Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 19:20 UTC
Legal Apple has responded to Psystar's new lawsuit today, stating that it is nothing but a stall tactic on Psystar's end. While I could just paraphrase whatever the filing reads, I decided to take this opportunity to address a number of sentiments and analogies often made in comment threads (not necessarily on OSNews).
Permalink for comment 382103
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It is an SLA dammit!
by jweinraub on Thu 3rd Sep 2009 03:04 UTC
jweinraub
Member since:
2009-06-22

I understand most people use EULA as if that is an official legal document (like a form 1040), and now it is a rather generic title, but in this case, Apple uses the term SLA.

Your fact by stating End User Licence Agreement is flawed because Apple does not call it an End User document, but a Software Licence Agreement which then puts your myth out the window faster than fresh air after my Uncle Larry farts on Christmas day. Okay bad joke there, I don't have an Uncle Larry, it is Uncle Harry.

Anyway, the SLA is just that, licences the software and Apple is certainly entitled to do that. A with most computer software these days, it is not sold but licensed.

If you don't believe that theory, go to CDW and examine the cost of software without the license. You will find that Adobe Creative Suite CS4 Master Collection costs a mere $15 since all that gives you is the DVD.

If you want the licence to use it, you need to fork over the two grand.

That being said, you should learn to read your facts before you start throwing fallacies as fact. I was reading this article with great interest until I saw you point out the EULA part, failed to acknowledge the SLA and gave horrifically crafted thesis based on your stupidity. After that, I couldn't read any longer since if you put such little effort into your analogies, I didn't want to waste my brain capacity with such drivel.

The fact of the matter is, Apple licenses their software. If Apple's SLA states that you must use their hardware in order to use their operating system, then Psystar is breaking the agreement by selecting I Agree when they install the OS to a non Apple hardware device. While that may not be illegal, it is certainly punishable by civil action since Psystar broke a civil agreement by stating they won't do what they very well are doing.

I can't think of any good enough analogy to describe what this is more like, but only thing I can think of top of my head are Medeco keys. They are normal keys and locks, that are keyed slightly differently, that requires a licence to have copied from a licensed dealer. That being said, it is against Medeco's agreements that you can not copy the key unless you have the licence to do so (or any other key marked do not duplicate). While the analogy isn't the best, it is the closest thing I can think of that really gets the point across what Psystar is doing here.

Yes, they can make similar hardware, but it isn't Apple hardware. The whole point of using Apple software, and its gorgeous interface, and rock solid operating system, is to use their rock solid hardware. The whole reason why Apple just works, is because the hardware is locked, closed, and controlled. It is that reason why IBM Clones are full of problems. The fact Microsoft Windows works on cheap motherboards and expensive motherboards off the bat is a miracle in itself. The fact Microsoft has to make sure it works with basically everything, is that they had to make the code less secure, less rock solid, to make it more compatible. If the list is short what works with Apple, then Apple tested that specific device to make sure it works. Yes you can get 100% of the components Apple uses, but there is more to it than hardware and device drivers that make a computer, a computer.

When Steve Jobs came back to Apple, the first thing he did was get rid of the clones. With good reason too! While it does make more of an advantage to Apple economically, it certainly does not make a monopoly. Because Apple has always been a hardware company that happens to make their own operating system.

Remember, Microsoft was going to make their office suite initially! To go onto Apple hardware. Another way of looking at it is, with Cisco routers. You can buy the software that gets installed onto the router from Cisco, but if you make a clone of the router to save money (Cisco:Apple::IOS:OS X), that would be against the license (I am assuming Cisco doesn;t allow this as well, though I did not read its agreements in its entirety since I do own a Cisco router and not a clone :-)

I think I said more than enough since I intended just to come here and rant about you calling it a EULA when it is an SLA, but then I realised that mistake completely ruined your entire article for me!

Reply Score: 1