Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
There is lots of vagueness here, that Apple should have cleared up a long time ago. Like the agreement should be on the outside
of the box, not a click-through.
the courts currently say otherwise. they say the clickthrough is fine, particularly when you provide a copy elsewhere (like on Apple's website).
It's also the case that it should be clearly labelled as an upgrade product instead of implying that it's the same as buying a box of Windows.
but it isn't an upgrade. an upgrade implies that every time I want to install Y, I must first install X. that isn't the case. When I bought my computer it had tiger on it. when leopard came out, I backed up my data, completely erased my drive and installed Leopard off the disk I bought. because it was a full product. with an upgrade I would have first had to reinstall Tiger.
It's even a bit vague as to whether it would be legal as you say, to sell a computer with a copy of OS-X in the box and let the end user install it,
if the product installs without the use of anything to 'break' built in copyright protections sure. but this is not the case with Psystar. even if they didn't install OSX they provided the means to break the protection system.
This is kind of like buying a movie and changing the titles on it, or some of the scenes and re-selling it as the same thing against the wishes of the studio that holds the copyright.
something that was actually tried by one of those militant parent groups and they were totally sued and totally lost.
Even then, as long as they didn't re-sell it, it would be legal.
wrong. even making a hackintosh for free for yourself or someone else is illegal. the only difference is that if you kept your mouth shut, no one would know and you wouldn't be caught.
Or if they changed a significant amount of it, and called it art or satire, "fair use" would kick in (at least in civilised countries), because it wouldn't be a rip-off so much as it would be a "commentary" on the original.
again wrong (it's great having lawyers in the family). commentary doesn't count when it comes to changing software.
commentary is more akin to printing shots of software for a review or a text, printing a photograph or a a photo of a work of art for critical review or quoting the text of Hamlet for that term paper you wrote in the 12th grade.
Sadly, Psystar is not only re-selling the product after changing it, they are re-selling it as "Mac OS-X"
now that you are correct about. they did indeed add unauthorized use of trademarked names and symbols to their issues.
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson
in all honesty I suspect if they had ignored them, they would be out of business by now, but I am concerned about the creeping erosion of consumer rights.
lets say that Apple did see Psystar as some nerd in his basement, pissant, blah blah. a tiny little fire on some rocks that would run out of fuel and burn itself out. so they ignore them. let them do their thing.
Psystar would burn out and it's over right.
by not doing anything the next company with a lot more resources figures that Apple doesn't care. So they go for it. They start building and selling Hackintosh machines. and they go huge. Now Apple has a problem. they have a bigger monster to kill. Maybe even more than one.
so they want to nip it in the bud. they tell Psystar to cut it out. only Psystar is too stupid to back down when the only possibility solid argument (anti-trust) is shot down by the courts saying there's no such thing as a Macintosh Market. the market is Personal Computer Systems and owing to Apple being but a tiny drop in the pond they can do whatever they want and it's not abusive or anti-trust. Psystar has bitten down on Apple's leg and is refusing to let go. and Apple has little choice but to fight back, in part because it could lead to invalidating every possible argument next, and perhaps bigger dog, might have tried to use.