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 491721
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: It's their OS
by jimmy1971 on Mon 3rd Oct 2011 23:11 UTC 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

RE[7]: It's their OS
by jimmy1971 on Tue 4th Oct 2011 00:00 in reply to "RE[6]: It's their OS"
jimmy1971 Member since:
2009-08-27

No, I never said EULA's are not legally-enforceable. I said -- as you quoted me -- that it's how effectively they can be enforced that matters.

As I mentioned earlier, the decision of the courts doesn't restrict individual users from putting OS X on non-Apple hardware. (Assuming the author of the arstechnica.com writer has it right.)

So...it is absolutist (or at least over-simplified) to say that EULA's are legally-enforceable. Dig it: companies are free to write EULAs, users are free to disobey said EULA's, and companies are then in turn free to test the EULA's in court.

May the most expensive legal team win.

Edited 2011-10-04 00:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1