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.
Not contradictory. If it is on the box, it is valid and binding (if it is legal in the first place). Things that are a) restrictive and b) introduced after the purchase are not. Of course, repeating anything that is on the box in the box (in a printed EULA or in a license agreement dialog) does not invalidate what is on the box anyhow.
Not contradictory. If it is on the box, it is valid and binding (if it is legal in the first place). Things that are a) restrictive and b) introduced after the purchase are not. Of course, repeating anything that is on the box in the box (in a printed EULA or in a license agreement dialog) does not invalidate what is on the box anyhow.
This is basically what I believe and I think the most sensible interpretation of the law. All Apple really has to do to solve this problem in Germany is print clearly on the box that it's an upgrade product for use on Macintosh systems only. Currently it only says:
"Use of this product is subject to acceptance of the software licence agreement(s) included in this package. Don't steal software"
and then lists the "requirements" as:
"Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processor; 512 MB of physical RAM .... "
Which by it's wording only implies technical limitations instead of contractual ones, even though anyone with half a brain can infer that "Mac computer" refers to the idea that this stuff is only intended to run on a Mac.
I still think that Apple has a legal argument to shut down Pear, even *with* the German EULA rulings, but it seems like they could make it a solid lock by adding some clearer language on the package.
I seriously doubt that Apple's EULA is so obviously invalid in Germany that a group of punks like PearC can ignore it with no consequence.
Even if German law is very pro-consumer and ultimately invalidates Apple's EULA, PearC will not be able to afford to defend themselves against Apple's smackdown.
I can see PearC being comfortable if they were in Tuvalu or Myanmar, but Germany is a major international player and I really doubt that their IP regime is so out of line with America's that PearC could operate freely. Maybe, but I really doubt it.
Which by it's wording only implies technical limitations instead of contractual ones, even though anyone with half a brain can infer that "Mac computer" refers to the idea that this stuff is only intended to run on a Mac.
Well yes, "system requirements" are only a specification, they only have any contractual value, if you do have supported hardware and it still does not work... The discussion if people have to know what a "Mac" is (a computer running OS X, or a computer being Apple branded, but we also have knife-makers, burgers and leather goods legally using that name) is legit, but pointless, as the vast majority of OSs available to consumers are manufacturer-agnostic, and a non-expert is not obliged to know about it. Clearly naming it an upgrade and only licensing it for Apple branded computers on the box would solve all issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
I still think that Apple has a legal argument to shut down Pear, even *with* the German EULA rulings, but it seems like they could make it a solid lock by adding some clearer language on the package.
They might not have a legal argument based on the PearC offer alone. They would have a clear case, if PearC modifies Apple's code (I do not know, if this is the case). They could also successfully claim damages, if Apple support has to deal with problems caused by incompatible hardware, by modifications to the OS or problems caused by regular maintenance or security updates. This remains to be seen.
As PearC.de (HyperMegaNet UG) is an "UG" (owner-manager structure with extremely limited liability, less than 25k EUR normally), this is likely a hit and run operation anyhow. If all the media hype is getting them some sales, they can safely close shop (or change into HyperMegaNot) and nobody will pay for nothing... One has to be really stupid to buy there.
I seriously doubt that Apple's EULA is so obviously invalid in Germany that a group of punks like PearC can ignore it with no consequence.
Even if German law is very pro-consumer and ultimately invalidates Apple's EULA, PearC will not be able to afford to defend themselves against Apple's smackdown.
I can see PearC being comfortable if they were in Tuvalu or Myanmar, but Germany is a major international player and I really doubt that their IP regime is so out of line with America's that PearC could operate freely. Maybe, but I really doubt it.
No way Nellie Kroes and the EU court will side with Apple on this.
They may even go back to its not a license sale its a product sale. They took MS to the cleaners and if Apple kick up a stink with PearC then I'm sure it will end up in Brussels.
I can see Apple in the EU being a different entity to the rest of the company..
Well yes, "system requirements" are only a specification, they only have any contractual value, if you do have supported hardware and it still does not work...
Excellent post.
