Linked by Nescio on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:05 UTC
Apple Numerous irrelevant issues and feelings about them are ventilated in comments on the case. However, there are only two important issues. One is what the law is, the other is what we think the law should be.
Permalink for comment 352323
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Uhm...
by JeffS on Mon 9th Mar 2009 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Uhm..."
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

"Why are *you* defending those crooks is equally beyond me."

Psystar crooks? They legally purchased the copies of Mac OS X. They did not steal them. Then they installed those copies on their Mac-like hardware, and sold the hardware and the installation (as a service).

Pystar did not steal anything. Apple got paid for each copy of Mac OSX. And the mac compatible hardware has nothing to do with Apple - again, nothing was stolen from Apple.

Now, Pystar might have violated a restriction put on OSX via the EULA. Now it's in court, and the court will decide whether Pystar violated the EULA, or even if the EULA is even enforceable. That last bit is particularly relevant to everyone else. EULAs essentially remove consumer rights that are already protected by the law.

It can be well argued that those who attach EULAs to their product are the ones who are crooks, because they are violating consumer rights protected by the law.

But again, the courts will decide these issues. Until then, nobody in this case are crooks. Even if the courts rule against Pystar, Pystar are still not crooks, because this is a civil case, not a criminal one. If the court rules against Pystar, they will have been deemed to have violated Apple's EULA (which by necessity, will have been ruled to be enforceable. If not, the case is irrelevant), they will not have been deemed to have broken the law (which is what makes one a crook).

And, once more, EULA often run contradictory to consumer rights, and the law.

Edited 2009-03-09 20:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3