5 Granted, they should have their EULA on the box somewhere (does anyone REALLY read that stuff anyway?)
Is it possible to create a piece of hardware that asks to have a retail copy of OS X inserted in a drive and proceeds with modifying it to run on said hardware via boot code? If so, then Apple's EULA would (I believe) only apply to the end user, as the company that sells the hardware is merely creating a device and not forcing you to use it in a certain way.
The guns-don't-kill-people-but-people-kill-people argument.
That way, the company is not liable and Apple would have to take each consumer to court.
Well, according to German courts any terms that are clearly visible before purchase (that is: on the outside of the product or in the shop, Web links and references do not count), as long as they are not illegal themselves and "understandable", automatically become part of the terms and conditions of business, and are therefore contractual (part of the sales contract).
and this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2
P.S. Opening the box or clicking "I agree" anywhere is not at all binding in Germany.
Contradictory?
It seems by the first statement that printing something about it being an upgrade product only for use on mac hardware on the outside of the box would suffice to make the Pear computer illegal. The second statement kind of implies that no matter what's on the box, it doesn't affect anything.
Comments
Agree there is some vaguess. So would printing "Upgrade for Apple Macintosh computers" on the box make the legal challenges go away? I suspsect Apple would still need to incorporate some addtional security. Windows Activiation hell, here we come!
Well, it would clearly stop computer makers from legally installing OS X. As soon as they would re-sell an upgrade as a full version, this would be a criminal act. Nobody would even try it.
Hopefully Apple will be intelligent enough (they have been in the past) to see that activation is only damaging the legitimate users, hackers and criminals will find a way around it. As soon as nobody can legally purchase and re-sell full versions of OS X, the clone market will be dead.
And how likely is this going to happen?
I have a Mac and look at the terms of Snow Leopard and don't like something. You are suggesting that I return Snow Leopard for a FULL refund and install FreeBSD or Linux on my Mac? Are you nucking futs?!
Your understanding of "rights" is high up in the academic ether. In the real world, the writers of the EULA's have us over a barrel. Happily for me, Apple's EULA doesn't offend me -- I believe that Apple's tight (some might say monopolistic) integration of hardware, software and OS is a valuable advantage in reliability, ease-of-use and consistency. I willingly buy into the monopoly. Anyone who wants to install OS X on non-Apple hardware is going to get screwed, one way or another. Barring the remote possibility of getting your illegal clone confiscated and being fined or jailed for that, the most realistic downside of using non-Apple software is your loss of support from Apple. For some go-it-alone self-reliant types, that's no big deal, but for most people, that would be a devastating loss.
Did you read "LEGALLY"? it is the first word in my post. Furthermore, do you think Apple is going after every single individual who violates the EULA?!!
What you might/want/think is not relevant in the court of law. Other than using it on Apple-labeled computer what would you object to in the EULA? Everything else is not an issue here and if you have a Mac then that part is not an issue either. You will have an issue with Apple EULA if you want to install it on non Apple computer and in this case you can choose Linux based OS or Windows.
By the way, no one returns software because of the EULA because most people already know what they are getting into. Like what the judge in Psystar case said, people who buy Mac OS DVDs already know that they can only use them on Apple computers before they buy them.
And how likely is this going to happen?
I have a Mac and look at the terms of Snow Leopard and don't like something. You are suggesting that I return Snow Leopard for a FULL refund and install FreeBSD or Linux on my Mac? Are you nucking futs?!
Your understanding of "rights" is high up in the academic ether. In the real world, the writers of the EULA's have us over a barrel. Happily for me, Apple's EULA doesn't offend me -- I believe that Apple's tight (some might say monopolistic) integration of hardware, software and OS is a valuable advantage in reliability, ease-of-use and consistency. I willingly buy into the monopoly. Anyone who wants to install OS X on non-Apple hardware is going to get screwed, one way or another. Barring the remote possibility of getting your illegal clone confiscated and being fined or jailed for that, the most realistic downside of using non-Apple software is your loss of support from Apple. For some go-it-alone self-reliant types, that's no big deal, but for most people, that would be a devastating loss.
It's "unlikely" to happen simply because you AGREE to buying and using such a product. There are no legal problems with EULAs and shrink-wrap licenses, as they simply state conditions that are supposed to be accepted by the buyer beforehand, similarly to what already happens with any adhesion contract out there.
You are NOT entitled to change its terms, and you take it if you want to (apart from certain statutory rights, of course). This is the principle of contractual freedom, guys...nothing else. If the stupid germans don't like it, they should buy a PC.
Of course Germans aren't afraid because Germans love David Hasselhoff.
Good point.
