Now this is interesting news that hit my inbox at 2:22 AM (don't ask). It seems like the concept of selling Mac clones is more lucrative than many have anticipated, as I've just been informed via email that the German PearC has expanded its business into the BeNeLux (Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg) and France. Together with the news that Psystar emerged from chapter 11, it looks like the market for Mac clones is more lucrative than many of us had imagined.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-10-02
Again, Where did I dictate what someone should and shouldn't buy?
But not all libertarians agree on the scope of private property. At least don't count me in as a supporter of IP-monopoly, nor as a supporter of contracts between two parts where one is in reality more equal than the other part.
In Denmark there's no problem in selling Mac-clones. Actually it's a protected right (you are free to dirty room reengineer and so on), and rightfully so. You shouldn't have the possibility to decide what I do with stuff I buy. You only get to decide whether to sell it or not. If you sell it you accept that I can do whatever I want. Otherwise, don't sell it. Period.
P.S. What's that crap about being too old to play games just because you've passed 30? ... what!? Come again....
Member since:2005-07-24
The U.S. actually has those laws as well, we just have a LOT of stupid judges which led to some bad precedence and further misinterpretations which leads us now to how software somehow isn't necessarily covered under the same laws that govern copies of copyrighted materials - even though software is EXACTLY a copy of a copyrighted material...
It is illegal in the U.S. to control what I do with my copy of a copyrighted work unless a contract was agreed upon as a condition upon purchase. Not some little note somewhere, a signed, written, often notarized / witnessed, contract.
Even then, you do not have the right to sign away many rights you possess. This was done in right-minded legislation (a rarity in U.S. law these days ) to protect consumers even from themselves. Non-contractual Terms of Use may only be applied to unprotected/non-enumerated freedoms or may be utilized to provide additional freedoms, with any conditions for those additional freedoms.
So, if a EULA ( Terms of Use ) says you can't do something you are legally allowed to do, those lines are invalid. If it says you have permission to do something you have no right to do, but says you must do something to gain that permission, that stands.
If it forbids something you have no right to do anyway, then it is really just wasted space in most cases, but sometimes not ( such as the unforeseen case - in which some action is not a protected right for the consumer, but is not illegal, but must not be allowed as Terms of Use - a real rarity, it is just an in-case type of thing ).
Problem is we have the worst judges in the world, seriously. Some are great, others have no idea what is going on ( and don't care ). That is the problem with elected judiciary officials, and the lack of job requirements ( think a judge needs to know the law? ).
--The loon
Member since:
2005-07-06
Where did I dictate what someone should and shouldn't buy?
Who said anything about protecting a company; libertarians uphold contracts and protect private property.
Again, Where did I dictate what someone should and shouldn't buy?