Interesting, but this firm's web site implies that they have offices in Texas, Florida, and 11 other states -- but only two partners. Also, some insight from Mac Observer...
This gives you insight into the people running Psystar, so they have a legal team who has won a cases against Apple so it good to assume they understand Apple's tactics and know Apples business well. Then the switch to the Law firm is lost the biggest case against the RIAA, because the lack any understanding of how computers and the internet work. I just hope they plan to pay that poor woman $1.9M bill for the 27 songs the RIAA claims she shared with millions of people.
I'd say instead of messing with Apple, Psystar can just make their hack into a software and sell it in the stores like any other software. For example: VM Ware allows a user to use Windows on a Mac as does Parallel. Bootcamp allows users to install Windows on a Mac to use as if it's a PC.
All Psystar needs to do to NOT having to violate the EULA is to NOT install OSX at all! Just sell the codes as a software that allows OSX to be installed on ANY PC... much like a driver! That way, they don't even have to touch OSX. Heck, just sell the computer with the codes/hacks pre-installed! Then the End User would just buy their own copy of OSX and install it themselves.
I agree
... and then if there was some way they could "bundle" the disc customers want along with the computer... you know, buy from Amazon and resell to their customer...
... and then if there was some legitimate way they could copy that disc onto the computer for the customer to save time (protected by fair use).
Of course the BNetD precedent doesn't help, but that was BS from the get-go.
Except that your OS X upgrade price would quadruple. Do you really think that the cost of developing Snow Leopard is recouped by selling it for $29, or the development cost of previous versions worked out to $129 per copy? MS has a much larger volume of sales, and look how much they charge for upgrades. They have to because their development costs must be recovered in the sales of their OS. But Apple's hardware sales supports its OS development costs. If they were forced to decouple that dependancy, the cost of the software would increase dramatically.
I've asked that question many times, and Psystar supporters always conveniently ignore it. It's pretty clear the only reason they support Psystar is because they think they deserve MacOS X without properly compensating Apple for it.
Except there is no question of anyone getting stiffed out of money in this case. I see where you're going with the analogy but its not particularly apt.
UHm... Apple uses hardware profits to pay for OS development? It may be a poor analogy, but Apple is definitely getting stiffed out of money in this situation. Why is it that no Psystar supporter ever acknowledges this fact?
What do you think will happen if Psystar wins their case? Do you not think Apple will increase the price of MacOS X, leaving $29 and $129 upgrades only to Mac customers?
I've never seen those questions answered by Psystar supporters.
Nonsense. Your analogy is wrong. Period. These tired engine / auto / lawn-mower analogies just goes to show you psystar-lovers cannot come up with any kind of common-sense answers. Just cause Industry "A" does it one way, it obviously will work for Industry "B". Pure nonsense.
The flaw in your logic is that you assume that OSX is a separate product to be sold separately. Apple sells hardware and includes OSX to run on their hardware. Those OSX retail boxes as it is clearly stated is only for upgrading Apple-branded computers. So you can walk into a store (or Amazon) and purchase OSX and think the world is a happy place? You want to hack it and get it to work on your own personal PC, go right ahead. I don't have a problem with it and I don't think Apple does either. But the moment you take that CD, build a machine around it and set up a business to sell that PC, you just committed theft. Pure and simple.
Would you have a problem with it if upon ordering the OSX CD you were required to provide an official Apple hardware serial number in order to install it before the order is even placed? Apple may very well have to do that down the road.
"Apple Branded" does not mean sticking those included Apple logos in the box onto your build-to-order PC nor does it mean installing OSX on said build-to-order PC and making a business out of it depriving Apple of its hardware revenue.
Of course, you will continue to twist and warp the true meaning of "Apple Branded" or OSX "License vs. Ownership" and try to fabricate some kind of moral higher-ground crusade that Psystar is the David to Apple's Goliath.
All Psystar is doing is screwing the garage tinkerers (Hackintosh) if Psystar keeps this up.
3 points..
1/ The law will not care whether this is industry A, B, C or Z, it will apply equally across all.
2/ The Apple retail box does NOT state upgrade only.
3/ The point of what constitutes Apple branding has not yet been debated or judged upon.
That's not the question I am posing. I am simply asking whether you buy it or license it. Its cost is irrelevant to the argument.
Clearly you license it, just as all software is licensed and just as you don't actually buy a book but an implied license, granted by the copyright holder's agent (the publisher) for a single copy. No software publisher sells you the software; they sell you a license to use the software. Even if you obtain free software, such as Linux, you don't own the software, you are freely granted a license to use the software subject to certain restrictions.
1/ The law will not care whether this is industry A, B, C or Z, it will apply equally across all.
2/ The Apple retail box does NOT state upgrade only.
3/ The point of what constitutes Apple branding has not yet been debated or judged upon.
