Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 31st Jul 2008 22:03 UTC
Legal There are probably lots and lots of lawsuits going on every day in the technology world, and generally, they are quite uninteresting to all of us. Exceptions exist, of course, and the case of Apple and PsyStar is definitely one of them. It's a lawsuit that could test one of the most debated issues in the world of software: the EULA issue. To refresh your memory: PsyStar started offering Macintosh clones earlier this year, which caused quite the uproar in the Mac community. Apple was silent on the issue at first, but a few weeks ago the company decided to take legal action against PsyStar, claiming PsyStar violated Apple's copyright and license agreements (EULAs), and motivated others to do the same. While several legal experts agree that Apple's EULA will stand the test of court in The Netherlands, the situation in the US might be completely different. PsyStar seems prepared for the worst, as they have hired lawyers from Carr & Ferrell LLP, a firm who successfully fought Apple in court over IP issues before. I'm breaking out the popcorn, because this is hopefully going to be a big one.
Thread beginning with comment 325230
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Ford Prefect
Member since:
2006-01-16

I want to mention here that German law also invalidates EULA parts which state that you are not allowed to resell the software -- this was tested in court with the back-then EULA of OEM MS Office versions.

But I assume it's true that this still excludes modifying the software and then selling it, which can be forbidden by the EULA.

p.s.: to clarify: If Apple is sueing Psystar over the EULA (End-user License Agreement) it is obvious that Psystar is buying these end-user licenses from Apple and therefore is a customer like everybody else.

Edited 2008-08-01 01:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I want to mention here that German law also invalidates EULA parts which state that you are not allowed to resell the software -- this was tested in court with the back-then EULA of OEM MS Office versions.

But I assume it's true that this still excludes modifying the software and then selling it.


If you took the time to read, the issue isn't the reselling of the operating system - I've sold old copies of MacOS X without any repercussions from the auction site I did it through.

The issue at play is the fact that this vendor is selling a MODIFIED VERSION of Apple's software - that is the issue. They have hacked up a copy of MacOS X and resold it. Unless they have a special OEM agreement with Apple (which they don't), what they did was illegal.

Reply Parent Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

If you took the time to read,

I wonder why some people go out of their way to be rude to others on this site? This post would have had more value, and been more persuasive, if it had not started out with the above quoted bit.

Edited 2008-08-01 01:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 16

Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

Don't accuse others of not reading what they are talking about in the very same minute you don't read what you are even quoting yourself (I refer to the second paragraph of my posting here)!

In my previous posting I justed added some general information about the laws in Germany. This is a special issue:
* not allowing modifications to the software is invalid
* not allowing to resell the software is invalid
* the combination of both presumbly gets valid again

I say presumbly as this is not as clear as it looks.

And sure, what they did may be illegal in other countries and even in Germany. You seem to be a little bit overeager at claiming facts though!

Edited 2008-08-01 05:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"But I assume it's true that this still excludes modifying the software and then selling it, which can be forbidden by the EULA.

p.s.: to clarify: If Apple is sueing Psystar over the EULA (End-user License Agreement) it is obvious that Psystar is buying these end-user licenses from Apple and therefore is a customer like everybody else."


I agree mostly. This is going to be interesting to see how it goes. According to Apple, OS X on the shelf is sold as an upgrade to an existing system, not as an end product. This will finally answer that question also I think.

Reply Parent Score: 2

javiercero1 Member since:
2005-11-10

Well, Apple is not suing based on the EULA but rather on copyright, trademark, and IP infringement.

Reply Parent Score: 1