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 392724
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
If an *individual* makes a hackintosh for their own use, that would be legal to do under copyright. That is why Apple has not gone after the hpbbyists.
No, the only reason that Apple hasn't gone after individual hobbyists is because they've seen all the wonderful success the RIAA has had from suing grannies and teenagers. And by "success" I mean "complete and utter PR suicide."
To reiterate, as a *consumer* I am allowed by US Copyright law to make a hackintosh if I so desire.
Funny, I would think that an END USER License Agreement would be more applicable to you (the END USER) than it would be to a reseller like Psystar.
Member since:
2008-06-02
No, the only reason that Apple hasn't gone after individual hobbyists is because they've seen all the wonderful success the RIAA has had from suing grannies and teenagers. And by "success" I mean "complete and utter PR suicide."
Funny, I would think that an END USER License Agreement would be more applicable to you (the END USER) than it would be to a reseller like Psystar.