Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 12th Oct 2009 18:25 UTC
Legal Now that all the nastiness of the discovery phase is behind us in the Apple vs. Psystar case, both parties are trying to get the case settled before it goes to court, much like the recent Vernor vs. Autodesk case. Both Apple and Psystar have filed motions asking for a summary judgement.
Permalink for comment 388850
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
OSNews legal analysis
by rhavyn on Mon 12th Oct 2009 19:40 UTC
rhavyn
Member since:
2005-07-06

"All in all, whereas Psystar's motion is built on the US Copyright Act and some of its exceptions, Apple's motion relies heavily on the Software License Agreement."

This comment is factually incorrect. If anything, Apple's copyright claims regarding first sale in it's motion are extremely compelling. Specifically, the first sale doctrine allows someone to sell the copy they "own." However, Psystar is selling both the copy they own (i.e. the disk they bought from Apple) as well as the copy they installed on the computer. Unless they purchased the copy installed on the computer, which is impossible since Apple did not and would not install that copy, they they are committing copyright infringement every time they sell a preinstalled copy of OS X.

And that is simply one point from Apple's motion. I'd highly recommend anyone intelligent enough to actually care about this stuff (i.e. anyone who is talking about unsigned contracts shouldn't apply) to read the motion and look at groklaw's analysis. Thom's dribble is, as usual, factually inaccurate and an abomination of a legal analysis.

Reply Score: 4