or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's motion to include Snow Leopard in Psystar case denied
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's motion to include Snow Leopard in Psystar case denied - Page 2

post #41 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by iphonedeveloperthailand View Post

Think Apple should work out a deal with these guys. It will boost the Mac market share if they have an affordable Mac line.

You do understand that the point of this whole game is that Apple wants and currently has the right to restrict the hardware used with their software. for purposes of easier development, support etc.

if they go for a 'clone' program they lose that control. if they have a massive boom in market share they lose the right to restrict because the small share is what keep the tying from being abusive under anti-trust laws.


Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead View Post

And thus reward a dirtbag company that exists only because of its parasitic business model? I think NOT.

Pystar didn't win. Apple screwed up on this one, plain and simple.

they sure did. they should have asked for a judgment that Snow Leopard be viewed for what it is, a variant of the Mac OS and thus included in the original case, thus dismissing this new case outright

then again, when the court sides with Apple on Leopard it will be an easy win to prove that Snow Leopard is essentially the same thing and thus the same rules apply. double win, double bad for Psystar.

Anti-trust was the only thing Psystar had going for it. And they lost the toss on the issue of the existence of a Macintosh Market and whether tying was abusive (non-abusive tying is in fact totally legal under current law) the EULA issue is bogus cause all that agreement does is codify Apple's already validated right to control the hardware used. That Apple might not have the right to say 'no resellers can buy this' doesn't matter cause even without the EULA the reseller doesn't have the right to put the software on whatever hardware he chooses.

Psystar is just rearranging deck chairs hoping to make Apple look like total dicks when in fact they are just making themselves look stupid. Their deposition questions, which were not answered because they were not material to the issue at hand, is just one more example of how desperate and dumb they are. If they had any sense they would drop this and move on

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zweben View Post

possibly by adding some sort of hardware authentication chip to their computers.

there already is. which Psystar hacked to make it work on their setups. an action which is a violation of the DCMA should this be deemed a copyright issue. and that will put Psystar in even more trouble since there's no requirement to have monetarily profited. Just the fact that Psystar announced they could make a hackintosh is enough to get them in a world of hurt. the world only gets bigger if real money is involved (which might be why Psystar is claiming to lack records of their sales)

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #42 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by fmaxwell View Post

That's great, but it is Apple's property and they have the right to stipulate the terms of the licenses under which it is used. They obviously believe that it's more valuable to them as a means of selling hardware -- you want OS X, you buy Apple hardware. Why should anyone be able to force them to sell it standalone, harming their business model, their shareholders, and their bottom line? (Note: I'm not interested in anyone's theories about how this would help Apple's profits -- that's just speculation from people who don't have the knowledge, experience, and track record that Apple's corporate officers do.)



Apple could decide that they wanted to explore selling the OS licensed for as a standalone product for use on non-Apple hardware. If Apple doesn't want to do that, why should anyone be able to force them to do that?

Let's look at it a different way: Suppose that Ferrari was selling replacement engines with a contract that specified that they would only be installed in Ferrari branded automobiles. Does that mean that I should be able to go out, buy the engines, and install them in tarted up Kias that I sell for profit? Should I be able to buy the engines under that contract, disregard the terms of the contract, and then sue Ferrari? Really, that's what we're talking about here.

Um no, actually it would be Ferrari suing you because you disregarded your contract, and you telling Ferrari the contract doesn't say what Ferrari thinks it says. Then let the court decide. That's what we're talking about here.
post #43 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Your whole scenario defeats the purpose of using OS X in the first place. If Apple did what you wanted it would not only kill their Mac business, it would render OS X into a Windows clone. Apple's entire Mac business model, and the whole point of using OS X in thr first place, rests on OS X being tied to Apple hardware. It's just that simple.

So in other words, people like you, not only look for excuses to circumvent Apple's IP rights (or have other companies do it for you), but also want to compromise (perhaps unwittingly) MY computing experience in the process.

Compromise OS X and the whole reason for using Macs just because YOU and those like you want to be cheap? Hell no.

So you are an elitist Apple fanboy then? You are speculating that it would render OS Ten into a Windows clone, while I think it would just cripple their hardware sales. I find it hard to believe Unix would have trouble surviving on mixed hardware. We just disagree on that issue. I'm not cheap, but I'm not rich. Denying people licensing also keeps the market share smaller due to they cannot afford the hardware. Does this make poor people bad? Middle class? Am I less intelligent because I feel different about spending so much on a computer?
I already own a MacBook Pro, a Mac Mini, an TV, and I used to have the 2006 MBP, and a 2.0GHz G5 tower. Before that I had a blue and white G3. I have an iPhone 3G. I don't think you will ever understand my side of the argument simply because you don't want to. That doesn't change the fact that I'd like to see open licensing for the OS, at a premium maybe even to Windows.
Let's say Apple opened up their licensing and dropped the Macs altogether. Would they make more money? I think they would, given some time and penetration into the business world. You trying to argue your side is what my friends belly-ached about when they moved from PPC to Intel. Oh, the troubles begin, they said. I bought AAPL at $22 and didn't look back. Market share increasing without development costs, R+D expansion or anything else going up is good for the bottom line, no matter what your friends tell you.
post #44 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by clickmyface View Post

So now we have duplicate trials in two different states. What a wonderful use of tax dollars, brilliant.

yes and no.

this move is conceivably advantageous for Psystar because if the first judge isn't sympathetic the second one might be (assuming they can pull off an argument that the two versions are really different products)

but in the end, this could backfire. How?

well first Apple goes to the second court and requests that all discovery etc for this second trial be put on hold until after the first one is completed to allow both parties to focus their attention on one matter at a time. a reasonable request that could be granted.

then Psystar loses their case. Apple's previous wins of 'there is no Macintosh Market' and "Apple's tying of hardware and software is not abusive' stand. and so on.