You should be writing this article as you seem to be the only one speaking with any authority and knowledge on the case. The number of idiotic ideas that come from all quarters when issues of infringement come up is astounding sometimes.
No way Nellie Kroes and the EU court will side with Apple on this...
I never said anything about the ultimate outcome of such a fight. But as arrogantly certain as you are as to the verdict, I am as arrogantly certain that the fight will drag on for a long time which will bankrupt PearC in the process.
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.
As another poster commented earlier, I think Apple will add a custom chip that enhances performance in future OS upgrades. This reduces the benefit of buying clone hardware even at a lower price. It would also encourage some existing Mac users to upgrade their equipment sooner to get the maximum benefit of owning a Mac. And it would allow existing Mac owners to run the new OS without whatever benefit the chip provides. As you suggest, they could make the chip mandatory further down the road once the installed base is largely running on Macs with said chip.
Quote:
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).
This is a really interesting idea. Apple could easily implement this in their own stores but I wonder how third-party dealers would feel about implementing this system. Doing this along with validating serial numbers for online sales would strengthen Apple's contract. Unfortunately, it would require that OS copies be serialized so that provenance could be traced for each copy.
No way Nellie Kroes and the EU court will side with Apple on this.
They may even go back to its not a license sale its a product sale. They took MS to the cleaners and if Apple kick up a stink with PearC then I'm sure it will end up in Brussels.
I can see Apple in the EU being a different entity to the rest of the company..
Apple should withdraw ALL retail sales of OSX and do an online upgrade option whereby Mac owners can purchase the OSX upgrade by supplying a valid serial number. This will sort out all of the wanna be Apple clone makers.
For $129 I better have a DVD and the right to make a backup copy.
The TRIPS agreement ensures that computer programs will be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention and outlines how databases should be protected.
It also expands international copyright rules to cover rental rights. Authors of computer programs and producers of sound recordings must have the right to prohibit the commercial rental of their works to the public."
"The Uruguay Round achieved that. The WTO?s TRIPS Agreement is an attempt to narrow the gaps in the way these rights are protected around the world, and to bring them under common international rules. "
"The second part of the TRIPS agreement looks at different kinds of intellectual property rights and how to protect them. The purpose is to ensure that adequate standards of protection exist in all member countries. "
"The TRIPS agreement ensures that computer programs will be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention "
So German laws on EULAs not withstanding, Apple enjoys certain rights under the Berne convention on how its IP get used/licensed. Germany can restrict it that but at the risk of the WTO calling foul and if not remedied Germany would face sanctions just as the US faced sanctions if we didn't modify our laws about offshore gambling.
It may be that Apple will have to print something on the box but that's about as far as it will go unless Germany decides that OSX being licensed to work only on Apple machines is somehow anti-competitive. At which point expect retail OSX boxes to disappear from German markets and a WTO complaint from the US about Germany being morons.
"The second part of the TRIPS agreement looks at different kinds of intellectual property rights and how to protect them. The purpose is to ensure that adequate standards of protection exist in all member countries. "
I fail to get what this has to do with the topic at hand. These agreements do only govern the regular protection of IP. Germany does not allow illegal copying, the removing of DRM, reverse engineering, disassembling, etc ad lib. The comparison to works of literature is especially stunning in this very case, as I have never seen a book that is only licensed for consumption by certain readers...
The situation at hand is not at all covered by the TRIPS agreement, it does neither deal with manufacturer specific operating systems, nor specific upgrade requirements, nor the enforceability of EULAs. It actually mainly deals with patents and copyrights, licenses are only covered under the aspect of fair trade.
Bottom line, this case has nothing to do with the WTO and TRIPS at all. A US company doing business in Germany (or anywhere else outside the US) has to follow local rules and regulations. If Apple does not play by the rules, the law has no obligation to help them out. Actually, if my tax money (47% income tax plus toppings) would be used, to help foreign companies that are too dense to label an upgrade "Upgrade", I would be rather upset. Apple is getting more than a fair share of my money already. But asking for less government when making profits, and for more government when having problems seems to be quite fashionable.
is the only argument that the EULA is not valid because it's inside the box? well... attach some big ass ugly stickers to the outside of the boxes going to germany. case closed?
am i missing something? steve's sense of esthetics notwithstanding, if this would remedy the situation for the german market, do you seriously think that apple is going for any other solution? while custom chips, updates online, pulling out of germany, etc. are fun ideas to kick around a forum, it seems to me that apple has better things to do...
