Psystar sell you a vanilla PC - which will accept a boxed (unpatched) copy of OS X.
The PC firmware does not violate any copyrights.
The hardware will also run Windows and Linux.
What would Apple do then?
IF they got an EFiX or EFiX-like chip that will allow OS X to be installed without using a hacked copy of OS X that is illegally DLed off the internet, and if they don't do the installation themselves since they aren't an authorized reseller of Macs, then Apple would have no legal recourse.
well..... according to the website, the word upgrade is not mentioned.
The rights granted herein are limited to Apple's and its licensors' intellectual property rights in the Apple Software as licensed hereunder and do not include any other patents or intellectual property rights. You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple's licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself. The terms of this License will govern any software upgrades provided by Apple that replace and/or supplement the original Apple Software product, unless such upgrade is accompanied by a separate license in which case the terms of that license will govern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
Anyone rembember this classic Apple EULA?
A lot of what is in EULAs is unenforceable and some of it is illegal.
I can accept Apple should not offer technical support for OS X on a Hackintosh. - But if Apple wants to tie its hardware and its software together, it needs to change OS X to an embedded OS. Selling boxed copies invites this kind of challenge.
Can you be more specific as to exactly which law Apple is violating?
That's the odd thing about software licensing. If IBM for example came over to your place of business and required your signature on a contract before they installed your software then that would be a binding legal contract. But if you went to the Apple store and bought a packaged OS product, brought home and somehow installed it on a generic PC, you simply clicked on a button that said 'I Accept'.
Unless you actually signed a contract it isn't really legally binding. I know people who throw jury duty letters in the trash. If the court really wanted to force you to show up for jury duty they would have to get the sheriff to serve it to you and you would sign for it.
Tell that to Blizzard. As far as I know Blizzard has won a couple of courts cases citing that the use of the "click" agreement in software can be upheld in a court of law.
This doesn't mean that everything in an EULA can be enforced. But it shows that the method on which the EULA is agreed upon can be considered binding in a court of law.
Psystar sell you a vanilla PC - which will accept a boxed (unpatched) copy of OS X.
The PC firmware does not violate any copyrights.
The hardware will also run Windows and Linux.
What would Apple do then?
C.
Apple would sue them.
Apple does not have to put in place any hardware or software barrier that prevent their OSX from loading on to a PC. It only has to state that OSX may only be loaded on a Mac in the EULA. Just because there may not be a barrier that prevents OSX from loading on to a PC doesn't mean that it may be legal to do so. Just agreeing that you will not load OSX on a non Apple computer when you accepted the license is enough for Apple to go after anyone that breaks this agreement. Apple will most likely will not go after the end user because of "fair use". But for sure Apple will go after a company that is profitting by encouraging consumers to violate Apple's copyright and EULA. It's like how the RIAA went after Napster and not the actual end users.
Apple can also sue Psystar for the illegal use of their tradmark and copyrighted material. Psystar is using OSX to market their non-Apple brand PC's. Psystar would need a license from Apple in order to use any of their trademark or copyrighted material as a form of marketing tool. Otherwise consumers would think that Apple is endorsing the products that Psystar sells.
I am not sure why you are bringing race into the discussion. That alleged observation isn't remotely relevant. For what it is worth (since I love discussing the Constitution), unlike with Copyrights and Patents, there is no specific Clause in the Constitution that prevents Apple from selling it's software to anyone it selectively chooses, including exclusions based on race. You see, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause only applies to governments, not companies. Under the Commerce Clause, however, Congress has passed legislation (that the Supreme Court has upheld) that prohibits companies from denying consumers products based on race because doing so would be too disruptive to the flow of interstate commerce. Companies discriminate on other fronts, such as gender, all the time. Congress could at any time revoke this legislation, and it would be perfectly Constitutional for Apple to exercise it's copyright to deny the sale of it's software to anyone it chooses, including the exclusion of a particular race.
As far as tying goes, that is a very nuanced concept. Tying generally relates to stringing together the required use of one product to the the sale of an unrelated product. For instance, Microsoft required PC manufacturers purchasing it's Operating System Windows to also install the totally unrelated Application Internet Explorer. That is if the manufacturer wanted competitive pricing for Windows. We all know how that turned out.