Apple goes to the second court and immediately files a notion for summary judgement against Psystar citing that in fact for all material purposes Leopard and Snow Leopard being merely versions of the Macintosh Operating System Software makes this an identical issue as the just decided other case. Even though what happens in one district doesn't carry the weight of commandment in all other districts, they do look to each other for guidance and suggestion, particularly in matters of Federal law. so there is a very good chance that the second judge would buy the 'identical' argument and agree with the decision of the first judge and find against Psystar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

This has been covered a bazillion times, but Apple doesn't stop anyone from using the products as they see fit. They have no interest at all in "stopping people" from doing these kinds of things.

actually that isn't a 100% true statement. Apple probably would stop folks if they could. But it isn't plausible for them to be able to go after every Tom, Dick and Harry that is quietly building a hackintosh in his garage when he keeps his mouth shut about what and how he is doing it. In the case of Psystar, they pulled out a giant bullhorn and a blinking skyscraper sized billboard and yelled "yo apple, yeah we did it. F U"


Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh View Post

It is not like Psystar is not paying Apple the full retail price for the copies of OS X, they are. They are paying what Apple has established OS X to be worth.

you know this for a fact. so you are the keeper of the receipts that Psystar claims they don't have that show how they got all those retail disks. good to know. I'm sure the IRS will be very happy to know this info

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #45 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

So you are an elitist Apple fanboy then? You are speculating that it would render OS Ten into a Windows clone, while I think it would just cripple their hardware sales. I find it hard to believe Unix would have trouble surviving on mixed hardware. We just disagree on that issue. I'm not cheap, but I'm not rich. Denying people licensing also keeps the market share smaller due to they cannot afford the hardware. Does this make poor people bad? Middle class? Am I less intelligent because I feel different about spending so much on a computer?
I already own a MacBook Pro, a Mac Mini, an TV, and I used to have the 2006 MBP, and a 2.0GHz G5 tower. Before that I had a blue and white G3. I have an iPhone 3G. I don't think you will ever understand my side of the argument simply because you don't want to. That doesn't change the fact that I'd like to see open licensing for the OS, at a premium maybe even to Windows.
Let's say Apple opened up their licensing and dropped the Macs altogether. Would they make more money? I think they would, given some time and penetration into the business world. You trying to argue your side is what my friends belly-ached about when they moved from PPC to Intel. Oh, the troubles begin, they said. I bought AAPL at $22 and didn't look back. Market share increasing without development costs, R+D expansion or anything else going up is good for the bottom line, no matter what your friends tell you.

The last time Apple licensed out OS X, it was disastrous for the company.

There is no way you can compete against Windows on price, unless you differentiate yourself substantially. OS/2 falied (despite being a nice OS), as well as others, for precisely this reason. There's a good reason OS X is tied to Apple hardware, and it isn't just to command a higher price. And there is also a good reason why, in 2009, there currently is no consumer-level mass-marketed operating system in existence that runs on generic hardware besides Windows. There is no OS/2. Windows has no real competition other than OS X, but OS X is a closed system that plays at the Premium end of the market.

Frankly, the last thing anyone in their right mind would want is for Apple to let go of their Macs/OS X business model. Apple succeeds spectacularly with Macs and OS X precisely because it's a closed, controlled ecosystem. Anything else (or anything less), and OS X becomes a Windows clone. And who the hell would want that?? The whole reason behind Apple's business model when it comes to Macs (and their resulting success) is that OS X is tied to Apple's hardware. This is the reason customer satisfaction rates are so high, year after year. This is the reason the also-rans of the industry aspire to render their products more "Mac-like" in every way possible.

This "freely use computing hardware the way they want" notion lives and dies in small corners of the internet, and in the even smaller corners in which Apple fan sites live, fuelled mainly by the geek/tech-enthusiast minority that (wrongly) thinks it knows whats best for everyone else. In fact, Apple seems to know best. Period. Hackintoshes and mucking around with the OS and wailing about "freeing" it is alright for that small segment of Apple's user base (a segment which in the grand scheme of things is inconsequential anyway), but it would be a monumental disservice to the average user.

Apple succeeds because of these specific differentiations. It's a coveted business model that others only wish they could emulate successfully. We're at the point now, where if the average user has $1000+ to spend (and apparently, plenty of them do!) a Mac will be near or at the very top of their list. That's quite an accomplishment. It's the reason Ballmer ends up looking stupid, flustered, and tongue-tied at press conferences, especially when he's in a room-full of Macs.

And by the way, the last thing Apple's numbers, record Mac sales, and dominance of consumer mindshare and opinion would suggest is for Apple to free its OS. There's simply no demand for that and no reason to do so.
post #46 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

Now, Macs ARE PCs, every last bit of them, same things HP and Dell and Acer and such are selling. Because the OS is written for the same processors and chipsets as a standard PC, that is why people are doing this.


This is only because IBM left the market for processors for personal computers, leaving Intel type processors the only game in town. (in sufficient quantities/competing price)

Intel was going down the road of multi-core/cooler processors for laptops and nobody else was following.

Apple has it's options open buying that processor maker PA Semi (I think it was), and Apple has switched processor families before and they reserve the right to do it again.

Processor advantages sell a LOT of hardware, like the G5 processor did ("Big Mac" and other supercomputers), and Apple is a HARDWARE company first, software second.

Sure OS X got the jump on Microsoft's crappy Windows, but M$ is closing that hole (they say Windows 7 is pretty good) and has the advantage of cheap ass PC makers on it's side. M$ could be back up to over 90% market share again (M$ just copies anything Apple does in software anyway). Apple has to innovate and their own processors advantages would do that nicely.

It's that or sell Apple to Intel and game over just like Pixar.

IMMO the reason Apple is preventing supported use of OS X on other PC type hardware is because they might and possibly plan another processor switch later down the road as they GROW BIGGER.

Customers of Apple's Mac's have the comfort of knowing their software and familiar OS will still be fine, even if the hardware changes under the hood, again.

Obviously any hackintosh customer base created by the cloners will be left out and Apple can't be tied to one processor just because a bunch of short sighted small time operators want to poach Apple's hardware sales. They are not part of Apple's future, most big timers know this, so I suspect something ELSE is going on here.

Obviously Pystar has gotten some secret money, either from Intel or Microsoft, to try to flush out what Apple has in it's future, by what they reveal or not reveal in court.