I fail to get what this has to do with the topic at hand. These agreements do only govern the regular protection of IP. Germany does not allow illegal copying, the removing of DRM, reverse engineering, disassembling, etc ad lib. The comparison to works of literature is especially stunning in this very case, as I have never seen a book that is only licensed for consumption by certain readers...
But they can be licensed to be sold by certain vendors. Germany can restrict this right if it is deemed too anti-competitive.
I also really doubt that German TV stations can play any movie they want on the air, any time they want simply by buying a retail copy of a DVD.
Quote:
The situation at hand is not at all covered by the TRIPS agreement, it does neither deal with manufacturer specific operating systems, nor specific upgrade requirements, nor the enforceability of EULAs. It actually mainly deals with patents and copyrights, licenses are only covered under the aspect of fair trade.
Depends on whether or not these are modified OSX copies or not eh? If it is, then the EULA statement is a mere smoke screen because they are derivative works protected by copyright and these guys have no license to distribute and first sale doctrine, US or German wouldn't apply.
The OP's point is that international IP laws can trump local laws on the matter if they are WTO members. That may or may not apply but in general the IP holder can say how their IP gets used.
Am I missing something here? In order to run on generic PC's, doesn't OS X have to be heavily modified to boot on EFI, including modifying the kernel? Doesn't that involve Psystar and their ilk distributing a derivative work, thus violating Apple's copyright?
That is one method, but I am under the impression that there is another method that involves prepping the PC's HDD with a special partition that tricks an original OS X disc into installing. If this is what Psystar and PearC are using then at least Psystar is acting criminally in that they are accepting the EULA but are not the end user, making a copy of the copyrighted OS then selling it by transferring it from the CD to a HDD. PearC, as they state, may not be breaking any laws if such a method to install OS X in possible.
PS: I hadn't thought of this before this article but markets whose governments are less strict about protecting IP are much more likely to exploit this. Especially when the cost of Macs are much higher priced in comparison to their other brands. It makes me wonder what Apple will do to protect itself. Surely their strategy isn't to just litigate their way out of it.
Now, Americans - take good notice. This is a perfect example of "Your law is not my law". Quite often, Americans are completely baffled when I tell them that their law does not apply to me. Also, the case is pretty clear: EULAs have no legal standing whatsoever, so in this case, Apple can do sh*t about it.
Now, Americans - take good notice. This is a perfect example of "Your law is not my law". Quite often, Americans are completely baffled when I tell them that their law does not apply to me. Also, the case is pretty clear: EULAs have no legal standing whatsoever, so in this case, Apple can do sh*t about it.
I don't understand why people are so focused on the EULA and not the copy, reproduction and selling of IP without the consent of the IP holder. Does your country not have copyright laws? Are you allowed to make copies of an OS and then sell it to whomever you wish?
Doesn't the box say something about being only for installation on Apple branded computers along with the minimum system requirements? If so, then that would be pretty clearly stated before the purchase and would not even involve the EULA.
Doesn't matter. For all the scary sounding legalese in a typical EULA, they stand up in court only when they are used to combat piracy (which is already illegal so whether the EULA actually mattered in those situations is debatable.) It has been established now many times in court that a EULA is not a valid contractual agreement between the software creator and the customer. So it doesn't matter what Apple says you can or cannot install it on, nor does it matter if they say it's an upgrade. It's yours to do with as you will within the limits of the law. You can install it on your hackintosh if you want. You can install it on your Mac and hack, alter and reverse-engineer the software all you want providing you don't distribute it or otherwise break the law. You can install it on your alarm clock if you have the technical wherewithal to do so and Apple has exactly zilch at their disposal to stop you.
Don't be fooled by this stupid EULA argument. They are not viewed by courts as a legitimate contract.
Comments
Isn't this: and this:
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.
