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 392818
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[5]: Not OSnews, PSnews
by alcibiades on Thu 5th Nov 2009 07:28
in reply to "RE[4]: Not OSnews, PSnews"
Member since:2005-10-12
Except that has been going on for years with IE only sites.
No, that is quite different. That is just sites that do not as a technical matter display properly in Firefox (for instance).
What you are all voting for here is the ability of a site to display perfectly well on a Mac running Safari, or a piece of software to run perfectly well on a Mac in Wine, but the author, in a fit of spite, specifies in the EULA that no-one may use this from a Mac. And it then becomes a copyright violation to do so. Or at the very least, you can be sued for doing it or encouraging people to do it or enabling them to do it.
What you're trying to do, in order to allow Apple to discriminate against some makers of X86 hardware, is to allow the whole world to discriminate against Apple's own hardware. It cuts both ways. Now, do you really want that?
Might it not be a lot safer, as well as socially better, rather than try to obtain that power for all vendors of software, to take a different tack. Just stop selling OSX in a form which is able to be installed on other people's hardware?
Member since:
2006-12-15
So there will be nothing to stop anyone selling software which can be installed on Macs, perhaps under Wine, or in a VM, but simply specifying in the EULA that it may be installed in any machine as long as that machine is not a Mac. Or that, if it is server software, it is unlawful to allow Macs to connect to it.
So, is that what you all really want? Do you really want to hand the world and his brother that sort of power over your favorite platform?
Excelent point of view. If Apple has the right to do it, then everybody has the right to do it.
In that case, I even have the right to implement a web site and to state explicitly in an EULA that is not permited to see that website from Mac Os X operating system.
How will Apple behave if Google, Youtube, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter expressly forbid Mac Os X and Safari users to access those sites? It can be a matter of EULA. "
Except that has been going on for years with IE only sites.