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 325242
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Osx - Macintosh combo
by Anacardo on Fri 1st Aug 2008 05:30 UTC
Anacardo
Member since:
2005-10-30

I believe Apple might want to try to enforce the fact that the Macintosh - MacOSX combination is actually something more than software + hardware. For example they might imply that the pricing for Macosx in retail stores doesn't reflect the value of the product hey're selling, rather being a nominal upgrade fee where the initial R&D costs for developing the Operating systems are being payed when you purchase the Mac hardware + MacOSX software combination. Indeed they migt even have a point there, if people/companies are starting to buy macosx and install it on clones, Apple might be "forced" into asking a "proof of purchase" for each copy of OSX or even make OSX install only as an update to an existing installation. Which reminds me of certain proprietary commercial OS (ehm). If that wouldn't work, they might even consider rising the prices to a certain level (again to the same level of some other proprietary commercial Oses ehm). With all of this in mind and by not being a Mac user, I honestly don't care too much if Apple wins or not, but if I were (a mac user) I would certainly hope for Apple to win.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Osx - Macintosh combo
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 1st Aug 2008 06:00 in reply to "Osx - Macintosh combo"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

For example they might imply that the pricing for Macosx in retail stores doesn't reflect the value of the product hey're selling, rather being a nominal upgrade fee where the initial R&D costs for developing the Operating systems are being payed when you purchase the Mac hardware + MacOSX software combination.


I hear this a lot, but, uhm, how is this relevant? What business is it of mine that Apple sells retail copies of their software at a price that doesn't cover its costs? That's an Apple business decision, and has abslutely nothing to do with the case at hand.

This court case is going to be all about Apple needing to prove PsyStar is actually modifying Apple software, something that's going to be difficult for Apple since, as far as I know, PsyStar simply adds some scripts to OS X - it doesn't modify anything.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Osx - Macintosh combo
by Anacardo on Fri 1st Aug 2008 09:32 in reply to "RE: Osx - Macintosh combo"
Anacardo Member since:
2005-10-30


I hear this a lot, but, uhm, how is this relevant? What business is it of mine that Apple sells retail copies of their software at a price that doesn't cover its costs? That's an Apple business decision, and has abslutely nothing to do with the case at hand.

You're absolutely right, it's not directly related to this case, unless they're able to prove that the hw+sw combo constitute a single product rather than two separate products. But since most of the people seems to be very happy about the perspective of Apple loosing in court and the beginning of a new Clone-era (I know some of us in here would be happy to see Apple loose not because of this but because of the general impact it would have on eulas) I would just say that from a user-perspective (possibly a would be mac user perspective), it would probably end up being worse than it actually sounds.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Osx - Macintosh combo
by lurch_mojoff on Fri 1st Aug 2008 17:13 in reply to "RE: Osx - Macintosh combo"
lurch_mojoff Member since:
2007-05-12

"For example they might imply that the pricing for Macosx in retail stores doesn't reflect the value of the product hey're selling, rather being a nominal upgrade fee where the initial R&D costs for developing the Operating systems are being payed when you purchase the Mac hardware + MacOSX software combination.


I hear this a lot, but, uhm, how is this relevant? What business is it of mine that Apple sells retail copies of their software at a price that doesn't cover its costs? That's an Apple business decision, and has abslutely nothing to do with the case at hand.
"

Would you hold the same position if the case was a bit different - me purchasing an upgrade copy of program X and using a script to remove the step in the installer asking me for the license key of the the previous version? Would it still be DeveloperOfX's problem that they made the business decision to sell upgrade copies? Would I still be absolved of any responsibility because I've payed for the software?

Reply Parent Score: 2