Not contradictory. If it is on the box, it is valid and binding (if it is legal in the first place). Things that are a) restrictive and b) introduced after the purchase are not. Of course, repeating anything that is on the box in the box (in a printed EULA or in a license agreement dialog) does not invalidate what is on the box anyhow.
Not contradictory. If it is on the box, it is valid and binding (if it is legal in the first place). Things that are a) restrictive and b) introduced after the purchase are not. Of course, repeating anything that is on the box in the box (in a printed EULA or in a license agreement dialog) does not invalidate what is on the box anyhow.
This is basically what I believe and I think the most sensible interpretation of the law. All Apple really has to do to solve this problem in Germany is print clearly on the box that it's an upgrade product for use on Macintosh systems only. Currently it only says:
"Use of this product is subject to acceptance of the software licence agreement(s) included in this package. Don't steal software"
and then lists the "requirements" as:
"Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processor; 512 MB of physical RAM .... "
Which by it's wording only implies technical limitations instead of contractual ones, even though anyone with half a brain can infer that "Mac computer" refers to the idea that this stuff is only intended to run on a Mac.
I still think that Apple has a legal argument to shut down Pear, even *with* the German EULA rulings, but it seems like they could make it a solid lock by adding some clearer language on the package.
I seriously doubt that Apple's EULA is so obviously invalid in Germany that a group of punks like PearC can ignore it with no consequence.
Even if German law is very pro-consumer and ultimately invalidates Apple's EULA, PearC will not be able to afford to defend themselves against Apple's smackdown.
I can see PearC being comfortable if they were in Tuvalu or Myanmar, but Germany is a major international player and I really doubt that their IP regime is so out of line with America's that PearC could operate freely. Maybe, but I really doubt it.
Which by it's wording only implies technical limitations instead of contractual ones, even though anyone with half a brain can infer that "Mac computer" refers to the idea that this stuff is only intended to run on a Mac.
Well yes, "system requirements" are only a specification, they only have any contractual value, if you do have supported hardware and it still does not work... The discussion if people have to know what a "Mac" is (a computer running OS X, or a computer being Apple branded, but we also have knife-makers, burgers and leather goods legally using that name) is legit, but pointless, as the vast majority of OSs available to consumers are manufacturer-agnostic, and a non-expert is not obliged to know about it. Clearly naming it an upgrade and only licensing it for Apple branded computers on the box would solve all issues.
I still think that Apple has a legal argument to shut down Pear, even *with* the German EULA rulings, but it seems like they could make it a solid lock by adding some clearer language on the package.
They might not have a legal argument based on the PearC offer alone. They would have a clear case, if PearC modifies Apple's code (I do not know, if this is the case). They could also successfully claim damages, if Apple support has to deal with problems caused by incompatible hardware, by modifications to the OS or problems caused by regular maintenance or security updates. This remains to be seen.
As PearC.de (HyperMegaNet UG) is an "UG" (owner-manager structure with extremely limited liability, less than 25k EUR normally), this is likely a hit and run operation anyhow. If all the media hype is getting them some sales, they can safely close shop (or change into HyperMegaNot) and nobody will pay for nothing... One has to be really stupid to buy there.
PearC is foolish for not being afraid of Apple.
I seriously doubt that Apple's EULA is so obviously invalid in Germany that a group of punks like PearC can ignore it with no consequence.
Even if German law is very pro-consumer and ultimately invalidates Apple's EULA, PearC will not be able to afford to defend themselves against Apple's smackdown.
I can see PearC being comfortable if they were in Tuvalu or Myanmar, but Germany is a major international player and I really doubt that their IP regime is so out of line with America's that PearC could operate freely. Maybe, but I really doubt it.
No way Nellie Kroes and the EU court will side with Apple on this.
They may even go back to its not a license sale its a product sale. They took MS to the cleaners and if Apple kick up a stink with PearC then I'm sure it will end up in Brussels.
I can see Apple in the EU being a different entity to the rest of the company..
Well yes, "system requirements" are only a specification, they only have any contractual value, if you do have supported hardware and it still does not work...
Excellent post.
