Replies

Psystar's ability to prevail on the issue of having the latitude to load Apple's OS on its own hardware, given it has a licensing agreement with the company, may prove an easier road to hoe, legal experts note.

WHAT? Where did that allegation come from? Nowhere have I seen anyone claiming that Apple has licensed Psystar to do anything with OS X except to install it on an Apple Labeled computer through it's EULA.

I think Psystar only can build his case on assertion that Apple's EULA is unenforceable. As you point out, Apple clearly states in the EULA that the licensee may install the software only on Apple's hardware.

This restriction may or may not be fair, but that's not the question. Apple's EULA is somewhat more restrictive than other, but it's not unheard of. Windows 95, 98, NT, 2000 and XP allow only one install of the software, even though technically you could load the same CD onto thousands of PCs (until WGA was implemented.) But anyway, I think the precedent of selling you a CD with software and then telling you what you may do with the software is well established by now.

I believe Psystar also understands that, and that's why they are grabbing at straws, claiming higher misdeeds of Apple. But the judge only needs to hypothetically substitute a smaller, non-Apple company and see if it makes any difference. It won't. I can open a one-man company and send you a CD with the same EULA, and it will be just as enforceable as Apple's. If Psystar has nothing else to fight with, it is only delaying its demise. It might be not a bad business plan, after all, if the company can keep the preorder payments and then be closed by the court. If the owners are properly insulated from the corporation they have a chance to get away with it, however barely.