They argued poorly, and he had poor logic to his decision as I showed. The cases didn't even match.
that a license is not a sale subject to first-sale rights and never has been.
That is disputed in other circuits, and is denied in anti-UCITA states. Imagine the disaster if this concept is allowed to stand. If everything is licensed, then we lose ALL of our rights, the balance of copyright is shifted completely to the copyright cartel.
However, the right of first-sale DOES extend to selling the license... and the media... so the purchaser is allowed to transfer the rights to use the software they have purchased to another purchaser down-line so long as the sold versions still in possession of the seller are destroyed.
And that was Psystar's business model, firmly denied by the judge.
Also testimony was presented and not countered by Psystar that their own books showed they sold more Psystar computer systems than they bought OS X upgrade install disks.
Sounds like they screwed up in those cases. Have them pay damages for those cases and demand better accounting. This is not a reason to shut down a whole business. If you could shut down a business for an "oops" in accounting, Apple would have been shut down a couple of years ago.
Remember, I am an Apple fan and I can't really understand why anyone would buy a Psystar system in the first place. But principle doesn't change no matter who the players are. This is a blow to all consumers, and something that would have Thomas Jefferson rolling in his grave.
No. Psystar's business model was to ignore all of the provisions of the license. They are the ones opperating unconstitutionally.