PsyStar introduced its Mac clone to much media attention back in April, causing many discussions about the company's legal status, the validity of the Mac OS X EULA, and even PsyStar's very existence. It soon turned out PsyStar was a real company, and was actually shipping the OpenComputer Mac Clone to its customers, to generally rather favourable reviews - not stellar of course, but acceptable, with the biggest downside being the inability to use the Software Update tool, forcing users to download OS updates straight from PsyStar's servers - to prevent updates from Apple hosing the OpenComputer. We're a few months later now, and a few things have changed.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2008-04-10
Slightly off topic, but I'll say it anyway. If Apple's EULA was found to be legally invalid, imagine what that would do to other companies' EULAs. Sure, not all EULAs contain clauses that might be found illegal, but seeing one EULA invalidated would bring all of them into question. For example, how legal are the terms in the Windows XP EULA? The GNU GPL?
Member since:2005-11-11
Member since:2005-07-06
IANAL - but if the "can only be used on Apple-branded computers" clause of the OS X EULA were found to be unenforceable, then it would not be the "end of the EULA as we know it."
The legal precedent would only apply to other EULAs that attempt to stipulate what hardware can or can't be used to run a piece of software. Offhand, I can't think of any other software that would be effected.
Member since:
2005-07-08
Apple won't go after them because they know if they lose, the entire concept of the EULA flies out the window smashing to its gruesome death 13 stories below.