Comments on: I’m a EULA. I’m a Contract. Apple Fumbles, Exposes EULA Dangers http://www.thelegality.com/2008/04/30/i%e2%80%99m-a-eula-i%e2%80%99m-a-contract-apple-fumbles-exposes-eula-dangers/ An Online Law Journal Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:55:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Jeff Hinman http://www.thelegality.com/2008/04/30/i%e2%80%99m-a-eula-i%e2%80%99m-a-contract-apple-fumbles-exposes-eula-dangers/comment-page-1/#comment-537 Jeff Hinman Thu, 01 May 2008 16:37:38 +0000 http://www.thelegality.com/archives/58#comment-537 Bob: Thanks for your comments. I assume you're talking about <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/04/mac_clone_maker.html" rel="nofollow">Psystar's challenge</a> to the limitation of use to only Apple-labeled computers contained in the Mac OS X EULA. That is definitely an interesting story and fertile ground for an article analyzing the underlying legal issues. I'll pass your suggestion on to my Editor-In-Chief. I took a very cursory look at it this morning. I think that the contract issue would fall under the same analysis in this article and would likely be held to be valid. The really compelling issue is whether Psystar has a legitimate antitrust claim against Apple. They would have to prove that limiting the use of Mac OS X to Apple computers either constitutes an <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=433&invol=36" rel="nofollow">unreasonable restraint on competition</a> in violation of <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/15/chapters/1/sections/section_1.html" rel="nofollow">Section 1 of the Sherman Act</a> or an attempt to <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=384&invol=563" rel="nofollow">gain or maintain monopoly power through anticompetitive acts</a> in violation of <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/15/chapters/1/sections/section_2.html" rel="nofollow">Section 2</a>. I'm not familiar enough with antitrust law to feel comfortable making any predictions. If we decide to go with the story, we'll let you know. -Jeff Bob: Thanks for your comments. I assume you’re talking about Psystar’s challenge to the limitation of use to only Apple-labeled computers contained in the Mac OS X EULA. That is definitely an interesting story and fertile ground for an article analyzing the underlying legal issues. I’ll pass your suggestion on to my Editor-In-Chief.

I took a very cursory look at it this morning. I think that the contract issue would fall under the same analysis in this article and would likely be held to be valid. The really compelling issue is whether Psystar has a legitimate antitrust claim against Apple. They would have to prove that limiting the use of Mac OS X to Apple computers either constitutes an unreasonable restraint on competition in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act or an attempt to gain or maintain monopoly power through anticompetitive acts in violation of Section 2. I’m not familiar enough with antitrust law to feel comfortable making any predictions. If we decide to go with the story, we’ll let you know.

-Jeff

]]> By: Bob http://www.thelegality.com/2008/04/30/i%e2%80%99m-a-eula-i%e2%80%99m-a-contract-apple-fumbles-exposes-eula-dangers/comment-page-1/#comment-520 Bob Thu, 01 May 2008 03:47:29 +0000 http://www.thelegality.com/archives/58#comment-520 I just discovered this randomly, but I really like the article. Is there any chance of a follow-up regarding the EULA for Mac OS X itself (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf), with respect to running on non-Apple hardware? That's been in the news quite a bit in the last couple of weeks, too. I just discovered this randomly, but I really like the article. Is there any chance of a follow-up regarding the EULA for Mac OS X itself (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf), with respect to running on non-Apple hardware? That’s been in the news quite a bit in the last couple of weeks, too.

]]>