or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Psystar switches lawyers in renewed defense
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Psystar switches lawyers in renewed defense - Page 3

post #81 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Exactly.

And relying on public support?

LOL, right. Because Psystar is making crazy sales and their fake Macs are just flying off the shelves, right?

When in fact in a RECESSION, Apple can barely keep up with MBP demand.

Psystar is living in some alternate reality where people actually want the garbage they peddle.

Does anyone actually know of a Psystar computer that has been purchased? I like how they said "hundreds of copies". Friends and family

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #82 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranguvar View Post

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.

How is apple in the wrong to defend their IP? That is the most insane thing I've ever heard. If I built a KIOSK for JC Penny, and a company took my software off of that KIOSK install disc and resold their own KIOSK without my permission, that would be theft. Plain and simple. That is virtually what psystar is doing. It is not my responsibility to make sure it can't be stolen / hacked / cracked / reverse engineered. I don't have enough hours in the day to do that as a programmer. I work very hard as a programmer, and to be stolen from is a huge blow to the face.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #83 of 225
Very Simple Solution:

1) Line item Mac OS X incl. iLife on the Apple Store at ~$699.00; naturally included with any Apple Macintosh purchase.

2) PROMINENTLY display UPGRADE ONLY on all retail boxes of Mac OS X, which is in fact, only an upgrade.

This would kill the Apple-Tax debate on hardware. Just because MS decides to "give away" licenses (OEM), doesn't mean Apple is forced to.

Any and all potential clone-makers, would have to show receipts, as well as try to make a profit. Even if they were able to get ultra-cheap parts, who would buy from a clone maker, or Dell, to save maybe ~100,00(?)... knowing full well that the quality wouldn't even be close to an original Mac.

Also, no OSX support whatsoever from Apple on non-Apple hardware; community driven only, or from the clone-makers.

Would OSX sell stand-alone? I doubt it... but who cares? Most of us here buy Apple only anyway, and mostly because of OSX AND the quality hardware.

My 2 cents regurgitated
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #84 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

Although I'm on Apple's side with this... It's not a derivative if you haven't had to modify any source or binaries (which I hear is possible).

Installation does not constitute a derivative.

In software it's an "adaptation". All installed software is an "adaptation" because it has to be adapted from what's on the original installation disc so that it can run on your specific hardware. Even if it's a straight install. You are allow to modify the original installation to fit your needs. That includes updating or adding any drivers of third party venders that weren't included in the original installation. This includes updates and bug fixes by the original software owner. Which were not included in the original installation. The OSX in a Mac is no where near what the OSX on the disc is. The installed OSX is an adaptation derived from the original. Copyright laws protects the owner on what's on the original installation disc and all adaptation derived from that disc. Even if the modifications was not part of the original installation. Or if no modification was even done after the installation.

Refer to - "I.D. The CONTU Recommendations"

here

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise17.html


Here's an excerpt _ (bold is added by me)

Because of a lack of complete standardization among programming languages and hardware in the computer industry, one who rightfully acquires a copy of a program frequently cannot use it without adapting it to that limited extent which will allow its use in the possessor’s computer. The copyright law, which grants to copyright proprietors the exclusive right to prepare translations, transformations, and adaptations of their work, should no more prevent such use than it should prevent rightful possessors from loading programs into their computers. Thus, a right to make those changes necessary to enable the use for which it was both sold and purchased should be provided. The conversion of a program from one higher-level language to another to facilitate use would fall within this right, as would the right to add features to the program that were not present at the time of rightful acquisition. These rights would necessarily be more private in nature than the right to load a program by copying it and could only be exercised so long as they did not harm the interests of the copyright proprietor. Unlike the exact copies authorized as described above, this right of adaptation could not be conveyed to others along with the licensed or owned program without the express authorization of the owner of the copyright in the original work. Preparation of adaptations could not, of course, deprive the original proprietor of copyright in the underlying work. The adaptor could not vend the adapted program, under the proposed revision of the new law, nor could it be sold as the original without the author’s permission. Again, it is likely that many transactions involving copies of programs are entered into with full awareness that users will modify their copies to suit their own needs, and this should be reflected in the law. The comparison of this practice to extensive marginal note-taking in a book is appropriate: note-taking is arguably the creation of a derivative work, but unless the note-taker tries to copy and vend that work, the copyright owner is unlikely to be very concerned. Should proprietors feel strongly that they do not want rightful possessors of copies of their programs to prepare such adaptations, they of course, make such desires a contractual matter. {FN12: CONTU Rep. at 13}
post #85 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Very Simple Solution:

1) Line item Mac OS X incl. iLife on the Apple Store at ~$699.00; naturally included with any Apple Macintosh purchase.

2) PROMINENTLY display UPGRADE ONLY on all retail boxes of Mac OS X, which is in fact, only an upgrade.

This would kill the Apple-Tax debate on hardware. Just because MS decides to "give away" licenses (OEM), doesn't mean Apple is forced to.

Any and all potential clone-makers, would have to show receipts, as well as try to make a profit. Even if they were able to get ultra-cheap parts, who would buy from a clone maker, or Dell, to save maybe ~100,00(?)... knowing full well that the quality wouldn't even be close to an original Mac.

Also, no OSX support whatsoever from Apple on non-Apple hardware; community driven only, or from the clone-makers.

Would OSX sell stand-alone? I doubt it... but who cares? Most of us here buy Apple only anyway, and mostly because of OSX AND the quality hardware.

My 2 cents regurgitated

Most people would jump all over the Dell deal because it would be cheaper (better or not). Not offering support, and OS X not being on quality hardware would eventually tarnish the name apple and OS X. Bad strategy

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #86 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

In software it's an "adaptation". All installed software is an "adaptation" because it has to be adapted from what's on the original installation disc so that it can run on your specific hardware. Even if it's a straight install. You are allow to modify the original installation to fit your needs. That includes updating or adding any drivers of third party venders that weren't included in the original installation. This includes updates and bug fixes by the original software owner. Which were not included in the original installation. The OSX in a Mac is no where near what the OSX on the disc is. The installed OSX is an adaptation derived from the original. Copyright laws protects the owner on what's on the original installation disc and all adaptation derived from that disc. Even if the modifications was not part of the original installation. Or if no modification was even done after the installation.

Refer to - "I.D. The CONTU Recommendations"

here

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise17.html

Adaption or not adaption, the fact remains it's still apple's property. They have the right to say what hardware it's installed on. They have the right to protect their name (OS X being installed on non approved hardware that reaches the masses could destroy the reputation OS X has), they have the right to protect their business strategy via their own software, they have the right to protect their research and development time into OS X, and they have the right to determine how the software is distributed.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #87 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Very Simple Solution:

1) Line item Mac OS X incl. iLife on the Apple Store at ~$699.00; naturally included with any Apple Macintosh purchase.

2) PROMINENTLY display UPGRADE ONLY on all retail boxes of Mac OS X, which is in fact, only an upgrade.

(From ArsTechnica)
Windows 7
Prices as of 10/2009 \t
Home Premium - $199.99
Professional - $299.99
Ultimate - $319.99

I just thought I'd reply to my own post, to justify my price point of *OSX and iLife. Considering that there is nothing even close to iLife on Windows, easily add ~200,00 for assorted programs. Also add yearly subscriptions for security suites and assorted other security measures ~100,00.

As far as I"m concerned, *OSX/iLife is a far better deal, because it all ties and works together nicely... so add another ~100,00 for "peace of mind and user-experience".

*OSX/iLife = not sold seperately
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #88 of 225
I think they've been watching Boston Legal and saw the episode where the guy who knows he's guilty keeps firing his lawyers to delay going to jail.
post #89 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill View Post

Please do.

