Psystar Hires Law Team that Won Burst Setlement Against Apple

magnetik

magnetik

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 6, 2000
Messages
6,254
grabbing my popcorn for this one...

Link
Psystar Hires Law Team that Won Burst Setlement Against Apple
by John Martellaro, 1:20 PM EDT, July 31st, 2008


Psystar, which is being sued by Apple, has hired a law firm that was successful in its case against Apple on behalf of Burst according to Computerworld on Wednesday.

The law firm of Carr & Farrell LLP in Palo Alto won a out of court settlement on behalf of Burst on 2006. Burst claimed that Apple has appropriated its technology in the iPod player and iTunes.

Carr & Farrell is now going to defend Psystar against Apple.

The stakes are high in this case. If Apple loses, the doors could burst open for clone makers and possibly damage Apple's booming Mac sales. On the other hand, Apple has demanded, amongst other things in its filing, that Psystar recall all of the computers it has sold with Mac OS X installed. Such a result would likely put Psystar out of business and give pause to any other company who has been thinking about a similar business model.

Psystar has consistently declined to publicly discuss the basis for their belief that they have a sound legal case. Time will tell.
Click to expand...
 
doesn't the license in OS X pretty much seal any chance of winning? it is Apple's OS, they can decided on what hardware it is installed.. unless Apple is found for having a monopoly of some sort..
 
MrGuvernment said:
doesn't the license in OS X pretty much seal any chance of winning? it is Apple's OS, they can decided on what hardware it is installed.. unless Apple is found for having a monopoly of some sort..
Click to expand...


that part of the eula has not been legally tested
 
MrGuvernment said:
doesn't the license in OS X pretty much seal any chance of winning? it is Apple's OS, they can decided on what hardware it is installed.. unless Apple is found for having a monopoly of some sort..
Click to expand...

An EULA is not a law. There still hasn't been a case that tests how legally binding an EULA is. This could very well be it.
 
One of the issues with EULAs is that it is not definite who actually agreed to the EULA at all, meaning that if one where to click agree, how do you prove said user is the one that clicked agreed, what if one was not computer literate and had lets say a relative hook up the computer and turn it on to get to the desktop and they clicked the agree button on the owners behalf during the setup process, who is now liable for this said agreement?

EULAs are unlike signature agreements where handwriting and signature can matched according to a scientific method of proving as such, plus do companies give 100% refunds after one purchases said software if one does not agree to the EULA after reading? It might come down to EULAs needing to be physically read, signed before purchase of software. We shall see if this case goes to trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top