Apple's operating system is no more a separate product from a Macintosh then the operating system is on an X-Box or the motor is on my electric razor. They individual parts make up one product. Apple does not make available it's Operating System for sale as a separate product for anyone to buy. It, however, does sell an upgrade for people who already own a Macintosh with an older version of the software installed. This is opposed to Microsoft that sells both full installs and upgrade versions of it's OS. It is also interesting to note that Microsoft charges about the same price that Apple does for an upgrade and double that for a full install.
With that said, Pystar's lawyers will likely make the tying argument. They are after all lawyers being paid to defend a Pystar. They have to say something. If they are lucky that can confuse an over worked District Court Judge. That is highly unlikely, but certainly possible. There is no way Pystar would survive an Appeal. Ultimately, it really doesn't matter. If Pystar prevails, Apple can shut Pystar down by offering two versions of it's software. The full install version will cost more then a Mac. If Pystar wants to install OSX, they will have to purchase the full install version at Apple's demanded price. Unless, we are changing from a free market system, a companies freedom to name it's price will not be changing anytime soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by synp
Not quite. Apple cannot decide that it doesn't allow black people to use its software. Similarly, it can't decide that Jews are prohibited from installing Mac OS X.
If Apple had decided that Mac OS X is only to be used inside the company, that's their right. But they have decided to sell it. The fact that they sell it bundled with hardware, and the price is "included" in the bundle does not mean that they're not selling it. by deciding to sell a license to everyone, Apple has given up some control, and they may not refuse to sell to anyone without a very good reason. Not having bought a Mac may not be such a good reason.
You might want to look up the term Tying in wikipedia. It's not always legal.
Under the traditional principles of contract, you are correct. However, more and more courts are holding shrink wrap agreements as legally binding contracts. The reasoning seems to be that once you get home and have the opportunity to actually read the contract, most shrink wrap licenses give you a certain amount of time to return the software. So, most courts are going to find that since you bought the software, had an opportunity to read the license, failed to return the software, you are bound by any legally enforceable terms.
As far as reselling software goes, sure you can resell it. However, the buyer is going to be bound by the original licensing terms. For instance, if you go buy an AC DC CD and then sell it to me. I can't then go and play that CD on a radio station. This is because the original license didn't allow the commercial use of the CD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
That's the odd thing about software licensing. If IBM for example came over to your place of business and required your signature on a contract before they installed your software then that would be a binding legal contract. But if you went to the Apple store and bought a packaged OS product, brought home and somehow installed it on a generic PC, you simply clicked on a button that said 'I Accept'.
Unless you actually signed a contract it isn't really legally binding. I know people who throw jury duty letters in the trash. If the court really wanted to force you to show up for jury duty they would have to get the sheriff to serve it to you and you would sign for it.
I don't think it is morally right to steal software or violate license agreements but whether or not it is enforceable is the question. Theoretically I could go to the Apple store and buy an upgrade disk and resell it to anyone for any price I want. What the buyer does with it is up to them. However Psystar is hacking the code and then reselling it as Apple's product which is clearly illegal.
I am not sure why you are bringing race into the discussion. That alleged observation isn't remotely relevant. For what it is worth (since I love discussing the Constitution), unlike with Copyrights and Patents, there is no specific Clause in the Constitution that prevents Apple from selling it's software to anyone it selectively chooses, including exclusions based on race. You see, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause only applies to governments, not companies. Under the Commerce Clause, however, Congress has passed legislation (that the Supreme Court has upheld) that prohibits companies from denying consumers products based on race because doing so would be too disruptive to the flow of interstate commerce. Companies discriminate on other fronts, such as gender, all the time. Congress could at any time revoke this legislation, and it would be perfectly Constitutional for Apple to exercise it's copyright to deny the sale of it's software to anyone it chooses, including the exclusion of a particular race.
I brought race into the discussion to show that the argument that Apple can sell or refuse to sell to whomever they want is false.
Quote:
As far as tying goes, that is a very nuanced concept. Tying generally relates to stringing together the required use of one product to the the sale of an unrelated product. For instance, Microsoft required PC manufacturers purchasing it's Operating System Windows to also install the totally unrelated Application Internet Explorer. That is if the manufacturer wanted competitive pricing for Windows. We all know how that turned out.
Tying is a nuanced concept, and a case can easily be made that a Mac is just nice looking generic hardware, while Mac OS is just software for (any) X86. Neither can be said about X-box or your electric razor.
