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 396848
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: And what if...
by iFrodo on Sat 28th Nov 2009 10:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: And what if..."
Member since:

The negativity is not about Apple, per se, but about software in general. The real issue in question here is whether or not you actually own the software you purchase. Apple is claiming that OSX is licensed, not sold, and therefore it is illegal to install OSX on a non-Apple machine.

This implies that even though OSX is tangible media (DVD-ROM), the digital contents of the media do not belong to you, and when your purchase software, you are actually purchasing a license to use the software.

Psystar is claiming that by purchasing OSX discs, they have the right to install OSX on a non-Apple computer and sell the computer. Thus far, the judges do not agree.

Of course judges do not agree. Because it's the whole software industry that works like that, and in fact not only the software industry, but the whole IP legislation that work like that.

You don't own a software, nor you own a music or a movie. The owner of software, musics or movies are ONLY and ALWAYS the author(s). This is the law, and Psystar can't deny it, and that's not what they were fighting against.

What Psystar was denying and so fighting against was the part of the license saying that you can't install Mac OS X on a non-apple hardware. What they wanted to do by making clones was to prove that it was possible to make Mac OS X running on other hardware, and so that the limitation is not justified.

I personally disagree totally with the Psystar point of you, because for me (and I think also for the law), it's the author right to decide which hardware his software target.
If that were not the case, than that would mean that you could force any software maker to port its software to any hardware platform. That would be ridiculous.

If you want a software to be ported to a hardware platform, either you ask the author if he can do it or you ask him if he can give you a license that allows you to do it. But if the author doesn't want to do it or to give you the right to do it, it's his right.

Considering that, Psystar couldn't have won, what it's doing is totally against the Copyright/IP laws. You can't do what you want with an IP work like software, but also musics or movies, because you don't own it (that's the law!!) and so you have to ask the author the authorization for anything not allowed in the license sold with it (if any).
If you disagree with the license, then you can attack the author in court to expect to have the parts of the license you disagree with, invalidated.

But the big mistake of Psystar was to start its activity before having attacked Apple to get the part of the license that disallow it invalidated (even if I don't think they would have won). Because by doing so, and because Mac OS X need modifications to be able to run on a PC, they made them directly guilty of software piracy.

Edited 2009-11-28 10:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0