Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 19:20 UTC
Legal Apple has responded to Psystar's new lawsuit today, stating that it is nothing but a stall tactic on Psystar's end. While I could just paraphrase whatever the filing reads, I decided to take this opportunity to address a number of sentiments and analogies often made in comment threads (not necessarily on OSNews).
Thread beginning with comment 382029
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Thom debunks myths
by lurch_mojoff on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 21:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Thom debunks myths"
lurch_mojoff
Member since:
2007-05-12

Oh give me a fracking break! If you don't realize prior to your purchase that the thing you are buying is a license to use a piece of software, a license that may come with certain terms, detailed in a document called "Software License Agreement" and and generically called EULA, it is *your* fracking problem. And if you do realize that and still don't bother to get to know the terms of the EULA, or you intentionally play dumb, it still is your fracking problem.

If you do a search for Mac OS X license agreement, one of the first results you'll get would be: http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/ , where you can get the full text of the EULA.

Stop playing dumb, nobody is buying it (I'd wager not even the court). And the issue at hand is not about individuals, like you, intentionally or inadvertently breaking the terms of the EULA. The issue is that a company, which could afford to get legal counseling beforehand, is breaking the EULA en masse.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Thom debunks myths
by bfr99 on Thu 3rd Sep 2009 13:29 in reply to "RE[2]: Thom debunks myths"
bfr99 Member since:
2007-03-15

It is certainly debatable whether Psystar itself is violating Apples's EULA en mass as you put it. It is also debatable whether specific provisions of the EULA are even enforceable. Before you make predictions as to what a court of law might do it is instructive to read what the courts have actually ruled in similar cases. In particular you should read the Supreme Court ruling in DATA GENERAL CORP. v. DIGIDYNE CORP., 473 U.S. 908 (1985).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Thom debunks myths
by DrillSgt on Thu 3rd Sep 2009 13:47 in reply to "RE[3]: Thom debunks myths"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

It is certainly debatable whether Psystar itself is violating Apples's EULA en mass as you put it. It is also debatable whether specific provisions of the EULA are even enforceable. Before you make predictions as to what a court of law might do it is instructive to read what the courts have actually ruled in similar cases. In particular you should read the Supreme Court ruling in DATA GENERAL CORP. v. DIGIDYNE CORP., 473 U.S. 908 (1985).


Very good point, as prior case law is how courts operate.

From the ruling: "The court concluded that the tying arrangement was illegal per se, because petitioner's RDOS operating system was sufficiently unique and desirable to an appreciable number of buyers to enable petitioner to force those consumers to buy its tied product, the NOVA central processing unit."

That would indicate that it would be illegal for Apple to tie OS X to it's own hardware.

It will be interesting to see what the final ruling is on this, though it may take years with appeals, etc.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Thom debunks myths
by tyrione on Thu 3rd Sep 2009 21:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Thom debunks myths"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

As they say in the US System of Laws, ``Ignorance of the Law is not a defensible position.''

Reply Parent Score: 2