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 388988
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: OSNews legal analysis
by alcibiades on Tue 13th Oct 2009 08:06 UTC in reply to "OSNews legal analysis"
Member since:

"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.

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2