Linked by Nescio on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:05 UTC
Apple Numerous irrelevant issues and feelings about them are ventilated in comments on the case. However, there are only two important issues. One is what the law is, the other is what we think the law should be.
Thread beginning with comment 352479
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Bobthearch
Member since:
2006-01-27

Psystar doesn't need a license to install OSX on their computers. You think every single computer maker has an agreement with Microsoft to install Windows? They don't, and they don't need one.

Nor do they need a license with Intel to resell Pentium processors, nor do they need a license with Nvidia to resell graphic cards, nor do they need a license with Kingston to resell RAM...

Reply Parent Score: 2

gcbirzan Member since:
2009-03-09

Psystar doesn't need a license to install OSX on their computers. You think every single computer maker has an agreement with Microsoft to install Windows? They don't, and they don't need one.

You are patently (har har) wrong. You do need a license to install it on a computer. As does anyone who wants to install Windows. The agreement is called EULA.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

That's the whole point of the lawsuit, isn't it?

IMO, based on past legal cases and current law, the EULA can not legally dictate which brand of hardware must be used.

Reply Parent Score: 2