You are uninformed and in need of a serious reality-check. The courts - while slow - will end up giving you just that. You can hang up your wannabe lawyer credentials and consider a real job for once.
Well the EULA is just the extension and explanation of the rights the "user" who is being granted the license has for its use. A copyright doesn't lose its validity because it's being used for business, in this case, rather than for individual use.
What makes you think that?
What makes you think I think that?
Quote:
The big problem with many of these eula's is that they're "shrink wrapped". Some states allow that as a proper defense of the copyright, some don't, and others are still sitting on the wall about it.
But if someone can't even claim that they don't understand it, then they have no defense.
The case here is based on whether this is valid or not altogether. If Psystar wins, then everyone can install OS X anywhere they please.
You're not hearing that the EULA is not the crux of Apple's case against Pystar. It does not have to be tested as valid by the court for Apple to win this case. You and others seem to believe that if it's possible to violate a trademark or copyright, that it must be legal to do so. Where you get that, I have no idea.
then there is another question about whether Eula is valid of itself.
Perhaps, but it's not germane to this discussion. I say, don't confuse the issues. Forget about the OSX EULA and think about the situation more generally. Psystar's argument for its business is, essentially, that if they can buy the parts of a Macintosh computer, that they are entitled to manufacture and sell Macintosh computers. In what world, I don't know -- but that's their argument, in a nutshell.
Before anyone argues that this is not what they are trying to do, it's too late because Psystar tipped its own hand on this long ago, when they tried to convince the court that a "Macintosh compatible computer market" existed, over which Apple had illegal control. Since such a market clearly does not exist, it also became blindingly obvious that Psystar was in fact trying to create one out of whole cloth for their commercial benefit.
Psystar is trying to build and sell Apple's product. They are insisting that Apple must be forced to compete against itself, if for no other reason than it is technically possible to make them compete against themselves. In doing so, they are poaching on Apple's copyrights, trademarks and patents, and Apple's plain rights under the law to decide how it wants to sell its own products. This is easy to see without any reference whatsoever to the OSX EULA. In fact, it's much easier to see with the underbrush cleared away.
Heh. No. For average Mac users (read: the 90+% that don't care enough to troll these kinds of message boards), they wouldn't turn to a windows-based system as an alternative. Every mac user I've ever met (and I worked for Apple for several years) who used the system by choice, has essentially vowed never to return to a Windows OS again. And for the majority of those people installing OSX on a PC is just way over their heads. What Psystar is doing is offering an alternative to Apple's systems, with the same software experience.
If they turn out systems with the same specs, at a lower price, that will provide people with a viable choice. And Apple's response would have to be either lowering the price, or innovating new features that justify the price.
EITHER WAY, WE THE CONSUMERS, WIN.
- Xid
You give one response. The one you want. There are other responses that Apple could and would likely take. One is that they could lower their hardware cost and jack up the OS cost, making it the same cost to buy the whole product from Apple, but costlier from anywhere else. They could also lock down the OS to their hardware with anti-piracy measures. Apple has been very relaxed in their anti-piracy measures. In these cases the consumer doesn't win and it's all the result of stupid Psystar.
Besides, Psystar isn't competition. They're trying to pretend they're like DELL, who licenses Windows to put on machines they slop together, unfortunately they have no agreement with Apple to license MacOS.
Universal Studios has an animation department (assumed). They have all the same tools that the Disney animation department has. Does that give Universal the right to start drawing Mickey Mouse and make money with Disneys intelectual property?
Apples ULA was written to protect their business model of Hardware sales propetuated by the software. Apple owns the rights to that software. Psystar does not have the right to undermine this business model. They need to write their own awsome software. Otherwise, it is simply stealing.
Why would anyone presume that Apple should settle for A Microsoft business model of selling just the OS.
A moral right, to steal someone else's intellectual property and use it to undermine their business?
You're joking, right?
"Intellectual property" is a misnomer that causes people to think of intellectual, non-physical ideas and such as if they should be governed by the property rights associated with physical objects. See here, and here.
As such, there is no such thing as what you describe, for two reasons. One, stealing is the act of taking from someone else without right or permission. Making a copy of a computer image, for example, is not stealing -- there is no theft, the original possessor (notice, I did not say owner) still has the original image. And second, one cannot (morally should not) own an idea or concept. And in the end, that's what OS X is -- a collection of ones and zeros, and they have laid claim to that particular pattern or any other patterns that are similar.
And the only "undermining" I see is Psystar taking advantage of the fact that Apple has achieved a monopoly over hardware capable of running OS X (I do not mean the legal definition of monopoly), and therefore Apple has been able to inflate the price of its machines. With competition from other companies, Apple would have to bring down the price of its own hardware, which is why they are trying to stop Psystar from competing with them.