That's my opinion anyway.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #47 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

The last time Apple licensed out OS X, it was disastrous for the company.

There is no way you can compete against Windows on price, unless you differentiate yourself substantially. OS/2 falied (despite being a nice OS), as well as others, for precisely this reason. There's a good reason OS X is tied to Apple hardware, and it isn't just to command a higher price.

Frankly, the last thing anyone in their right mind would want is for Apple to let go of their Macs/OS X business model. Apple succeeds spectacularly with Macs and OS X precisely because it's a closed, controlled ecosystem. Anything else (or anything less), and OS X becomes a Windows clone. And who the hell would want that?? The whole reason behind Apple's business model when it comes to Macs (and their resulting success) is that OS X is tied to Apple's hardware. This is the reason customer satisfaction rates are so high, year after year. This is the reason the also-rans of the industry aspire to render their products more "Mac-like" in every way possible.

This "freely use computing hardware the way they want" notion lives and dies in small corners of the internet, and in the even smaller corners in which Apple fan sites live, fuelled mainly by the geek/tech-enthusiast minority that (wrongly) thinks it knows whats best for everyone else. In fact, Apple seems to know best. Period. Hackintoshes and mucking around with the OS and wailing about "freeing" it is alright for that small segment of Apple's user base (a segment which in the grand scheme of things is inconsequential anyway), but it would be a monumental disservice to the average user.

Apple succeeds because of these specific differentiations. It's a coveted business model that others only wish they could emulate successfully. We're at the point now, where if the average user has $1000+ to spend (and apparently, plenty of them do!) a Mac will be near or at the very top of their list. That's quite an accomplishment. It's the reason Ballmer ends up looking stupid, flustered, and tongue-tied at press conferences, especially when he's in a room-full of Macs.

And by the way, the last thing Apple's numbers, record Mac sales, and dominance of consumer mindshare and opinion would suggest is for Apple to free its OS. There's simply no demand for that and no reason to do so.

When did they license OS X?

If you are referring to 8 and 9, those Systems ran on completely different hardware than x86, if I remember correctly. That is not the same situation, and Steve wasn't around.

What I envision for OS X and what you are mentally stumbling on is that the hardware does not make any difference now. They are the same thing, and this is proven by Windows running on Macs. The game has changed since the mid-90's when Apple thought their sh*t didn't stink, and they didn't have the reputation to carry them through a Motorola to IBM transition. Exactly the way Ballmer acts now is how Apple acted then. Too much crap for sale, literally, and no innovation.
Microsoft then was run by the best business man on the planet, Bill Gates. He might not know sh*t about coding, but he knew how to sell.
I think that this Unix based OS would thrive on anything you put it on, that's my opinion. And I also happen to think that it would outsell Windows given the opportunity. Microsoft fails because they are spread too thin, with all their different things going on they don't know where to stop nor what to focus on.

"And who the hell would want that?? " I wouldn't mind since you asked. You see, the innovation is only in the actual case designs now. Where I want to see Apple head, and I think they are going there (shrinkin profit margins on hardware have already begun, mind you), is to move away from "ground-breaking battery design" and into some thing like this:
1) OS x.7 utilizes as many cores as you can throw at it.
Scientists and governments buy OS X and no need to change your hardware, yippie!
2) Upgrade you existing Windows Servers guys, it's time for server X.7 and cut your resource needs by 1000%.
It's an IT revolution, yay!
3) Outsource the hardware, and make Lenovo build it, or Asus.
The hardware is going to become moot, it's simply too expensive to keep it up.
4) Whatever else, really, I don't know, don't really care. There are some things better than drilled out aluminum prettyness, one of those is called cash money.

The point of the above bullets is that these things are only possible if OS X is licensed to something outside of a consumer line, free from Apple's teenager minded hardware. Like the mini, was just bring your monitor keyboard etc. This could be: here's your business class, NASA approved server, faster than any other, for $999.
It's not just about you mom and dad liking Apple's OS. It's about business, and enterprises buy more PC's than anyone. But they won't spend that kind of money on a cool looking toy. Apple could penetrate, although this is not their current model. Doesn't mean they cannot change, just look at the revolution they started circa 1999. Maybe they will get out of hardware, maybe not.
post #48 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

This is only because IBM left the market for processors for personal computers, leaving Intel type processors the only game in town. (in sufficient quantities/competing price)

Intel was going down the road of multi-core/cooler processors for laptops and nobody else was following.

Apple has it's options open buying that processor maker PA Semi (I think it was), and Apple has switched processor families before and they reserve the right to do it again.

Processor advantages sell a LOT of hardware, like the G5 processor did ("Big Mac" and other supercomputers), and Apple is a HARDWARE company first, software second.

Sure OS X got the jump on Microsoft's crappy Windows, but M$ is closing that hole (they say Windows 7 is pretty good) and has the advantage of cheap ass PC makers on it's side. M$ could be back up to over 90% market share again (M$ just copies anything Apple does in software anyway). Apple has to innovate and their own processors advantages would do that nicely.

It's that or sell Apple to Intel and game over just like Pixar.

IMMO the reason Apple is preventing supported use of OS X on other PC type hardware is because they might and possibly plan another processor switch later down the road as they GROW BIGGER.

Customers of Apple's Mac's have the comfort of knowing their software and familiar OS will still be fine, even if the hardware changes under the hood, again.

Obviously any hackintosh customer base created by the cloners will be left out and Apple can't be tied to one processor just because a bunch of short sighted small time operators want to poach Apple's hardware sales. They are not part of Apple's future, most big timers know this, so I suspect something ELSE is going on here.

Obviously Pystar has gotten some secret money, either from Intel or Microsoft, to try to flush out what Apple has in it's future, by what they reveal in court or not reveal.

That's my opinion anyway.

Apple can move to AMD tomorrow and put the systems on the shelves the same day.
post #49 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

The last time Apple licensed out OS X, it was disastrous for the company.

