Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 10:13 UTC
While the Apple v. Psystar case is currently on hold until the hearing regarding the motions for a summary judgement takes place (November 12) the Psystar v. Apple case (still with me?) is only just beginning. Psystar has amended its original complaint in this second lawsuit, asking the judge to order Apple to cease calling Psystar's business "illegal", claiming it hurts the clone maker financially.
Thread beginning with comment 392627
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[4]: Not OSnews, PSnews
by DrillSgt on Wed 4th Nov 2009 01:07
in reply to "RE[3]: Not OSnews, PSnews"
Member since:2005-12-02
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
RE[5]: Not OSnews, PSnews
by BallmerKnowsBest on Wed 4th Nov 2009 03:53
in reply to "RE[4]: Not OSnews, PSnews"
Member since:2008-06-02
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.
No, the only reason that Apple hasn't gone after individual hobbyists is because they've seen all the wonderful success the RIAA has had from suing grannies and teenagers. And by "success" I mean "complete and utter PR suicide."
To reiterate, as a *consumer* I am allowed by US Copyright law to make a hackintosh if I so desire.
Funny, I would think that an END USER License Agreement would be more applicable to you (the END USER) than it would be to a reseller like Psystar.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-02-15
... 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.