A lot of you seem concerned that Psystar will ruin Apple, and point to a previous time where Apple was close to bankruptcy, and there were many clones of the Mac. We're supposed to assume that the clones were the sole reason? OS 9, Apple's flagship OS at the time, couldn't even multitask properly, a ton of money had poured into development of Copland (what would have been the MacOS redesign of not for NeXT), more money into buying NeXT, money into developing OS X...
Also, if you believe Psystar is nothing but a "clone", it suggests Psystar has a symbiotic (or parasitic) relationship with Apple (Psystar needs OS X, Apple gets $$$) and therefore depends on Apple to survive well. If Apple start being threatened by clones, they would have to increase OS X prices to fight against the clone makers. As Apple died, so would the clones.
Psystar is competition. Business is not a children's playground, companies die when they cannot keep up. If Psystar can undercut Apple significantly and kill Apple (I highly doubt this will _EVER_ happen), that just means Apple was too stubborn to produce hardware capable of competing at Psystar's price point.
And the only "undermining" I see is Psystar taking advantage of the fact that Apple has achieved a monopoly over hardware capable of running OS X (I do not mean the legal definition of monopoly), and therefore Apple has been able to inflate the price of its machines. With competition from other companies, Apple would have to bring down the price of its own hardware, which is why they are trying to stop Psystar from competing with them.
There are other responses that Apple could and would likely take. One is that they could lower their hardware cost and jack up the OS cost, making it the same cost to buy the whole product from Apple, but costlier from anywhere else.
Yeah, they could do that. Nothing stopping them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard
They could also lock down the OS to their hardware with anti-piracy measures. Apple has been very relaxed in their anti-piracy measures.p
That's because they didn't need them as long as they could restrict their OS to only their hardware, not because Apple is a company with morals (such a thing does not exist, for the most part). It is very possible they will introduce anti-sharing countermeasures in the future (Piracy is a smear term used to change how the public sees sharing non-physical material, see this, and this is also an interesting study). That would be very sad indeed. But morally it is not proper to back down from an issue in fear of them pressing another. I protest against Apple trying to kill off Psystar, and I protest against Digital Restrictions Management (heh) in any form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard
Besides, Psystar isn't competition. They're trying to pretend they're like DELL, who licenses Windows to put on machines they slop together, unfortunately they have no agreement with Apple to license MacOS.
You need no license beyond the license you get when you buy Windows to sell PCs with Windows, just as you don't need special permission from NVIDIA to sell a PC with an NVIDIA video card. Just buy one (same as Psystar buys OS X). At least, I'm pretty sure that's the case... if not, the situation is even worse.
You need no license beyond the license you get when you buy Windows to sell PCs with Windows, just as you don't need special permission from NVIDIA to sell a PC with an NVIDIA video card. Just buy one (same as Psystar buys OS X). At least, I'm pretty sure that's the case... if not, the situation is even worse.
Well, sorry to be the one to drop the bad news on you, but the situation is "even worse".
a) Video cards are not licensed, they are sold. (Although, the drivers are licensed, so NVIDIA could restrict what you do with the driver, which would affect how useful the card is in the system you install it in.)
b) The license you get when you buy Windows to sell PCs with Windows, is not the Windows EULA. Computer manufacturers get a license that allows them to make copies of and install Windows on computers that are sold to end users, licensing the copy of Windows installed to the end users under the conditions of the EULA.
If you are the copyright owner, no one may legally use or make a copy of your copyrighted property (except under the restrictive conditions of "fair use", which obviously do not apply here) unless you grant them a license to do so, or release your property to the public domain.
Not even software released under the GNU license is free from these restrictions, because if it were free of restrictions -- i.e., released into the public domain -- I could, for example, use it as the basis of some software I would like to sell and be free of the obligation to provide source code, effectively creating my own proprietary software, which I would hold the copyright to and license as I see fit.
Wow! You guys are smart!! Them judges and lawyers must be idiots since this case keeps dragging on. They need to come here to interpret the law so the case can just instantly be shutdown!
Quote:
This is why Macbooks are in demand. This is why investors wait with bated breath before every quarterly report from AAPL. This is more of what MS should be doing, but can't.
Another brilliant comment! Why hasn't MS realized this?! Man, companies are just retarded these days when random internet nerds obviously know more about business and law than the professionals!
Wow! You guys are so smart!
Stop pretending like you guys actually know whats going on. All it does is provide laughs. (In that case.. Keep pretending..)
You need to get out of your head the idea that Apple can be forced to adopt a different business model. The way Microsoft runs its business has absolutely nothing to do with Apple. There is no reason to make this comparison, except for the convenience of those who don't like Apple's method and think it would be nice if they were forced to change it to more resemble Microsoft. This is a completely arbitrary idea. It's absurd to imagine, and even more so to hope, that Apple could be forced to compete with itself for its own products. The concept is just plain weird, and I have to wonder where it comes from.
