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 392726
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[7]: Not OSnews, PSnews
by BallmerKnowsBest on Wed 4th Nov 2009 17:14
in reply to "RE[6]: Not OSnews, PSnews"
Member since:2008-06-02
If you note those cases of Granny's and Teens, they were all uploading.
Actually, in many cases, they just sued the owner of the computer without making any effort to determine if the computer is used by other people and if one of them could have done the actual uploading. And that's when they weren't trying to sue dead people, or hundreds of John Does en masse.
Psystar, as I noted, is not considered a consumer and has different copyright rules to follow, namely that someone not a consumer is not allowed to make the backup copies or however you want to call it.
If so, there's an extraordinarily easy work-around: Psystar could simply hold off installing OS X on a PC until after it's been purchased, which would let them argue that they're just acting on behalf of the customer. If it's legal for support techs to install software for customers, then there should be no problem with Psystar installing OS X on for their customers.
Or if that doesn't fly, they could just ship the hardware and the OS X DVD together, along with a printout of some basic installation instructions. The OS X install is so dumbed-down that a gerbil could probably manage it.
RE[8]: Not OSnews, PSnews
by DrillSgt on Wed 4th Nov 2009 18:07
in reply to "RE[7]: Not OSnews, PSnews"
Member since:2005-12-02
Actually, in many cases, they just sued the owner of the computer without making any effort to determine if the computer is used by other people and if one of them could have done the actual uploading. And that's when they weren't trying to sue dead people, or hundreds of John Does en masse.
Very true.
If so, there's an extraordinarily easy work-around: Psystar could simply hold off installing OS X on a PC until after it's been purchased, which would let them argue that they're just acting on behalf of the customer. If it's legal for support techs to install software for customers, then there should be no problem with Psystar installing OS X on for their customers.
Or if that doesn't fly, they could just ship the hardware and the OS X DVD together, along with a printout of some basic installation instructions. The OS X install is so dumbed-down that a gerbil could probably manage it.
Or if that doesn't fly, they could just ship the hardware and the OS X DVD together, along with a printout of some basic installation instructions. The OS X install is so dumbed-down that a gerbil could probably manage it.
That is correct. In actuality, that is how the hackintosh maker in California is doing it. I forget the name.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-12-02
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." "
The RIAA went after people for uploading the music, no matter who did it. I don't agree with it but the law again was on their side. You should check the law out..you can legally download all the music you want. It is the sharing that is against the law. So basically, you are not allowed to upload anything. If you note those cases of Granny's and Teens, they were all uploading. Note that I am not saying I agree with it..just how the law reads that deals with it.
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. [/q]
It would be. That is why I am betting that part of the EULA loses in this battle. Copyright law is on the side of consumers that make hackintoshes, as under fair use I can do whatever I want to with the software I purchased like using the media as a coaster, or installing the software on my dog's collar. Psystar, as I noted, is not considered a consumer and has different copyright rules to follow, namely that someone not a consumer is not allowed to make the backup copies or however you want to call it. That is the key difference in this case, and the reason why Apple may have a shot at winning it.
I hope they don't. All I am pointing out is what the existing copyright law states, not on whether a EULA is valid or not. I will leave the EULA's to the courts to decide. So far in the US, some parts of some EULA's have been deemed valid, while others have been found not valid.