Quote:
With that said, Pystar's lawyers will likely make the tying argument. They are after all lawyers being paid to defend a Pystar. They have to say something. If they are lucky that can confuse an over worked District Court Judge. That is highly unlikely, but certainly possible. There is no way Pystar would survive an Appeal. Ultimately, it really doesn't matter. If Pystar prevails, Apple can shut Pystar down by offering two versions of it's software.
No. If Psystar prevails, Dell and HP will begin making clones.
Quote:
The full install version will cost more then a Mac. If Pystar wants to install OSX, they will have to purchase the full install version at Apple's demanded price. Unless, we are changing from a free market system, a companies freedom to name it's price will not be changing anytime soon.
That is illegal in many countries and some of the states.
Psystar sell you a vanilla PC - which will accept a boxed (unpatched) copy of OS X.
The PC firmware does not violate any copyrights.
The hardware will also run Windows and Linux.
What would Apple do then?
C.
Psystar is already using off-the-shelf equipment being sold on the open market whose specs are all very well known. There is nothing preventing anybody else from bypassing Psystar and buying those components directly from the manufacturer for themselves in a non-infringing manner. In this possible scenario, Psystar's role is redundant and they have no competitive edge over any of the huge variety of established distributors already out there.
The viability of Psystar's business model totally depends on using tactics such as using Apple's trademarks and preinstalling Apple's OS, which has been alleged to infringe on Apple's intellectual property.
Under the traditional principles of contract, you are correct. However, more and more courts are holding shrink wrap agreements as legally binding contracts. The reasoning seems to be that once you get home and have the opportunity to actually read the contract, most shrink wrap licenses give you a certain amount of time to return the software. So, most courts are going to find that since you bought the software, had an opportunity to read the license, failed to return the software, you are bound by any legally enforceable terms.
I guess a judge could rule that way but practically speaking it would be expensive and honestly quite difficult to prove that an individual actually clicked the 'I Accept' button. Retaining experts that can testify that there is no possible method of installing the software without clicking the button is one thing, but, the lack of witnesses, physical evidence and the like is why I don't think there would be much likelihood for an individual being found guilty of copyright infringement. Bringing a case against another corporation is a different story altogether. I'm not familiar with the details of how Psystar installs or hacks the software but there appears to be some gray area there.
I guess a judge could rule that way but practically speaking it would be expensive and honestly quite difficult to prove that an individual actually clicked the 'I Accept' button. Retaining experts that can testify that there is no possible method of installing the software without clicking the button is one thing, but, the lack of witnesses, physical evidence and the like is why I don't think there would be much likelihood for an individual being found guilty of copyright infringement. Bringing a case against another corporation is a different story altogether. I'm not familiar with the details of how Psystar installs or hacks the software but there appears to be some gray area there.
I don't think so, contracts made by clicking on internet sites are legally binding. When you click on "I agree", you have in fact agreed, and that does not require a witness.
It would be the *user* who broke the EULA, not Psystar.
All Apple can do is not extend tech support to the hackintoshes.
C.
The second court case ruling cited above: http://www.yougamers.com/news/19640_...tting_lawsuit/ holds that to be irrelevant. Matter of fact, the defendant that used that argument lost more in the judgement than he made on sales of his illegal software hack.
It probably isn't a clean mapping to the Pystar case, but it doesn't help Pystar one iota to see that argument trashed at a summary judgement before the trial even started.
I brought race into the discussion to show that the argument that Apple can sell or refuse to sell to whomever they want is false.
This is a red herring argument that has nothing to do with Apple selling OS X.
Quote:
Tying is a nuanced concept, and a case can easily be made that a Mac is just nice looking generic hardware, while Mac OS is just software for (any) X86. Neither can be said about X-box or your electric razor.
OS X is proprietary intellectual property developed and supported by Apple. Apple owns OS X and licenses it use under Apple's conditions. You do not own OS X simply because you've bought a boxed copy of it. You have only purchased a license for its use. You are not free to become an OS X resell vendor if Apple does not agree to allow you to. Because Apple owns it.
You guys want to ignore this simple concept. But this is the truth and the law will support it.
This is a red herring argument that has nothing to do with Apple selling OS X.
OS X is proprietary intellectual property developed and supported by Apple. Apple owns OS X and licenses it use under Apple's conditions. You do not own OS X simply because you've bought a boxed copy of it. You have only purchased a license for its use. You are not free to become an OS X resell vendor if Apple does not agree to allow you to. Because Apple owns it.