Video cards are not licensed, they are sold. (Although, the drivers are licensed, so NVIDIA could restrict what you do with the driver, which would affect how useful the card is in the system you install it in.)
I know. Just making a comparison. And on the driver side, there are Free drivers thanks to the Nouveau Project (Please everyone, support them! Send them your old cards, and dumps from ones you can't give up). Not nearly as fast or complete yet, and probably won't be for a long time, but it's still good to see And AMD cards are much further along, thanks to AMD providing ample documentation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
The license you get when you buy Windows to sell PCs with Windows, is not the Windows EULA. Computer manufacturers get a license that allows them to make copies of and install Windows on computers that are sold to end users, licensing the copy of Windows installed to the end users under the conditions of the EULA.
Well that sucks. I'm not just targeting Apple, this is bad too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
If you are the copyright owner, no one may legally use or make a copy of your copyrighted property (except under the restrictive conditions of "fair use", which obviously do not apply here) unless you grant them a license to do so, or release your property to the public domain.
Unfortunately. If you are the copyright owner, you possess ALL and ANY rights, except for those you explicitly give (basically). Fair Use is a very good idea, but is respected little... for example, it's Fair Use for me to convert a downloaded and paid for song from iTunes to work with my Ogg Vorbis -playing audio device, but if I have to circumvent DRM in the process, I'm in the wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Not even software released under the GNU license is free from these restrictions, because if it were free of restrictions -- i.e., released into the public domain -- I could, for example, use it as the basis of some software I would like to sell and be free of the obligation to provide source code, effectively creating my own proprietary software, which I would hold the copyright to and license as I see fit.
The GNU Public License is not free from restrictions, yes. There are some restrictions, which I believe are reasonable. There are other licenses which allow what you are talking about, called permissive licenses: The BSD license, the MIT license, the ISC license, etc. Technically, the only 100% moral route is the Public Domain, but I recognize the practical necessity of limited licensing, even use of draconian EULAs for short terms, in order to promote business.
@Dr Millmoss: You're missing the point. The point is not that Apple should choose the same business model as Microsoft. Apple _needs_ to make _no_ changes to their current business model in order to allow Psystar to continue, they just need to stop suing anyone who dares to compete with a single product of theirs instead of the entire Apple product line. They probably would make changes, but they don't _need_ to. MS has nothing to do with this besides an analogy, so stop trying to make it seem like we want to make Apple like MS. Apple can keep selling their own hardware, they'll just have to stop whining to the courts when others decide to compete with their hardware and just their hardware. I bet most of you guys will continue to buy Apple hardware, and that's fine. I bet it's superior to Psystar's anyways.
I know. Just making a comparison. And on the driver side, there are Free drivers thanks to the Nouveau Project (Please everyone, support them! Send them your old cards, and dumps from ones you can't give up). Not nearly as fast or complete yet, and probably won't be for a long time, but it's still good to see And AMD cards are much further along, thanks to AMD providing ample documentation.
Well that sucks. I'm not just targeting Apple, this is bad too.
Unfortunately. If you are the copyright owner, you possess ALL and ANY rights, except for those you explicitly give (basically). Fair Use is a very good idea, but is respected little... for example, it's Fair Use for me to convert a downloaded and paid for song from iTunes to work with my Ogg Vorbis -playing audio device, but if I have to circumvent DRM in the process, I'm in the wrong.
The GNU Public License is not free from restrictions, yes. There are some restrictions, which I believe are reasonable. There are other licenses which allow what you are talking about, called permissive licenses: The BSD license, the MIT license, the ISC license, etc. Technically, the only 100% moral route is the Public Domain, but I recognize the practical necessity of limited licensing, even use of draconian EULAs for short terms, in order to promote business.
@Dr Millmoss: You're missing the point. The point is not that Apple should choose the same business model as Microsoft. Apple _needs_ to make _no_ changes to their current business model in order to allow Psystar to continue, they just need to stop suing anyone who dares to compete with a single product of theirs instead of the entire Apple product line. They probably would make changes, but they don't _need_ to. MS has nothing to do with this besides an analogy, so stop trying to make it seem like we want to make Apple like MS. Apple can keep selling their own hardware, they'll just have to stop whining to the courts when others decide to compete with their hardware and just their hardware. I bet most of you guys will continue to buy Apple hardware, and that's fine. I bet it's superior to Psystar's anyways.
This is beyond asinine.
Psystar is free to create their own operating system or license a competing market operating system to put on their PC hardware.
Only when Apple decides they want to have a clone vendor market can Psystar apply for a license under no guarantee that they would qualify to become a clone vendor.
Comments
Interesting, but this firm's web site implies that they have offices in Texas, Florida, and 11 other states -- but only two partners. Also, some insight from Mac Observer...
