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 364689
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by darknexus
by kaiwai on Thu 21st May 2009 03:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by darknexus"
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

This is where you're wrong. The issue is with a single clause in the EULA that states that you can only install Mac OS X on apple branded hardware. The issue is with the *single* clause that may violate a consumers right to do whatever they wish with a product they bought.

Saying that if this case is lost that we may as well throw out all EULAs is silly. It's like saying we found an invalid, unenforcable clause in a contract so all contracts are now null and void.

Please stop confusing the issue. The issue is with what rights does a consumer have to do what they choose with a product that they bought.


How is their requirement to be loaded onto an Apple computer any different to say a vendor who offers an upgrade version of their software with the requirement that you're a licence holder of an older version or have installed a legally acquired older version before the install can continue?

Sure, you could go out right now, buy a copy of Windows Vista upgrade and bypass the upgrade checker - which can be done through installing once without a serial then running the installer again but this time putting in the serial thus the installer thinks there is an older version installed. Because you can do it - does it make it legal?

Microsoft requiring you to have installed an older version before an upgrade can occur - is that a violation of your 'rights'? by you demanding that one piece about 'install on Apple hardware taken away' - Apple's requirements are no different to the requirements made for upgrading and thus do you want the upgrade based licensed be dismissed as illegal as well?

How about their requirement that I must be a student or a non-commercial user to use a given piece of software? isn't that a violation of my rights to use the software as I see fit? after all, I did pay for the software so why the heck should the software vendor remotely care whether I am using it in a commercial environment?

If we're going to talk about 'I paid for it and I should be allowed to use it as I see fit' then I think you need to look at the run off effect of such a declaration and how it impacts on the EULA in its entirety.

Edited 2009-05-21 03:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by darknexus
by Gunderwo on Thu 21st May 2009 05:59 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by darknexus"
Gunderwo Member since:
2006-01-03


How is their requirement to be loaded onto an Apple computer any different to say a vendor who offers an upgrade version of their software with the requirement that you're a licence holder of an older version or have installed a legally acquired older version before the install can continue?

Sure, you could go out right now, buy a copy of Windows Vista upgrade and bypass the upgrade checker - which can be done through installing once without a serial then running the installer again but this time putting in the serial thus the installer thinks there is an older version installed. Because you can do it - does it make it legal?

Microsoft requiring you to have installed an older version before an upgrade can occur - is that a violation of your 'rights'? by you demanding that one piece about 'install on Apple hardware taken away' - Apple's requirements are no different to the requirements made for upgrading and thus do you want the upgrade based licensed be dismissed as illegal as well?

How about their requirement that I must be a student or a non-commercial user to use a given piece of software? isn't that a violation of my rights to use the software as I see fit? after all, I did pay for the software so why the heck should the software vendor remotely care whether I am using it in a commercial environment?

If we're going to talk about 'I paid for it and I should be allowed to use it as I see fit' then I think you need to look at the run off effect of such a declaration and how it impacts on the EULA in its entirety.


I would suggest that each of the cases that you listed above would have to be looked at separately. While they may seem similar on the surface in that they all limit what you can do with the software after you buy it, there are also some very different circumstances to consider in all the above cases.

So any decision made in regards to not allowing a user to install a legitimately purchased, complete copy of Mac OS X on non Apple branded hardware would not be a precedent to throw out the rest of the EULA however similar they may seem on the surface. The other circumstances specific to each clause must be considered as well. Throwing out all such clauses because fault is found in one would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I'm not going to argue one way or another on what is acceptable, that is for a judge to decide. But I would prefer to make it crystal clear that all of these issues are separate and the only issue being decided in the Apple vs. Psystar case is whether or not is acceptable to install a legally purchased, complete version of Mac OS X on non Apple hardware and then resell it. Bring up anything else is just a strawman argument.

Edited 2009-05-21 06:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by darknexus
by kaiwai on Thu 21st May 2009 06:35 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by darknexus"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I would suggest that each of the cases that you listed above would have to be looked at separately. While they may seem similar on the surface in that they all limit what you can do with the software after you buy it, there are also some very different circumstances to consider in all the above cases.

So any decision made in regards to not allowing a user to install a legitimately purchased, complete copy of Mac OS X on non Apple branded hardware would not be a precedent to throw out the rest of the EULA however similar they may seem on the surface. The other circumstances specific to each clause must be considered as well. Throwing out all such clauses because fault is found in one would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I'm not going to argue one way or another on what is acceptable, that is for a judge to decide. But I would prefer to make it crystal clear that all of these issues are separate and the only issue being decided in the Apple vs. Psystar case is whether or not is acceptable to install a legally purchased, complete version of Mac OS X on non Apple hardware and then resell it. Bring up anything else is just a strawman argument.


Who said anything about throwing out the 'baby with the bath water' - you need to take a reading class because I specifically bought up two scenarios which are exactly the same as restricting what hardware one can load the software onto. How is upgrades and academic licence restrictions ANY DIFFERENT to restricting what hardware someone can load Mac OS X onto? either put up or shut up.

As for your quip of "Bring up anything else is just a strawman argument" is a load of bullcrap - you're simply stating that because you don't want to address the issue, line by line, subject by subject, statement by statement. You want to be able to scream to high heavens with none of your content being dare questioned. What is worse is your pathetic strawman argument claiming that people like me want to do away with EULA and yet provide NO EVIDENCE to prove it.

This isn't a separate issue; everything is linked and related to everything else; you may like to have an isolated one track mind by the world doesn't operate like your mind does; one event acts as a precedent to another action, one judgement is used as a precedent to another - stop living in this lalala land where there are no repocusions by decisions and actions of others; that everything some how occur in isolation.

Edited 2009-05-21 06:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1