Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 20:54 UTC, submitted by Adurbe
Well, it really seems as if Psystar is committed to continue its business, no matter what. The company entered chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in May, and many wondered if this meant the end of the clone maker and the legal case between Apple and Psystar. Well, today the clone maker announced that it is emerging from chapter 11, and while they're at it, they also introduce a new "Mac".
Thread beginning with comment 371408
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2008-03-08
Why?
I think this case is important - it's not like they are cutting Apple out of the loop as the OS is actually bought.
I think this is a good way to see how legally binding EULA's really are. I would hope that they are not binding at all - Just imagine Ford telling you that after you bought its cars you could only drive it on Sundays on lanes that it has certified safe for the car.
Ofcourse, Apple should not have to provide (hardware) support if its terms are breached, but that is a different thing.
Member since:2005-07-06
I think this is a good way to see how legally binding EULA's really are. I would hope that they are not binding at all - Just imagine Ford telling you that after you bought its cars you could only drive it on Sundays on lanes that it has certified safe for the car.
EULA's are legally binding. It's already been ruled on many times throughout the U.S. See Blizzard v Bnetd and MDY v Blizzard for two examples. And a really great example that has many facts on point in this case is Altera v Clear Logic. There are circumstances in which a specific EULA or a clause in an EULA may be voided, but overall, the chances of Psystar winning this particular case are infinitesimal.
Member since:2006-04-03
I think this case is important - it's not like they are cutting Apple out of the loop as the OS is actually bought.
The thing is that Pystar are really paying OEM / Upgrade pricing because Apple's model has allowed them to keep the retail price at something that resembles Microsoft's OEM / Upgrade price. Pystar are not an Apple OEM, they have signed no agreements that bind them to anything as per Microsoft's OEM agreements, yet they are purchasing the product at OEM equivalent pricing levels.
I've said this before but if Apple were to lose this case its really a simple proposition for them anyway. They whack the retail price up to match Microsoft's retail pricing for "Windows Ultimate Makes Your Coffee And Massages Your Feet Edition" and provide "loyalty discounts" that bring that price back down to the current retail price for registered owners of Apple manufactured Macs. That way Pystar have to pay more for the OS so Apple still make their profit whether they are selling the hardware or not.
As for how Pystar came out of Chapter 11... :S
Member since:
2006-01-03
Just go away...ugh.