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic...against_apple/
This gives you insight into the people running Psystar, so they have a legal team who has won a cases against Apple so it good to assume they understand Apple's tactics and know Apples business well. Then the switch to the Law firm is lost the biggest case against the RIAA, because the lack any understanding of how computers and the internet work. I just hope they plan to pay that poor woman $1.9M bill for the 27 songs the RIAA claims she shared with millions of people.
I'd say instead of messing with Apple, Psystar can just make their hack into a software and sell it in the stores like any other software. For example: VM Ware allows a user to use Windows on a Mac as does Parallel. Bootcamp allows users to install Windows on a Mac to use as if it's a PC.
All Psystar needs to do to NOT having to violate the EULA is to NOT install OSX at all! Just sell the codes as a software that allows OSX to be installed on ANY PC... much like a driver! That way, they don't even have to touch OSX. Heck, just sell the computer with the codes/hacks pre-installed! Then the End User would just buy their own copy of OSX and install it themselves.
I agree
... and then if there was some way they could "bundle" the disc customers want along with the computer... you know, buy from Amazon and resell to their customer...
... and then if there was some legitimate way they could copy that disc onto the computer for the customer to save time (protected by fair use).
Of course the BNetD precedent doesn't help, but that was BS from the get-go.
Except that your OS X upgrade price would quadruple. Do you really think that the cost of developing Snow Leopard is recouped by selling it for $29, or the development cost of previous versions worked out to $129 per copy? MS has a much larger volume of sales, and look how much they charge for upgrades. They have to because their development costs must be recovered in the sales of their OS. But Apple's hardware sales supports its OS development costs. If they were forced to decouple that dependancy, the cost of the software would increase dramatically.
I've asked that question many times, and Psystar supporters always conveniently ignore it. It's pretty clear the only reason they support Psystar is because they think they deserve MacOS X without properly compensating Apple for it.
Except there is no question of anyone getting stiffed out of money in this case. I see where you're going with the analogy but its not particularly apt.
UHm... Apple uses hardware profits to pay for OS development? It may be a poor analogy, but Apple is definitely getting stiffed out of money in this situation. Why is it that no Psystar supporter ever acknowledges this fact?
What do you think will happen if Psystar wins their case? Do you not think Apple will increase the price of MacOS X, leaving $29 and $129 upgrades only to Mac customers?
I've never seen those questions answered by Psystar supporters.
Nonsense. Your analogy is wrong. Period. These tired engine / auto / lawn-mower analogies just goes to show you psystar-lovers cannot come up with any kind of common-sense answers. Just cause Industry "A" does it one way, it obviously will work for Industry "B". Pure nonsense.
The flaw in your logic is that you assume that OSX is a separate product to be sold separately. Apple sells hardware and includes OSX to run on their hardware. Those OSX retail boxes as it is clearly stated is only for upgrading Apple-branded computers. So you can walk into a store (or Amazon) and purchase OSX and think the world is a happy place? You want to hack it and get it to work on your own personal PC, go right ahead. I don't have a problem with it and I don't think Apple does either. But the moment you take that CD, build a machine around it and set up a business to sell that PC, you just committed theft. Pure and simple.
Would you have a problem with it if upon ordering the OSX CD you were required to provide an official Apple hardware serial number in order to install it before the order is even placed? Apple may very well have to do that down the road.
"Apple Branded" does not mean sticking those included Apple logos in the box onto your build-to-order PC nor does it mean installing OSX on said build-to-order PC and making a business out of it depriving Apple of its hardware revenue.
Of course, you will continue to twist and warp the true meaning of "Apple Branded" or OSX "License vs. Ownership" and try to fabricate some kind of moral higher-ground crusade that Psystar is the David to Apple's Goliath.
All Psystar is doing is screwing the garage tinkerers (Hackintosh) if Psystar keeps this up.
3 points..
1/ The law will not care whether this is industry A, B, C or Z, it will apply equally across all.
2/ The Apple retail box does NOT state upgrade only.
3/ The point of what constitutes Apple branding has not yet been debated or judged upon.
That's not the question I am posing. I am simply asking whether you buy it or license it. Its cost is irrelevant to the argument.
Clearly you license it, just as all software is licensed and just as you don't actually buy a book but an implied license, granted by the copyright holder's agent (the publisher) for a single copy. No software publisher sells you the software; they sell you a license to use the software. Even if you obtain free software, such as Linux, you don't own the software, you are freely granted a license to use the software subject to certain restrictions.
This case is a slam dunk under copyright law.
3 points..
1/ The law will not care whether this is industry A, B, C or Z, it will apply equally across all.
2/ The Apple retail box does NOT state upgrade only.
3/ The point of what constitutes Apple branding has not yet been debated or judged upon.
3 counterpoints.
1) Correct, but irrelevant.
