Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 22nd Oct 2008 07:33 UTC
Earlier this week we reported on the court case between Apple and PsyStar, stating they went into settlement negotiations. Details, however, were sparse. The law firm representing PsyStar has now replied to the matter, and there's good news for those of us who hope to see crazy EULA clauses tested in court.
Thread beginning with comment 334567
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-27
Good post, and you've said something that I've been thinking:
Apple is under no obligation to assist Psystar, or other computer users, from enabling Mac to run on non-Apple hardware.
But they have no legal basis for stopping someone from doing it independently either. IMO, of course.
Member since:
2005-07-06
I see that argument frequently - yet I haven't encountered a single person who would actually suggest that Apple should be required to actively support OS X on non-Apple hardware. And that's a rarity, IME - if the Internet has taught me nothing else: no matter how inane an idea is, someone will genuinely advocate it.
That argument also presents a false-dichotomy: there is lots of middle ground between actively supporting something, and actively going out of your way to prevent something.
I think most people would be happy with an OEM-only version of OS X, with 30pt bold, right red text on the front saying "DOES NOT COME WITH SUPPORT" (that is generally the way one-off OEM software purchases work anyway).
And who would buy something that like that? Two main types of people: geeks/enthusiasts and OEMs. In other words, people who wouldn't have any need for support from Apple.