When did that happen? Unless you mean OS 7 or 8 on the various PPC clones. Personally when I hear your arguments defending Apple's right to squash Psystar *and* osx86 I have to remember Woz's blue boxes and how you would have probably howled about Ma Bell's right to protect her property. I want Apple to crush Psystar because they are the ultimate business-scum middlemen, profiting primarily through the hard work of the uncompensated hacker/enthusiast community. They're like guys at the swapmeet who sell DVD-ROMs. On the other hand I want people to be able to continue to be able to build hackintoshes personally. There will be kids who are good at it and will build up little stables of people to support then a system upgrade will come along and break things and a lot of those people will get tired of maintaining things and they'll just go buy a real mac. I've watched it happen with a young friend of mine. Not the end of the world.
post #50 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

This is only because IBM left the market for processors for personal computers, leaving Intel type processors the only game in town. (in sufficient quantities/competing price)

Intel was going down the road of multi-core/cooler processors for laptops and nobody else was following.

Apple has it's options open buying that processor maker PA Semi (I think it was), and Apple has switched processor families before and they reserve the right to do it again.

Processor advantages sell a LOT of hardware, like the G5 processor did ("Big Mac" and other supercomputers), and Apple is a HARDWARE company first, software second.

Sure OS X got the jump on Microsoft's crappy Windows, but M$ is closing that hole (they say Windows 7 is pretty good) and has the advantage of cheap ass PC makers on it's side. M$ could be back up to over 90% market share again (M$ just copies anything Apple does in software anyway). Apple has to innovate and their own processors advantages would do that nicely.

It's that or sell Apple to Intel and game over just like Pixar.

IMMO the reason Apple is preventing supported use of OS X on other PC type hardware is because they might and possibly plan another processor switch later down the road as they GROW BIGGER.

Customers of Apple's Mac's have the comfort of knowing their software and familiar OS will still be fine, even if the hardware changes under the hood, again.

Obviously any hackintosh customer base created by the cloners will be left out and Apple can't be tied to one processor just because a bunch of short sighted small time operators want to poach Apple's hardware sales. They are not part of Apple's future, most big timers know this, so I suspect something ELSE is going on here.

Obviously Pystar has gotten some secret money, either from Intel or Microsoft, to try to flush out what Apple has in it's future, by what they reveal or not reveal in court.

That's my opinion anyway.

Here's intel at a very latest (and cool I may add) demo running what appears to be a Hackintosh...
http://www.insanelymac.com/intel-with-a-hackintosh/

So, even the processor company can do it in the media too. And just like the other poster said, Apple can switch to AMD at any time.
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
post #51 of 89
To break the psystar plans, instead of apple, I would create a version of Mac OS X for x86 .
Sure enough psystar will die, cause nobody will buy its products, there are even cheaper x86 models then psystar offers.
Anyway Apple will loose a big part of support by doing this. We all know that the money apple gets, are from selling hardware not software. The software apple sells is the key to hardware selling (no software, no hardware).
post #52 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

I agree that Apple has the right to its own opinion and point of view. But do they possess regulatory powers over how customers use their products... for example the standalone OS, which at least notionally, is a "product" and not an "upgrade"...

Apple could have avoided this whole THING by calling every copy of OSX an "upgrade" that is only valid with preexisting OSX, which all Macs were born with. But.... TMK..... they neglected to do that. Psystar noticed and pounced before Apple wised up. At this point Apple would love to make OSX "upgrade only" as I just mentioned but AAPL is evidently horrified that Psystar would howl and maybe even win an antitrust settlement against Apple, in that scenario. Still, it may be the best option to make OSX upgrade-only. That would shut down Psystar. It would be obvious they had no source of OSX licenses for their machines.

As it stands now, the murky issue is that Psystar claims they ARE buying legit OSX licenses... and in my view they're right...

Apple could have sealed this up tight... but they screwed up. At the very least this is serious bother... at worst, it's going to turn into a nightmare.

This case has nothing to do with the copy of OSX that Psystar claimed to have purchased. It makes no difference whether it's considered or labeled as an "upgrade".

What's in question is that copy of OSX that comes installed in a Psystar PC. Copyright Laws, not their EULA, gives Apple all the rights to that installed copy. Psystar must have Apple's authorization if they want to sell or transfer that copy along with the sale of their PC's. It makes no difference if Psystar includes an original retail disc of OSX with each PC they sell. Psystar has no right to sell or give away any copies made from that disc without Apples authorization. Regardless of whether it was installed using a full or upgrade version of OSX.

So what about all those people selling Macs, on eBay, with OSX installed? You might ask next. Apple can authorize all Macs to be sold with OSX installed. It's within Apple's rights to allow this. While still not allow any generic PC to be sold with OSX installed. Those rights are granted to Apple as registered owner of the copyright to OSX. Not because of anything they stated in their EULA.
post #53 of 89
First EULA doesn't matter. Psystar is not end user, Psystar was granted no license to distribute OS X.

Secondly you can't just compare Apple to Microsoft. Just because licensing software works for Microsoft it doesn't mean it would work for Apple. The reason why Microsoft is making money are OEM vendors. The profits from retail are far far behind.

Apple will never license OS X. What good is marketshare when you profits go to hell? Just look at Apple and Dell turnaround and then compare the profits. Apple has much bigger margins. They can afford it because they sell premium products (whether you like them or not). They provide additional value (OS X) that differentiates them from other manufacturers. Why on earth would Apple want to get rid of this huge advantage?

Never mind having to support wide range of (mostly low quality) hardware.
post #54 of 89
Yes, I meant Mac OS (System 7, OS 8, etc.) not OS X.
post #55 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh View Post

Wow, talk about a leap in logic

You should try some logic sometime. You might find it refreshing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh View Post

It is not like Psystar is not paying Apple the full retail price for the copies of OS X, they are. They are paying what Apple has established OS X to be worth.

So if Audi offers free scheduled maintenance, the value of that maintenance is zero, because Audi is giving it away? And you should be able to drive your Saturn in there and get free maintenance? Because that's the crux of your argument: If a company offers subsidized goods or services to owners of their expensive, premium product, then some third party company should be able to buy at those artificially low prices and then bundle what they buy with their competing, low-end product.
post #56 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

Um no, actually it would be Ferrari suing you because you disregarded your contract, and you telling Ferrari the contract doesn't say what Ferrari thinks it says.