2) Also irrelevant. Mac OS X is a copyrighted work distributed under a specific license that prohibits the "use" in question.
3) Well, OK, not so much a counterpoint but simply to point out that, in the context of what you responded to, this is simply ludicrous.
3 points..
1/ The law will not care whether this is industry A, B, C or Z, it will apply equally across all.
2/ The Apple retail box does NOT state upgrade only.
3/ The point of what constitutes Apple branding has not yet been debated or judged upon.
You are uninformed and in need of a serious reality-check. The courts - while slow - will end up giving you just that. You can hang up your wannabe lawyer credentials and consider a real job for once.
Well the EULA is just the extension and explanation of the rights the "user" who is being granted the license has for its use. A copyright doesn't lose its validity because it's being used for business, in this case, rather than for individual use.
What makes you think that?
What makes you think I think that?
The big problem with many of these eula's is that they're "shrink wrapped". Some states allow that as a proper defense of the copyright, some don't, and others are still sitting on the wall about it.
But if someone can't even claim that they don't understand it, then they have no defense.
The case here is based on whether this is valid or not altogether. If Psystar wins, then everyone can install OS X anywhere they please.
You're not hearing that the EULA is not the crux of Apple's case against Pystar. It does not have to be tested as valid by the court for Apple to win this case. You and others seem to believe that if it's possible to violate a trademark or copyright, that it must be legal to do so. Where you get that, I have no idea.
then there is another question about whether Eula is valid of itself.
Perhaps, but it's not germane to this discussion. I say, don't confuse the issues. Forget about the OSX EULA and think about the situation more generally. Psystar's argument for its business is, essentially, that if they can buy the parts of a Macintosh computer, that they are entitled to manufacture and sell Macintosh computers. In what world, I don't know -- but that's their argument, in a nutshell.
Before anyone argues that this is not what they are trying to do, it's too late because Psystar tipped its own hand on this long ago, when they tried to convince the court that a "Macintosh compatible computer market" existed, over which Apple had illegal control. Since such a market clearly does not exist, it also became blindingly obvious that Psystar was in fact trying to create one out of whole cloth for their commercial benefit.
Psystar is trying to build and sell Apple's product. They are insisting that Apple must be forced to compete against itself, if for no other reason than it is technically possible to make them compete against themselves. In doing so, they are poaching on Apple's copyrights, trademarks and patents, and Apple's plain rights under the law to decide how it wants to sell its own products. This is easy to see without any reference whatsoever to the OSX EULA. In fact, it's much easier to see with the underbrush cleared away.
Heh. No. For average Mac users (read: the 90+% that don't care enough to troll these kinds of message boards), they wouldn't turn to a windows-based system as an alternative. Every mac user I've ever met (and I worked for Apple for several years) who used the system by choice, has essentially vowed never to return to a Windows OS again. And for the majority of those people installing OSX on a PC is just way over their heads. What Psystar is doing is offering an alternative to Apple's systems, with the same software experience.
If they turn out systems with the same specs, at a lower price, that will provide people with a viable choice. And Apple's response would have to be either lowering the price, or innovating new features that justify the price.
EITHER WAY, WE THE CONSUMERS, WIN.
- Xid
You give one response. The one you want. There are other responses that Apple could and would likely take. One is that they could lower their hardware cost and jack up the OS cost, making it the same cost to buy the whole product from Apple, but costlier from anywhere else. They could also lock down the OS to their hardware with anti-piracy measures. Apple has been very relaxed in their anti-piracy measures. In these cases the consumer doesn't win and it's all the result of stupid Psystar.
Besides, Psystar isn't competition. They're trying to pretend they're like DELL, who licenses Windows to put on machines they slop together, unfortunately they have no agreement with Apple to license MacOS.
Apples ULA was written to protect their business model of Hardware sales propetuated by the software. Apple owns the rights to that software. Psystar does not have the right to undermine this business model. They need to write their own awsome software. Otherwise, it is simply stealing.
Why would anyone presume that Apple should settle for A Microsoft business model of selling just the OS.
A moral right, to steal someone else's intellectual property and use it to undermine their business?
You're joking, right?
"Intellectual property" is a misnomer that causes people to think of intellectual, non-physical ideas and such as if they should be governed by the property rights associated with physical objects. See here, and here.
As such, there is no such thing as what you describe, for two reasons. One, stealing is the act of taking from someone else without right or permission. Making a copy of a computer image, for example, is not stealing -- there is no theft, the original possessor (notice, I did not say owner) still has the original image. And second, one cannot (morally should not) own an idea or concept. And in the end, that's what OS X is -- a collection of ones and zeros, and they have laid claim to that particular pattern or any other patterns that are similar.
