Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 20:54 UTC, submitted by Adurbe
Thread beginning with comment 371432
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
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
The thing is that Pystar are really paying OEM / Upgrade pricing
Can someone please, for once and for all, give me ANY proof to substantiate the claim that Mac OS X is sold at a loss?
Please...?
This statement is as old as the sun, yet I've never seen ANYONE back it up. It must be one of the most oft-repeated proofless claims out there.
Edited 2009-07-03 00:00 UTC
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.
That would be interesting to see. OEM pricing for Windows, to real OEM's, is only like USD $25 or so. You have to remember that OEM's like Dell, HP, Toshiba, IBM, etc. are where most people get their computers from, and they get the best deal. SO as an OEM, Psystar is paying much more for OS X than they would for Microsoft products. Do not confuse the hobbiest OEM pricing, such as is found at retail sites, with what OEM's actually get.
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.
OEMs sign agreements with software manufacturers in order to qualify for volume pricing. Pystar does not receive nor has asked for any such pricing agreement with Apple.
Secondly, you don't need a signed or negotiated agreement with Microsoft in order buy copies of Windows for installed resale. I would actually guess that most small-scale builders, on the scale of Pystar, have no such agreement.
Edited 2009-07-03 04:45 UTC







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.