Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 10:13 UTC
Legal While the Apple v. Psystar case is currently on hold until the hearing regarding the motions for a summary judgement takes place (November 12) the Psystar v. Apple case (still with me?) is only just beginning. Psystar has amended its original complaint in this second lawsuit, asking the judge to order Apple to cease calling Psystar's business "illegal", claiming it hurts the clone maker financially.
Permalink for comment 392550
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Not OSnews, PSnews
by jweinraub on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 16:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not OSnews, PSnews"
jweinraub
Member since:
2009-06-22

It is also the legality of the SLA to begin with. When Psystars engineers install the OS on their hardware, they choose to accept the terms of the SLA. Since they are breaking that contract, they are violating the terms of the said contract.

That being said, it is a civil matter. What someone said about it being illegal to look under the bonnet doesn't understand the concept at hand. This is not a criminal case. Even if the courts find in favour of Apple, it won't create the case law to make it criminal to look at how things work. It will just legitimise EULA/SLA contracts. It does not matter if they bought all the licences that they install, since Apple is making money on it. Apple is a hardware company that happens to make software for their hardware. It is saying you are starting to make your own cell phone because you think the prices of Blackberrys is outrageous. And since you can legally download the firmware off blackberrys website, and you decide to install it onto your own hardware is also in violation of the agreement from RIM's website.

What psystar is doing is sleazy, and I like to know where they are getting the money to finance their legal escapades.

Reply Parent Score: -1