I would, but I like free speech too much. Dumb ideas aren't really enough to be purged.
post #90 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

This is where it gets dangerous. Apple gets sort of a 'carte blanche' because people are happy with them. For now. This is <somewhat> O.K. while Apple is still a minority. However, as Apple gets bigger and more popular, they become the very Big Brother that they railed against back in 1984. They make the rules. We, the minions, must walk in lockstep with them. They determine what a 'proper' computing experience should be, both in hardware and software, integrated. This is where I think companies like Psystar are doing a good thing. They are kicking the giant's shins. I think they have a very good case that it's unfair to link the hardware with the software, just like Microsoft insisted it had the right to link its browser with its operating system. And in Microsoft's case, that didn't even involve hardware, it was only a software issue, and they lost.

Your logic is backwards.

Microsoft sells an OS. They have a monopoly in the OS market. Because of their OS monopoly they were forcing it's user to use IE. IE was not a monopoly in the browser market (at the time). It wasn't the "tying" of IE to their OS that got them in trouble. It was not allowing their competitors (Netscape) to fairly compete, by leveraging their OS monopoly, that got them in trouble.

Apple sells a computer, the Mac. For your sake (and others who don't know any better), were going to say that Apple has a monopoly in the Mac market. Apple do not force you to use OSX on their Mac. Even though OSX is "tied" to it. A Mac is not "tied" to OSX. Apple has done nothing to limit any other OS from running on a Mac. (Which by your standard, is a monopoly.) OSX is not a monopoly in the OS market by any stretch of the imagination. So Apple can "tied" OSX to their hardware. So long as they allow others to install OS's into their hardware.

Just like MS can "tie" IE to Windows. So long as they allow other browsers to fairly compete in Windows. FYI- The last version of IE for a Mac OS was IE5. There is no IE6, 7 or 8 for OSX. Even if they unbundled IE from their OS, (like what the EU wants) IE is still "tied" to Windows. In order to run IE, you need Windows. In order to run OSX, you need a Mac.
post #91 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle View Post

It is a paid upgrade to and Apple system that you are getting and heavily subsidized price because you have purchased the computer that is being installed on from Apple the company the created the software. Now if you would like to pay $700 per copy for the unsubsidized version then lets do business.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

No need to be cryptic. Why not tell us what country you live in, and when that county began protecting intellectual property.

BTW, the reason I mentioned the Constitution is because this was seen as being an important enough principle over 200 years ago to include in this document, which was designed to protect basic individual rights.

I'm not suggesting in any way that your forefathers lacked insight. They simply enshrined what was already evident in the mother country. Copyright can be traced back to before the English ever set foot on America. But that's all the by. I was trying to say that innovation flourished before the advent of IP law and not because of it.

No, it isn't. We've discussed this issue in several threads already, to death and beyond.

Quote:
.... This is why the EULA does not apply to commercial use and why it's of no real relevance in the case against Psystar.

then there is another question about whether Eula is valid of itself.
post #92 of 225
I'm totally for the Hackintosh community doing their thing but Pystar leeching off them and launching a commercial product is just wrong ethically. As for the conspiracy to undermine Apple, if such a conspiracy exists I would bet on the anonymous backer being a computer manufacturer seeking to discredit Apples EULA allowing it to be licensed to third parties. I hope that Windows 7 is as great as hyped, maybe people regaining their trust in Windows may stem the flow of people seeking the Mac experience via alternative means and bank rolling companies like Pystar.
post #93 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

Nah. It is not their market.

Yeah right! Dell and HP sell one third of the world's computers. Both companies sell many many more "consumer" machines than Apple. Most of those machines cost less than $1000. Michael Dell has already been on record saying he would like to licence OS X.

And you say there is no market?
post #94 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

They make the rules. We, the minions, must walk in lockstep with them. They determine what a 'proper' computing experience should be, both in hardware and software, integrated.


That is the whole point. That's the reason we choose Apple. They make the whole widget. They control the experience. This is why Apple rules the Premium end of the market and this is why they have developed a reputation for excellence in design and usability. 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.

If Apple stops providing this satisfactory experience, users can leave and choose another platform. Stop buying Apple. It's just that simple.

