Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Nov 2009 21:53 UTC
Legal We've got some progress in the other legal case Apple is involved in. The California case, Apple vs. Psystar, is more or less a done deal, but the Florida case, Psystar vs. Apple, is only just beginning. As it promised it would do, Apple has now asked the court in California to either dismiss the Florida case, or transfer it to California. Apple is also asking for a permanent injuction against Psystar. Through this motion, we also gain some juicy insight into Psystar's sales projections - and more interestingly, how many machines the clone maker actually sold.
Permalink for comment 396838
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The issue is not about apple
by alcibiades on Sat 28th Nov 2009 10:04 UTC
alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

The issue is not about apple. It is whether any maker of software has or should have the right to sell copies at retail, which will install technically on a variety of hardware from different sources, but to limit, solely by EULA clause, what hardware you may install on.

May they, specifically, restrict your choice of hardware not by specification, but by supplier or brand?

That's the issue. And if they can do that, what other restrictions of the installation environment may they make?

Reply Score: 4