Linked by David Adams on Mon 3rd Oct 2011 17:33 UTC, submitted by Adurbe
Legal Apple has the right to continue restricting its operating systems to its own hardware thanks to a decision handed down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday. Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder wrote in her opinion that Apple's Mac OS X licensing agreement was indeed enforceable against Psystar, which had sold non-Mac computers with Mac OS X installed.
Thread beginning with comment 491718
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: It's their OS
by Alfman on Mon 3rd Oct 2011 22:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's their OS"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

Just to be clear:

You guys believe right now that license restrictions on software today are not enforceable, and that users can legally use software in violation of the publishers terms and conditions? In the USA?

If this is what you guys think, I'm genuinely interested in any explanation you may have as to why so many software publishers get away with having these restrictive licenses in place and sometimes even enforcing them in court?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: It's their OS
by jimmy1971 on Mon 3rd Oct 2011 23:11 in reply to "RE[4]: It's their OS"
jimmy1971 Member since:
2009-08-27

Yes, that's what we believe, and it is also what the courts believe. In the article this story was linked to, the Appeals Court said its decision "won't limit will be hobbyists creating their own hackintoshes at home using their own PCs and OS X installations."

Legal agreements are just scraps of paper -- it's how effectively they can be enforced that matters. Ergo, that blurb in the OS X EULA about only using the software on Apple-labelled is just so much meaningless noise to be tuned out by the end user who has shelled out their hard-earned money.

If Apple doesn't want OS X used on non-Apple hardware, they shouldn't make it available for purchase on its own.

Edited 2011-10-03 23:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: It's their OS
by rhavyn on Mon 3rd Oct 2011 23:22 in reply to "RE[5]: It's their OS"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

Legal agreements are just scraps of paper -- it's how effectively they can be enforced that matters. Ergo, that blurb in the OS X EULA about only using the software on Apple-labelled is just so much meaningless noise to be tuned out by the end user who has shelled out their hard-earned money.


From the Appeals Court:

"Psystar’s principal argument on appeal is that the district court should have held that the license agreement is an unlawful attempt to extend copyright protection to products that are not copyrightable. The heart of Psystar’s argument is that the Copyright Act affords Apple protection only against unauthorized copying and distribution of the operating software, but not on its use once it is purchased."

Then later:

"Since Psystar has failed to demonstrate that Apple has misused its copyright in Mac OS X, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Psystar’s copyright misuse defense."

So there you have it, EULA's are legally enforceable.

Reply Parent Score: 2