[Cody Overcash]

In the latest update in the Psystar vs. Apple case Psystar arguing something new. The previously have used an antitrust argument among other things and so far none of them have worked out in Psystar's favor.

Now Psystar is claiming that under the first-sale doctrine since they legally bought copies of OS X that they have the right to do whatever they want with it including putting it on hardware not sold by Apple. Snippits of Psystar's latest filing:

"Once a copyright owner consents to the sale of particular copies of a work, the owner may not thereafter exercise distribution rights with respect to those copies. See, e.g., Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 350-51 (1908) (recognizing more than 100 years ago the concept of first sale and the limitations imposed upon a copyright owner in light thereof). Psystar acquired lawful copies of the Mac OS from Apple; those copies were lawfully acquired from authorized distributors including some directly from Apple; Psystar paid good and valuable consideration for those copies; Psystar disposed of those lawfully acquired copies to third-parties."

The bad news for Psystar according to the folks at cnet is that previously courts usually don't agree that the first-sale doctrine applies to software except in some case involving Adobe. Of course Adobe is Adobe. Psystar is Psystar. Whole different playing fields there.

[rdwalsh]

Good post cash, thanks for the update on this. I was wondering when this clause would show up.

I give props to Psystar for what they are trying to do, but it's understandable why its gotten where at has legally. But I do think psystar is entitled to do what they want since they purchased the software, but there are still rules to what you can do with it once purchased. They are not an offical reseller of Apple products so I see that one falling through the cracks.

[sziklassy]

Shouldnt have to be an official reseller... if you did websites like eBay would have been out of business LOOOOOONG ago... the fact of the matter is that Apple wants you to drop a couple grand on their computers, which Psystar is able to offer at a fraction of the price (maybe not sleek design, but functionality) and Apple doesn't want this. As more and more people realize OSX is what makes Apple shine and not their overpriced hardware, they will be less willing to pay.

[TheOrioles33]

Thats kind of like saying, I bought this movie or CD so I can share it or sell it to whoever I want. No?

[sziklassy]

Originally Posted by TheOrioles33

Thats kind of like saying, I bought this movie or CD so I can share it or sell it to whoever I want. No?

They are giving the actual disks and license to the buyer. If you buy a CD (music) or DVD (movie), yes you can SELL it to whoever you want. Sharing is a different story. This company isn't sharing anything...
Under your definition, once you buy a product and no longer want it, it shouldn;t be within your right to sell it to someone else?

[slayar35]

If I read this right, I may not have so feel free to correct me, they are purchasing mac os x then installing it on non apple machines then selling the machines to the public. If this is so then I don't think that argument will hold up in court. If I read it wrong then I'm not sure how it will go down.

[Cody Overcash]

Originally Posted by slayar35

If I read this right, I may not have so feel free to correct me, they are purchasing mac os x then installing it on non apple machines then selling the machines to the public. If this is so then I don't think that argument will hold up in court. If I read it wrong then I'm not sure how it will go down.

buying os x, installing on non-apple machines, then selling the os x they bought along with the machine

[soundengineer]

apple will lose on this one...Psystar is doing it completely legally...
its no different than a small computer store buying windows....making machines...and selling the windows along with the machine....
its done every day...
apple will have to form a workaround and change their EULA to read that you cant buy it and sell it to somebody else...and thats not legally possible...so all they can do is say that you give up any and all rights that you get with the purchase of OSX if you transfer ownership to another individual or company...
it still wouldnt stop psystar from selling...it would just deter a few people that want magical apple support

[Biznotch]

If the Apple EULA states that MAC OSX cannot be installed on anauthorized hardware, the only thing apple can do about it is void warranty. For instance, if you jailbreak your iphone (against the iphone EULA), all they can do is void your warranty (if youre an idiot and not restore before you take it to the store). Apple CANNOT SUE you, or take your iPhone away if you jailbreak it, becuase it IS your property.

[kfgillette]

I don't see how the First Sale Doctrine has anything to do with this case.

The lawsuit isn't about Psystar's distribution of copies of OS X, it's about Psystar breaking the EULA by installing OS X on non-Apple hardware... Completely different issues at hand...

[dennder]

I agree with soundengineer and Biznotch.
Breaking EULA does not make you thief (since you legally purchased MacOS).

But, read EULA first, send flowers later:

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

From par. 2, part A:

Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.

From par. 5

Termination.
This License is effective until terminated. Your rights under this License will terminate automatically without notice from Apple if you fail to comply with any term(s) of this License. Upon the termination of this License, you shall cease all use of the Apple Software and destroy all copies, full or partial, of the Apple Software.

Notice in the par. 2 the phrase:

on any non-Apple-labeled computer

- !!COMPUTER!! not HARDWARE.

So i do believe it will end battling about what computer is, and what computer is not.

Edit:
And one more thing, correct me if i am wrong (since im not a native eng. speaker), there is a difference between the "apple-labeled" and "labeled by apple". Therefore, if i apply the apple sticker (two of these are enclosed with every copy of Mas OS) on the final assembly of the computer, i won't break EULA? LOL... Just my thoughts.

[khaoticsquirrel]

Originally Posted by dennder

Edit:
And one more thing, correct me if i am wrong (since im not a native eng. speaker), there is a difference between the "apple-labeled" and "labeled by apple". Therefore, if i apply the apple sticker (two of these are enclosed with every copy of Mas OS) on the final assembly of the computer, i won't break EULA? LOL... Just my thoughts.

Damn dennder, you beat me to it. When I was reading you're quotes, I was thinking the same thing. If it just says "Apple-labeled" products, then I would just toss on a sticker that you use to get with iPods and all that jazz. haha. makes sense to me. It's all in the wording of phrases. That's how lawyers get around things is through misinterpreted words and phrases.

[koolhamster]

Look at their pics side by side in the first post. They have the same grey background. Sue them.

Now seriously, this is a controversial debate so let's just hope this gets settled so that both can come out of it better. Let's see how this goes.

[crashnburn_in]

I'd say instead of Buying the OSX license they should create their invoice in the following way:

1. Computer Hardware & Assembly Charges
2. User purchase help at Retail Software Box Cost Value
3. User specified Software Installation & Configuration Charges

[xDvolcom]

I have an open comp. and I love it, i would hate is those apple bitches shut psystar down.