Monitored Alarm Systems

As you know, Psystar is a company that has tried to make Mac clones by law to buy Apple operating systems, and find a way to install on other hardware. Apple sued the company in 2008 for violation of your license. Psystar went through a variety of (often dubious) defenses before deciding that I thought the best opportunity: the doctrine of first sale - basically, that the software purchased legally, and should be able to install this where do. Psystar also stated that "misuse of copyright", against the argument that the Apple EULA to restrict the installation of hardware Apple was just a form of abuse of copyright to prevent competition. Two years ago, however, the court granted summary conviction to Apple, which rejects both arguments.



Psystar calls, focusing on the grounds of abuse of copyright and, while it took some time, the 9th circuit is always a crazy upheld the sentence. The court, unfortunately, in my opinion, Apple buys the argument that their EULA does not restrict unfair competition, since Psystar could go to a different operating system instead of Apple. In this case, the court is based on the terrible sentence Vernor c. Autodesk basically said, "when a software company says it is the software to rent rather than sell it to you, your first sale right away." This is true even if the "sale" is in fact a sale rather than lease. It all depends on what you call it.

Thus, in this case, the court ruled that the complaint of misuse of copyright must be rejected because it is really an attempt to create a "right of first sale" for the software - and as Apple says its sales of software licenses are, there is no right of first sale. Therefore, without any abuse of the right ... to author. If you think this logic is circular, you should see if you can get a judge in the 9th circuit, as it seems to need help. Furthermore, it is argued that since Psystar could go write your own operating system that no misuse of copyright:


Apple
SLA does not limit the ability of competitors to develop their own software, or to exclude non-Apple clients using components with Apple computers. Instead, the SLA Apple restricts only the use of software for the hardware from Apple. As the district court correctly concluded, ALS Apple "did not prohibit others from independently developing and using their own operating systems." Apple I, 673 F. Suppl. 2d 939. Psystar produces its own hardware and is free to develop their own software.
Vernor The argument here is complicated. It is yet another court decision that chips rights of first sale, which are (were?) An important part of copyright