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 325314
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Osx - Macintosh combo
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 1st Aug 2008 19:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Osx - Macintosh combo"
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

RE[5]: Osx - Macintosh combo
by dizzey on Fri 1st Aug 2008 22:55 in reply to "RE[4]: Osx - Macintosh combo"
dizzey Member since:
2005-10-15

oh but is it really a uppgrade. i have bougth some mac's from the university without a osx licencse becus they have some separate deal with uppgrades and such. And since i got this mac without a licensce there would then be no legal way for me to run osX since i only can buy uppgrade licences. I dont think so i serisuly doubt that
a apple store would deny me to buy osx for that mac.

If they dont deny me then it is a retail version and if they do deny me it's an uppgrade

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Osx - Macintosh combo
by Mage66 on Sat 2nd Aug 2008 04:28 in reply to "RE[4]: Osx - Macintosh combo"
Mage66 Member since:
2005-07-11

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.


Nope, I have quite a few Macs here that can run MacOS X and weren't loaded with it when I bought them, and I could STILL buy the retail version of MacOS X and use it with them.

Read the License Terms. MacOS X Retail is NOT an upgrade, it's a full installable OS.

I even have Mac Clones that will run MacOS X that weren't sold with MacOS X on them.

Please don't post things that are wrong and add disinformation to the discussion.

Reply Parent Score: 1

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