Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 28th Jul 2009 22:21 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems We haven't discussed Psystar in a while, have we? In case you've been living under a rock for a while, Psystar is a Mac clone maker entrenched in a legal battle with Apple. Recently, Psystar changed lawyers, and today they posted a vigorous entry on their website about how ready they are for the fight with Apple.
Thread beginning with comment 375953
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by Moulinneuf
by middleware on Wed 29th Jul 2009 15:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Moulinneuf"
middleware
Member since:
2006-05-11

The reason you think Apple can't do that is still you don't like that, because there is no case to say Apple can't. When you buy a disc of music, you mustn't play it publicly. When you buy a book, you mustn't OCR it and put it on the Web. We live such restriction everywhere and won't change it in the near future.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by Moulinneuf
by Adam S on Wed 29th Jul 2009 15:17 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Moulinneuf"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

No middleware, you're confused.

You're saying that I can't buy something and give away the content. A disc and/or a book is copyrighted content. You're using that as a metaphor for why I can't buy OS X and install it on another computer in my house, which is a completely and totally un-related scenario.

Note that there are two issues: (1) can they use OS X on a hackintosh? and (2) can they re-sell it? The arguments from both of you are that Apple's EULA is binding. Your argument is that since I can't prove EULAs are not illegal, they are legal. And I'm telling you there's precedent for EULAs being illegal.

p.s. My EULA - by reading this comment, you agree to provide me $1,000 compensation. Please contact me offline for a mailing address for the check.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Comment by Moulinneuf
by middleware on Wed 29th Jul 2009 15:26 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Moulinneuf"
middleware Member since:
2006-05-11

None of the cases you raised was really render EULA illegal. In all cases there was other more decisive factor to let judges made decision. For example, in Adobe's case, the EULA's legality is not the decisive reason, the reason is the EULA is not applied because the software was not installed.

And no contract is agreed by reading. It is agreed by something made independently after reading and understanding. OK, my EULA may be something you need pay me by replying this. Just kidding.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The reason you think Apple can't do that is still you don't like that, because there is no case to say Apple can't. When you buy a disc of music, you mustn't play it publicly. When you buy a book, you mustn't OCR it and put it on the Web. We live such restriction everywhere and won't change it in the near future.


And what does installing a legally purchased copy of Mac OS X on a non-Apple labelled computer have to do with redistributing copies of copyrighted material to which you do not own the rights?

The EULA is completely and wholly irrelevant, because it is a ost-sale restriction, since it is not part of the sales agreement. When I buy a copy of Mac OS X, that copy becomes my property, and I'm allowed to do with it all the things that fall within the scope of copyright.

The only way for Apple to make the EULA a contract would be to offer it AS PART OF THE SALE, and even then, parts of the contract, or the contract as a whole, can be declared invalid because clauses of it clash with irrevocable rights granted to you by law - even if I put ten million signatures on the dotted line, if it infringes on irrevocable rights I have as a consumer, the contract (or parts thereof) will become invalid.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to become my slave, and to hand over all your women (agreed upon when you commented on OSNews, see previous comment). In addition, you can contact Adam about that 1000 USD you owe him.

We look forward to your response.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by Moulinneuf
by middleware on Wed 29th Jul 2009 15:52 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Moulinneuf"
middleware Member since:
2006-05-11

So you think the right to run OS X on a hackintosh is the same as the right of not being slaved, or the right of speech. Then to you I have nothing to say.

Reply Parent Score: 0