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 382114
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Here we go again!
by Hakime on Thu 3rd Sep 2009 05:48 UTC
Hakime
Member since:
2005-11-16

And i can also ask that would it be possible that Nintendo sues Sony in order to force it to give away the PSP 3 operating system so that wii users can install it? Or is Microsoft suing Nintendo so that they force them to give away the wii operating system and gestures recognition system so that Xbox users can install it? No way....

The fact that the software could run or not on the given hardware does not matter. Again Apple could easily prevent OS X to run on non-Apple machines. The point is that those companies can't do that because they compete on the same market and their respective operating system is a tool for competing between each other. The same applies for Psystar and Apple, Psystar can't sue Apple for anti competitive practice because Apple doe not give away OS X when in the same time OS X is a tool that Apple uses to compete against dell, hp and psystar

" In fact, clone makers like Psystar are trying to match the components inside Macintosh machines as closely as possible, to ensure that Mac OS X runs the best and is easily installed."

That means nothing, Psystar is again a competitor to Apple on the market, being a clone maker or not.

"If you could build a device with similar components as used in that Nokia phone, and you found a way to transfer the code onto it and run it, Nokia won't sue you."

It won't as long as you don't enter in competition against them on the same market with their own software

"You paid for that phone and the copy of the software on it, so you should be able to do with it as you please as long as you remain within the boundaries of copyright law."

Means nothing, because that's not what Psystar is doing. See above.

"Unless Psystar employees are walking into Apple office buildings or Apple Stores to actually take Apple-owned items without permission, Psystar isn't stealing. The truth is, of course, that Psystar is buying fully legal copies of Mac OS X from Apple retailers or even directly from Apple itself, and reselling those copies. I've lost count how many times I've resold legally purchased copies of software. Heck, I even resold legally purchased retail copies of Mac OS X several times. If that's considered stealing, then I - and a lot of you, too - belong in jail."

How can't you come up with so much wrong arguments, you are embarrassing yourself. If you sell a product that you bought, there is nothing wrong with that because you just sell it, end of story. You happen to have sold a lot because you bought a lot, but anyway you are not making a business of it. What a hell this has anything to do with the Psystar case?

Psystar is not allowed to resell copies of an intellectual property so that it can compete against Apple, selling back what Apple sells for being used not resold by an Apple's competitor. The things that you are saying have nothing to do with the present case, and i am quit amazed how little reasoning you are able to do. Go back to school, really!

The rest of your text is just not worth commenting, some other people have showed anyway how wrong you are. You did not even notice with your typical lack of self documentation that Apple never refers to an EULA, Apple speaks of SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT for Mac OS X

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx106.pdf

Well, well, again the full bunch of crap from Holwerda that puts OSNews a little more down into the toilet.

Edited 2009-09-03 05:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2