To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
That post was a response to Thom saying that a requirement to have a Mac was not listed on the box.
Gotcha. My point, the use of the word "requirement" as in "System Requirements" listed on the box are not the same thing as a legal requirement.
Apple has never sought financial compensation in the manner you mention, nor is that what the whole case is about.
Apple is suing for "damages", as if Psystar owes them something above and beyond the full retail price of OSX that Psystar has already paid.
This is not a case of you or I running OS X on a computer we put together, of which Apple really does not care one way or the other. This is a case of a commercial entity doing the work and then selling the finished product, not the end user.
No legal difference that I can see. The real-life difference, Psystar is a commercial operation that's vulnerable to Apple making an example of them.
This will put that section of Apples EULA to the test, and the court will decide if that is legal or not. It really is that simple.
This is the most interesting aspect for sure.




Member since:
2005-12-02
"That doesn't mean that Apple is entitled to additional financial compensation from everyone who installs OSX on a computer that falls outside those specs."
Right, and I never said they did. That post was a response to Thom saying that a requirement to have a Mac was not listed on the box.
Apple has never sought financial compensation in the manner you mention, nor is that what the whole case is about.
This is not a case of you or I running OS X on a computer we put together, of which Apple really does not care one way or the other. This is a case of a commercial entity doing the work and then selling the finished product, not the end user.
This will put that section of Apples EULA to the test, and the court will decide if that is legal or not. It really is that simple.