Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 22:42 UTC, submitted by anon
Legal The legal back-and-forth between Apple and clone-maker PsyStar continues to develop, with the latest news being a move by Apple - the Cupertino company has invoked something with many already predicted Apple would call upon: the DMCA, or the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. This was done in an amendment to the original suit, filed in July this year.
Thread beginning with comment 339020
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by Darkmage
by alcibiades on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 07:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Darkmage"
Member since:

The final solution, is actually very obvious. Apple needs to require a signed contract.

This is not right. The clause in the Eula is not enforceable, since it conflicts with competition and consumer protection legislation in most if not all OECD countries. It makes no difference how it is presented. Even if signed in blood under oath in the presence of a notary public, it will still not be enforceable. This is the whole point of consumer protection legislation: you cannot sign away your rights. This is the whole point of competition law: you cannot be bound by contract to terms and conditions which violate it.

Its not about how it is presented or entered into. The problem is the terms of the contract themselves.

Apple has one choice: whether to sell OSX at retail, or not. If it does, it is not going to be able to prevent installation on non-Apple branded machines. At least, not on the merits of the case. It may be able to bully Psystar into stopping. That's a different matter.

As to the DMCA, it is a mystery how Apple thinks this one will fly on its merits, since all modifications are made solely to permit interworking - that is, to allow installation on a competitive platform, and the DMCA explicitly permits that.

On a related subject, it continues to amaze that people keep referring to Psystar machines as clones. This is simply nuts, it is Apple's machines that are clones of the standard x86 PC. Psystar, like Apple, is just supplying a few of the 200 million plus of these machines which ship every year. You might as well refer to all CD players, or Sony's, as Cambridge Audio clones. Like Apple with x86 computers, Cambridge Audio is a minority supplier of CD players, who entered the market for that product years after it was well established by others.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Comment by Darkmage
by tupp on Thu 4th Dec 2008 09:19 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Darkmage"
tupp Member since:

Thank you for bringing clarity to the discussion and for reminding us what the core issues actually are.

I hope that Psystar's council and the judge see the points so clearly.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Darkmage
by looncraz on Sat 6th Dec 2008 05:56 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Darkmage"
looncraz Member since:

Yeah, I was just speaking on how it would become a matter of the courts in the possible favor of Apple.

Sadly, any given law and how that law is enforced are two different beasts. Some things which are not law can be enforced in court via contractual obligations, such as non-disclosure clauses.

The limits imposed deal mostly with the fact that no one can contractually be required to violate any law, beyond certain rights that can never be signed away (that few know about).

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, and my understanding is rather "street," but I think I have better handle on it than the average. As usual, I am always grateful for any and all proper clarifications / corrections, so thanks!

--The loon

Reply Parent Score: 2