Ah, Judge Alsup found that in some instances Psystar was doing just exactly this and claiming "fair use," andk although Psystar did not directly plead "Fair Use," they were, in fact, claiming it as a back-door defense as a "necessary step in installing it on their Open Computers. TChris was implying that Psystar's entire business plan was based on Chapter 117's Fair Use exemptions for Copyright infringement. I was disagreeing.
Which is an incorrect distinction.
OK, you make the distinction... I've been reading the distinctions the courts have been making. Have you? Licenses are not sales and are not subject to "first sale" restrictions. None-the-less, Apple allows a "first sale" of the license to take place for each subsequent license holder so long as the previous licensee destroys any copies he has before passing on his license.
“Ah, Judge Alsup found that in some instances Psystar was doing just exactly this and claiming “fair use,”
Then, if they were doing THAT, fine. Fine them.
That wasn’t the primary complaint from Apple.
“Licenses are not sales and are not subject to “first sale” restrictions. “
They are sales and they should be. Software should be treated no differently than books.