Stravaganza Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 ^if i remember correctly from a college business class (from class so i don't have any sources as proof), the courts have general sided with software companies when it comes to eulas. the case was about if a consumer can try to say if they really didn't read the eula so that they didn't agree to the eula in the first place... but that they were forced to accept the eula in order to install the software. the software company won, not the consumer. my source: "West's Business Law, Text and Cases, Legal, Ethical, International, and E-Commerce Environment Ninth Edition" by Kenneth W. Clarkson, Roger LeRoy Miller, Gaylord A. Jentz and Frank B. Cross, pages 334-337, with Cases "i.LAN systems, Inc. v. Netscout Service Level Corp." and "Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp." given as real lawsuits when the courts sides with the software company. so if the courts follows previous court rulings than psystar stands no chance of winnin' a lawsuit against apple. (yea, i finally found my source, damn 1084 page business law book not makin' it easy to find it by not listing it under "software" or "eula" in the back of the book...). Thanks for the example. Oh well, this is getting off the topic. With that argument, of course they cannot win. "I didn't read it and so I didn't know there's such a clause, hence I didn't agree with it." One should argue the validity of clauses in EULA. Not all clauses in EULA are right or valid even if the consumer agrees in the first place. For instance, a contract under forceful and unfair situation is wrong and such contract (not all but some) has no binding power in court of law (once proved). Microsoft lost some cases, which were based on their EULA in Europe, especially in Germany. But then here in U.S., ... I don't know, my major is not law, so. Maybe I am just daydreaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Loe Kee Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 ^good point. i remember that "forceful and unfair" example from class. my major wasn't business law and i'm too lazy to read my business law book again for a court case about it. hopefully the psystar situation will force apple to sell a mac pro with a dual core 45nm intel processor (e8400 is all that i want and i HATE laptops) for those of us that don't need 4 or 8 cores. i've tried and tried to find an excuse to buy an quad core for music production but all my research points to a dual core for my needs, not a quad core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idividebyzero Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 Your argument "Apple has no power to do anything to this site ..." is simply dead wrong. They can try us using Section 2A "to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time" (which I think it's an unfair practice) in court. No they cant. We have legal rights to talk about anything we want. Companies also cant just go around demanding personal information because someone said something on the internet (the exception is if someone is making threats to public safety, but thats only allowed by the police), especially if its about breaking a contract. There are many cases where authors are protected by the first amendment even if they are inciting people to break the law, like the Anarchist's Cookbook or all those assassin books, or suicide websites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silky1181 Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 Doesn't the Digital Millenium Copyright Act protect Apple's approach of restricting their software to their hardware? I'm no expert, but wouldn't Psystar's program bump up against that? It holds more weight than a EULA. I don't know what I want to have happen. They seem to be making an attempt to give credit where it's due from their pov(netkas excluded), which is this site, but at the same time sending tech support to a bunch of hobbyists. If they sold beyond this particular group we'd get a lot of noobs here who expect customer service. If they're not saavy, they may not want to be put in this situation, and an influx isn't wanted. Apple markets itself as a luxury brand, but if they'd just sell something like this product at a cheap price (and right now while Windows is in a very weak spot) then they could make a killing. Problem is that people in this market are looking for hardware options. Plus they'll want it to do everything. Then there'll be the viruses... which are coming eventually anyway. Probably the reason Apple doesn't make this is that it would cannibalize their sales of Mac Pros and iMacs which are marvelous machines. I guess Jobs has made up his mind on the issue. I just converted to mac when they moved to Intel and wanted to get a few more years use out of my prime-of-its-life PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modman860 Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 yeah i agree with the posts on here, their should be a message on the front page saying that all information contained here is for educational purposes only, and should not be used for commercial purposes. i like the idea of someone building prebuilt hackintoshes WITHOUT installing osx or even mentioning that they can run osx86, but then again its fun to build these things. and their prices are very reasonable.. but they need to stop linking to this wonderful site! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortran Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 no more reasons for netkas to feel bad http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Kills+Psyst...rticle11495.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts