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 325317
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Osx - Macintosh combo
by lurch_mojoff on Fri 1st Aug 2008 19:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Osx - Macintosh combo"
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