Um, no, actually I am completely correct and you are just displaying your ignorance of this case. Psystar has sued Apple -- at least twice now:

We'll wait for your lips to stop moving so we know when you're finished.

Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

Then let the court decide. That's what we're talking about here.

What an incredibly stupid idea: Let everyone violate terms of software licenses, tie the rightful owners of the software up in court, and hope the they get a judge to make a bad decision.
post #57 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

What I envision for OS X...

In another post, you claimed that the value of something was determined by the price at which it was offered. We will keep that in mind while reading your free advice to Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

and what you are mentally stumbling on is that the hardware does not make any difference now. They are the same thing, and this is proven by Windows running on Macs

In the sense that Ferraris and Kias are the same thing; this is proven by a Kia driver successfully driving a Ferrari.

Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

You see, the innovation is only in the actual case designs now.

So all manufacturers use a System Management Controller (microcontroller) to tell their systems when to turn on, turn off, sleep, wake, idle, and so forth, handle system resets from various commands, and control the fans based on readings from multiple temperature sensors?

So why the hell is my 8 core, 16GB RAM, 4TB hard drive Mac Pro almost silent while the Celeron-based Dell I've got on the other side of the room sounds like a jet spooling up for take-off? Why isn't there a SATA backplane in the Dell so that I can slide my SATA drives in and have them dock with connectors? Instead, I have to disassemble the entire case and deal with the rat's nest of wires inside. I can literally swap a drive in my Mac Pro in under 30 seconds while it takes about 15 minutes to do the same thing on my Dell (which is, admittedly, one of the worst designs).

If Apple hardware isn't innovative, then explain why they beat every other major manufacturer out the door the Nehalem Xeon CPUs. Explain why the 2008 Mac Pro used a specialized heatsink on the RAM to allow slower fan speeds while still cooling the RAM. Explain why my Mac Pro has error correcting RAM when almost no other desktop system does. Explain why Apple introduced a 30" display when other manufacturers have topped out at 24" (and much lower resolution). Explain the Magsafe connector that has prevented countless laptops from hitting the floor when people tripped on the cords. Explain the Mini Displayport connector that Apple invented and that now will be part of the VESA Displayport 1.2 specification. Explain why the RAM in my Mac Pro is on riser cards that I can remove and load with RAM rather than having to poke around in the guts of the machine, pushing SATA cables, motherboard power cables, drive power cables, USB ribbon cables, etc. out of the way.

If you think that the MacBook Air is nothing but an exercise in case design, then lets see you build a computer that fits into that case.

Frankly, you sound like one of those disgruntled guys who can't afford a Mac and wants to make himself believe that they are no different than Dell, HP, Acer, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

There are some things better than drilled out aluminum prettyness, one of those is called cash money.

I would rather have less money and a computer built as well as my Mac Pro than to have yet another cheesy Antec/Chieftec/Dell/HP/Vantec/etc. POS plastic case enclosing some generic motherboard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

The point of the above bullets is that these things are only possible if OS X is licensed to something outside of a consumer line, free from Apple's teenager minded hardware.

What kind of stupid insult is that? "Teenager minded hardware"? Oh, you mean hardware that has been praised by the computer and consumer press as being the best available and worth the money? You mean the hardware that nabbed Apple top spot in every class of laptop rated by Consumer Reports (top 3 in the 13" category?

Grow up.
post #58 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by fmaxwell View Post



So all manufacturers use a System Management Controller (microcontroller) to tell their systems when to turn on, turn off, sleep, wake, idle, and so forth, handle system resets from various commands, and control the fans based on readings from multiple temperature sensors?

So why the hell is my 8 core, 16GB RAM, 4TB hard drive Mac Pro almost silent while the Celeron-based Dell I've got on the other side of the room sounds like a jet spooling up for take-off? Why isn't there a SATA backplane in the Dell so that I can slide my SATA drives in and have them dock with connectors? Instead, I have to disassemble the entire case and deal with the rat's nest of wires inside. I can literally swap a drive in my Mac Pro in under 30 seconds while it takes about 15 minutes to do the same thing on my Dell (which is, admittedly, one of the worst designs).

If Apple hardware isn't innovative, then explain why they beat every other major manufacturer out the door the Nehalem Xeon CPUs. Explain why the 2008 Mac Pro used a specialized heatsink on the RAM to allow slower fan speeds while still cooling the RAM. Explain why my Mac Pro has error correcting RAM when almost no other desktop system does. Explain why Apple introduced a 30" display when other manufacturers have topped out at 24" (and much lower resolution). Explain the Magsafe connector that has prevented countless laptops from hitting the floor when people tripped on the cords. Explain the Mini Displayport connector that Apple invented and that now will be part of the VESA Displayport 1.2 specification. Explain why the RAM in my Mac Pro is on riser cards that I can remove and load with RAM rather than having to poke around in the guts of the machine, pushing SATA cables, motherboard power cables, drive power cables, USB ribbon cables, etc. out of the way.

If you think that the MacBook Air is nothing but an exercise in case design, then lets see you build a computer that fits into that case.

Frankly, you sound like one of those disgruntled guys who can't afford a Mac and wants to make himself believe that they are no different than Dell, HP, Acer, etc.



I would rather have less money and a computer built as well as my Mac Pro than to have yet another cheesy Antec/Chieftec/Dell/HP/Vantec/etc. POS plastic case enclosing some generic motherboard.



What kind of stupid insult is that? "Teenager minded hardware"? Oh, you mean hardware that has been praised by the computer and consumer press as being the best available and worth the money? You mean the hardware that nabbed Apple top spot in every class of laptop rated by Consumer Reports (top 3 in the 13" category?

Grow up.

This should be a sticky. Well put.
post #59 of 89
I don't know if this has been mentioned or not. I didn't read all the responses because to be honest.. any article relating to the psystar situation brings out many-a-moron and quite frankly I'm tired of hearing the same argument.

However...

Someone did say that Apple will never allow Mac OS X to be available for clones because it would hurt Mac hardware sales and that Mac sales is where they make their money.

