Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 16th Oct 2009 22:50 UTC
Remember the motions for a summary judgement filed by Apple and Psystar earlier this week? Large parts of them were censored per Apple's request. These censored parts detailed the protection measures Apple put in place in Leopard to prevent it from being installed on non-Apple labelled computers. Psystar filed a motion a few days ago asking the judge to uncensor the information.
Thread beginning with comment 389975
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Interesting. . .
by alcibiades on Mon 19th Oct 2009 13:11
in reply to "RE[4]: Interesting. . ."
Member since:2005-10-12
Except....read Blizzard. It is possible that under Blizzard, to break a EULA deprives you of permission to make any copies, including those necessary to run the system, ie the copies into memory. I am not sure of what exactly Blizzard amounts to, but its possible that it is a counter argument.
Except for Blizzard, the point is valid.
RE[6]: Interesting. . .
by DrillSgt on Mon 19th Oct 2009 13:29
in reply to "RE[5]: Interesting. . ."
Member since:2005-12-02
Except....read Blizzard. It is possible that under Blizzard, to break a EULA deprives you of permission to make any copies, including those necessary to run the system, ie the copies into memory. I am not sure of what exactly Blizzard amounts to, but its possible that it is a counter argument.
Except for Blizzard, the point is valid.
Except for Blizzard, the point is valid.
The Blizzard case in no way would stop you from copying the program into memory in order to run it. It will however prevent the use of Bots in WoW. I really do not see how that case can be relevant to this one at all. With lawyers though anything is possible I guess. Copyright law invalidates any clause in a EULA that would indicate that you could not run the program.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-12-02
To this case the only one of these that would matter is Quo. Quo however is doing it differently then Psystar, so you have to keep that in mind.
Psystar is shipping computers pre-installed with OS X, and they have an image they use to actually install OS X on the machines with. They already have the copies of OS X on hand to ship to the consumer, and the machines are basically already installed, well before the request from the consumer comes in.
Quo on the other hand, waits for the order and requires the buyer to pre-pay for the system, and then goes and buys the copy of OS X from the Apple store, with the consumers money, and installs it after the fact. By doing that they are acting as an agent of the consumer to install the software, which is totally allowed under copyright law. Different model from the way Psystar is doing it, and one allowed by law, as it is specifically written in the law.
Apple I don't think would have a leg to stand on, even remotely, had Psystar used the same model that Quo is using.