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 389003
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: OSNews legal analysis
by Soulbender on Tue 13th Oct 2009 09:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: OSNews legal analysis"
Member since:

However, selling modified versions of the installed software is definitely not fine, and Apple claims that is the only way Psystar could be selling OS X.

Lets go with for a moment because may need some clarifications.
Lets say I buy a car (ah, that old favourite) and use it for a while. While using it I obviously make some changes to it. Perhaps change the seat covers or even repaint it. This definitely constitutes changing it.
Am I not allowed to sell my now modified car to someone else? I mean, it is modified. Of course not, this is all fair use.
What I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, is the problem is not that modified copies are being sold but that Psystar has made a commercial venture out of reselling modified copies. Commercial reselling does not fall under fair use.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer (although I did study law briefly) so I could be wrong.

Edit: and it was Swedish law, not U.S law but copyright and fair use is relatively similar globally.

Edited 2009-10-13 09:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2