Actually, the profit margin for Mac hardware sales is probably one of their smallest streams of income.
The REAL money makers are the iPhone App Store and the iTunes Store. (It truly is "found money" in every sense of the phrase.) Also, the iPod line brings in a hefty sum of profits.
The Mac computer line is why Apple is here initially, and the Mac computer provides a hub that ties everything else together in an elegantly Apple-branded way..

While the Mac hardware sales are profitable... Apple will never open Mac OS X because it would hurt the hardware sales (not because of money, but because of principle)
Even if the computer line started to lose money, as long as Apple continued to make money overall, they would sell computers to support all other businesses.


Edit:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit
What I envision for OS X...

In another post, you claimed that the value of something was determined by the price at which it was offered. We will keep that in mind while reading your free advice to Apple

.

One of the most intelligent burns I have read in quite some time... Excellent post fmaxwell
post #60 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

In your opinion. That's nice, for what it is.




They should have thought of that before selling (selling!) new client licenses of OS X. Why do it?... They could give every machine a Mac OS ID number. If it's not on the list then OSX should not install.

As it is now, there are still some copies of OS X floating about. Those... in my opinion... make any machine a legitimate, fully paid-for OS X client. Which can be sold, if you wish, as a used computer.

In your opinion. That's nice, for what it is.

What evidence do you have to support your contention that Apple has ever sold (sold!) any full license copies of OS X?

They have always stated that every copy of OS X ever sold was only ever licensed for installation on an Apple computer. They have also always stated that the software covered by the license was a combination of the software actually contained on the distribution DVD or CD, together with the low-level firmware (OpenFirmware, BIOS, EFI, whatever you call it) contained in the ROM of the Mac itself. Coupled with the fact that every Mac ever sold has come with an initial copy of OS X, it is easy to reach the conclusion that all separate copies that they have ever sold (sold!) have been upgrades to the initial full-version licenses originally included with the initial hardware purpose.

The technological means they use to (or don't use) to enforce their license is totally irrelevant to the validity of the license in the first place: Violating the license is just as much an infringement of your contract with Apple, whether they use technological measures to make it difficult to commit the violation, or not. By analogy, you are committing the same felony by stealing something from my house if you just walk in through the open front door, as if you were to break in through five deadbolts and set off an alarm.
post #61 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

What's in question is that copy of OSX that comes installed in a Psystar PC. Copyright Laws, not their EULA, gives Apple all the rights to that installed copy. Psystar must have Apple's authorization if they want to sell or transfer that copy along with the sale of their PC's. It makes no difference if Psystar includes an original retail disc of OSX with each PC they sell.

Wrong. US Copyright law actually takes that away from the copyright holder, and assigns it to the owner of the physical medium on which their copy was conveyed. They specifically have permission to transfer ownership of the physical medium over to somebody else, provided they also either destroy, or else include as part of the transfer, every other copy that has been made.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leathien View Post

First EULA doesn't matter. Psystar is not end user, Psystar was granted no license to distribute OS X.

They don't need permission to distribute OS X. The doctrine of first sale gives permission of the legitimate owner of any physical medium on which a copyrighted work is contained, to transfer ownership of that physical medium over to any other person without seeking the copyright holder's permission.

Normally this doctrine only applies in cases where no additional copies of that copyrighted work were made. But in the case of computer software, additional copies may also be made for the purpose of running the software on a computer or for emergency backup purposes. But such copies must also be either destroyed, or else included along with the transfer of ownership of the original physical medium.
post #62 of 89
Which reminds me:

Vinny Gambini: It is possible that the two yutes...
Judge Chamberlain Haller: ...Ah, the two hwat? Uh... uh, hwat was that word?
Vinny Gambini: Uh... what word?
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Two hwat?
Vinny Gambini: What?
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Uh... did you say 'yutes'?
Vinny Gambini: Yeah, two yutes.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Hwat is a yute?
[beat]
Vinny Gambini: Oh, excuse me, your honor...
[exaggerated]
Vinny Gambini: Two YOUTHS.
post #63 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

Its not really a win for Pystar, more of a moot point really.

I don't think Pystar are good guys either. They took from the OSX86 community and didn't give back, and continue to do so. OSX86 are the good guys. I would agree that the fruit aren't the good guys, but neither are Pystar. Now, if (and against what many would say here) Apple would open up their OS to be used on any x86/x64 computer, then my tune would change. Till then, no money more of mine will go to support Apple (and same goes for MS, since they lock up their stuff good too, just in different ways)

The obvious reason for Apple to not "open up their OS to be used on any x86/x64 computer" is to guarantee the quality of every user experience by manufacturing every computer it operates on. This is not "rocket science". What part of this do you not understand? I'd really like to know. Please.
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #64 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zweben View Post

I wouldn't be too surprised to see Apple lose this case, actually. I am not so sure about the argument that Pystar is actually breaking the law. An EULA is not the same as a contract, after all, and tends to be less enforceable. If they do lose, Apple will probably just step up their efforts to lock OS X to Macs, possibly by adding some sort of hardware authentication chip to their computers.

At the very worst, they could be forced to *gasp* compete with Pystar on low-priced hardware, and I think we can all guess who would come out on top there.


Don't hold your breath on that one. The protection of intellectual property does have legal rights, not to mention moral ones.
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #65 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post


Now, since Apple uses the SAME parts as the other PC vendors, I don't feel they are worth the higher price, which is why I won't buy from them any more.


If they open it up to any PC (careful about craptastic, because Apple hardware is the same hardware as the "craptastic" PCs!) then yes, you will have driver issues. I am fine with that. Have the different hardware companies write their own drivers... like they already do for OS X. Apple doesn't have to support any hardware, but I feel they are wrong in cutting hardware off that is identical to their own. Viruses will only become an issue if the Mac becomes more of a lead in the business area, where it isn't. I'd like to see more Macs out there, but only if Apple gets its head out of its ... mud pile in the backyard.


Tell me something, if, as you say , Mac hardware is the same as PC hardware, why does every customer satisfaction survey rate Apple at or near the top? Why is the resale price of Mac computers higher (check Ebay) than any PC?

