Psystar switches lawyers in renewed defense - Page 6

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

It's only so different if you compare it to the Windows PC business. Apple's approach is entirely conventional, when considered by industrial norms. By that standard, it's the PC business which is the odd man out.

Originally Posted by melgross

I'm not arguing that. It's perception that talks though. Most people don't notice most things around them.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

I realize, on both counts. We've lived with the PC industry the way it is for so long, I think most people believe it's normal -- when in fact it's very far from normal. It all gets very strange when people start lambasting Apple for their method of doing business. Whenever this issue comes up, it causes me to stop to appreciate how remarkable it is that Apple has survived, even thrived, in this market, when most of the conventional wisdom is against it.

Originally Posted by melgross

That's exactly correct.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

You mean we agree on something?

BTW, when do you sleep?

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

An often overlooked factor. The Windows PC business is a commodity industry, in all but name. The manufacturers distinguish their products from each mainly on the basis of price. They control virtually nothing else, not even the functionalities of the products they sell. It's a pretty odd deal, which somewhere along the line, a lot of people decided was perfectly normal. In fact the way Apple runs its business is far more normal. They make the entire product. They decide how it will function. This is the way the vast majority of consumer products companies operate, the Windows PC business being the exception, not the rule. It's bizarre to me how many people are convinced that the Windows PC industry is normal, and Apple's model of doing business is weird and even dangerous -- when in reality, just the opposite is true.

Originally Posted by Halvri

I think it ultimately stems from the fact that at some point in the past, the concept of "the consumer is always right" morphed into "I always get exactly what I want no matter what." One of the sad truths of the internet age is that people have so much information available to them about how to do things that they really shouldn't, that they begin to form a very powerful sense of entitlement.

Richard Stallman is a great example of that concept: I'm honestly not sure that he can even comprehend the concept of illegality in terms of intellectual property theft because he looks at everything from the perspective of "if I can see it, it's completely and utterly mine."

In terms of hardware, I think people have a poor understanding of the word competition (and monopoly for that matter). They assume because more than one company makes something that there must be healthy competition. I've worked at Best Buy in the past and no one comes in for the coolest and newest and most innovative computers, they come in for the $399 crap lap-top on the front page of the advert that they've spent two days convincing themselves has everything and can do everything they need. They also automatically assume any free software on the internet clearly must be as good as the stuff one pays $50 or more for each month (ignoring fully many real and consequential differences).

I also think the lack of certain standardization in measurement causes a problem. For instance, Dell likes to claim that its 17" Studio lap-tops can achieve seven hours of battery life on a charge. Pretty much every review I've ever read of it concludes that one should never hope for more than three hours of battery life (and that's with the backlit turned way down). Even beyond that though, people don't have an appreciable amount of respect for the fact that a lap-top as thin as the 17" MacBook Pro that gets 8 hours of battery life is superior to a 17" lap-top that achieves the same thing by having a battery that extends out far beyond the bounds of the lap-top body.

It's very hard to get people to see past their desires and perceptions into reality.

Whenever this issue comes up, it causes me to stop to appreciate how remarkable it is that Apple has survived, even thrived, in this market, when most of the conventional wisdom is against it.

Originally Posted by desertofwater

Companies have a right to defend their business, within reason. Nothing can be unlimited -- defending business is not a Holy Crusade. In this case, I believe Psystar to be in the right and Apple to be in the wrong, morally. That's all.

Originally Posted by melgross

You can feel however you like. Ethically, Psystar is in the wrong, and very likely, legally as well.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Yeah, I have always wondered where the "morality" part comes in for some. Either Psystar is trading illegally on Apple's property, or they are not. I happen to think they are, but it's not a moral issue.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Well said. A lot of this debate seems to come down to, "if it's good for me, it must be right."

Originally Posted by Ranguvar

Companies have a right to defend their business, within reason. Nothing can be unlimited -- defending business is not a Holy Crusade. In this case, I believe Psystar to be in the right and Apple to be in the wrong, morally. That's all.

Originally Posted by desertofwater

Companies have a right to defend their business, within reason. Nothing can be unlimited -- defending business is not a Holy Crusade. In this case, I believe Psystar to be in the right and Apple to be in the wrong, morally. That's all.

Originally Posted by melgross

You can feel however you like. Ethically, Psystar is in the wrong, and very likely, legally as well.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Disclaimer: I haven't read through the whole thread. But, I've been following the story.

I'm really not sure I agree with you here. I really need to speak to my brother, who was a patent examiner in technology, member of the patent bar, and is now in law school focusing on intellectual property. That said, here is my take right now:

1. Psystar claims once it purchases Mac OS X legitimately, it can install it and use it how it wants.

---I agree with this. The analogy they use is "What if Honda sold you a car, and told you what roads to drive it on?" It would seem to me that Apple can't tell you not to modify their product after you buy it legitimately.

