OSNews

... except for the "tiny itsy bitsy" fact that is not what Pysstar is going to court to.

I don't quite care what their motivations are, I don't like them anyway. But the point is, EULAs and copyright law do come up very important in the Psystar vs Apple case and either outcome will have very big repercussions regarding consumer rights.

People should have the right to run whatever they want in the computers they own, that is probably a no-brainer argument.

A lot of people disagree with that notion, including Apple.

Trying to piggyback Pysstar as a champion of freedom is simply hubris.

You're assuming things and not reading enough. I am not trying to pose Psystar as any kind of a champion for Free Software or consumer rights. It just happens that this case does touch those subjects very broadly, that's why it is so important.

For all I care Psystar should win this case but have to close their doors for some other unrelated reason.

Apple may disagree with it, but there is nothing they can do about it. If an *individual* makes a hackintosh for their own use, that would be legal to do under copyright. That is why Apple has not gone after the hpbbyists.



This case has nothing to do with consumer rights. Psystar by definition is not a consumer. Copyright law declares a consumer as someone who purchases goods and services without the intent to resell. Psystar has every intention of reselling, which makes all the difference in the world.

To reiterate, as a *consumer* I am allowed by US Copyright law to make a hackintosh if I so desire. What I cannot do is build it with the intention of selling it according to US copyright law. Now, if Psystar took the order, got the money from the customer, and then purchased the copy of OS X and installed as a consumers agent, the original lawsuit from Apple would not be where it is and Psystar would be in the clear.

Except that there are already laws on the books that allow someone to resell a product they purchased, except when it is otherwise controlled (like arms, drugs, and the like). Software sales are not controlled. This is no different than me buying a CD and reselling it to someone else (as far as resale goes), which is perfectly legal for me to do under current law (without getting permission from the place of purchase or the manufacturer).

The real question the case will decide is whether it is legal for Pystar to install OSX prior to resale. In other words, by installing it first are they attempting to sell two copies (original disks and installed copy) while only paying for one (the original disks)?. As others have stated endlessly, violating an EULA or SLA is not a legal issue.

If Pystar loses then the decision could effectively limit (or possibly eliminate) companies that purchase and resell (or even donate) used computers, because they could be forced to remove or re-license any installed software. Unintended consequence? Maybe.

Edited 2009-11-03 20:57 UTC

Oh that is certainly not unintended. Apple fanatics often claim that Microsoft is behind Psystar, but if there is one company that would benefit from an Apple win - it's Redmond.