Originally Posted by piot
Psystar doesn't buy OS X. They buy a licence to use OS X. Car analogies are crap. Fact.
Psystar says that they go to the local Apple store and buy the OS at retail. That's their statement.
That also means that they aren't a licensed retailer or OEM.[/QUOTE]
Whatever. I know what EULA's are, and regardless of recent legal rulings, I think the fact that I can be told where to install software I purchased is horse shit. Now, once I start selling it as part of something else...that's different.
This has nothing to do with anything. We're talking about copyrighted software, and the law is very clear here. I'm not sure your brother is an expert on copyright if he's going in for patent law, as they are quite distinct. My wife is an attorney, and has dealt with copyright and trademark law for over 25 years. She thinks, and I agree, based on my own business experience with this over several decades, that Apple is following the law as it is understood.
I just mentioned him because he's a lot closer to being qualified on the topic than I am.
If, somehow, the judge interprets the law differently to what has been understood up until now, then after all the appeals, it may change. But so far, this is very different than buying a car, and putting a different engine inside, or telling you which roads to travel on. Neither has anything to do with copyright, or any of the other issues involved in this case..
The recent legal ruling means that in the eyes of the law, you're correct. That said, the fact that Apple can tell me not to install a purchased copy on my own personal Intel machine is ludicrous. The difference here is that Psystar is modifying the product and then selling it.
So you are telling us that you know enough programming that you've gone through all of Apple's code, and can state that Apple doesn't use any code that would constitute encryption, or equivalent technology? If so, please show us why.
Obviously I have not been through the code. Even if I had, the standard for proving that one circumvented copyright protection is not necessarily what you claim it is above. Frankly, I don't know the standard, legally speaking.
It isn't just that Psystar is "selling" Apple's software, it how they're selling it and for what purpose.
It's both. You can't just sell Apple's software at retail w/o permission. Correct?
Violating copyright and the DMCA are both illegal. The difference is that Psystar's use is criminal, and individual users is civil.
1. Really? No shit.
2. You have no idea what you're talking about here. Their actions are not "criminal" in any sense. It's a CIVIL lawsuit.
Any penalties would be civil
Either way, I'm pretty sure their EULA prohibits one using OS X on a non-Apple branded product, whether it's what Psystar did, or whether it's you sitting in your bedroom installing it on a $399 PC.