Nice article Dizzle. Thanks. I was wondering what the status of this case was since I heard about it a few weeks ago.

$cirisme said:
Book makers, iirc, once tried to enforce their own “EULAs” which was eventually, rightfully, ruled as illegal. Apple’s business plan may depend on EULAs, but that is no argument for allowing EULAs, that is an argument that Apple’s business plan is incorrect. If Apple is so dependent on using illegal means to sustain itself, that is Apple’s problem, not mine or the law’s.

(Oh wow, when not on the iPhone the comments are much more like a BBS system.)

I’m not sure how I feel about EULA’s in general. When the whole issue with Psystar came about, many of the podcasters I listen to were questioning how legally enforceable any EULA is.

A blanket decision about the legal enforceability of EULA’s might not be the best thing, really. It would be better to define what aspects of the EULA are can be enforced by law, which ones can be enforced by pull of product support, etc.

I don’t know the exact language of Apple’s EULA, but I’m pretty sure that if I go into the store and purchase a Leopard disc, they won’t care what I try to install it on. I won’t feel like I’m in danger of being sued. I only think they will care if I turn around and try to sell the hack as a “Mac.”

Which begs the question, really, what exactly is a “Mac?” Is it the hardware, OS, or is a “Mac” the whole package? I’m not so sure their business model would crumble if they couldn’t have EULA’s. They have contracts with companies that sell their products commercially, and they could include a “only sell our software pre-installed on our hardware” clause. They probably do anyway.

@Josh It is not disingenuous if that is how the free market is supposed to work. Our “rights-fixation” has gone to the extreme. You do have a choice – don’t use Apple. You don’t like that choice, then you pay. You don’t have a “right” to have what you want at the cheapest possible price, you simply don’t.

In a lot of comments I have read elsewhere, so much has been focused on “me, me, me” and that is not what the legal case is about. If suits keep abusing laws like this, how many innovative products will never be made? See how much you like Apple afterwards if they don’t find a way around it. I believe the Apple users that are supporting Psystar in this based on a “I don’t like it” mentality are cutting off their nose to spite their face and need to look at things a bit more dispassionately.

I too think Leigh’s idea is fantastic. I am only pissed because I thought of it at the same time he did, but couldn’t get time to write it until I got home from work. But that being the case, I am sure there are dozens of people out there hating both Leigh and me for writing it before them. A brain like Jobs’ had this figured out the day the Psystar news broke. I bet they planned on their surefire backup before they filed the suit. That may be why they waited rather than my prior theory that they were waiting for proprietary code to be modified.

Have you read the actual complaint? The first-sale doctrine is a very minor part of it, that is not what Apple is relying upon as I understand it. Perhaps the lawyers think differently.

The complaint or the response? I read Apple’s complaint but I have not seen Psystar’s response. If you have a link to the response, I’d definitely like to read it.

And do you mean Psystar in the above sentence? Because saying that Apple would rely on the first sale doctrine is wrong. Of course they would not rely on the first sale doctrine. The first sale doctrine is what prohibits sellers from dictating post-sale terms to buyers, eg, eulas.

$cirisme said:“@cirisme, if they win, IMHO it wouldn’t really have a ruling on EULAs in particular, it would be only because Mac OS X is so superior that Apple is monopoly in an area where there is no equivalent. Horse of a totally different colour, and it wouldn’t have direct precendence on EULAs writ large. I hope they get squished for the principle of thing. The anti-trust laws were not written for this purpose and I am opposed to unjustified expansion of legislation by judicial fiat.”

If you hadn’t noticed, the current US admin has made it very difficult to deal with anti-trust issues. Just watch the Microsoft case for an example.

But the first sale doctrine is pretty well established in the US. We just need a ruling that clearly shows it applies to software the same way it does to all other goods.

Have you read the actual complaint? The first-sale doctrine is a very minor part of it, that is not what Apple is relying upon as I understand it. Perhaps the lawyers think differently.

And I believe anti-trust laws should be difficult. I believe in free market choices and government interference as little as possible. The consumer benefits in the end. It is socialists states that micro-manage the market, and in this issue on anti-trust, I am glad it is hard. This situation is NOT what those laws were created for, just like RICO was NOT created to stop abortion protests.

Just because some lawyer can twist away from original intent doesn’t make it right. Hey you and I see the way some people twist the Bible away from original intent. I see interpretation of the law in a very analogous way to a proper interpretation of the Bible. Which is why I also am a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution.

They may lose on EULA issue – but it would sicken me if they lost on the anti-trust issues, not just because I love Apple, but I love the American ideal of a free market economy and I think that would be a further step in the erosion of what I hold dear.

