Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 12th Oct 2009 18:25 UTC
Legal Now that all the nastiness of the discovery phase is behind us in the Apple vs. Psystar case, both parties are trying to get the case settled before it goes to court, much like the recent Vernor vs. Autodesk case. Both Apple and Psystar have filed motions asking for a summary judgement.
Thread beginning with comment 388835
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Suppose?
by airwedge1 on Mon 12th Oct 2009 18:43 UTC
airwedge1
Member since:
2006-02-22

Suppose Pystar won the case, couldn't Apple just change their selling procedures in future products to clearly indicate they are licensing the product instead of selling the product, and add some more legal blocks?

Then this whole process would just simply restart all over again when they made the changes.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Suppose?
by jasutton on Mon 12th Oct 2009 18:52 in reply to "Suppose?"
jasutton Member since:
2006-03-28

It doesn't really matter, as Apple (and pretty much every other software vendor) already claim this. Luckily for us (the end-users), as long as vendors continue to sell us copies of their software, we still fit into the definition of "owners of a copy" as Title 17 Section 117 of the US Code states.

I think this is one reason we've seen such a push from vendors toward a Software as a Service (SaaS) model. It's like the program manufacturer saying "if you don't own a copy of the software, then we can enforce whatever restrictions we'd like on you."

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Suppose?
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 12th Oct 2009 19:24 in reply to "RE: Suppose?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The funny part is, software makers are perfectly capable of presenting its customers with a contract they have to explicitly sign, in which it is exactly detailed what the customer may do and what the software maker will do. In fact, contracts like this are signed all over the world, every day.

...in the enterprise world.

Software companies know full well that they can screw over individual customers like us, because we don't have the legal power and financial reserves to take them on. However, large enterprises who sign software support contracts are a different story. Here, software makers need to take all the proper legal precautions to avoid getting sued.

It's a simple case of software companies not needing to act to the letter of the law with mere end users, because we pose no threat to them. However, in the enterprise world, this is different, and all of a sudden, software companies *magically* do it properly.

It's a dirty business.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Suppose?
by looncraz on Mon 12th Oct 2009 19:17 in reply to "Suppose?"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

Wouldn't work. We are testing the validity of restrictions in an unsigned contract.

Restrictions being the removal of rights otherwise held.

If Psystar loses because they installed MacOS X on non-Apple hardware, we are all doomed. This would be the first confirmation that U.S. law has become so muddled as to permit restrictive non-signatory terms of use contracts.

If Psystar loses on those grounds, then you will rather quickly start seeing legal disclaimers where non existed prior. McDonald's boxes will have a EULA inside the box that you should read, but to which you agree merely by opening the box ( and it says McDonald's can't be held responsible for making you sick, or for that fried chicken head in your salad ).

Psystar could still lose on other grounds without this effect occurring, but I see little wrongdoing on Psystar's part for that result.

Apple accused Psystar of every wrongdoing possible, regardless of any factual basis for the claims. Apple also included the anonymous John Does ( original hackers ), which indicates that Apple thinks that their patented technology can't be hacked.

We can blame the RIAA for this mess, ultimately. The recording industry's narrow-minded dictation of the DMCA legislation made circumvention of digital media protection mechanisms illegal. Problem is that this has been previously granted as a right the consumer possesses for interoperability - a right the DMCA does NOT implicitly revoke.

Now, it is up to a judge to determine the meaning of the DMCA clause, which is a dangerous proposition.

Hopefully, the judge sees that the original intent of the DMCA clause is to provide punitive relief in cases of piracy - NOT to prevent interoperability.

Before the DMCA it was perfectly legal to do whatever was needed to make one product work wherever - unless you signed away that right. Sometimes, though, the court would even ignore your contract - making the claim that you, as a person, did not possess the right to sign away your rights... which is all the better!

--The loon

Reply Parent Score: 2