We've got some news in the Apple vs. Psystar tragedy that's been unfolding before our eyes for months now. We all know the gist: Psystar sells machines with Mac OS X pre-installed, while the EULA states that's not allowed. Apple then took this stuff to court, and in the meantime, Psystar went into Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection. The news today is that Apple has filed a complaint stating that this Chapter 11 thing is just a shield that allows Psystar to continue its business practices, which Apple deems as illegal.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-06-28
You're right. Psystar has the right to resell retail copies of MacOS X, and they can do that until they're blue in the face. However, what they cannot do, is knowingly install it on a non-apple brand computer. i don't own a Psystar, so I'm not 100% sure about who "accepts" the EULA, but if it is Psystar, then the responsibility lays on them, otherwise, the consumer.
I am not a fan of EULAs. Half of me believes that all software should be free of restrictions, but the other half of me completely understands why Apple has that clause in the EULA. Apple is different from every computer manufacturer out there in the sense that it is the only one that builds the OS for the computer. This is what gives OSX its stability, and allows Apple to tailor its OS to a finite amount of hardware. When you get down to it, Apple is a hardware company. It makes the OS to sell the computers. Without MacOS, their lineup is just a bunch of aluminum, overpriced, windows computers (not to say they aren't overpriced a tad with OSX, but thats another story).
Think of the consequences of this lawsuit, no matter who wins. If Psystar, EULAs will lose their value and cause software companies lots of headaches (people could install a single copy on multiple computers, for example). Also, Apple will either: jack up the price of OSX, stop selling retail and integrate updating macs to the current OS into a software updater, or add a proprietary component and Microsoft-like activation schemes to prevent the installation (or at least inhibit) on other machines.
If Apple wins, it will solidify restrictive EULA terms as legally-binding.
The thing is, when it was simply the OSX86 crowd messing around and putting MacOS on their computers, Apple didn't seem to care. Its too bad Psystar had to rock the boat for the modding community...
Member since:2005-10-12
If Apple wins, it will solidify restrictive EULA terms as legally-binding....
You are making a common mistake, in thinking that this case is about whether EULAs are binding, and thinking that in some way if the case goes against Apple it will remove copyright restrictions on copying.
Neither is the case. First, if EULAs were to go in their entirety, copyright law would remain intact, and that is what prevents you buying one copy and installing it on 5,000 computers.
Second, EULAs in general are not at issue. The issue is the particular clause forbidding installation on non-Apple sourced computers. This clause could be held invalid, and all other EULA clauses left standing. Its a clause by clause thing.
My view is that the clause is not going to be upheld at least in the EU, because it is a post sale restraint on use, which the Commission frowns on, and because its (as presently implemented) either a contract variance without consideration, or perhaps its an attempt to enter a secondary contract without consideration, depending on how one looks at the transactions.
We must wait to see if Apple Legal moves to sue EFI-X, PearC and Freedompc. I don't think they will, and if they do they will lose. But if this happens it will still be illegal to install OSX or Windows on more than one computer.
Its both more and less far reaching than your impression.
Member since:2005-07-06
Oh I'm sure they care(d) - there just wasn't really anything they could do about it (short of emulating the game of whack-a-mole that the RIAA/MPAA have been playing for the last few years).
Pystar, on the other hand, probably looked like much easier-pickings to Apple's legal dept.
Member since:2006-11-12
Of course they can. The EULA is not a law, and Psystar is not bound by the EULA, if they install software at the end user's behest.
E.U.L.A. = End User License Agreement. My guess is that the EULA is "accepted" by the end user.
Whatever one wants to believe...
Agreed.
Well, the value of EULAs is already questionable.
Regardless, if an EULA is anything, it is a private contract. Just because one private contract is ruled invalid, that doesn't make all other private contracts invalid. And, as I and alcibiades and many others have stated many times, courts usually find individual clauses of private contracts/EULAs valid or invalid -- not the entire agreement.
