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 491785
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: It's their OS
by jimmy1971 on Tue 4th Oct 2011 16:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's their OS"
jimmy1971
Member since:
2009-08-27

Blah, blah, blah.

I don't use OS X, but if I did PURCHASE the DVD I would use/install it the same manner as I use a book. Just because some judge has sided with the party with drastically-deeper pockets doesn't mean it's settled.

Further to the book comparison...if I purchased a book and it came with a scrap of paper saying I could only read it under a light approved by the publisher, I would go ahead and read it under any damn light I wish. If the publisher (or Apple, in this case) wishes to contest one's use of their product, they're going to have to take them to court and risk a legal crusade, along with any bad publicity to go with it. The "cool" of the Apple logo has gone unquestioned long enough.


"As we noted in 2009, when Apple won its first round against Psystar, the decision will certainly limit companies that try to make a commercial business out of re-selling Apple's software with unauthorized hardware. What it won't limit will be hobbyists creating their own hackintoshes at home using their own PCs and OS X installations. In fact, the commercial industry has largely moved on already by selling tools to those at-home hackers (instead of the software and computers themselves), making enforcement of Apple's licensing agreement effectively moot for those users." --Jacqui Cheng, arstechnica.com

"One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law." --Martin Luther King, Jr.

"The difference between a criminal and an outlaw is that while criminals frequently are victims, outlaws never are. Indeed, the first step toward becoming a true outlaw is the refusal to be victimized.
All people who live subject to other people's laws are victims. People who break laws out of greed, frustration, or vengeance are victims. People who overturn laws in order to replace them with their own laws are victims. (I am speaking here of revolutionaries.) We outlaws, however, live beyond the law. We don't merely live beyond the letter of the law--many businessmen, most politicians, and all cops do that--we live beyond the spirit of the law. In a sense, then, we live beyond society. Have we a common goal, that goal is to turn the tables on the nature of society. When we succeed, we raise the exhilaration content of the universe. We even raise it a little bit when we fail."
-- from Still Life With Woodpecker by Tom Robbins

Edited 2011-10-04 16:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: It's their OS
by rhavyn on Tue 4th Oct 2011 16:27 in reply to "RE[3]: It's their OS"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

Blah, blah, blah.

I don't use OS X, but if I did PURCHASE the DVD I would use/install it the same manner as I use a book. Just because some judge has sided with the party with drastically-deeper pockets doesn't mean it's settled.


Sorry, this isn't some judge, this is a 9th Circuit Appeals Court judge. That means in the western United States this is the law. Unless someone appeals it to the Supreme Court of the United States, there is no higher judge that can look at this. It doesn't get much simpler than this, EULAs are valid. The Supreme Court is not going to overturn this ruling. Read the judgement, it explains in detail why EULAs are valid in the Unite States.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: It's their OS
by jimmy1971 on Tue 4th Oct 2011 16:47 in reply to "RE[4]: It's their OS"
jimmy1971 Member since:
2009-08-27

For starters, I don't live in the United States, so yes...it's just some judge to me. But even if I did, I would, on a matter of principle, install OS X on a non-Apple computer and then affix a sticker with "Apple" on it, so as not to violate the EULA. The law is the law, afterall. ;)



2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: It's their OS
by Alfman on Tue 4th Oct 2011 16:59 in reply to "RE[3]: It's their OS"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

jummy1971,

"Further to the book comparison...if I purchased a book and it came with a scrap of paper saying I could only read it under a light approved by the publisher, I would go ahead and read it under any damn light I wish."


Haha, sounds like you guys are talking over one another. You are not completely denying that they may be enforceable, it's simply that you don't care at all whether they are. You'd rather live by your own moral code than by laws set down in favor of wealthy corporate interests. At a moral level, that's perfectly defensible. Rhavyn is just saying that, as much as it may suck for us, anti-consumer corporate contracts are enforceable. As far as I can tell he hasn't provided an opinion on whether he believes they should be.

Edited 2011-10-04 17:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: It's their OS
by jimmy1971 on Tue 4th Oct 2011 17:24 in reply to "RE[4]: It's their OS"
jimmy1971 Member since:
2009-08-27

Haha, sounds like you guys are talking over one another. You are not completely denying that they may be enforceable, but that you don't care at all whether they are. You'd rather live by your own moral code than by laws set down in favor of wealthy corporate interests.


I am not completely denying that you are wrong. ;)

In practice, I take the Richard Stallman route and steer clear of proprietary software altogether. (I have a moral right to examine source code, as well as modify and redistribute it, and I enforce this moral right through my choice of software.) Now that I've spent a few years in the free software "land of Do-As-You-Please", I have no desire to reside anywhere else. If I suddenly had no choice but to use proprietary software, I would choose to stop using computers.

Having said all that, my point is that the EULAs can only be directly enforced by Apple to the degree to which they have the time and resources to do so, and to the extent they can detect violations. God help us if we ever live in a world where the police patrol our neighborhoods in search of hackentoshes.

("Forget the hostage situation, Bob...we have a EULA violation!!!")

But yeah...my sympathy is with those who assert their moral rights over the legal ones that society's trust fund babies are able to score for themselves with daddy's money.

Reply Parent Score: 1