Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 10:13 UTC
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 392573
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-06-29
And Psystar can resell it in a manner that befits them. Basic economic principle that's older than god. Why should Apple have a status aparte?
Why should anyone other than Apple and its stockholders care about its profit margins? Why should I? Why should Psystar? Should the law be disregarded to safeguard Apple's profit margins? Would you allow the law to be disregarded to protect Microsoft's profit margins too?
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is actually acting as a puppet for the RIAA/MPAA here. Those two organisations would benefit massively from having EULAs clearly labelled as okay. Imagine CDs with EULAs in them, which stated no personal copies, no reselling, only allowed to be played in authorised players (i.e., not recorders)... It's the RIAA/MPAA's wet dream. Insane, you say? Well, what other company is Steve Jobs the big boss of?
Bingo.
Of course, the above is complete nonsense - but it's no more nonsensical than those silly claims about Psystar you EULA supporters make.
Edited 2009-11-03 18:57 UTC