Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Sep 2009 23:19 UTC
Legal There's news in the Apple vs. Psystar saga, and even though I know I promised not to report on this for a while, this news is a pretty important development, and we're more than two weeks down the road anyway. As you all know, Psystar filed a second lawsuit concerning specifically Snow Leopard in Florida, and Apple motioned to have the case combined with the Apple vs. Psystar case running in California, claiming there is no difference between the two. Judge Alsup has denied this request.
Permalink for comment 386292
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Not sure...
by redbeard on Fri 25th Sep 2009 18:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Not sure..."
redbeard
Member since:
2006-03-11

The problem is that Apple needs to show an added benefit for the "upgrade" label to apply, generally.


I don't know of any reason this is a problem. Where are there legal requirements related to this? All they need to do is change something (fix a single bug, change the splash screen) and they can market it anyway they want "NEW AND IMPROVED". They can also charge anything they want.


If the new "upgrade" version of MacOS X was released at the same price point as the old "FULL" version, then there seems not to be any added benefit for such a label to offer protection, legally.


Again they can charge what ever they want to for their product and easily justify charging more for full product verses an upgrade to an existing OS. If I 'upgrade' my WinME license to Vista it is not a real upgrade it is a full new operating system, no real upgrade path. With MS even if you could upgrade you also had the option to do a clean install of the new system.

Reply Parent Score: 1