You probably think that all cars are created equal too because they "all use the same parts".
Trust me, any manufacture of any product will tell you that there is quality difference in any manufactured item, even from same manufacturers. Are all televisions alike ... are all refrigerators alike? Come on ...get real.
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #66 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG4G View Post

"Can be installed on an Intel Mac without a prior installation of OSX" - No mac comes without a prior installation of Mac OS X. All Macs come with it preloaded. Therefore, its impossible NOT to have a previous installation having occurred. Whether or not that installation is still in place is immaterial.

This is simple.

Apple chooses to sell the full OS ONLY with the hardware in a bundled package.
You buy upgrade disks. You only buy a full licence with the actual mac itself. You NEVER pay for OS X in a disk form.

That is Apple's choice - Greed or not, they are a business and have that right. You have the choice to purchase or not purchase.

Just because you don't like their business practices doesn't make stealing from them right.

Semantic? No. Its plain. You can't buy a CD licence of Mac OS X. You can only buy an upgrade licence only. That does not allow installation on a device that it wasn't previously installed on in an earlier version. If you only buy an upgrade, you are ONLY buying the upgrade licence. That is not a full licence. You don't like it? Don't buy it. Don't steal and then whine that you didn't get it available in the way you liked.


Sorry to have to disagree with you because I'm on Apple's side on this issue but ... SL disc can be installed as a "clean install" and it comes as a OS disc stand alone. The only limitation is it has to be installed on an intel Mac.
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #67 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

When did they license OS X?

If you are referring to 8 and 9, those Systems ran on completely different hardware than x86, if I remember correctly. That is not the same situation, and Steve wasn't around.

What I envision for OS X and what you are mentally stumbling on is that the hardware does not make any difference now. They are the same thing, and this is proven by Windows running on Macs. .



Yes, but not without special software ... so they are not "the same" .. most cars run on gas, does that make them all the same?
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #68 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by leathien View Post

First EULA doesn't matter. Psystar is not end user, Psystar was granted no license to distribute OS X.

Right. In addition, Pystar wants to sell Macintosh computers, a product which they have no proprietary right to sell. That right belongs exclusively to Apple.

Quote:
Secondly you can't just compare Apple to Microsoft. Just because licensing software works for Microsoft it doesn't mean it would work for Apple. The reason why Microsoft is making money are OEM vendors. The profits from retail are far far behind.

Even more to the point, Microsoft does not sell PCs. If Apple were to license OSX to hardware vendors, they'd be competing with themselves. This is not only a radical business strategy, it is very stupid one.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #69 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

They don't need permission to distribute OS X. The doctrine of first sale gives permission of the legitimate owner of any physical medium on which a copyrighted work is contained, to transfer ownership of that physical medium over to any other person without seeking the copyright holder's permission.

This is a little twisted. First, the doctrine of first use applies to consumer purchases, not purchase for commercial resale. Second, this not simply a matter of resale. Psytar is installing OSX on their hardware and selling the combination (a Macintosh computer), which they have no right to do under any legal doctrine.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #70 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

make any machine a legitimate, fully paid-for OS X client. Which can be sold, if you wish, as a used computer.

That's pretty funny. People used to do that in the old days with Amiga - find an old boot rom from a used Apple.

There are probably dozens of old macs lying around. Pull out the cpu and solder on to the outside of the case of your brand new home built PC- then technically it is still a Mac. Not that I would do that but someone might

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #71 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

This is a little twisted. First, the doctrine of first use applies to consumer purchases, not purchase for commercial resale.

I believe you'll find that they (Psystar) paid the retail rate to purchase OSX. That makes them a retail customer, and the owner of the disc, until such time as they may or may not transfer ownership to somebody else at some undetermined point in the future. Or, to put it simply, for the sake of this discussion, they are the initial "consumer". Somebody else (Psystar's customer) will become a second-hand consumer if or when the customer purchases the computer from Psystar.

The fact that they bought it with the full intention of turning around and reselling it afterwords, as far as I know, has not been shown to have any bearing on the applicability of first sale doctrine. If I am wrong on this point, I would genuinely appreciate being referred to the precedence that says so.

Quote:
Second, this not simply a matter of resale. Psytar is installing OSX on their hardware and selling the combination (a Macintosh computer), which they have no right to do under any legal doctrine.

First a point of clarification. They are not marketing it as a Macintosh(tm). They are marketing it as an "OpenComputer" that is configured to run Mac OS X.

Second, the general practice of reselling a computer with an OS already installed on it without first obtaining the copyright holder's consent most definitely is defined as non-infringing by US copyright law, provided you include all the original media provided with the OS along with the sale of the computer. In practice, you'll be exercising your rights under USC Title 17 Section 117 (b), where the additional copy in question was prepared in accordance with section 117 (a)(1), by installing the software on the computer's hard drive as an essential step of running the software.

The gotcha in this case is that "adaptations" can only be for internal use; unlike verbatim copies, they cannot be included in any such transfer of ownership without permission. If it is shown that the version of OS X included in Psystar computers counts as an "adaptation" instead of a verbatim copy, then I would agree that this defence is useless.

I still think, though, that if anything can make this a slam dunk for Apple, it will be the applicability of the EULA.
post #72 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by fmaxwell View Post

...

Grow up.

I think that captures it rather succinctly.
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
post #73 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Apple can move to AMD tomorrow and put the systems on the shelves the same day.


Not going to happen.

The Intel/Apple merger is already in the works, it's obvious as day.

Google is out, Eric Schmidt is off the board at Apple and Apple has recently hired Intel's top lawyer most likely to ease the transition.

Steve Jobs is on borrowed time, Apple can't go through another bunch of loser CEO's like before.



Microsoft and AMD can merge, Microsoft is building their own retail stores...
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #74 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

I believe you'll find that they (Psystar) paid the retail rate to purchase OSX. That makes them a retail customer, and the owner of the disc, until such time as they may or may not transfer ownership to somebody else at some undetermined point in the future. Or, to put it simply, for the sake of this discussion, they are the initial "consumer". Somebody else (Psystar's customer) will become a second-hand consumer if or when the customer purchases the computer from Psystar.

