OSNews

You can't say "EULAs aside" because that's exactly the point of the matter: Psystar broke Apple's EULA and is trying to justify it in very creative ways.

The EULA is a set of terms set by the creator of the software. Apple made some hardware, and made some software, and said "here's the package, take it or leave it." If you don't like the EULA terms fine, don't buy, or return what you bought and you'll be reimbursed. Because the EULA is the only thing giving you a license to do anything with Mac OS X, and if you don't agree to it you have no rights over it, period.

This is basic copyright law and it affects everything, including Windows, GPL etc. If in some absurd way Psystar managed to win this it would throw ALL software on its head.

You're probably confusing things with the old EULA troubles, which were about software companies who tried to sneak the EULA past the buyer and make them agree to it automatically, without even knowing what was in it. That's no longer the case. Nowadays, responsible companies (Apple included) make it very clear what the EULA is BEFORE you buy. The terms are on their website and on the box of their products.

It's every company's right to set whatever terms they want (within the law) for stuff they've created themselves. It's Apple's right and no, Psystar CAN NOT come and say "hey, let's ignore what the creator licensed us to do and set up a business to compete directly with the creator, using their own stuff." That's not allowable, nor sane.

Comparison with Windows is null, because it's apples and oranges. Microsoft have a licensing model which allows a hardware-maker to pair Windows with their own hardware, in fact it's their main bread winner. As far as the Windows terms of use are concerned, Apple is just another OEM, and perfectly within its rights to offer people methods of installing Windows on its hardware.

Not really. Pystar is clearly not the "end user" of the "End User License Agreement." They are merely installing OSX at the behest of the end user. Perfectly acceptable.



Not really. Apple sells stand-alone, retail versions of OSX.



No company (including Apple) can dictate new terms to the purchaser of their product, after the product is purchased. Apple cannot reasonably nor validly demand that a user return OSX, if the user sees the EULA only after the purchase. Any special terms probably have to be agreed upon at the point of sale, prior to the deal.



Not really. EULA provisions are not automatically valid, just because the manufacturer makes a declaration. Some EULAs and many individual terms of EULAs have been deemed invalid by the courts. Some EULA provisions have been deemed valid.

Also, post-sale restrictions on non-software items are generally not allowed. Why should a software get special treatment? Should a software CD be treated differently than a music CD?



No.

The one-button-mousers on this forum consistently have trouble distinguishing between:
- copyright law;
- trademark law;
- patent law;
- consumer protection law;
- private contract clauses;
- restrictive manufacturer declarations (EULAs);
- and grants of extra permissions (most open-source licenses).

An EULA has nothing to do with copyright law, except for the fact that most EULAs contain provisions that unnecessarily reiterate basic copyright rules. The EULA terms that are usually in question in this forum, are the ones that try to impose post-sale restrictions on use.



For such an agreement to valid at all, it really has to be presented on or before the sale and at the point of sale.

Not sure if the OSX EULA appears on the outside of the box, but any valid agreement should really be signed and witnessed.

Manufacturers cannot reasonably demand that users go to a web site before a sale.

Furthermore, if one is buying OSX so that one can get on the Internet, one has no way of seeing the EULA web page until after one installs OSX.



One of the heated questions discussed on this forum is whether or not the OSX EULA post-sale restrictions are "within the law."



Again, Psystar is not the "end user," so, the OSX EULA doesn't necessarily cover them.

The "creator?" Are we likening Apple to a deity?



Why? If one buys a product (including a copy of a copyrighted item), one owns that product and should be able to use it in a way he/she sees fit.

What is not sane about that basic fair trade principle?



What is fair and correct should be so, regardless of what "licensing model" Apple or Microsoft declare.

Just because Apple declares that they want to restrict post-sale use of OSX, doesn't make it fair and correct.

Apple could declare in a EULA that all OSNews users named wirespot can only use OSX on Tuesday mornings, standing on one leg. Is such a restriction fair and correct just because it is Apple's "licensing model?"

Yes I can. I can say anything I damn well please. Or am I suddenly not allowed (by whom??) to be able to discuss the hardware aspects of this case, or the marketing aspects?



But, as others here have said, it's not quite that simple. Apple sells OS X in a retail box as well as bundling it with the hardware they sell; it's not just a package deal. Given that, it is no more logical for them to restrict me from installing it on my generic box I bought from Psystar or whomever, than it is for Microsoft to tell me I can't install Windows on my toaster. Fact is, Microsoft has never said you can only install Windows on a certain brand or even type of computer; if they did that they wouldn't exist, or at least wouldn't be an OS developer for long.




That's another huge debate in itself, which is why I said "EULAs aside"; I wasn't focusing on EULA validity. That has been hashed and rehashed here and elsewhere for years. My point was and still is that Apple is being mighty hypocritical about it. To avoid looking the fool, they should either allow OS X to be installed on any compatible hardware (with no expectation of support if it's not an Apple machine) or they should not sell it as a retail OS.




A computer is a computer is a computer. Apple is indeed just another OEM, which is why it is so hypocritical for them to try to restrict OS X to only one brand of computer.

Don't get me wrong; I know exactly why Apple won't open up licensing for their OS. For one thing, they would stand to lose a lot of money as they have double digit profit margins on their computers. Apart from the Mac mini, their hardware is quite expensive compared to even high-end generic kit. Also, support calls for non-Apple hardware would go through the roof and quickly overwhelm their support base, never mind that they don't even have to offer support in the first place if they don't want to. The calls will come regardless.

I'm sorry you missed my point entirely and chose to rant about EULAs. While license agreements are a big part in this debate, it's not what I was talking about at all. Perhaps I've clarified enough so you can understand what I'm talking about.

Microsoft doesn't sell PC hardware, so they can't dictate which HW you can use. Apple does.
Imagine what Microsoft will do if you create XBALL360 and rip their software.

Microsoft also doesn't offer the Xbox dashboard and firmware as a retail package. Not only that, the Xbox is a one-off game console; there are no generic ones with Windows or Linux or any other OS out there, and you can't go into Fry's or MicroCenter and buy the parts to cobble one together. It's not anywhere near the same market as PCs and it really has nothing to do with the Psystar case.