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 393436
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Not OSnews, PSnews
by Datatracer on Sat 7th Nov 2009 20:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not OSnews, PSnews"
Datatracer
Member since:
2009-09-20

Can you purchase a gun and then just sell it to whoever you want? Alcohol? Tobacco? Prescription medicine? When I buy a six pack of beer, I can not resell it to a minor. Sounds like a post sale restriction to me, and I didn't even click "Accept"!


Soooo, a computer is now somehow a dangerous item and a sale between 2 people needs to be regulated as such? Sorry, weak analogy.

I'm really hoping Apple loses this battle. I've never thought this was an "illegal" vs. "legal" battle in the first place. I'm glad Psystar is hammering that point with the court. This case is essentially all about a *contract*, the EULA. Psystar, or any other company installing OS X at a user's request, is not the "end user", thus not breaking any EULA, which is supposed to be a *contract* between Apple and the END USER. If an end user, the customer, breaks an EULA, it's a breach of contract, which as I understand it, is simply a civil dispute between two parties, and not implicitly "illegal".

Reply Parent Score: 1