New german Mac-Clone - PearC

[takao]

Sorry, I can't speak to the German situation. I was responding to comments about the Psystar case in the US.

I do have a question about German law in this matter. What would prevent you from buying one copy of a piece of software and installing it on every computer you own?

only technical barriers inside of the software (like the much criticized Microsoft activation stuff of XP and later, serial numbers crosschecked on servers etc.)
it's perfectly legal to install it on as many private computers as you want (if the EULA isn't valid .. which is the case with nearly 100% of all retail boxed software)

What if a company does the same? If the licensing terms are spelled out in the SLA, and the SLA is invalid, how does a company limit the copying of its software?

with companies the laws/regulation is different i have no idea with that

also don't forget that many countries also have the consumer _right_ of a private copy

 

[BaldiMac]

only technical barriers inside of the software (like the much criticized Microsoft activation stuff of XP and later, serial numbers crosschecked on servers etc.)
it's perfectly legal to install it on as many private computers as you want (if the EULA isn't valid .. which is the case with nearly 100% of all retail boxed software)

with companies the laws/regulation is different i have no idea with that

No offense. I actually believe the information that you have supplied.

I just believe that there has to be more to the situation that you or the makers of PearC are not considering. Obviously, Apple has German lawyers who specialize in the appropriate German legal areas if they are going to sell software in Germany. If it is as cut and dry as you have described, I don't think Apple would just ignore the repercussions.

Again, I don't mean to argue with your information, because I surely don't know anything different.

 

[fhall1]

Sheesh....does EVERY thread here related to clones and/or hackintoshes have to break down into the neverending "it's against the Apple EULA" discussion? How about not scaring folks away and let's report on how the clone hardware actually functions, or discuss problems with it instead of the legal implications.

 

[sneezymarble]

Copyright law is what gives Apple the right to license and distribute their software as they see fit. Without a valid license, an installation of the software is copyright infringement. Breaking the terms of the SLA invalidates the license.

It's true. This can be explicitly seen in the case of MDY v. Blizzard. The judge ruled that because MDYs Glider program violated Blizzards EULA, MDY was contributing to copyright infringement and every user that ever used Glider had committed copyright infringement. Basically, this gives copyright holders almost unlimited power over how end users use software they pay for. In the past, the fact that software was sold just like other non-licensed items and usually did not require the user to return the software, the sale was considered a sale and not a license, despite the copyright holders inclusion of EULAs.

This meant that end users had more freedom with respect to putatively licensed software. Sadly, that has been completely destroyed. Essentially, now you can be in violation of copyright laws even if you do not actually violate any copyright laws. If that's not unusual I don't know what is. Set aside unconscionability for a moment and suppose Apple included a term in their OSX contract that said, "You agree to clap five times at noon every day." If you don't do that, you not only breach the contract but violate copyright law. Thanks Blizzard.