Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 18:08 UTC, submitted by JayDee
Hardware, Embedded Systems As if selling non-Apple labelled computers with Mac OS X pre-installed and licensing the technology to do so to third parties wasn't enough, Psystar has now moved ahead and has started offering its Rebel EFI package for everyone to buy and use. It makes it possible for just about anyone to install Mac OS X on a non-Apple labelled computer.
Thread beginning with comment 390758
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Failing or choosing not to?
by mrhasbean on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 23:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open/Free Source"
Member since:

No respect? They are buying legal copies of Mac OS X, and they then resell those to their customers. I'm failing to see the not respecting part here.

For starters your summary of what they are doing is incorrect. They are indeed "buying legal copies of Mac OS X" and then yes they also "resell those to their customers", but it's the bit in the middle that you CHOOSE to overlook.

Maybe in Pixicornland where you reside most of the time Thom you can claim that "I didn't sign anything therefore that agreement that I clicked the AGREE button for is invalid" but in the real world those sorts of agreements are presented all the time, and people opt in to agreements like that millions of times every single day. They are the base on which a significant portion of online business is conducted.

It just so happens that Apple's agreement contains a clause that says the product can only be installed on an Apple branded machine. Now unless that clause is successfully challenged it is part of a contract that Pystar (and anybody else) agrees to whenever they install OSX on a machine. So at that point, if they proceed, they are immediately in breach of civil contract law if the machine they are installing on isn't an Apple branded machine.

Breaching a contract that you have agreed to, just because you don't like one of the clauses, without successfully challenging that clause, is the height of disrespect, whether you choose to see it or not...

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE: Failing or choosing not to?
by haydenm on Sun 25th Oct 2009 05:05 in reply to "Failing or choosing not to?"
haydenm Member since:

Isn't this what the Apple/Psystar case is trying to resolve?

Right now everyone has their own opinion or interpretation of this area of law, when and only when we see the verdict we can start pointing fingers and saying "you were wrong mrhasbeen."

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Failing or choosing not to?
by mat69 on Mon 26th Oct 2009 18:12 in reply to "Failing or choosing not to?"
mat69 Member since:

Any written contract is based on that people can read and agree on it _before_ buying something. Just calling something "contract" does not make it a contract.

Lately I see messages like "When buying this you agree on the license on the CD in the box." and that is plain rubbish and void, at least where I live.

If you were presnted with the license beforehand it would be different, yet that does not mean that the restrictions imposed would hold (depending on the country in fact).

The above is roughly valid (I'm not a lawyer) for consumers where I live, companies aren't guareded that much.

Reply Parent Score: 2