OSNews

On this point, I think you've hit the nail on the head. No company wants their EULA tested in court. Adobe tried that with the guy that was splitting their bundled software on eBay, and got smacked down for it. I believe something similar happened to Autodesk, trying to prevent the resale of licenses. The courts have pretty much held that software falls under doctrine of first sale, and not a "rent-but-don't-own" license as the software companies try to apply.

Where pystar likely screwed up was in making Apple updates available for download for their customers, that falls pretty cleanly into copyright law.

Where Apple screwed up is in making OSX a standalone product available for purchase, rather than selling them as updates requiring an original installation (that would have come via purchase of an Apple system). At least in that point there would have been an element of contractual consideration in their license agreement, to the extent that customers were purchasing the software at the price Apple extended under the assumption they had already invested in the original license. Nothing would require them to make a "full" version available. EULAs rely on contract law, after all.

I'll state the necessary IANAL, but from the POV of pystar pre-installing OSX on clones, I really don't see where they violated any actual laws. If they legally acquired the software, doctrine of first sale allows them to do whatever the hell they want with it, short of copying and re-distributing it. Put another way, does anyone think Microsoft should be able to prevent system builders from pre-installing a legally acquired copy of Windows on their systems, without having Microsoft's blessing?

I think some people are placing far too much blind faith in the validity of Apple's EULA. The EULA, by nature, relies on contract law, and stretches into provisions of copyright law. There are basic provisions that an EULA simply cannot circumvent, regardless of how cleverly worded it is. One of the most basic principles of contract law is that one cannot waive their protections under contract law.

I do think pystar's anti-trust claims are bollocks, and I would also be interested to see how Apple's original claims actually play out if it winds up making it that far. But as I said, I do believe pystar shafted themselves by redistributing Apple's updates, there's no two ways about that in terms of copyright violation.

Anyways, it's worth sitting back and eating popcorn to watch how this plays out. Apple is certainly a legal savvy organization, but then the legal firm pystar has engaged has a strong track record too. If it does come down to a legal argument revolving around the EULA, it could have repercussions beyond this issue.

Anyways, just my 2c...