Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 12th Oct 2009 18:25 UTC
Permalink for comment 388988
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 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-10-12
Not necessarily. It could be that Psystar will argue that it transferred the copies of OSX that it had bought to the end customer, along with the hardware it was about to install as. It could be that Psystar will then show that in its contracts with the customer it only acted as the customer's authorized agent.
In that case, no transfers of anything will have taken place, except for the transfers of the original retail copy and the Psystar hardware. There will have been no transfers of the copies made in way of installation, since they will always have been the customer's and created only by someone acting as his agent in the way that S117 explicitly allows.
I don't know if that is how Psystar did business, though I assume that if it is relying on S117, this is how it now does it.
Your point about the Blizzard case (leaving aside the rhetoric which is completely unhelpful) is a substantive one, and I agree that Blizzard is relevant though am finding it a little hard to decide just how it applies.