Psystar counter-sues Apple for anti-competitive business practices

[jaez]

@Jaes... wont install on OLD pc's ... thats not what he meant by that and yuo know it

 

I don't know about that. He said old pc, and I took it for what exactly was written. I could use my imagination to interpret this in many ways.

 

 

you fail and you know it stop arguing something that is the most 1 sided thing that i can think of a selfish little boys point of view of i want it .... well just cause i said i want it

 

I never fail. I never give up until I succeed. All consumers buy because of the thought "I WANT."

 

 

put yourself in apple shoes for once they are in the right and your just not wanting to be told by the people that have rights that yhou dont have rights to somethikng you dont

 

I am on Apple's side. Apple has the right to know what the conumer thinks. And the right to know what the consumer needs. And the right to know what the user is willing to pay for.

 

this is simple logic it is illegal if you dont wanna be told your doing something illegal then dont rob a back or a store or install OSX on a non apple hardware

 

What is illegal? It might be ileula. But, it's certainly legal. Apple never said non-apple hardware, the EULA says Apple Labeled computer. I have now labeled my computer as per suggested above to comply with the EULA.

 

My computer now says "LEOPARD IN THE BOX" and a nice sharp PIC of an APPLE on the front.

 

Besides, reading the EULA above again, it occurs to me, Apple doesn't say what you "can't do," only some of the things you "can do," their's is in the affirmative.

 

The EULA says, "YOU ARE ALLOWED....." etc..

 

where do you see "YOU ARE DENIED..." written? I can't find it.

 

The EULA says, one thing you are "allowed" is to install Leopard on "ONE Apple Labeled Computer."

 

So, maybe you are "allowed" to install Leopard on "MANY non-apple labeled computers"? Huh?

 

Using my imagination, reading between the lines, like your "old pc" comment above, I could presume that Apple intended that we could install OSX on many computers,

provided only one of them had the "Apple Label" on it. See?

 

There are many ways to interpret things, as soon as we begin to use our imagination.

 

I prefer to take the words exactly as written. "Apple Labeled" meaning I must put "a label related to an apple product" on the box.

 

That could be "TIGER IN YOUR TANK"

it could be "PANTHER IN THE WOODS"

or "LEOPARD IN THE BOX"

 

 

But, hey, who am I to say what's what.

 

The EULA is sufficiently vague that many things fit.

 

[knyte2]

Wow, watching this one go back and forth is pretty entertaining.

 

Let's look at it in another context.

 

Apple wants to have the software tied to the hardware, that is what's best for them. Understandable, as they want to drive sales of their own machines. Who can fault them for that.

 

Psystar installs it and sells it as a bundle, again, who could fault them for wanting to make available something that they have identified as a consumer desire.

 

So, there we are at the point that the 2 companies are in court about.

 

Ford spent many hours on R&D for their engines, and to put them into their cars to make them as good as they can be. They also sell replacement motors, crate motors, and the like. So, someone decides that they want to build a kit car, and put a ford motor in it. They do, and then notice that there's a market for it. Should they not be able to do that? Plenty of kti cars out there, plenty of hotrods being built and sold. None of which are really hurting the sales of ford cars. They service a niche market.

 

So, apple can solve it a couple of ways.

 

Dont sell an OS withough validation of ownership for hardware (This may be illegal?)

 

Sell the software at a higher price, and offer a rebate for mac owners (a novel idea)

 

Wait and see how the case shakes out (likely what will happen)

 

Basically, I want Apple to succeed, but I dont want to be tied to their hardware. I know that's a little two sided, but thats how I feel.

 

The shakeout of these suits will definately change the way that apple does business if they end in psystars favor.

 

We all need to remember that words are just words unless they can define intent, and the wording of so many legal documents these days define nothing, so that the intent can be defined later, to the advantage of the party filing the lawsuit. EULAs are a prime example of this.. How many have you read? They are all vague, and wandering.

[fatshitcat]

The one thing I hate about these times is that our society deliberately encourages(and sometimes rewards) stupidity.

 

I really don't want to reply anymore because I'm getting overwhelmed by all this BS, jaez.

 

[MadGhost]

How would you find out that Apple is behind this, or that some people work for Apple, unless they let it slip?

 

Also, if I recall correctly, there was a story a long time ago (couple of years), that some employees from an Apple retail store were fired for having used and installed OSX86, but my memory is failing, so I may be incorrect.

 

 

It's just a feeling.

