Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Dec 2008 20:49 UTC, submitted by judgen
Permalink for comment 341525
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-12-02
"That doesn't mean that Apple is entitled to additional financial compensation from everyone who installs OSX on a computer that falls outside those specs."
Right, and I never said they did. That post was a response to Thom saying that a requirement to have a Mac was not listed on the box.
Apple has never sought financial compensation in the manner you mention, nor is that what the whole case is about.
This is not a case of you or I running OS X on a computer we put together, of which Apple really does not care one way or the other. This is a case of a commercial entity doing the work and then selling the finished product, not the end user.
This will put that section of Apples EULA to the test, and the court will decide if that is legal or not. It really is that simple.