It's been relatively quiet around the whole Psystar case lately. The case is supposedly going to trial somewhere in November of this year, and the two opposing parties are probably preparing their cases. We've finally got some news on this front, as Apple is accusing Psystar of withholding financial information. Apple made its accusations in a partly censored letter to judge William Alsup.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-14
open business is behind the curtain. We have allowed draconian laws to exist regarding software because we think its different than every thing else. But, IMHO, when you buy software, you buy a copy. Not license it. I also don't see why Apple should get to see the financial info for this company. This case is about copyright infringement and being able to do what you want with what you've bought. Including reselling it.
Member since:2005-07-24
Member since:2006-10-30
Thank you! This is EXACTLY how it should be viewed! The whole concept of a product I have to pay for outright, and yet never actually own is totally alien to me.
This has been argued for years, but I still think that a software is no different than a jacket. I go to the store, buy a leather jacket, come home and change, say, buttons on it. Then I want to re-sell the said jacket, explicitly disclosing to buyer that I have changed buttons. In software world, the manufacturer of a jacket would sue me for copyright infringement...
And yet, I am not re-selling an unauthorized knock-off, I paid in full for the garment... And I did include the appropriate CAVEAT EMPTOR statement... So, what seems to be the problem?
Edited 2009-05-02 18:20 UTC
Member since:2005-12-02
When you buy software, you buy the media. You can do whatever you want with that media, including re-selling it. The right to re-sell the software is not what is in question in this case, as it would have already been thrown out.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-10-12
Even if MS were behind Psystar, who cares? It would not make the business any less legitimate. As for the idea that 'shadowy forces' are out to damage Apple by funding a test case of selling OSX on non-Apple branded hardware?
Maybe they are. Happens all the time, its how companies behave in a competitive environment. One company has a model which allows it to make some profits, by taking advantage of a combination of what it thinks the law is, and its product assets. Another thinks it can attack this on the basis that the interpretation of the law is mistaken.
So it has a go, or funds someone to have a go. This is all perfectly normal, the way business is conducted, and its perfectly legitimate. If Apple does not like it, it needs to stop relying on dubious use of EULAs.
As the Apple people say all the time, if you don't like the conditions, don't buy Macs.
Maybe. And if you, Apple, don't like what people can legally do with what you sell, don't sell it.
Member since:
2005-11-30
I'm waiting for the "Microsoft is behind Psystar" posts. But, one needs to remember a couple of things: First, Microsoft (at least at one time) had a significant investment in Apple. Second, Microsoft sells a significant amount of Apple software in the form of Microsoft Office. So, they have a vested interest in not upsetting the applecart.