Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 23rd Jun 2008 22:13 UTC
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.
Thread beginning with comment 319642
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Apple Won't Go After Them
by TechGeek on Tue 24th Jun 2008 03:20
in reply to "RE[2]: Apple Won't Go After Them"
Member since:2006-01-14
Unless of course the EULA itself is found to be illegal. Remember, many states have laws about how a contract (and thats really what the EULA is) can be entered into, what it can specify, and other such limitations. EULA's for the most part have never been tested. Frankly, its about time they are.
Edited 2008-06-24 03:21 UTC
RE[4]: Apple Won't Go After Them
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 24th Jun 2008 03:32
in reply to "RE[3]: Apple Won't Go After Them"
Member since:2005-07-06
Unless of course the EULA itself is found to be illegal.
That's possible, but I don't think it's likely. Just from a financial point of view, I imagine that it would be cheaper to challenge specific stipulations of a particular contract - as opposed to challenging the legality of all contracts of a certain type.
RE[3]: Apple Won't Go After Them
by DeadFishMan on Tue 24th Jun 2008 12:47
in reply to "RE[2]: Apple Won't Go After Them"
Member since:2006-01-09
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."
Agree.
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.
I believe that Microsoft also discriminates whether their software is being run into a real machine or a virtual one but I don't know if the pricing is any different on either case. And if the prices are the same then it doesn't make any sense and it would probably be dragged into the same discussion in case Apple's clauses validity are raised in a court.
It would be at the very least interesting to see how things could unfold in that direction.
RE[3]: Apple Won't Go After Them
by alcibiades on Tue 24th Jun 2008 15:33
in reply to "RE[2]: Apple Won't Go After Them"
Member since:2005-10-12
RE[4]: Apple Won't Go After Them
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 25th Jun 2008 13:10
in reply to "RE[3]: Apple Won't Go After Them"
Member since:2005-07-06
Doesn't MS Office for Windows Eula specify what OS it may be run on? Which would imply not under Crossover Office?
I'm not sure if that's directly comparable - but it certainly seems to be in the same spirit (using a license agreement to place artificial restrictions on how a piece of software can be used).
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
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.