You guys want to ignore this simple concept. But this is the truth and the law will support it.
To demonstrate this, if you sell your copy of Adobe Photoshop CS 3, Adobe requires that you and the buyer also complete a transfer of license form. If both of the activations have been used prior to the sale, and you don't file the form, Adobe will not grant the new owner any activation numbers, thus the software cannot be activated. Adobe owns the software. If the original buyer uses up both of his activations, he cannot activate the software again unless he gets a new activation number from Adobe. Adobe owns the software, the user has a license to use it. AND, it is a bone of contention among many pro photographers that the limit of two activations doesn't even allow the buyer to make a cloned backup. Adobe owns the software, if you don't like the way they operate, don't buy from them.
I guess a judge could rule that way but practically speaking it would be expensive and honestly quite difficult to prove that an individual actually clicked the 'I Accept' button. Retaining experts that can testify that there is no possible method of installing the software without clicking the button is one thing, but, the lack of witnesses, physical evidence and the like is why I don't think there would be much likelihood for an individual being found guilty of copyright infringement. Bringing a case against another corporation is a different story altogether. I'm not familiar with the details of how Psystar installs or hacks the software but there appears to be some gray area there.
Perhaps your not aware, but several cases have already been litigated. In most, the consumer has lost. If you can't get to the software without opening the shrink-wrap, it will be assumed that you opened it. If you can't install the software without clicking the agree button, it will be assumed that you clicked agree. This might not be true if you don't own the computer the software is installed on, but if you do, the burden will be on you to prove you didn't installed the software there.
Synp you write that charging two different prices for the full install software and upgrade software is illegal in some states? You mean, like states located in the former USSR? In the US it happens all the time. Abobe charges $1, 799 for the full install version of CS4 and $599 for the upgrade version. That is quite a big price difference. I will also point out that for the cost for the full version of CS4 I could almost buy a Macbook Pro. I'd like you to point me to a State where Apple couldn't charge two different prices, like Microsoft by the way does, for it's OS.
Synp you write that charging two different prices for the full install software and upgrade software is illegal in some states? You mean, like states located in the former USSR? In the US it happens all the time. Abobe charges $1, 799 for the full install version of CS4 and $599 for the upgrade version. That is quite a big price difference. I will also point out that for the cost for the full version of CS4 I could almost buy a Macbook Pro. I'd like you to point me to a State where Apple couldn't charge two different prices, like Microsoft by the way does, for it's OS.
Apple already charges two prices. One price for Aperture 2, an another price for the upgrade from Aperture to Aperture 2.
Comments
Imagine this possible scenario:
Psystar sell you a vanilla PC - which will accept a boxed (unpatched) copy of OS X.
The PC firmware does not violate any copyrights.
The hardware will also run Windows and Linux.
What would Apple do then?
IF they got an EFiX or EFiX-like chip that will allow OS X to be installed without using a hacked copy of OS X that is illegally DLed off the internet, and if they don't do the installation themselves since they aren't an authorized reseller of Macs, then Apple would have no legal recourse.
Psystar aren't selling Apple's crap computers, they are selling their own!
More and more people buying Apple's computers would have disagree with you.
well..... according to the website, the word upgrade is not mentioned.
The rights granted herein are limited to Apple's and its licensors' intellectual property rights in the Apple Software as licensed hereunder and do not include any other patents or intellectual property rights. You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple's licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself. The terms of this License will govern any software upgrades provided by Apple that replace and/or supplement the original Apple Software product, unless such upgrade is accompanied by a separate license in which case the terms of that license will govern.
Anyone rembember this classic Apple EULA?
A lot of what is in EULAs is unenforceable and some of it is illegal.
I can accept Apple should not offer technical support for OS X on a Hackintosh. - But if Apple wants to tie its hardware and its software together, it needs to change OS X to an embedded OS. Selling boxed copies invites this kind of challenge.
Can you be more specific as to exactly which law Apple is violating?
That's the odd thing about software licensing. If IBM for example came over to your place of business and required your signature on a contract before they installed your software then that would be a binding legal contract. But if you went to the Apple store and bought a packaged OS product, brought home and somehow installed it on a generic PC, you simply clicked on a button that said 'I Accept'.
Unless you actually signed a contract it isn't really legally binding. I know people who throw jury duty letters in the trash. If the court really wanted to force you to show up for jury duty they would have to get the sheriff to serve it to you and you would sign for it.
