Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Dec 2008 20:49 UTC, submitted by judgen
Legal The legal back-and-forth between PsyStar and Apple is slowly but surely moving into the twilight zone. Not too long ago we had Apple going all black helicopter on PsyStar claiming people and/or companies other than PsyStar are involved in the clone maker's unlawful practices, even though Apple could so far not name any of them because, well, they don't know who they are yet. If that wasn't enough, PsyStar now claims that Apple's copyright on Mac OS X is invalid.
Thread beginning with comment 341529
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Bobthearch
Member since:
2006-01-27

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2