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 388995
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: OSNews legal analysis
by alcibiades on Tue 13th Oct 2009 08:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: OSNews legal analysis"
alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

rhavyn,

In all your comments on this matter of transfer you fail to address the critical point that Psystar may not have been the lawful owner at the time the installation copies were made. The customer may have been.

They may have transferred everything, hardware and retail copy, to the customer before doing the installation.

If they did this, I don't see how they are in violation of S117, which permits the copies to be made by the owner, or for him to authorize others to make the copies (those essential to use with a machine).

They will not have transferred anything, and so cannot be accused of having transferred copies in an unauthorized way.

Reply Parent Score: 2