Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Jan 2009 20:55 UTC
Apple It appears that Apple is not just going after Psystar when it comes to running Mac OS X on non-Apple branded computers. Wired's gadget blog was running a story, accompanied by a video, demonstrating how to install Mac OS X on a non-Apple netbook. After Apple contacted Wired, the website took down the video.
Thread beginning with comment 343815
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Bernhard
Member since:
2008-11-12

Yet again, one might say, lets try to get clear about this.

There are two contracts which are independent of each other, the purchase contract and the Eula.

It is the Eula, and not the purchase contract, that forbids the installer to tell people how to install on non-Apple hardware.

But Wired cannot be bound by the Eula since they never clicked through. The purchase of a copy, which they may or may not have done, was (as Softman shows), if they did it, a purchase of a copy and not a license of anything. By purchasing the software you are not bound by the Eula. That only happens when you click through.

Of course they did click through the damn thing. They DID install the OS to a computer, which cannot be done without clicking through the damn license!
What is written in a Eula is not a law. Apple cannot stop Wired from publishing instructions on how to do something, by publishing terms in a Eula.

Of course it's not a law. But it's a breach of contract which allows Apple to sue them at civil court. Which is totally enough, given how ridiculous amounts of compensation can be imposed by court in the US.
The second point is that simply purchasing the software does not result in your being found by the Eula. This follows from Softman, in which a company bought software, did not click through, and was then held not to be bound by the terms of a Eula they had not entered into. In Softman it was also held that the purchase of a copy of software was just that, purchase of a copy and not a license.

So you can resell unopened boxes. Fine! No one ever questioned that. But this case is totally different: Wired DID enter into the license by installing the software. But they breached the license not only by installing the thing to non-Apple Hardware, but also by enabling others (a lot of others) to do so. This clause may or may not be invalidated in the future, but right now it's valid.

Reply Parent Score: 1

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

(1) No, its not that you can sell unopened boxes. You can resell your copy of the software, whether the box is opened or not, and whether you sell it piecemeal or as a whole.

(2) No, the EULA is not valid and enforceable. That has not been proved in respect of the hardware restriction. It is what remains to be decided.

(3) I have not watched the video itself, just read the text giving instructions below, you may be right that if it shows Wired assenting to the EULA they will be bound by it, should it in fact be binding. It was a hacked copy, and if they did not need to assent to the EULA because of that their situation is a bit different - they would be violating copyright for experimental purposes, which might or might not be covered by the fact that they urge people to buy a legal copy.

However, cat is now well out of bag, because the fact that whoever made the video is bound by having clicked through, cannot mean that anyone else is bound. Should another person post that video and the commentary below it, they will be violating neither EULA nor law. The futility of trying to stop this video and instructions being published widely if anyone is interested should be obvious.

If Efi-x did not make it obvious already.

Reply Parent Score: 2