Read this: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/canada-ip-error
And the only "undermining" I see is Psystar taking advantage of the fact that Apple has achieved a monopoly over hardware capable of running OS X (I do not mean the legal definition of monopoly), and therefore Apple has been able to inflate the price of its machines. With competition from other companies, Apple would have to bring down the price of its own hardware, which is why they are trying to stop Psystar from competing with them.
A lot of you seem concerned that Psystar will ruin Apple, and point to a previous time where Apple was close to bankruptcy, and there were many clones of the Mac. We're supposed to assume that the clones were the sole reason? OS 9, Apple's flagship OS at the time, couldn't even multitask properly, a ton of money had poured into development of Copland (what would have been the MacOS redesign of not for NeXT), more money into buying NeXT, money into developing OS X...
Also, if you believe Psystar is nothing but a "clone", it suggests Psystar has a symbiotic (or parasitic) relationship with Apple (Psystar needs OS X, Apple gets $$$) and therefore depends on Apple to survive well. If Apple start being threatened by clones, they would have to increase OS X prices to fight against the clone makers. As Apple died, so would the clones.
Psystar is competition. Business is not a children's playground, companies die when they cannot keep up. If Psystar can undercut Apple significantly and kill Apple (I highly doubt this will _EVER_ happen), that just means Apple was too stubborn to produce hardware capable of competing at Psystar's price point.
And the only "undermining" I see is Psystar taking advantage of the fact that Apple has achieved a monopoly over hardware capable of running OS X (I do not mean the legal definition of monopoly), and therefore Apple has been able to inflate the price of its machines. With competition from other companies, Apple would have to bring down the price of its own hardware, which is why they are trying to stop Psystar from competing with them.
Wrong. See posts above.
Wrong. See posts above.
Be specific, please.
There are other responses that Apple could and would likely take. One is that they could lower their hardware cost and jack up the OS cost, making it the same cost to buy the whole product from Apple, but costlier from anywhere else.
Yeah, they could do that. Nothing stopping them.
They could also lock down the OS to their hardware with anti-piracy measures. Apple has been very relaxed in their anti-piracy measures.p
That's because they didn't need them as long as they could restrict their OS to only their hardware, not because Apple is a company with morals (such a thing does not exist, for the most part). It is very possible they will introduce anti-sharing countermeasures in the future (Piracy is a smear term used to change how the public sees sharing non-physical material, see this, and this is also an interesting study). That would be very sad indeed. But morally it is not proper to back down from an issue in fear of them pressing another. I protest against Apple trying to kill off Psystar, and I protest against Digital Restrictions Management (heh) in any form.
Besides, Psystar isn't competition. They're trying to pretend they're like DELL, who licenses Windows to put on machines they slop together, unfortunately they have no agreement with Apple to license MacOS.
You need no license beyond the license you get when you buy Windows to sell PCs with Windows, just as you don't need special permission from NVIDIA to sell a PC with an NVIDIA video card. Just buy one (same as Psystar buys OS X). At least, I'm pretty sure that's the case... if not, the situation is even worse.
You need no license beyond the license you get when you buy Windows to sell PCs with Windows, just as you don't need special permission from NVIDIA to sell a PC with an NVIDIA video card. Just buy one (same as Psystar buys OS X). At least, I'm pretty sure that's the case... if not, the situation is even worse.
Well, sorry to be the one to drop the bad news on you, but the situation is "even worse".
a) Video cards are not licensed, they are sold. (Although, the drivers are licensed, so NVIDIA could restrict what you do with the driver, which would affect how useful the card is in the system you install it in.)
b) The license you get when you buy Windows to sell PCs with Windows, is not the Windows EULA. Computer manufacturers get a license that allows them to make copies of and install Windows on computers that are sold to end users, licensing the copy of Windows installed to the end users under the conditions of the EULA.
If you are the copyright owner, no one may legally use or make a copy of your copyrighted property (except under the restrictive conditions of "fair use", which obviously do not apply here) unless you grant them a license to do so, or release your property to the public domain.
Not even software released under the GNU license is free from these restrictions, because if it were free of restrictions -- i.e., released into the public domain -- I could, for example, use it as the basis of some software I would like to sell and be free of the obligation to provide source code, effectively creating my own proprietary software, which I would hold the copyright to and license as I see fit.
This is why Macbooks are in demand. This is why investors wait with bated breath before every quarterly report from AAPL. This is more of what MS should be doing, but can't.
Another brilliant comment! Why hasn't MS realized this?! Man, companies are just retarded these days when random internet nerds obviously know more about business and law than the professionals!
Wow! You guys are so smart!
Stop pretending like you guys actually know whats going on. All it does is provide laughs. (In that case.. Keep pretending..)
Bring on more analogies!
Tools.
Be specific, please.
Try post #111 for starters.