From the average consumer's perspective, Apple providing the entire, turn-key solution is a Godsend. The average user has a life. They don't care how "powerful" Apple is, but merely that what they bought works as it should and is supported with solid customer service. They don't see themselves as "minions" (I'm not even sure where you got that idea - this isn't Tolkien), but they DO see a computer as an appliance meant to make their lives easier so they can get on with doing other things. THAT is the idea. And that is the ideal of any kind of technology.
post #95 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranguvar View Post

To re-clarify my position, I DO believe Psystar has a moral right to their business.

And... what if it was your business? What if you are the Ranguvar Computer Company Inc.? You are only a tiny business in the scheme of things... but you sell a couple of thousand computers a year, complete with your own exclusive OS. You sell OS upgrade discs to your own customers.... You make a pretty decent living.

.... And then I come along... buy 1000 of your upgrade discs... build a cheaper computer and pinch half your customers.

How do you like those morals?
post #96 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

Do you not realize that EULA stands for End User License Agreement and that Psystar is not the end user, they are an unauthorized vendor of Apples IP? Do you not realize that Dell, HP and all the big name PC vendors would love to get ahold of a license from Apple to make Mac clones, but dont because Apple will not allow it? Do you not see that altering IP and copying the code without permission (which is required to get it from the disc to the harddrive after you agree that you the end user, thus not a vendor) is a violation of patents and copyrights?

The EULA should not ever be mentioned in this case as its the least meaningful aspect of this whole debacle.

Except that Psystar is enabling/assisting the end user to violate the EULA by running it on non-Apple hardware. I believe there have been cases in the past where people have been held liable for knowingly assisting someone else in violating an agreement. And there is a parallel example in music piracy. In situations where the "middleman" (such as Napster) was found to be knowing and/or actively helping their users obtain illegal music, they have been held liable.
post #97 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by >_> View Post


I'm really hoping Psystar wins. For us, the consumers, only good would come from it. It would force Apple to upgrade their systems faster, because if they don't people will have the choice to go elsewhere. Currently that choice simply doesn't exist.

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.
post #98 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

Except that Psystar is enabling/assisting the end user to violate the EULA by running it on non-Apple hardware. I believe there have been cases in the past where people have been held liable for knowingly assisting someone else in violating an agreement. And there is a parallel example in music piracy. In situations where the "middleman" (such as Napster) was found to be knowing and/or actively helping their users obtain illegal music, they have been held liable.

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.
post #99 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Then why did Microsoft get shot down when they insisted they had a right to tie their browser with their OS? Didn't they have that 'right'? They determine where and how their own software should run. No?

Because they used their monopoly position in one market (operating systems) to leverage their way into another (web browsers). That is illegal. Apple does not have a monopoly position in either operating systems or computer hardware (note, don't try to say that Macintosh is a market onto itself).
post #100 of 225
... and I believe they themselves also aware of that, but why do they still pursuit this lost cause battle?

Maybe, I am just saying maybe, they have someone to back them up?
post #101 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

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.

Fair enough. But I would still think that if your business model involves knowingly enabling others to violate a license agreement it would be legally questionable at best. And you could argue that Apple is stiffed out of money if their business model includes hardware sales as an integral part of OS development/sales.

Still, it appears that copyright violation is the main issue. I was just wondering if violation of the EULA was in fact irrelevant to Apple's case against them.
post #102 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

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.
post #103 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeromeus View Post

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.
post #104 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

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.
post #105 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

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.
post #106 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

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.
post #107 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

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.
post #108 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post

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.
post #109 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post

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.
post #110 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #111 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

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.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #112 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by >_> View Post

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.
post #113 of 225
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.
post #114 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill View Post

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.
post #115 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranguvar View Post

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.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #116 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Wrong. See posts above.

Be specific, please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard View Post

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 View Post

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 View Post

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.
post #117 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranguvar View Post

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.
post #118 of 225
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..)

Bring on more analogies!

Tools.
post #119 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranguvar View Post

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.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #120 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

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 View Post

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 View Post

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 View Post

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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Psystar switches lawyers in renewed defense