[ed: no thanks on the image]
Exactly. I've never seen such a weak argument as that presented by the stupid germans...EULAs are, BY DEFINITION, supposed to be read and agreed upon BEFORE you open packages and/or start using a company's products...this is the essence of a shrink-wrap license anywhere in the world.
This one won't even get past the preliminary hearings.
I don't think you are a lawyer and even if you are, you seem to be forgetting this thing called "countries" wherein different countries have different laws and stuff.
I am also not a lawyer, but it hardly seems a "lock" that the EULA is legal because of the statement on the box to that effect.
To have a situation where the user is buying something, and before they do, they have to agree to a contract that they can't actually read, and don't know the contents of, seems completely untenable to me. It denies informed consent for starters. The Germans agree it seems since this is the thrust of their provision.
That being said, Apple just has to move the provision for not using it on non-Apple hardware to the box front IMO.
Did you read "LEGALLY"? it is the first word in my post. Furthermore, do you think Apple is going after every single individual who violates the EULA?!!
What you might/want/think is not relevant in the court of law. Other than using it on Apple-labeled computer what would you object to in the EULA? Everything else is not an issue here and if you have a Mac then that part is not an issue either. You will have an issue with Apple EULA if you want to install it on non Apple computer and in this case you can choose Linux based OS or Windows.
By the way, no one returns software because of the EULA because most people already know what they are getting into. Like what the judge in Psystar case said, people who buy Mac OS DVDs already know that they can only use them on Apple computers before they buy them.
eh..??
I returned MS software to Toshiba once because I didn't agree with the EULA.
I got a refund too.!!!!
you can't just assume Mac computer means Apple branded. Assumptions don't hold up in court!
OQO model 2+
http://www.oqo.com
Or else this is what people is doing:
http://www.oqotalk.com/index.php/topic,2430.525.html
Apple, you decide, because the MacBook Air is TOO HEAVY and TOO LARGE!
Or else, surprise us with something like this, with the full Mac OS X inside (not just the OS X):
Next Apple moves will be Books and Games?
http://spidouz.wordpress.com/2008/09...ooks-and-games
eh..??
I returned MS software to Toshiba once because I didn't agree with the EULA.
I got a refund too.!!!!
That was my point. If you don't agree to the EULA you have the legal right to return it and get a refund. Furthermore, few user did not want Windows on their new PCs and successfully refused Windows EULA and return the software for refund.
What's wrong with people of this generation? They don't follow rules, they don't create ANYTHING from scratch, yet they want everything for free and screw the creators of that IP.
Huh? I'm not saying it is right or wrong if someone installs Mac OS X on a clone, but they have paid for Mac OS X either through the clone manufacturer or a retail box from an Apple store. Both Psystar and this company are buying copies of OS X and are not using pirated versions.
The question at hand is whether Apple's EULA can be held up in a court of law, and apparently in Germany it can't.
All EULA's are available on Apple's website:
http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/
There's nothing on the outside of my Leopard retail box that says anything about going to their website to access the EULA.
Hmm could that be because you dont have a European released version of the box?
On PearC's website, the FAQ section includes the question "Is the PearC legal?" The answer reads, "Yes. According to european laws Apples EULA is void."
Not that they have a vested interest in giving an answer that favors their side.
Legally you can reject the EULA and return the product for a refund. In case of Mac OS the EULA gives buyers the right to reject the EULA and return the product for a refund. It is written in the first paragraph of the EULA.
The problem is that once opened, most stores won't accept returns. I've heard, but not verified, that the software makers don't accept returns.
They are offering 9800 NVidia, is there even drivers for this in OSX?
I've heard from nVidia fans and others that the 9xxx series really doesn't change much over what's in the 8xxx series, that you can use the same driver files.
A federal law applies to all people residing or staying in a country. An EULA hidden in the box is a contract that only one party has signed. EULA <> Law and Apple <> Federal Government. I think (hope) not even Apple is confusing this
Is it really a contract? I'm not up to date as to whether opening the package or installing a program is binding.
What's wrong with people of this generation? They don't follow rules, they don't create ANYTHING from scratch, yet they want everything for free and screw the creators of that IP. No self respect or honor, and definitely NO common sense.
It's an aside, but just about nobody really creates anything from scratch.
I don't know if these guys are getting anything "for free", if they're like Psystar, they do pay for the retail box.
Yoda: Oh! You will be. You will be.
Is it really a contract? I'm not up to date as to whether opening the package or installing a program is binding.
Well, according to German courts any terms that are clearly visible before purchase (that is: on the outside of the product or in the shop, Web links and references do not count), as long as they are not illegal themselves and "understandable", automatically become part of the terms and conditions of business, and are therefore contractual (part of the sales contract). Terms become invalid (and can be ignored, no need to return for a refund) if they are illegal, hard/impossible to understand for somebody without a degree in contractual law, or do limit essential rights/functionality being the purpose of the contract/purchase. Hiding an upgrade requirement in the EULA and in the box is a clear violation of the latter.