[GTR-33]

It won't install on old PCs. I know. I have two old PCs that Leopard doesn't work on. So, no issue there.

 

OSX needs a new PC.

By 'Any old PC' I didn't mean that it was neccisarily old. You and I both know it...

 

Because I have the software and hardware in my possession, I have the right. Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

 

Because I paid for both, I have the right, both hardware and software creaters have been properly "compensated" for their works.

Wrong. You don't own any bit of Mac OS10. You own a license to use it on a Mac...

 

It was never an issue with PPC, because Apple's OS wasn't good enough to be considered at that time.

You CAN'T be serious... This has to be a joke... None of the improvements with OSX have ANYTHING to do with the Intel move... There are plenty of people that wanted Mac OS without a Mac LONG before the move to Intel. It's just that X86 computers had the same problem running Mac OS as Apple computers had running Windows. It had to be emulated through the native OS...

 

Apple got smart.

 

They looked around the marketplace, saw what was happening, and started to make changes. PPC to INTEL, means lots of hardware product compatibilities with the Apple system.

Apple made a marketing choice... They switched hardware because

1) Intel was cheaper than IBM.

2) Jobs promised a 3GHZ G5 that IBM never delivered as well as G5 notebooks. They just wanted the number even though the G5 can run circles around most of the Intel stuff.

 

The problem with the PPC chips was not that they couldn't make them smaller, cheaper or cooler. It was that IBM had been contracted by Sony and MS as well to develop a PPC for the Xbox 360 and PS3 and all of the R&D went into those products instead since they would sell far more volume.

 

OpenSource FreeBSD would mean lots of immediate applications to run on the new Apple system.

 

Apple wanted what other people had already.

 

Faster CPUs.

 

blah blah blah

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? You know OS10 launched in 1999 right? Leopard isn't the first version of OS10 right? What does any of this have to do with the legality of running OSX on non-Apple hardware?

 

No. You clearly don't understand, that WINDOWs has "MILLIONS OF APPS" out there, and among that enormous population of adaptations that have been produced, both hardware and software, to work with the windows operating system, you are bound to find many conflicts.

 

Apple has a mere handful of Apps and Harware adapters by comparison, so there's no fair way to compare the two there.

You know a sapling eventually grows into a tree right?

 

Apple doesn't have to get involved with the bloat at all.

Not the point. Eventually you will see the same thing that happend to Windows happen to Mac OS and Mac strategy leaves nothing to people having a bad time with their 'glorious' OS. Do you understand what kind of backlash there would be if people tried Mac OS from someone like Phystar and it doesn't work as advertised? Apple will catch the blame. It's their OS. It doesn't matter who built the computer, they didn't design the OS.

 

I've been into many computer stores, and when I describe what I was looking for, the sales person typically said, no, we don't have that, but we have this great computer system over here, take a look at this, it can do A,B,C, .

 

It's the same with Apple today.

You as a customer in this extent are less than one percent of the buying market. Someone who looks to constantly tinker with their computer is a completely small niche market. What do you need a Mac to do that it can't out of the box anyway?

 

You can't sell what you want, you have to sell what the consumer wants.

 

The consumer is going to get what he wants anyway.

Apple can sell whatever they want however they want. Obviously the market likes Apple just the way it is because the company is growing the way it is. So obviously, your opinion doesn't really matter to them.

[slacker25]

@knyte2 ... you find this entertaining good i am to please even more so when these guys get off the short buss

 

@GTR-33 Glad to see the there is yet another person with the capasity for abstract thought or anything beyond their simple whinning like jaes here..lol

[jaez]

Eventually you will see the same thing that happend to Windows happen to Mac OS and Mac...etc...

 

Right now, OSX is a good OS. However, if you've seen recent versions of LINUX lately, you'll observe that there's a convergence of ideas among operating systems.

 

Some versions of LINUX can be made to look just like WINDOWS, for example, so that the casual observer wouldn't even notice the difference.

 

All good OS ideas eventually end up in the most popular flexible OS.

 

So, if Apple restricts OSX, whatever is good in the MAC will end up in some flavor of LINUX, or other free OS, and Apple will become obsolete.

 

Apple has no choice in the matter. Let OSX grow, or see it shrink and lose market share to some other unencumbered OS.

 

Apple will still do well, in things like the ipod, iphone, ithis and ithat.

 

But, Mac OS X will become an artifact of history.