Tell that to Blizzard. As far as I know Blizzard has won a couple of courts cases citing that the use of the "click" agreement in software can be upheld in a court of law.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050902-5270.html
http://www.yougamers.com/news/19640_...tting_lawsuit/
http://www.curse.com/articles/blizza...ws/282748.aspx
This doesn't mean that everything in an EULA can be enforced. But it shows that the method on which the EULA is agreed upon can be considered binding in a court of law.
Imagine this possible scenario:
Psystar sell you a vanilla PC - which will accept a boxed (unpatched) copy of OS X.
The PC firmware does not violate any copyrights.
The hardware will also run Windows and Linux.
What would Apple do then?
C.
Apple would sue them.
Apple does not have to put in place any hardware or software barrier that prevent their OSX from loading on to a PC. It only has to state that OSX may only be loaded on a Mac in the EULA. Just because there may not be a barrier that prevents OSX from loading on to a PC doesn't mean that it may be legal to do so. Just agreeing that you will not load OSX on a non Apple computer when you accepted the license is enough for Apple to go after anyone that breaks this agreement. Apple will most likely will not go after the end user because of "fair use". But for sure Apple will go after a company that is profitting by encouraging consumers to violate Apple's copyright and EULA. It's like how the RIAA went after Napster and not the actual end users.
Apple can also sue Psystar for the illegal use of their tradmark and copyrighted material. Psystar is using OSX to market their non-Apple brand PC's. Psystar would need a license from Apple in order to use any of their trademark or copyrighted material as a form of marketing tool. Otherwise consumers would think that Apple is endorsing the products that Psystar sells.
As far as tying goes, that is a very nuanced concept. Tying generally relates to stringing together the required use of one product to the the sale of an unrelated product. For instance, Microsoft required PC manufacturers purchasing it's Operating System Windows to also install the totally unrelated Application Internet Explorer. That is if the manufacturer wanted competitive pricing for Windows. We all know how that turned out.
Apple's operating system is no more a separate product from a Macintosh then the operating system is on an X-Box or the motor is on my electric razor. They individual parts make up one product. Apple does not make available it's Operating System for sale as a separate product for anyone to buy. It, however, does sell an upgrade for people who already own a Macintosh with an older version of the software installed. This is opposed to Microsoft that sells both full installs and upgrade versions of it's OS. It is also interesting to note that Microsoft charges about the same price that Apple does for an upgrade and double that for a full install.
With that said, Pystar's lawyers will likely make the tying argument. They are after all lawyers being paid to defend a Pystar. They have to say something. If they are lucky that can confuse an over worked District Court Judge. That is highly unlikely, but certainly possible. There is no way Pystar would survive an Appeal. Ultimately, it really doesn't matter. If Pystar prevails, Apple can shut Pystar down by offering two versions of it's software. The full install version will cost more then a Mac. If Pystar wants to install OSX, they will have to purchase the full install version at Apple's demanded price. Unless, we are changing from a free market system, a companies freedom to name it's price will not be changing anytime soon.
Not quite. Apple cannot decide that it doesn't allow black people to use its software. Similarly, it can't decide that Jews are prohibited from installing Mac OS X.
If Apple had decided that Mac OS X is only to be used inside the company, that's their right. But they have decided to sell it. The fact that they sell it bundled with hardware, and the price is "included" in the bundle does not mean that they're not selling it. by deciding to sell a license to everyone, Apple has given up some control, and they may not refuse to sell to anyone without a very good reason. Not having bought a Mac may not be such a good reason.
You might want to look up the term Tying in wikipedia. It's not always legal.
As far as reselling software goes, sure you can resell it. However, the buyer is going to be bound by the original licensing terms. For instance, if you go buy an AC DC CD and then sell it to me. I can't then go and play that CD on a radio station. This is because the original license didn't allow the commercial use of the CD.
That's the odd thing about software licensing. If IBM for example came over to your place of business and required your signature on a contract before they installed your software then that would be a binding legal contract. But if you went to the Apple store and bought a packaged OS product, brought home and somehow installed it on a generic PC, you simply clicked on a button that said 'I Accept'.
Unless you actually signed a contract it isn't really legally binding. I know people who throw jury duty letters in the trash. If the court really wanted to force you to show up for jury duty they would have to get the sheriff to serve it to you and you would sign for it.