Any restricting terms that are only available inside the box, or presented in a license dialog during installation are absolutely null and void.
P.S. Opening the box or clicking "I agree" anywhere is not at all binding in Germany. Companies still print this on every sealed envelope to scare users though.
However, if they started adding such a chip now, without making upgrading contingent on the chip, about 3-4 years down the road 95% of the market which upgrades would be comprised of Macs with the chip, and then in Ocelot (or whatever, they could build in the code that ties installation to that chip being there. No connection or hassle with outside parties required. The EULA appears before the OS can be installed on the computer screen, btw, so the "clone consumer" is agreeing to it. And if not, can take it back for a refund.
Changes made to the box implies people are expected to read everything on a box before they buy it. That would imply that there's an implicit EULA on every packaged product with text on it ever sold. And would make for some interesting legal precepts. For one, think of the many products which say "may contain traces of nut products" - which can be harmful to deadly for the allergic.
But with modern checkout technology, the EULA could be made to print out and be signed at the POS terminal, and the signing automatically be sent to Apple via sig capture - or in another way for online orders (and if necessary for legal doctrine the signing could be an acknowledgment the buyer knows s/he is receiving a copy of a EULA restricting the product's use rather than a more dicey "legal contract" - this provision could be used against cloners, especially against PearC's interpretation of German Law) without being pursued against Hackintosh Hobbyists).
Certainly less onerous than serial # registration (which requires an active iNet connection, presumably before the install, no??, as in huhh?) or other schemes making the product harder to purchase and install legitimately. The charge more for the OS and less for the computer (to whatever degree) also has its problems. Again, how does that not harm the vibrant Mac upgrade market (a much higher %age of Mac owners upgrade than do Win users)?
Which gets back to "editioning" OSX (Upgrade/replacement/other) which is Win-like and undesirable. But who (among those who follow the EULA) buys a $129 version of OSX except legitmate upgraders? After all, it's included with every new Mac, and if you lose your discs, Apple has a lower-priced replacement option already. So if the word "upgrade" is a key part of the legal issue, I get a little lost in why if no one except upgraders are expected to buy it, why the boxed version can't be called "OSX Snow Leopard (and in smaller text) - For upgrading Apple Macintosh Computers Only"?
One place where verification should work would be in prohibiting the clones from being able to access software update in any way, denying fixes, security updates, etc.
Withholding all support is also obvious - meaning clone companies would either have to spend to ramp up their own (raising their sales price) or restrict the universe of buyers to fairly self-sufficient and geeky types on a budget. Aunt May wouldn't buy one and if she did she would rue the day loudly enough so that none of her friends would buy one soon enough.
So maybe all in all a manageable set of issues and partial solutions for the big A....
Huh? I'm not saying it is right or wrong if someone installs Mac OS X on a clone, but they have paid for Mac OS X either through the clone manufacturer or a retail box from an Apple store. Both Psystar and this company are buying copies of OS X and are not using pirated versions.
The question at hand is whether Apple's EULA can be held up in a court of law, and apparently in Germany it can't.
1 I don't think it's gone to court in Germany. This company is getting out in front of itself legally.
2 Remember that Apple's different in most respects than most hardware and software manufacturers. They make a combined package. The software sells the hardware. Rip that away for cheap hardware solutions and how would Apple support its premium software OS? It's a business model that's unique. Ironically, these companies trying to do this might, if successful, in the end destroy their own businesses as a result.
3 There are international intellectual agreements/treaties countries (including Germany) are party to.
4 If you don't like the law, you're not forced to participate...owning a Macintosh isn't one of life's necessities...it's a nice to have, not a need to have. Pick a number and get in the complaint line.
5 Granted, they should have their EULA on the box somewhere (does anyone REALLY read that stuff anyway?)
The guns-don't-kill-people-but-people-kill-people argument.
That way, the company is not liable and Apple would have to take each consumer to court.
Weird how just putting the plug-ins vertical looks so much nicer than horizontal. And of course, black instead of silver seems like a no brainer.
Skip
Well, according to German courts any terms that are clearly visible before purchase (that is: on the outside of the product or in the shop, Web links and references do not count), as long as they are not illegal themselves and "understandable", automatically become part of the terms and conditions of business, and are therefore contractual (part of the sales contract).
and this:
P.S. Opening the box or clicking "I agree" anywhere is not at all binding in Germany.
Contradictory?
It seems by the first statement that printing something about it being an upgrade product only for use on mac hardware on the outside of the box would suffice to make the Pear computer illegal. The second statement kind of implies that no matter what's on the box, it doesn't affect anything.