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 392632
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 Thom_Holwerda on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 21:01
in reply to "RE[3]: Not OSnews, PSnews"
Member since:2005-06-29
RE[5]: Not OSnews, PSnews
by mbpark on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 22:23
in reply to "RE[4]: Not OSnews, PSnews"
Member since:2005-11-17
Thom,
I think it's one of the larger US hardware OEMs, specifically Dell. I think Dell because Michael Dell has his own private investment bank (www.msdcapital.com), and the financial facilities (and connections) to effectively prop up a smaller company to take on Apple this way. There are other companies out there that could pull this off, but the actions Psystar is taking suggest that someone who really knows what they are doing with finance is pulling the strings here.
What I think will come of this is that Apple is going to end up adopting some very draconian methods to stop this from happening again. It will waste a lot of time and money, but it will happen.
Member since:
2008-06-24
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