You should be writing this article as you seem to be the only one speaking with any authority and knowledge on the case. The number of idiotic ideas that come from all quarters when issues of infringement come up is astounding sometimes.
No way Nellie Kroes and the EU court will side with Apple on this...
I never said anything about the ultimate outcome of such a fight. But as arrogantly certain as you are as to the verdict, I am as arrogantly certain that the fight will drag on for a long time which will bankrupt PearC in the process.
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.
As another poster commented earlier, I think Apple will add a custom chip that enhances performance in future OS upgrades. This reduces the benefit of buying clone hardware even at a lower price. It would also encourage some existing Mac users to upgrade their equipment sooner to get the maximum benefit of owning a Mac. And it would allow existing Mac owners to run the new OS without whatever benefit the chip provides. As you suggest, they could make the chip mandatory further down the road once the installed base is largely running on Macs with said chip.
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).
This is a really interesting idea. Apple could easily implement this in their own stores but I wonder how third-party dealers would feel about implementing this system. Doing this along with validating serial numbers for online sales would strengthen Apple's contract. Unfortunately, it would require that OS copies be serialized so that provenance could be traced for each copy.
No way Nellie Kroes and the EU court will side with Apple on this.
They may even go back to its not a license sale its a product sale. They took MS to the cleaners and if Apple kick up a stink with PearC then I'm sure it will end up in Brussels.
I can see Apple in the EU being a different entity to the rest of the company..
If you're a WTO member, you can't dictate terms to member consignees based on local laws: http://www.wto.org/english/theWTO_e/..._e/agrm7_e.htm
Apple should withdraw ALL retail sales of OSX and do an online upgrade option whereby Mac owners can purchase the OSX upgrade by supplying a valid serial number. This will sort out all of the wanna be Apple clone makers.
For $129 I better have a DVD and the right to make a backup copy.
If you're a WTO member, you can't dictate terms to member consignees based on local laws: http://www.wto.org/english/theWTO_e/..._e/agrm7_e.htm
What does that mean, without the jargon?
What does that mean, without the jargon?
"Copyright back to top
The TRIPS agreement ensures that computer programs will be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention and outlines how databases should be protected.
It also expands international copyright rules to cover rental rights. Authors of computer programs and producers of sound recordings must have the right to prohibit the commercial rental of their works to the public."
What does that mean, without the jargon?
Reading the link helps:
"The Uruguay Round achieved that. The WTO?s TRIPS Agreement is an attempt to narrow the gaps in the way these rights are protected around the world, and to bring them under common international rules. "
"The second part of the TRIPS agreement looks at different kinds of intellectual property rights and how to protect them. The purpose is to ensure that adequate standards of protection exist in all member countries. "
"The TRIPS agreement ensures that computer programs will be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention "
So German laws on EULAs not withstanding, Apple enjoys certain rights under the Berne convention on how its IP get used/licensed. Germany can restrict it that but at the risk of the WTO calling foul and if not remedied Germany would face sanctions just as the US faced sanctions if we didn't modify our laws about offshore gambling.
It may be that Apple will have to print something on the box but that's about as far as it will go unless Germany decides that OSX being licensed to work only on Apple machines is somehow anti-competitive. At which point expect retail OSX boxes to disappear from German markets and a WTO complaint from the US about Germany being morons.
"The second part of the TRIPS agreement looks at different kinds of intellectual property rights and how to protect them. The purpose is to ensure that adequate standards of protection exist in all member countries. "
I fail to get what this has to do with the topic at hand. These agreements do only govern the regular protection of IP. Germany does not allow illegal copying, the removing of DRM, reverse engineering, disassembling, etc ad lib. The comparison to works of literature is especially stunning in this very case, as I have never seen a book that is only licensed for consumption by certain readers...
The situation at hand is not at all covered by the TRIPS agreement, it does neither deal with manufacturer specific operating systems, nor specific upgrade requirements, nor the enforceability of EULAs. It actually mainly deals with patents and copyrights, licenses are only covered under the aspect of fair trade.