Countless EULAs and their clauses have already been ruled valid and invalid by the courts. Notice how most of these prior rulings have no influence on this case.
In regards to making multiple copies without permission, it is already forbidden by copyright law.
No. It will only set a precedent to establish the validity of the specific clause in question (if Apple indeed fights this case on the grounds of an EULA violation).
Boo-hoo.
This case has probably not swayed one individual from installing OSX on a non-Apple machine.
Member since:2007-09-06
I thought the EULA was seporate from the installation license. The one tries to restrict how the installation is used where the other is the permission of copywrite. A program can provide a license against the copywrite without providing a click-through EULA. In places where the EULA is not considered a valid license, copywrite license is still valid. I believe places in europe are like this; the EULA can go get stuffed but that doesn't allow a single license copy to be installed on multiple machines.
Member since:2006-04-03
And any entity (Psystar) buying parts of a closed system has the freedom to resell those parts... period.
In addition, any purchaser of software (the end user) has the right to hire a third party (Psystar) to install the software, and the third party is not responsible for any agreement (real or imagined) between the software manufacturer and the purchaser .................. period. "
And again in your argument you overlook the reality of the product being purchased. Pystar is purchasing from Apple a LICENSE, and you are correct in saying that they are allowed to resell that LICENSE. That license grants the end user permission under certain conditions to use a piece of software that remains the property of Apple. So yes, Pystar are obviously allowed to resell that license but the conditions of that license still stand. The actual software is never being bought or sold by anyone, including Apple. Apple are selling a license to Pystar, Pystar are within their rights to resell that license, but they are also bound by the terms of that license, just as the end user to whom they are selling it are bound by the terms of it. It is really very simple, if you don't like the terms of the license DON'T BUY IT!
How does telling a company who they can and can't sell to, and what terms they can and can't put on their license be considered free trade?
Member since:2005-10-12
In the case of a retail copy of OSX, they are not selling a license. They are selling a copy. This sale is just like the sale of a book or CD or other copyright item.
Then the user is invited to enter into a license agreement when they install the OS. Or, alternatively, they may not use the installer, and so will not even see the license agreement, but may install manually.
When you sell anything at retail you cannot set whatever terms and conditions you want. You used to be able to, but in the 20c lots of consumer protection and sale of goods legislation was passed. The result is that a great many conditions apply to retail sales. Is this free trade? Probably not. But who cares? You want to sell stuff at retail, you are bound by the applicable legislation. You don't like it, don't sell. There is no way around it.
Member since:2006-11-12
And again, another fanboy has overlooked the fact that software is the product actually being purchased -- the product is not some restrictive declaration by Apple.
Software was once sold without "licenses." The nature and essence of a product (software) doesn't change just because the manufacturers of the product suddenly started making declarations in the form of "licenses."
Software is a mass-produced, copyright-protected product, just like music CDs, books, mp3 songs, sheet music, etc. Software differs from other copyright-able items in that it can also be patented. However, if one purchases a music CD, the manufacturer of that CD has no right to dictate on what machine the purchaser plays the CD.
Of course, the CD manufacturer is protected by copyright law in that no one is allowed to mass produce the music CD without permission from the copyright holder.
How can a company's restrictive declaration (which contradicts consumer protection law) be automatically considered valid?
Apple could declare in their license that "OSX can only be used to kill babies," but that declaration would not be valid just because Apple says so in their "license."
Furthermore, nobody is trying to dictate to Apple to whom they can and cannot sell OSX. Psystar is merely buying and reselling boxes of OSX which are openly offered at retail outlets.
Edited 2009-06-14 16:01 UTC
Member since:
2006-11-12
And any entity (Psystar) buying parts of a closed system has the freedom to resell those parts... period.
In addition, any purchaser of software (the end user) has the right to hire a third party (Psystar) to install the software, and the third party is not responsible for any agreement (real or imagined) between the software manufacturer and the purchaser .................. period.