Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Possibly. The EULA portion of the suit might have turned out differently, and maybe Apple would not have got the summary judgement on that particular point. Note however that several major issues remain for trial, the ones that seem the most significant and damning to Psystar, including trademark infringement and dilution. Keep in mind that Psystar's main problem here is their argument that they have the right make and sell Macintosh computers, with no other justification than it's possible for them to do so. EULA or no EULA, they would still face that huge issue. It's this trading on Apple's IP that makes the case against them, a case it's much harder to bring against an individual doing a similar thing for their own use.
Excellent point. That is where I thought they would lose all along. Their public rhetoric never really matched what they were actually doing. The analogy to a car company telling you what roads you could drive on or what brand of gas to use was put forth by their owner. That doesn't hold up though, because they were basically putting new interior in the car and calling it their own brand.
Originally Posted by oxygenhose
You're not allowed to do certain modifications to firearms that you own as well.
That's a safety issue. Totally different.
In addition: Cars, cable/satellite box or modem, the electric meter on the side off your hut, inside your own body, etc.
Cars: Any regulations are due to safety concerns. Honda doesn't make me use Honda Gas or Honda Floor Mats by law.
Cable/Sat/Modem: Again, a safety issue for the most part. I can't sell the mods as my own.
Electric meter: Well duh. That's called theft.
Body: What the fuck are you talking about?
In a lot of places you're also not allowed to put things into other things you own, like livestock.
I don't even want to think about what you mean by that.
You're also not allowed to modify movies, songs, book, or tv shows - while you may be sold a license to view or use the medium, you are not allowed to screw with someone else's hard work and creativity. That constitutes a malicious act, intent on damage to the work and owner.
False. It's not illegal for me to modify a movie for my own use. It's not illegal for a television network to edit films for content and time. As a music teacher, it's not even for me to modify a piece of choir music or a script to fit my performing group. Now, I can't take that modification and sell the "new" work as my own. You're confusing rules on things like copying commercial DVDs...that is another animal.