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 339203
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
neoanderthal
Member since:
2008-12-04

is the fact that the end-user license agreement forbids the installation of OS X on anything other than Apple-branded hardware, or enabling others to do so. The analogies of engine swapping, etc. do not apply here, as no auto manufacturer requires that the owner of the car accept an agreement that states that they will only use parts and services from the original manufacturer exclusively, or their ability to use the automobile is revoked. Nor do auto manufacturers make it a violation of a use agreement to make it possible to swap engines from one manufacturer to another. Finally, while you may own your car, you do not own Mac OS X - you are licensed to use it, as long as you follow Apple's rules. If you violate those rules, you are no longer allowed to use it. It's actually pretty simple.

Psystar seems to be betting that they will not be held responsible for violating the EULA on Mac OS X. Apple has their software license agreements on the Internet for public accessibility, and of course anyone installing Mac OS X is presented with the EULA before the install writes information to the hard disk. Obviously Psystar knows they cannot claim ignorance in this matter, as they've taken the tact of claiming that Apple is somehow a monopoly. This would be analagous to saying that Atari (when they made computers), Commodore, Radio Shack, Timex-Sinclair, etc. were all monopolies, as their operating systems (however advanced or primitive they may've been) were tied to their hardware as well, or IBM's branded PCs running PC-DOS, OS/2, or their UNIX servers running AIX are monopolies.

I'm not arguing that this is ethical, but this is the legal standpoint on the operating system. In this case, Apple owns the intellectual property rights to Mac OS X, not the people who pay to license it. Whether people should use software with such EULAs is where the discussion should take place - there's no wiggle room in the EULA, and if it's upheld as a legally-binding agreement then Psystar is going to be in big trouble.

If the EULA is not upheld, the software world is going to be turned upside-down, since it's built on the premise of software use, not ownership.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Finally, while you may own your car, you do not own Mac OS X - you are licensed to use it, as long as you follow Apple's rules.


This depends on you licensing it though instead of owning it. Is that clearly stated on the box or by the sales person when you purchase OSX? When you buy a music CD you own it, there's no reason for it to be different for software.

Apple owns the intellectual property rights to Mac OS X, not the people who pay to license it.


Again, this is exactly the same as for DVD's or CD's. MGM/Sony/Whatever owns the IP, you own a copy of it.
The interesting part is if Apple can actually claim that you are only licensing OSX when you purchase it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

neoanderthal Member since:
2008-12-04

It is clearly stated in the EULA that you do not own the software:
"The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether preinstalled on Apple-labeled hardware, on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the "Apple Software") are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. ("Apple") for use only under the terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you."

there's tons more, but it lays everything out pretty clearly.
You do not own the software. You are purchasing a license to use it. There's no grey area - you do NOT own the software. You buy the right to use the software within the limits set by, in this case, Apple. You do not own a copy of anything meaningful.

Seriously. It's simple, and it's cut and dried. I'm not discussing the ethics of the situation, merely what rights you are granted by the company that owns the intellectual property.

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla - all of Apple's legal nonsense is there. Read it for yourself. Psystar is doomed, unless the judge decides to throw out the concept of the EULA.

Reply Parent Score: 1

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"This depends on you licensing it though instead of owning it. Is that clearly stated on the box or by the sales person when you purchase OSX? When you buy a music CD you own it, there's no reason for it to be different for software."

You own the CD, the physical media. You do not own the music on it, you are licensed to use it. At least that is what it says on at least 5 music CD's I have here. As for OS X, it is very clear that you own the CD, but you only have a license to use the software. The sales person does not say that, however the EULA does. Clicking through has already been upheld for EULA's in the courts. The key is if Apple can restrict how you use that license, in effect testing that specific EULA.

Reply Parent Score: 2