Linked by David Adams on Mon 3rd Oct 2011 17:33 UTC, submitted by Adurbe
Thread beginning with comment 491733
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.
jimmy1971,
"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.)"
I don't really think the judge made a ruling on end-user rights one way or the other in this case, which was specifically about psystar. Now you could interpret the absence of an official court judgement against end-user installations as meaning the courts have sided with end users. However as far as I can tell this is untested territory, and I'm not convinced that apple couldn't win a court case against hackintosh users if it wanted to.




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