 

[slacker25]

Wow the retards are getting back off the short bus again

 

 

free doesnt = better OSS is nice for what it is but it has no ways of being hte OS thatr OSX is other wise wait it would be OSX then it wouldnt be free and that also goers for why linux cant be as sucky as winbloze just caUSEE IT LOOKS LIKE IT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS IT

[eject]

@eject .......... this is a justice system that protects capitalizim... and there for i would rather this then comunizim ... allowing people to help themselves .. meaning yuo dont like OSX being the way it is fine... go design yuour own Object oriented OS and make your own company apple has earned their right to do their bissuness their way

 

 

 

i don't get it

 

i'm no red commie {censored} or anything else like it.

 

but there is a big difference in our right system between personel contracts an things that come by law.

 

if someone break a personel contract like an eula you can sue him in front of a civil court if any damage is done.

 

if any law is broken justice will come after you all by itself and you couldnt stop it for whatever reasons.

 

a eule isn't a law, it's just a contract, and you have to sue every little one that breaks it.

 

 

 

my english isn't gppd enpugh to explain this properly, but a contract and a law are very different things in our right system (germany, not commies land, not even slightly)

[fatshitcat]

Apple has no choice in the matter. Let OSX grow, or see it shrink and lose market share to some other unencumbered OS.

 

Apple will still do well, in things like the ipod, iphone, ithis and ithat.

 

But, Mac OS X will become an artifact of history.

Where the have you dreamed that? Don't you think IF, if this would happen, it would've happened years ago.

 

Apple has been a computer company for 30 years, don't you :censored2: think they know their job better than some hopeless kid(that's you jaez) who has absolutely no idea about a thing?

 

You picked up some words off the Internet, and you are just reusing them by making a huge jabber about nothing.

 

@eject: Please next time don't duplicate your post three times. BTW, love your sig. In romania, OS X costs 197$.

[Maxintosh]

I find it ridiculous that if I buy Windows Vista, I can't use it on my PowerPC computers!

I find it ridiculous that if I buy electronics in the US, I can't use the same power adapter in the UK!

I find it ridiculous that if I buy a PS3 game, I can't use it on my Wii!

Well stated

 

Would like to see some kind of compromise though, so that OS X could be installed on PC's. This is more exciting than watching the Olympics

[eject]

@eject: Please next time don't duplicate your post three times. BTW, love your sig. In romania, OS X costs 197$.

wonder how this has happend, i was quiet drunk, could be an explanation

 

 

fixed it.

[jaez]

Where the have you dreamed that? Don't you think IF, if this would happen, it would've happened years ago.

 

Apple has been a computer company for 30 years, don't you :censored2: think they know their job better than some hopeless kid(that's you jaez) who has absolutely no idea about a thing?

 

Yeah, apple has been around for a long time. But, none of their products ever survive. They've been around because Steve is a brilliant guy who can come up with "new products" all the time. As fast as one product dies, Jobs introduces another. It's Jobs shear creativity that keeps Apple alive. Bill cannot compete with Steve on the creative front. But, Windows has been Windows after DOS for as long as the computers have existed, and the old Windows apps still run on the new Windows. Bill is not creative like Steve, he can't come up with another product, he's got this one product that works for him, and he plans to keep it going for ever. So, he listens to the consumer, and adapts Windows to whatever the consumer wants. He even began to release the source code for Windows. An heretical concept to a capitalist corporation. But, it's all about survival. In Bill's mind, there will always be a Window out there in computerland. But, Steve is looking forward to the "NEXT" big thing.

 

 

Steve wants to create new "JOBS", while Bill's view is the keep his current employees within the "GATES". See?

[slacker25]

@jaes

 

 

None of them Survive what do you call the macintosh ... the only things that dont survive is the products theyh use and change to make the mac stay wherre it is at there changes and drops of products are actually genious

[dani77zg]

I think that what is important here is whether EULA is accordance with the law or not.

For me, this is the only big issue.

Someone said that you license the software so you can not compare it to cars and material products.

I think you can.

If I built a HDD, licensed it by EULA so it could only be fitted in AMD machines (even though it works in a INTEL powered machine just as well), and put it on the shelves in stores is it not the same as to licence a copy of leopard which I can buy of the shelf?

Or if I'm an alluminum seller and I sell a ton of alluminum under a licence that it can only be used to make hoods for BMW cars. Still, it is freely aviable for everyone to purcahse whether it is BMW car factory or not. I could say, I pruduced that alluminum, it is mine and I can do with it what I want and thus If I want to sell it under such an restrictive EULA you don't have to buy it.