Bottom line, this case has nothing to do with the WTO and TRIPS at all. A US company doing business in Germany (or anywhere else outside the US) has to follow local rules and regulations. If Apple does not play by the rules, the law has no obligation to help them out. Actually, if my tax money (47% income tax plus toppings) would be used, to help foreign companies that are too dense to label an upgrade "Upgrade", I would be rather upset. Apple is getting more than a fair share of my money already. But asking for less government when making profits, and for more government when having problems seems to be quite fashionable.
am i missing something? steve's sense of esthetics notwithstanding, if this would remedy the situation for the german market, do you seriously think that apple is going for any other solution? while custom chips, updates online, pulling out of germany, etc. are fun ideas to kick around a forum, it seems to me that apple has better things to do...
please correct me if i'm misreading the issue.
I fail to get what this has to do with the topic at hand. These agreements do only govern the regular protection of IP. Germany does not allow illegal copying, the removing of DRM, reverse engineering, disassembling, etc ad lib. The comparison to works of literature is especially stunning in this very case, as I have never seen a book that is only licensed for consumption by certain readers...
But they can be licensed to be sold by certain vendors. Germany can restrict this right if it is deemed too anti-competitive.
I also really doubt that German TV stations can play any movie they want on the air, any time they want simply by buying a retail copy of a DVD.
The situation at hand is not at all covered by the TRIPS agreement, it does neither deal with manufacturer specific operating systems, nor specific upgrade requirements, nor the enforceability of EULAs. It actually mainly deals with patents and copyrights, licenses are only covered under the aspect of fair trade.
Depends on whether or not these are modified OSX copies or not eh? If it is, then the EULA statement is a mere smoke screen because they are derivative works protected by copyright and these guys have no license to distribute and first sale doctrine, US or German wouldn't apply.
The OP's point is that international IP laws can trump local laws on the matter if they are WTO members. That may or may not apply but in general the IP holder can say how their IP gets used.
Am I missing something here? In order to run on generic PC's, doesn't OS X have to be heavily modified to boot on EFI, including modifying the kernel? Doesn't that involve Psystar and their ilk distributing a derivative work, thus violating Apple's copyright?
That is one method, but I am under the impression that there is another method that involves prepping the PC's HDD with a special partition that tricks an original OS X disc into installing. If this is what Psystar and PearC are using then at least Psystar is acting criminally in that they are accepting the EULA but are not the end user, making a copy of the copyrighted OS then selling it by transferring it from the CD to a HDD. PearC, as they state, may not be breaking any laws if such a method to install OS X in possible.
PS: I hadn't thought of this before this article but markets whose governments are less strict about protecting IP are much more likely to exploit this. Especially when the cost of Macs are much higher priced in comparison to their other brands. It makes me wonder what Apple will do to protect itself. Surely their strategy isn't to just litigate their way out of it.
Now, Americans - take good notice. This is a perfect example of "Your law is not my law". Quite often, Americans are completely baffled when I tell them that their law does not apply to me. Also, the case is pretty clear: EULAs have no legal standing whatsoever, so in this case, Apple can do sh*t about it.
I don't understand why people are so focused on the EULA and not the copy, reproduction and selling of IP without the consent of the IP holder. Does your country not have copyright laws? Are you allowed to make copies of an OS and then sell it to whomever you wish?
Doesn't the box say something about being only for installation on Apple branded computers along with the minimum system requirements? If so, then that would be pretty clearly stated before the purchase and would not even involve the EULA.
Doesn't matter. For all the scary sounding legalese in a typical EULA, they stand up in court only when they are used to combat piracy (which is already illegal so whether the EULA actually mattered in those situations is debatable.) It has been established now many times in court that a EULA is not a valid contractual agreement between the software creator and the customer. So it doesn't matter what Apple says you can or cannot install it on, nor does it matter if they say it's an upgrade. It's yours to do with as you will within the limits of the law. You can install it on your hackintosh if you want. You can install it on your Mac and hack, alter and reverse-engineer the software all you want providing you don't distribute it or otherwise break the law. You can install it on your alarm clock if you have the technical wherewithal to do so and Apple has exactly zilch at their disposal to stop you.
Don't be fooled by this stupid EULA argument. They are not viewed by courts as a legitimate contract.