(sounds like I am channeling Ayn Ran – I am not)

Book makers, iirc, once tried to enforce their own “EULAs” which was eventually, rightfully, ruled as illegal. Apple’s business plan may depend on EULAs, but that is no argument for allowing EULAs, that is an argument that Apple’s business plan is incorrect. If Apple is so dependent on using illegal means to sustain itself, that is Apple’s problem, not mine or the law’s.

Do I have to use html to get line breaks?

If you hadn’t noticed, the current US admin has made it very difficult to deal with anti-trust issues. Just watch the Microsoft case for an example.

But the first sale doctrine is pretty well established in the US. We just need a ruling that clearly shows it applies to software the same way it does to all other goods.

I am in no way suggesting that Apple should not sell whole widgets, but if it sells standalone software then its practice of attempting to legally restrict people’s rights to use such software to certain hardware is ridiculous and unfair.

Likewise, I am not suggesting that Apple shouldn’t be allowed to declare that it will not support any hardware but its own. Such a stand is their right and quite frankly it would be a very wise move.

Imagine a (purely) hypothetical situation though, where I gradually, (or suddenly), replaced every part of my iMac. At some point it would no longer be a Mac. (As far as I know there are no Mac ROMs or equivalent irreplaceable proprietary Apple components in today’s Macs). But at at what point would I be in breach of this obscene contract?

I found Leigh McMullen’s suggestion of withdrawing OS X standalone sales intriguing. It would almost certainly silence my arguments. (http://cultofmac.com/the-solution-to-apples-little-psyster-problem/2629)

I hope you don’t think I’ve been trolling. I’ve been a Mac lover since the first time I did that wonderful audio cassette multimedia Macintosh tour on my good friend and neighbour’s 128k in 1986, and I’ve followed and rooted for Apple since.

But I find you kind offer of advice, that is to speak with my wallet, a tad disingenuous. Disliking one aspect of a company’s behaviour need not extend to a blanket moratorium of all its products. As I mentioned OS X is my favourite operating system and I cannot imagine using anything else. On the other hand the iMac was bought because I had no other choice. Don’t misunderstand me, it’s a beautiful machine, but given the choice, I may well have chosen something else. As long as Apple offers OS X in a box then, for those willing to take the risk, there should be a choice.

I’m going to leave it at that and propose an agreement to differ.

Josh

Now where would I think an Apple restriction is potentially wrong? The limitation of only five computers to have access to an iTunes library. I believe they could say (but couldn’t really enforce) that it has to be a computer of the household – but what if a household has ten kids, and each of them have a computer.

Cult of Mac today beat me to the punch in an idea I thought of on my lunch break. Damn! I am going to write on that later as my idea differs a bit from the one posted at Cult of Mac in a few details.

And though I am not a gamer (and the Cult of Mac examples are gaming issues), I believe that it is precisely on point and Cult of Mac is much more knowledgable on the gaming issues than I am.

Again, as you noticed, I am not much interested in the personal opinion side of what we think is ridiculous or not, but what we want the government to control. We as consumers have the power. There may be some day that there is something that you own or someone close to you, and they have the legal right to do so, but some opportunistics punks (and yes that is my opinion of Psystar) decide they are going to parasitically profit from you and then the government sticks their nose into it, that would be right either.

If this were just, say you Josh, during something in the privacy of your own home, and Apple went after you, I would be on your side because let’s get real. But these guys are parasites as far as I am concerned.

@cirisme, if they win, IMHO it wouldn’t really have a ruling on EULAs in particular, it would be only because Mac OS X is so superior that Apple is monopoly in an area where there is no equivalent. Horse of a totally different colour, and it wouldn’t have direct precendence on EULAs writ large. I hope they get squished for the principle of thing. The anti-trust laws were not written for this purpose and I am opposed to unjustified expansion of legislation by judicial fiat. Similar to the expansion of using RICO for things not intended, such as abortion protesters and other protest groups.

@Dizzle’s second comments
I simply fail to see how you cannot see the idea as ridiculous. As far as I’m aware in none of the other examples that Cult of Mac gave, is it possible to walk into a shop and leave with a boxed disc that you are then expected not to install on whatever machine you like.

I’m not a Mac hater. I’m writing this on my lovely all-in-one aluminium and glass computer, running my favourite OS – the only OS I’ve ever forked over my hard earned cash for in a decade of computer ownership.

The point is it is ludicrous that anyone can purport to tell you what you can or cannot do with something that you’ve bought (if it’s not going to harm anyone else of course).

I don’t understand how anyone can tell you what to do with a software purchase. As long as I don’t install it on multiple machines, how can that be ‘illegal’ to install it on different types of hardware. It’s ridiculous.

There are so many appropriate analogies that I barely know where to start.

It’s like a newspaper telling you what light-bulb you have to use to illuminate the paper. Or to put a twist on a real world case that is much closer to home, a printer manufacturer telling you that you can’t use their ink in someone else’s printer.

Josh