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:2005-06-29
Hakime, Hakime, Hakime... You're getting funnier by the day. Could you pease explain to me WHY Psystar is not a user?
A user is a user is a user. A customer is a customer is a customer.
Psystar buys copies of OS X. That makes them a customer. Psystar then installs these copies. That makes them a user. WITH ALL ASSOCIATED RIGHTS GRANTED BY US LAW.
As Looncraz just wrote in the comment above me, there are several rights granted to you if you buy copyrighted material. The question at hand here is if it should be allowed for Apple, or any software company, to impose post-sale restrictions that TAKE AWAY right GRANTED by law. Luckily, many believe this should not be possible.
I hope Apple loses this case big time, and not because I want OS X on non-Apple machines (I prefer actual Macs, why thank you), but because this bullshit about EULAs must come to an end. Not being allowed to install wherever I want, not being allowed to publish benchmarking information... What a load of manure.
Edited 2009-05-03 06:30 UTC
Member since:2005-10-12
Yes, this is correct. A buyer having bought may resell what he has bought and charge whatever he likes, and do it for profit or not as he likes. Whether he is a company or a person makes no difference.
Think about it. There is a demand for iMacs. I buy a Mini at retail, put the bits into a new case with a better main board, add a sensible disk drive. Sell the result. Perfectly OK. Then I decide to do this in bulk, form a company. Again perfectly OK. I'm 'making money off Apple'. Yes, this is perfectly OK.
Just as if I hang out my shingle and offer OSX consulting services. Then too I am 'making money from Apple'. This is OK.
It is actually OK to make money from Apple. There is no law against it. Amazing but true.
If it is OK for an individual buyer to install his retail copy of OSX on a non-Apple branded machine, then it is OK for a company to do it to. It will then be OK for either one to resell the result. Either for profit, or as a public service. Makes no difference.
Member since:
2005-11-16
"are software companies allowed to place post-sale restrictions? Is an EULA a binding contract just because you click "Ok"? Should EULAs be presented before purchase? Should software companies be allowed to remove rights granted to consumers by copyright law?"
What post-sale restrictions, which users, which rights? What are you talking about?
Users are not restricting to anything, and no more than their rights are removed. You are just confusing things.
The Psystar story does not have anything to do with users, could you just understand that? Once you buy a computer, you as a user, is free to do anything with it, no matter what is the copyright, because the copyright is aimed to protect against stealing intellectual property. Users who buy a computer, they buy it, period. They don't have anything to do with copyrights, AS LONG AS they do not try to sell in a large scale the intellectual property of others.
Now, you buy a computer, say a Mac (because it is about Apple here), then, you do whatever you want with it. You can install any system on it, you can sell it, you can break it, you can share it, you can have it but not using it, you can sell the OS X disk to another user, you could even think to install OS X on a pc, this is software piracy, but well Apple does not block you to do that, but you could if you keep it quite.
But the Psystar case has nothing to do with that, Psystar is not a user, Psystar is a public company which try to sell intellectual property of Apple for its own business without having a license to do that. That's nothing to do with what you refer to users being removed their rights with copyrights, nothing. Or are you saying that a company A can just decide to sell intellectual property of a company B, here an operating system, and using even it for promoting his own products? Do you think that any healthy market business could be possible with such practices? No way, go to say that to Microsoft! I don't remember having heard that Microsoft is allowing pc hardware manufacturers to sell pcs with windows without having a license for that, or did you?
So please, could you just try to think that through carefully, instead of saying things that make little sense. Or stop to report about this story, you are getting it completely wrong.....