I don't think it is morally right to steal software or violate license agreements but whether or not it is enforceable is the question. Theoretically I could go to the Apple store and buy an upgrade disk and resell it to anyone for any price I want. What the buyer does with it is up to them. However Psystar is hacking the code and then reselling it as Apple's product which is clearly illegal.
Excellent post.
I am not sure everyone would agree, but thank you!
Apple would sue them.
For what?
It would be the *user* who broke the EULA, not Psystar.
All Apple can do is not extend tech support to the hackintoshes.
C.
I am not sure why you are bringing race into the discussion. That alleged observation isn't remotely relevant. For what it is worth (since I love discussing the Constitution), unlike with Copyrights and Patents, there is no specific Clause in the Constitution that prevents Apple from selling it's software to anyone it selectively chooses, including exclusions based on race. You see, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause only applies to governments, not companies. Under the Commerce Clause, however, Congress has passed legislation (that the Supreme Court has upheld) that prohibits companies from denying consumers products based on race because doing so would be too disruptive to the flow of interstate commerce. Companies discriminate on other fronts, such as gender, all the time. Congress could at any time revoke this legislation, and it would be perfectly Constitutional for Apple to exercise it's copyright to deny the sale of it's software to anyone it chooses, including the exclusion of a particular race.
I brought race into the discussion to show that the argument that Apple can sell or refuse to sell to whomever they want is false.
As far as tying goes, that is a very nuanced concept. Tying generally relates to stringing together the required use of one product to the the sale of an unrelated product. For instance, Microsoft required PC manufacturers purchasing it's Operating System Windows to also install the totally unrelated Application Internet Explorer. That is if the manufacturer wanted competitive pricing for Windows. We all know how that turned out.
Tying is a nuanced concept, and a case can easily be made that a Mac is just nice looking generic hardware, while Mac OS is just software for (any) X86. Neither can be said about X-box or your electric razor.
With that said, Pystar's lawyers will likely make the tying argument. They are after all lawyers being paid to defend a Pystar. They have to say something. If they are lucky that can confuse an over worked District Court Judge. That is highly unlikely, but certainly possible. There is no way Pystar would survive an Appeal. Ultimately, it really doesn't matter. If Pystar prevails, Apple can shut Pystar down by offering two versions of it's software.
No. If Psystar prevails, Dell and HP will begin making clones.
The full install version will cost more then a Mac. If Pystar wants to install OSX, they will have to purchase the full install version at Apple's demanded price. Unless, we are changing from a free market system, a companies freedom to name it's price will not be changing anytime soon.
That is illegal in many countries and some of the states.
Imagine this possible scenario:
Psystar sell you a vanilla PC - which will accept a boxed (unpatched) copy of OS X.
The PC firmware does not violate any copyrights.
The hardware will also run Windows and Linux.
What would Apple do then?
C.
Psystar is already using off-the-shelf equipment being sold on the open market whose specs are all very well known. There is nothing preventing anybody else from bypassing Psystar and buying those components directly from the manufacturer for themselves in a non-infringing manner. In this possible scenario, Psystar's role is redundant and they have no competitive edge over any of the huge variety of established distributors already out there.
The viability of Psystar's business model totally depends on using tactics such as using Apple's trademarks and preinstalling Apple's OS, which has been alleged to infringe on Apple's intellectual property.
Under the traditional principles of contract, you are correct. However, more and more courts are holding shrink wrap agreements as legally binding contracts. The reasoning seems to be that once you get home and have the opportunity to actually read the contract, most shrink wrap licenses give you a certain amount of time to return the software. So, most courts are going to find that since you bought the software, had an opportunity to read the license, failed to return the software, you are bound by any legally enforceable terms.
I guess a judge could rule that way but practically speaking it would be expensive and honestly quite difficult to prove that an individual actually clicked the 'I Accept' button. Retaining experts that can testify that there is no possible method of installing the software without clicking the button is one thing, but, the lack of witnesses, physical evidence and the like is why I don't think there would be much likelihood for an individual being found guilty of copyright infringement. Bringing a case against another corporation is a different story altogether. I'm not familiar with the details of how Psystar installs or hacks the software but there appears to be some gray area there.
I guess a judge could rule that way but practically speaking it would be expensive and honestly quite difficult to prove that an individual actually clicked the 'I Accept' button. Retaining experts that can testify that there is no possible method of installing the software without clicking the button is one thing, but, the lack of witnesses, physical evidence and the like is why I don't think there would be much likelihood for an individual being found guilty of copyright infringement. Bringing a case against another corporation is a different story altogether. I'm not familiar with the details of how Psystar installs or hacks the software but there appears to be some gray area there.
