Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 22:42 UTC, submitted by anon
Legal The legal back-and-forth between Apple and clone-maker PsyStar continues to develop, with the latest news being a move by Apple - the Cupertino company has invoked something with many already predicted Apple would call upon: the DMCA, or the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. This was done in an amendment to the original suit, filed in July this year.
Permalink for comment 339203
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
neoanderthal
Member since:
2008-12-04

is the fact that the end-user license agreement forbids the installation of OS X on anything other than Apple-branded hardware, or enabling others to do so. The analogies of engine swapping, etc. do not apply here, as no auto manufacturer requires that the owner of the car accept an agreement that states that they will only use parts and services from the original manufacturer exclusively, or their ability to use the automobile is revoked. Nor do auto manufacturers make it a violation of a use agreement to make it possible to swap engines from one manufacturer to another. Finally, while you may own your car, you do not own Mac OS X - you are licensed to use it, as long as you follow Apple's rules. If you violate those rules, you are no longer allowed to use it. It's actually pretty simple.

Psystar seems to be betting that they will not be held responsible for violating the EULA on Mac OS X. Apple has their software license agreements on the Internet for public accessibility, and of course anyone installing Mac OS X is presented with the EULA before the install writes information to the hard disk. Obviously Psystar knows they cannot claim ignorance in this matter, as they've taken the tact of claiming that Apple is somehow a monopoly. This would be analagous to saying that Atari (when they made computers), Commodore, Radio Shack, Timex-Sinclair, etc. were all monopolies, as their operating systems (however advanced or primitive they may've been) were tied to their hardware as well, or IBM's branded PCs running PC-DOS, OS/2, or their UNIX servers running AIX are monopolies.

I'm not arguing that this is ethical, but this is the legal standpoint on the operating system. In this case, Apple owns the intellectual property rights to Mac OS X, not the people who pay to license it. Whether people should use software with such EULAs is where the discussion should take place - there's no wiggle room in the EULA, and if it's upheld as a legally-binding agreement then Psystar is going to be in big trouble.

If the EULA is not upheld, the software world is going to be turned upside-down, since it's built on the premise of software use, not ownership.

Reply Score: 2