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 388992
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

...if someone released as a commercial package an "installer" that allowed Windows to install without having to be activated (and therefore circumvent Microsoft's security protection)? I can hear people now screaming "but that would make it easy to pirate it!!!" So my question is this. Doesn't Pystar's software - which they are now going to license (chortle) to others, do exactly that too? Make it easy to pirate Apple's copyright material and install it on as many non-Apple machines as you like? Don't you think maybe the reason Apple haven't gone down the whole activation path is because the license only allows it to be installed on Apple hardware

No this is not correct. You will still be only able to install one retail copy on one machine. Piracy will be no more legally permissible then than it is now. It is irrelevant.

You may be arguing that to restrict the hardware available restricts the number of machines on which pirated copies can be installed, and so helps. True but irrelevant. Sony could argue the same. You may only play Sony CDs on Sony players. If we allow them to play on just any player, why, that would make piracy more attractive.

Tough. That does not mean that your attempts to restrict playing to Sony machines has any legal or social merit.

Reply Parent Score: 2