I don't think such an EULA would stand in court. I think such an EULA is illegal. Every country has a body like competition agency which makes the rules by which firms must do business. As I see it, Apple is the one that has the choice. Yes they have a great product, but they want to milk more money from it buy bundling it with overpriced hardware. But they have a choice. To obey the law of the country they sell the software in, or not to sell the product at all and thus make no money at all. So - no, they can not sell their procuct in such a way thay see fit. They can sell it in such a way that best suits them but which is in accordance with the law of the country they sell it in. Every country makes such laws that are best for their citizens. Before "If you don't like it - don't buy it" there is "If you don't like it, don't do business there".

Also, I think if such a case is to be tried in the courts of severel countries, the outcome wouldn't be the same in all of them.

Windows and IE are a good example.

[slacker25]

ofcourse the EULA is valid thats what every USA copywrite law thats used for any copywrited object in the US is setup ... they are not going to all the sudden say the copywrite system they have always used and will continue to use is wrong

 

in another country like say some of the one that do not permit M$ to add a copy write to their software if they are going to sell it in their nation ..... fine 3rd world natrions any how ... so apple dont sell nothing to them they can either accept the way our company in our nation does things or they can continue using linux ... samething goes for people that dont wanna pay for it ... too expensive dont use it

[roboman]

Apple is going to have a big announcement this week, my fingers crossed...

[dani77zg]

ofcourse the EULA is valid thats what every USA copywrite law thats used for any copywrited object in the US is setup ... they are not going to all the sudden say the copywrite system they have always used and will continue to use is wrong

 

in another country like say some of the one that do not permit M$ to add a copy write to their software if they are going to sell it in their nation ..... fine 3rd world natrions any how ... so apple dont sell nothing to them they can either accept the way our company in our nation does things or they can continue using linux ... samething goes for people that dont wanna pay for it ... too expensive dont use it

 

Copyright is the law and is not the same as EULA. EULA must be in accordance with the law. EULA is an agreement between two parties - the seller and the buyer. It can stipulate just about anything. That does not make it legal nor illegal. If any of the parties is to interpret EULA differently, then it is to be tried before the court. The court is to rule whether EULA is or is not in accordance with the Copyright Law.

I'm not talking about piracy here. I'm against that 100%.

 

As for the other part, I doubt that you can say that European Union is 3rd world.

Just the opposite. Such an EULA is more likely to pass in a 3rd world country because of corruption of the politicians and judges. Big corporations come with big money, and in such countries they can buy what is a bit harder to do in developed countries.

 

Even console modchips are ruled both legal in some countries and illegal in others.

I'm not 100% but I think they are legal in Australia (3rd world?), and all console manufacturers still sell there.

They were ruled legal because they enabled and user to use their legally owned copies and imported original games that they otherwise couldn't.

They could be used to play illegal copies but the logic behind the ruling was - guns don't kill people - people kill people. So if something can be used illegaly it does not make it illegal all by itself.

 

You are saying "if you don't like me selling my alluminum under this conditions, go and buy yourself some iron".

In that case BMW would have an illegal competitive edge and almost no country would allow that. That's why most countries have competition agencies and laws regulating such matters.

[GTR-33]

Yeah, apple has been around for a long time. But, none of their products ever survive.

Care to elaborate on this one? What product has Apple released that has completely failed?

 

Windows has been Windows after DOS for as long as the computers have existed, and the old Windows apps still run on the new Windows.

You know Mac OS came BEFORE Windows right? I want to see you try and run something for Windows 3.1 under Vista...

Steve is looking forward to the "NEXT" big thing.

You don't even know what Next was. Just stop trying to be clever. You are clearly some absent minded kid in dream land.

 

I think you can.

No.. You can't.. You never own software. You only have permission to use it.

[slacker25]

@dani77zg ... try readinga few of them they are all basiclly the same and with sodtware and EULA apply to other things liek ISP theyare all considered a service and are under no obligation to you or anyone in certain extent they have no obligation to copywrite laws...seeing as how copywrite laws are there to make it so you do not have write to copy their work and EULA ... i think it will hold up and even if it wouldnt tonot allow one to holds up you might as well not allow all of them and then that would hurt the ecconnomy and soo many people making money off the companies out there

[jaez]

Care to elaborate on this one? What product has Apple released that has completely failed?