I don't think so, contracts made by clicking on internet sites are legally binding. When you click on "I agree", you have in fact agreed, and that does not require a witness.
For what?
It would be the *user* who broke the EULA, not Psystar.
All Apple can do is not extend tech support to the hackintoshes.
C.
The second court case ruling cited above: http://www.yougamers.com/news/19640_...tting_lawsuit/ holds that to be irrelevant. Matter of fact, the defendant that used that argument lost more in the judgement than he made on sales of his illegal software hack.
It probably isn't a clean mapping to the Pystar case, but it doesn't help Pystar one iota to see that argument trashed at a summary judgement before the trial even started.
I brought race into the discussion to show that the argument that Apple can sell or refuse to sell to whomever they want is false.
This is a red herring argument that has nothing to do with Apple selling OS X.
Tying is a nuanced concept, and a case can easily be made that a Mac is just nice looking generic hardware, while Mac OS is just software for (any) X86. Neither can be said about X-box or your electric razor.
OS X is proprietary intellectual property developed and supported by Apple. Apple owns OS X and licenses it use under Apple's conditions. You do not own OS X simply because you've bought a boxed copy of it. You have only purchased a license for its use. You are not free to become an OS X resell vendor if Apple does not agree to allow you to. Because Apple owns it.
You guys want to ignore this simple concept. But this is the truth and the law will support it.
This is a red herring argument that has nothing to do with Apple selling OS X.
OS X is proprietary intellectual property developed and supported by Apple. Apple owns OS X and licenses it use under Apple's conditions. You do not own OS X simply because you've bought a boxed copy of it. You have only purchased a license for its use. You are not free to become an OS X resell vendor if Apple does not agree to allow you to. Because Apple owns it.
You guys want to ignore this simple concept. But this is the truth and the law will support it.
To demonstrate this, if you sell your copy of Adobe Photoshop CS 3, Adobe requires that you and the buyer also complete a transfer of license form. If both of the activations have been used prior to the sale, and you don't file the form, Adobe will not grant the new owner any activation numbers, thus the software cannot be activated. Adobe owns the software. If the original buyer uses up both of his activations, he cannot activate the software again unless he gets a new activation number from Adobe. Adobe owns the software, the user has a license to use it. AND, it is a bone of contention among many pro photographers that the limit of two activations doesn't even allow the buyer to make a cloned backup. Adobe owns the software, if you don't like the way they operate, don't buy from them.
That is illegal in many countries and some of the states.
Microsoft Windows XP Professional FULL VERSION with SP2 $ 260
Microsoft Windows XP Professional UPGRADE VERSION with SP2 $ 186
Source. Amazon
So you now say that it is illegal for a company to set the price of it's own products.
Are you even beginning to get the feeling that you really have very little notion ... of what you are talking about?
I guess a judge could rule that way but practically speaking it would be expensive and honestly quite difficult to prove that an individual actually clicked the 'I Accept' button. Retaining experts that can testify that there is no possible method of installing the software without clicking the button is one thing, but, the lack of witnesses, physical evidence and the like is why I don't think there would be much likelihood for an individual being found guilty of copyright infringement. Bringing a case against another corporation is a different story altogether. I'm not familiar with the details of how Psystar installs or hacks the software but there appears to be some gray area there.
Perhaps your not aware, but several cases have already been litigated. In most, the consumer has lost. If you can't get to the software without opening the shrink-wrap, it will be assumed that you opened it. If you can't install the software without clicking the agree button, it will be assumed that you clicked agree. This might not be true if you don't own the computer the software is installed on, but if you do, the burden will be on you to prove you didn't installed the software there.
Synp you write that charging two different prices for the full install software and upgrade software is illegal in some states? You mean, like states located in the former USSR? In the US it happens all the time. Abobe charges $1, 799 for the full install version of CS4 and $599 for the upgrade version. That is quite a big price difference. I will also point out that for the cost for the full version of CS4 I could almost buy a Macbook Pro. I'd like you to point me to a State where Apple couldn't charge two different prices, like Microsoft by the way does, for it's OS.
Apple already charges two prices. One price for Aperture 2, an another price for the upgrade from Aperture to Aperture 2.