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 325305
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Osx - Macintosh combo
by lurch_mojoff on Fri 1st Aug 2008 17:13 UTC 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

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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?


What a nonsensical analogy. You said it yourself - an upgrade copy. An upgrade copy is different from a full retail version - and Mac OS X is sold as a full, stand-alone retail package. It's not an upgrade - and I can know, I bought Panther, Tiger, and Leopard in retail.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Osx - Macintosh combo
by apoclypse on Fri 1st Aug 2008 19:35 in reply to "RE[3]: Osx - Macintosh combo"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Nope. Every copy of OSX is essentially an upgrade license. The theory is that even if you buy your copy of OSX in the store you should initially already have a copy of OSX on your machine, since Apple doesn't sell any hardware without OSX being installed on it already. So that makes any retail version of OSX an upgrade since you already bought the full license when you bought the Mac, this gets rolled into the cost of the machine. Sounds about right to me.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lurch_mojoff Member since:
2007-05-12

What a nonsensical analogy. You said it yourself - an upgrade copy. An upgrade copy is different from a full retail version - and Mac OS X is sold as a full, stand-alone retail package. It's not an upgrade - and I can know, I bought Panther, Tiger, and Leopard in retail.


Nonsensical, really? What if not the license (and price, of course) makes an upgrade copy different from a full, retail one? For just about all of the upgrade versions of software I've bought in the last decade it is true that the data inside the installer package or on the installation disk is the exact same as the one in the respective full version and the only difference is a technological measure enforcing the license terms - namely, usually a screen in the installer asking me for the license key of the previous version.

As far as the license of the standalone version of Mac OS X, it states that you can only run the software on an Apple branded hardware, and since you cannot purchase said hardware without a license and a copy of Mac OS X, the upgrade status is implicit. I really don't see what difference would it make if Apple had slapped an "Upgrade Version" sticker on the box and had thrown a few upgrade references in the EULA of the standalone OS X.

Reply Parent Score: 1