 

The Macintosh. I have one of the first Macintoshes ever built, bought it back in 1984. Got one of the good ones, manuf in August '84 just after it was revised to fix some terrible hardware bugs. Still have a copy of the original "INSIDE MACHINTOSH" the big thick bible for system programmers describing the internals of that first product, and third party Aztec C compiler used to develop software for the machine. The original mac came with lots of innovative ideas, files having resource and data forks, compicated stuff at the time for us Microsoft DOS programers accustomed to single fork files, even the concept of forking a file was wierd...that Mac failed. All that Apple kept was the name. When the revolution came, and the decision was made to toss the Mac innovations in favor of the Mach FreeBSD NextStep base approach, many people pulled out their hair, thought it was a step backwards...etc....

 

 

You know Mac OS came BEFORE Windows right? I want to see you try and run something for Windows 3.1 under Vista...

 

I've been developing software since 1980. Mainfraimes, Minicomps, and Desktops. Yes, I can run Windows 3.1 programs under any modern Windows. I can even run older DOS programs, using Dosbox under Windows. I can even run old Macintosh Classic programs with Softmac "UNDER WINDOWS".

 

 

You don't even know what Next was. Just stop trying to be clever. You are clearly some absent minded kid in dream land.

 

Apple is the only kid in dreamland. They are stiffling their own development. They refuse to see the forrest for the trees.

 

I still don't understand how they could be so blind.

 

Windows success is because of "developers" making many types of applications for Microsoft.

 

The "Users" buy because of these applications. Not because Windows is so great, or because Gates is so smart.

 

People hate Windows, but they buy it, because the have to buy it to run the applications they need to solve their real problems.

 

People love OSX, but they don't buy it, because they can't use it to run the applications they need to solve their real problems.

 

So, they walk into the Apple Store, and go GOO GOO GAA GAA, that stuff looks really cool, then they walk over to the PC shop and "buy" a Dell, IBM, or HP.

 

Millions of apps have been developed for the PC.

 

Tens of thousands of small developers have invested money in PC hardware to support Microsoft Windows, so they can develop apps for the many PCs that have sold.

 

These small developers are not going to buy expensive "Macintosh OSX" systems to convert their Windows Apps to the OSX platform, just to see if they can sell to Apple customers.

 

But, they alread have a PC.

 

Every one of these small developers would be willing to add "a hard disk" or "partition an existing hard disk" to put OSX on their development machine, and explore the possibiity of

converting their existing Windows Application code to produce Macintosh versions of their Applications.

 

It makes sense to the small developer, because he can then expand his market base.

 

And there's little financial risk.

 

He doesn't have to invest in a new computer.

 

He doesn't have to "maintain two" separate computer systems, and upgrade two separate hardware lines, to develop for the Win+OSX market.

 

A small Windows based company, with 50 programmers, each with their own desktop PCs, can immediately begin to convert and develop code for OSX,

by just buying Leopard and installing it on their PCs. They don't have to re-outfit the 50 programmers, with 50 new desktop Macintoshes, and force

everyone to have two Keyboards, two mice, two Displays, and two Computer Boxes to co-develop software.

 

All developers would take the chance to expand their client base if the cost was reasonable, and jump at the opportinity to be first to convert to OSX,

to see if they could capture more customers.

 

That means more apps for OSX, and thus more customers will buy Macintoshes becaues they can run their fav apps there.

 

See?

 

For the first time, those that LOVE OSX, will be able to actually USE OSX to solve their real problems.

 

No longer will they stop and stare at APPLE, mumble GOO GOO GAA GAA, and turn away and buy Windows PCs.

 

Some will buy OSX-PCs, and many who want the real deal will buy OSX-MACs.

 

Apple won't get "ALL THE HARDWARE CUSTOMERS", but the customer base will be "MUCH LARGER", because of the many apps !!!

 

Apple will then Win the battle with Microsoft.

 

Because Windows is old and tired, and beginning to show strains, while Apple is new and dynamic, and has lots of potential.

 

 

 

 

 

No.. You can't.. You never own software. You only have permission to use it.

 

The sad fact is that software ownership is irrelevant to the ultimate individual end user consumer. That end user will use that software to do what he wants. It is the small business, intermediate user, developer, that is really impacted by the EULA etc.., because they cannot take the risk of lawsuit, which could put them out of business, even if they believe they are in the right. A large firm like Apple, with its enormous financial resources, just by threatning to sue, can increase the cost of business for the small firms. So, these small firms will "usually" not violate the EULA, and even though the EULA is in fact vague, they will not take the risk that Apple's ingenious legal team might be able to swing the interpretation of the EULA in Apple's favor, so they will just walk away from confrontation.

