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 392855
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.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2007-09-06
Counterfit of a brand clearly infringes on trademark law. EULA removed rights given by copyright law. It is also applied after purchase; "oh, by the way, now that you bought our product, you can only use it like this..."
This is also not a third party duplicating another companies product. A thirdparty is legally buying the retail product and providing it as an option. They are not slapping a CK label on knockoff geans but instead providing there own geans with the same zippers that CK uses and out of the inventory CK chooses to sell separate from the pants. (everybody needs replacement zippers from time to time)
Psystar may not be squarely in the right. They could have spent that money contributing the less consumer hostile software. However, the fight they've started has consequences far beyond Apple OEM vs a reseller.