Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Tue 15th Jul 2008 17:45 UTC, submitted by Thom_Holwerda
Legal Apple has filed a suit (more details) on July 3rd against Psystar in the northern district of California. Psystar dubbed its cheap Mac Clone as Open Computer and started shipping them around April of this year.
Permalink for comment 323167
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Just An Opinion.
by Pelly on Wed 16th Jul 2008 12:29 UTC
Member since:

I've seen this go round & round and many interesting points are being made.

This is how I see the situation when I boil away the broth & get to the noodles.

a. The Apple EULA is a contractual agreement between Apple and the end-user; not a point of law.
b. While the EULA isn't a point of law, it is enforceable from an business & support perspective. Whith PyStar selling systems with Mac OS installed, the only, 'issue,' would seem to be that of support from Apple should the PyStar customers need anything (individually or collectively).
d. Apple has no obligation to PyStar customers in any shape or form as the OS in not installed on Apple's hardware per the EULA.
e. If PyStar folds for any reason, those who bought their systems with Mac OS installed are on their own.

With the above, I have to ask:
1. Why is Apple filing? Are they really that concerned? From what I see, they're off the hook in terms of support for PyStar customers and they still make money from OS sales & other s/w sales.
2. Is Apple simply being greedy? Saying, 'Mine! All MINE!'
3. Is Apple concerned about their reputation & name associated with non-approved hardware & system builders?

Whether or not this is right or wrong isn't what I was looking for. I was simply trying to boil it down to see through the mud.

Reply Score: 2