Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 28th Aug 2009 22:05 UTC
Permalink for comment 381460
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 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-10-09
First, this has nothing with "freeing" OS X from Apple branded hardware. Nor does it have anything to do with antitrust issues.
Psytar already lost their antitrust argument in California. They will lose again in Florida. Courts don't like litigating trying to game the system.
This is all about the doctrine of first sale, more importantly, the premise that terms and conditions of sale don't apply.
You may not like EULA's but it is a license, Just like the GPL. What Pystar is arguing is "We don't like the EULA and we want to ignore it." Imagine now how this would work if someone could ignore the terms of the GPL because they didn't like it.
I am willing to bet that the funding behind Psystar are anti-GPL entities.