You need to get out of your head the idea that Apple can be forced to adopt a different business model. The way Microsoft runs its business has absolutely nothing to do with Apple. There is no reason to make this comparison, except for the convenience of those who don't like Apple's method and think it would be nice if they were forced to change it to more resemble Microsoft. This is a completely arbitrary idea. It's absurd to imagine, and even more so to hope, that Apple could be forced to compete with itself for its own products. The concept is just plain weird, and I have to wonder where it comes from.
Video cards are not licensed, they are sold. (Although, the drivers are licensed, so NVIDIA could restrict what you do with the driver, which would affect how useful the card is in the system you install it in.)
I know. Just making a comparison. And on the driver side, there are Free drivers thanks to the Nouveau Project (Please everyone, support them! Send them your old cards, and dumps from ones you can't give up). Not nearly as fast or complete yet, and probably won't be for a long time, but it's still good to see
The license you get when you buy Windows to sell PCs with Windows, is not the Windows EULA. Computer manufacturers get a license that allows them to make copies of and install Windows on computers that are sold to end users, licensing the copy of Windows installed to the end users under the conditions of the EULA.
Well that sucks. I'm not just targeting Apple, this is bad too.
If you are the copyright owner, no one may legally use or make a copy of your copyrighted property (except under the restrictive conditions of "fair use", which obviously do not apply here) unless you grant them a license to do so, or release your property to the public domain.
Unfortunately. If you are the copyright owner, you possess ALL and ANY rights, except for those you explicitly give (basically). Fair Use is a very good idea, but is respected little... for example, it's Fair Use for me to convert a downloaded and paid for song from iTunes to work with my Ogg Vorbis -playing audio device, but if I have to circumvent DRM in the process, I'm in the wrong.
Not even software released under the GNU license is free from these restrictions, because if it were free of restrictions -- i.e., released into the public domain -- I could, for example, use it as the basis of some software I would like to sell and be free of the obligation to provide source code, effectively creating my own proprietary software, which I would hold the copyright to and license as I see fit.
The GNU Public License is not free from restrictions, yes. There are some restrictions, which I believe are reasonable. There are other licenses which allow what you are talking about, called permissive licenses: The BSD license, the MIT license, the ISC license, etc. Technically, the only 100% moral route is the Public Domain, but I recognize the practical necessity of limited licensing, even use of draconian EULAs for short terms, in order to promote business.
@Dr Millmoss: You're missing the point. The point is not that Apple should choose the same business model as Microsoft. Apple _needs_ to make _no_ changes to their current business model in order to allow Psystar to continue, they just need to stop suing anyone who dares to compete with a single product of theirs instead of the entire Apple product line. They probably would make changes, but they don't _need_ to. MS has nothing to do with this besides an analogy, so stop trying to make it seem like we want to make Apple like MS. Apple can keep selling their own hardware, they'll just have to stop whining to the courts when others decide to compete with their hardware and just their hardware. I bet most of you guys will continue to buy Apple hardware, and that's fine. I bet it's superior to Psystar's anyways.
I know. Just making a comparison. And on the driver side, there are Free drivers thanks to the Nouveau Project (Please everyone, support them! Send them your old cards, and dumps from ones you can't give up). Not nearly as fast or complete yet, and probably won't be for a long time, but it's still good to see
Well that sucks. I'm not just targeting Apple, this is bad too.
Unfortunately. If you are the copyright owner, you possess ALL and ANY rights, except for those you explicitly give (basically). Fair Use is a very good idea, but is respected little... for example, it's Fair Use for me to convert a downloaded and paid for song from iTunes to work with my Ogg Vorbis -playing audio device, but if I have to circumvent DRM in the process, I'm in the wrong.
The GNU Public License is not free from restrictions, yes. There are some restrictions, which I believe are reasonable. There are other licenses which allow what you are talking about, called permissive licenses: The BSD license, the MIT license, the ISC license, etc. Technically, the only 100% moral route is the Public Domain, but I recognize the practical necessity of limited licensing, even use of draconian EULAs for short terms, in order to promote business.
@Dr Millmoss: You're missing the point. The point is not that Apple should choose the same business model as Microsoft. Apple _needs_ to make _no_ changes to their current business model in order to allow Psystar to continue, they just need to stop suing anyone who dares to compete with a single product of theirs instead of the entire Apple product line. They probably would make changes, but they don't _need_ to. MS has nothing to do with this besides an analogy, so stop trying to make it seem like we want to make Apple like MS. Apple can keep selling their own hardware, they'll just have to stop whining to the courts when others decide to compete with their hardware and just their hardware. I bet most of you guys will continue to buy Apple hardware, and that's fine. I bet it's superior to Psystar's anyways.
This is beyond asinine.
Psystar is free to create their own operating system or license a competing market operating system to put on their PC hardware.
Only when Apple decides they want to have a clone vendor market can Psystar apply for a license under no guarantee that they would qualify to become a clone vendor.