Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th May 2009 13:27 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Hot on the heels of the Russians, we have another clone maker popping up, this time in fish & chips country: Freedom PC. "Powerful and versatile, environmentally friendly yet inexpensive computer systems compatible with any and all of the main operating systems: Mac OS X, Linux or Windows. So YOU can decide which one to use for what YOU want to do. And we give you a choice of models, too - from the low priced and good looking office machine, the ideal choice for business, to the high powered, sleek, gaming media centre. All, with the operating system of your choice pre-installed - or none at all - at prices accessible to all." They offer various models pre-installed with Windows, Linux, or Mac OS X.
Thread beginning with comment 364640
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by darknexus
by PowerMacX on Wed 20th May 2009 21:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by darknexus"
PowerMacX
Member since:
2005-11-06

If my comment had indeed consisted of only the part you quoted, yes. But that was an introduction to the example about upgrades and a possible interpretation of that specific controversial clause in the EULA.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by darknexus
by Gunderwo on Wed 20th May 2009 23:26 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by darknexus"
Gunderwo Member since:
2006-01-03

If my comment had indeed consisted of only the part you quoted, yes. But that was an introduction to the example about upgrades and a possible interpretation of that specific controversial clause in the EULA.


But the issue that is being contested in a *Trial* has nothing to do with upgrading. Apple has never made any statements about using an upgrade copy being the reason that they are suing Psystar. So your point is moot.

With a name like PowerMacX you're obviously biased about this subject and grasping at straws trying to make it seem like Psystar and others are clearly wrong.

The fact is the issue is about a single clause in the EULA that has nothing to do with upgrades or making the whole EULA in applicable.

I don't know whether the clause is enforceable or not. And my opinion on whether it should be or not is just another opinion of a non lawyer so I won't even go there. But please stop trying to muddy the waters by bringing up a bunch of irrelevant points.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by darknexus
by PowerMacX on Wed 20th May 2009 23:53 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by darknexus"
PowerMacX Member since:
2005-11-06

With a name like PowerMacX you're obviously biased about this subject and grasping at straws trying to make it seem like Psystar and others are clearly wrong.

The fact is the issue is about a single clause in the EULA that has nothing to do with upgrades or making the whole EULA in applicable.

I don't know whether the clause is enforceable or not. And my opinion on whether it should be or not is just another opinion of a non lawyer so I won't even go there. But please stop trying to muddy the waters by bringing up a bunch of irrelevant points.


First, I'm not trying to say they are *clearly* wrong, just describing why *I* think that single clause isn't necessarily invalid. As for the whole EULA, previous articles on this very same subject have mentioned that very same point: whether EULAS are enforceable at all or not.

Second, if you only care about what lawyers have to say, then why bother commenting at all? Let's just wait until the judge decides. But, where is the fun in that? :-)

Reply Parent Score: 2