2. Apple claims Psystar violated the DMCA by creating code to hack their OS. "Defendant has illegally circumvented Apple's technological copyright-protection measures" --wiki

---I disagree with this. Psystar is not "'circumventing copyright protections." It is merely offering a product (the code) that allows said product to run on other hardware.

3. Psystar believes it has the right to sell Mac OS X at retail (with their machines).

--I disagree and think they will lose on this point. I do believe Apple has the legal right to determine who may sell its products en masse, whether installed on computers or not.

I could see this ending up as a split decision, so to speak. In other words, it's ruled that Psystar has the right to provide systems/code that can run legit copies of OSX, and that end users can, in fact, determine how they use purchased copies.

However, I can see Psystar being banned from selling OS X w/o Apple's permission. It could also be argued that Psystar is profiting from Apple's intellectual property by advertising their systems as being sold with Mac OSX. They're using the benefits of a product they didn't create to sell their computer, from images to even features. I could see this being a legal problem for them.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I really need to speak to my brother, who was a patent examiner in technology, member of the patent bar, and is now in law school focusing on intellectual property.

1. Psystar claims once it purchases Mac OS X legitimately, it can install it and use it how it wants. ---I agree with this.

Originally Posted by piot

Psystar doesn't buy OS X. They buy a licence to use OS X. Car analogies are crap. Fact.

This has nothing to do with anything. We're talking about copyrighted software, and the law is very clear here. I'm not sure your brother is an expert on copyright if he's going in for patent law, as they are quite distinct. My wife is an attorney, and has dealt with copyright and trademark law for over 25 years. She thinks, and I agree, based on my own business experience with this over several decades, that Apple is following the law as it is understood.

If, somehow, the judge interprets the law differently to what has been understood up until now, then after all the appeals, it may change. But so far, this is very different than buying a car, and putting a different engine inside, or telling you which roads to travel on. Neither has anything to do with copyright, or any of the other issues involved in this case..

So you are telling us that you know enough programming that you've gone through all of Apple's code, and can state that Apple doesn't use any code that would constitute encryption, or equivalent technology? If so, please show us why.

It isn't just that Psystar is "selling" Apple's software, it how they're selling it and for what purpose.

Violating copyright and the DMCA are both illegal. The difference is that Psystar's use is criminal, and individual users is civil.

1. Really? No shit.

2. You have no idea what you're talking about here. Their actions are not "criminal" in any sense. It's a CIVIL lawsuit. Any penalties would be civil in nature.

Either way, I'm pretty sure their EULA prohibits one using OS X on a non-Apple branded product, whether it's what Psystar did, or whether it's you sitting in your bedroom installing it on a $399 PC.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Disclaimer: I haven't read through the whole thread. But, I've been following the story.

I'm really not sure I agree with you here. I really need to speak to my brother, who was a patent examiner in technology, member of the patent bar, and is now in law school focusing on intellectual property. That said, here is my take right now:

1. Psystar claims once it purchases Mac OS X legitimately, it can install it and use it how it wants.

---I agree with this. The analogy they use is "What if Honda sold you a car, and told you what roads to drive it on?" It would seem to me that Apple can't tell you not to modify their product after you buy it legitimately.

2. Apple claims Psystar violated the DMCA by creating code to hack their OS. "Defendant has illegally circumvented Apple's technological copyright-protection measures" --wiki

---I disagree with this. Psystar is not "'circumventing copyright protections." It is merely offering a product (the code) that allows said product to run on other hardware.

3. Psystar believes it has the right to sell Mac OS X at retail (with their machines).

--I disagree and think they will lose on this point. I do believe Apple has the legal right to determine who may sell its products en masse, whether installed on computers or not.


I could see this ending up as a split decision, so to speak. In other words, it's ruled that Psystar has the right to provide systems/code that can run legit copies of OSX, and that end users can, in fact, determine how they use purchased copies.

However, I can see Psystar being banned from selling OS X w/o Apple's permission. It could also be argued that Psystar is profiting from Apple's intellectual property by advertising their systems as being sold with Mac OSX. They're using the benefits of a product they didn't create to sell their computer, from images to even features. I could see this being a legal problem for them.

Originally Posted by melgross

You don't have to like it.


I actually do know what I'm talking about. Otherwise, I would not have said it.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...6----000-.html

Originally Posted by Maestro64

I think you should have talked to your bother before you made that statement... If you read the Judge just found in favor of Apple and said that Psystar did violated the copy protection method that apple employed by overwriting various kernal files.

It is not like they went out and bought OSX and gave it to someone else to install it on their computer they are activity changing the software so they can sell it to others as part of their hardware.