Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 2nd May 2009 12:08 UTC
Legal 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.
Thread beginning with comment 361440
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

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

Reply Parent Score: 3