 

So, basically, the outcome is this:

 

If Psystar wins, Windows developers will jump at the opportinuty to install Leopard and convert and develop apps for OSX, and Apple will win many more customers, so Apple wins.

 

If Psystar loses, the courts will have made it clear that OSX can't be installed on PCs, and Apple will have missed the tremendous opportinity for growth, so Apple loses.

 

 

You know, large co.s like ADOBE already make apps for both Windows and OSX.

 

But, what about the small developer? The little shop, with just one guy, or two or three guys, making "Plug-in" apps for Adobe Photoshop or Acobe Illustrator etc...This small shop can only afford to invest in one of the OS platforms, usually it's the WINDOWS PC. How are they to test their Plug-ins for the Adobe Photoshop OSX version? etc..There are zillions of these little developers. They all make the market place. They all contribute to the vast application resource base that Windows has benefited from over the years, and that's the reason for the PC "SALES."

 

This Psystar case comes at a critical time for Apple.

 

Only now, is the hardware base sufficiently similar between the Microsoft and Apple systems to enable "conversions" from Windows to OSX to actually take place in great numbers.

 

The cost of switching allegiances has never been lower that it is today.

 

Only the EULA....stands in the way..

 

That EULA is vague and can be interpreted in either way...how should we read it?

 

What would Apple like us to think?

[Konami®]

Copywrite is the law and is not the same as EULA. EULA must be in accordance with the law. EULA is an agreement between two parties - the seller and the buyer. It can stipulate just about anything. That does not make it legal nor illegal. If any of the parties is to interpret EULA differently, then it is be tried before the court. The court is to rule whether EULA is or is not in accordance with the Copywrite Law.

I'm not talking about piracy here. I'm against that 100%.

 

Apple clearly have their EULA very well understandable, Psystar is just trying to act retard and see if can win something that logically is impossible.

 

Apple Mac OS X Leopard 10.5 EULA

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf

[jaez]

Apple clearly have their EULA very well understandable, Psystar is just trying to act retard and see if can win something that logically is impossible.

 

No one can stop Psystar from selling compatible hardware.

 

The only question is whether Apple can stop Psystar from installing Leopard on that hardware for the end user.

 

And if so, why should they be able to stop Psystar?

 

EULA? Copywrite? Trademark? Patent Infringement?

 

Probably, the EULA and Copywrite are the least of Psystar's problems.

 

[Maxintosh]

Yes, I can run Windows 3.1 programs under any modern Windows. I can even run older DOS programs, using Dosbox under Windows.

Well, considering that you posted your comment on the Internet, I guess I'd have to see it for myself before I would believe it. One thing is for sure, the vast majority of windows users wouldn't be able to do anything like that, so it's still a moot point

 

they walk into the Apple Store, and go GOO GOO GAA GAA, that stuff looks really cool, then they walk over to the PC shop and "buy" a Dell, IBM, or HP.

Not according to sales figures for the past 3-4 years. Not according to what I see my clients doing either. All things being equal, most intelligent people looking for a new computer that compare both systems go for the Mac. There are many good reasons for this. The kind of person that walks away from the Apple store empty handed and into the PC shop are the kind that shop at K-Mart for the cheapest priced product. These are are the same kinds of people that buy fram oil filters for their car

[dani77zg]

Apple clearly have their EULA very well understandable, Psystar is just trying to act retard and see if can win something that logically is impossible.

 

Apple Mac OS X Leopard 10.5 EULA

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf

 

If something is understandable, it doesn't mean it is in accordance with the law.

I can put in your employment contract that you waive your right of a payed vacation.

Even though it is in the contract and is very understandable, that doesn't mean it is legal. If you were to go with it in court, the court would rule in your favor saying you have the right on a payed vacation regardless of what you signed because the law says you do have that right and no contract between two parties can make that go away. Even though you signed that you waive your rights.

That is mine opinion. I still think that I payed for the Leopard and that I can do with it as I please. Even if I'm only having the right to use it as someone said, it is mine decision and mine alone how I will do it (how I will use it). EULA is a contract, not the law. I don't see why that would be logically impossible. I'm pro copyright and against the part of EULA which is telling me that I can't use the software I payed for in the way I want to. It is that simple. I want to be able to pay Apple money for their product that I can buy in the shop (Leopard) and use it the way I want to (install it on a pc).