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 339072
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Um, reaching a bit?
by DrillSgt on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 16:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Um, reaching a bit?"
DrillSgt
Member since:
2005-12-02

"It also dictates what can go into a contract and what constitutes valid (or legal, if you wish) contract clauses.
It's not "illegal" to violate an "illegal" contract."


Finally, someone who has a clue.

That is exactly what this case will determine, the validity and legality of Apple's EULA.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Um, reaching a bit?
by tupp on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 18:04 in reply to "RE[5]: Um, reaching a bit?"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

I don't recall any laws that dictate what provisions can and can't be included into a contract. However, provisions in contracts that go against laws have been found invalid in civil courts on countless occasions -- especially dubious provisions in EULAs.

Violating a provision in a private contract (or EULA) is definitely not illegal -- one is not breaking any laws -- but such a violation can be challenged in civil court.

This latest charge by Apple has nothing to do with the validity of the OSX EULA (and Apple would be smart to avoid involving their EULA in this case). It appears that Apple is claiming that Psystar is breaking Copyright (DMCA) law.

I don't see how Apple can get very far with a reasonable judge, since fair trade law is clearly on the side of Psystar, and Pystar really isn't doing anything illegal (nor unethical).

If, for convenience, Psystar is using their single modified copy of OSX to install on many computers, their the judge might rule that they have to open each OSX box and use the disc inside. However, such a ruling would merely force Psystar to do a few more steps with the installation, and, besides, how could such a ruling be practically enforced? -- Apple would have an observer at the Psystar installations?.

Reply Parent Score: 3