The fact that they bought it with the full intention of turning around and reselling it afterwords, as far as I know, has not been shown to have any bearing on the applicability of first sale doctrine. If I am wrong on this point, I would genuinely appreciate being referred to the precedence that says so.

First, how does the "rate" they paid make any difference? Second, we don't actually know how much they paid. Apple demanded these records in discovery but Psystar claimed to have lost them. The difference is that they are not simply transferring ownership, they are installing the software on their hardware first. It's no more than a theory that this protected under first use doctrine, which was created to allow owners of copies of copyrighted products to sell them to someone else, not to allow someone to trade on copyrighted materials.

Quote:
First a point of clarification. They are not marketing it as a Macintosh(tm). They are marketing it as an "OpenComputer" that is configured to run Mac OS X.

This is a HUGE fallacy. They are in fact attempting to sell Macintosh computers. If that was not the case, then they would not even bother. Psystar can't even claim otherwise with a straight face, if only because they attempted to sue Apple under antitrust law for preventing them from doing that very thing!
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #75 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

The Intel/Apple merger is already in the works, it's obvious as day.

I don't believe it's likely. These rumors have been going on for years. Here's one from Bob Cringely in 2005:

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2...09_000855.html

I see this as a non-starter for three reasons:

First, Intel does not want to be in a position of competing with their own customers (Dell, HP/Compaq, Acer, Gateway, etc.). If Dell viewed the merged Intel/Apple as competition rather than as a supplier, they would be eagerly shopping non-Intel parts to avoid enriching the very company they were competing with.

Secondly, Apple does not move that much Intel silicon. If Apple were buying 60% of Intel's output, then I could see such a merger, but not with the amount of silicon that Apple buys.

Third, Apple uses too many chips from Intel's competitors. Apple has gone AWAY from Intel for the graphics coprocessors to Nvidia. The CPUs in the iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPod Nano are all Samsung ARM CPUs. Apple uses Toshiba flash memory in some of the iPods. The list goes on and on. Were Intel to merge with Apple, there's no way that Apple would be able to buy the best parts -- they would have to use Intel parts. Depending on the application, that could lead to higher cost, lower performance, shorter battery life, or some combination thereof. Apple would find its hands tied while its competitors were free to shop the marketplace without stipulations on brand. Microsoft's Zune could become the slender, sexy market leader while the iPod might end up in a big clunky box loaded with sub-par Intel hardware. If GM merged with Goodyear, would you expect to find Firestone, Pirelli, or Bridgestone tires on new GM vehicles? Would you expect Ford to continue buying Goodyear tires for their cars?


I'm going to remain skeptical on this one.
post #76 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

I believe you'll find that they (Psystar) paid the retail rate to purchase OSX. That makes them a retail customer, and the owner of the disc, until such time as they may or may not transfer ownership to somebody else at some undetermined point in the future. Or, to put it simply, for the sake of this discussion, they are the initial "consumer". Somebody else (Psystar's customer) will become a second-hand consumer if or when the customer purchases the computer from Psystar.

The fact that they bought it with the full intention of turning around and reselling it afterwords, as far as I know, has not been shown to have any bearing on the applicability of first sale doctrine. If I am wrong on this point, I would genuinely appreciate being referred to the precedence that says so.



First a point of clarification. They are not marketing it as a Macintosh(tm). They are marketing it as an "OpenComputer" that is configured to run Mac OS X.

Second, the general practice of reselling a computer with an OS already installed on it without first obtaining the copyright holder's consent most definitely is defined as non-infringing by US copyright law, provided you include all the original media provided with the OS along with the sale of the computer. In practice, you'll be exercising your rights under USC Title 17 Section 117 (b), where the additional copy in question was prepared in accordance with section 117 (a)(1), by installing the software on the computer's hard drive as an essential step of running the software.

The gotcha in this case is that "adaptations" can only be for internal use; unlike verbatim copies, they cannot be included in any such transfer of ownership without permission. If it is shown that the version of OS X included in Psystar computers counts as an "adaptation" instead of a verbatim copy, then I would agree that this defence is useless.

I still think, though, that if anything can make this a slam dunk for Apple, it will be the applicability of the EULA.

I think thats well said. the EULA is sticky though, as judges have gone both ways on it. I think the adaptation/reverse engineering clause is the most solid. To my knowledge, there is no hardware system currently in existence (other than a Mac) that you can stick a retail copy of OS X into and install it. Which is why Psystar requires you to buy OS X with your order, and then they install it for you.

What i am really curious about is if the EFI(Firmware) is shipped in the OS X install disc, or if it exists ONLY on hardware purchased from Apple ( via the motherboard ROM/HD). If Psystar is using/modifying or copying such EFI in order to install OS X, then they are going to lose. They don't have the right to resell an EFI they did not purchase. Does Psystar buy a Mac for every Open system they sell? I dont think so. Anyone have insight onto the EFI?
post #77 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by clickmyface View Post

I think thats well said. the EULA is sticky though, as judges have gone both ways on it. I think the adaptation/reverse engineering clause is the most solid. To my knowledge, there is no hardware system currently in existence (other than a Mac) that you can stick a retail copy of OS X into and install it. Which is why Psystar requires you to buy OS X with your order, and then they install it for you.

What i am really curious about is if the EFI(Firmware) is shipped in the OS X install disc, or if it exists ONLY on hardware purchased from Apple ( via the motherboard ROM/HD). If Psystar is using/modifying or copying such EFI in order to install OS X, then they are going to lose. They don't have the right to resell an EFI they did not purchase. Does Psystar buy a Mac for every Open system they sell? I dont think so. Anyone have insight onto the EFI?

No, not really. Modification really only relates to the DMCA violation claim, which is only one of several of which Apple is making against Psystar. You are making the error of thinking that the level of difficulty required to violate a copyright or trademark is in some way related to the legality of doing so. It isn't. EULA or no EULA, Psystar does not have the right to sell Macintosh computers. As I pointed out above, they previously asserted that they do have this right, that they were entitled to create a Macintosh compatible computer market. This claim was thrown out.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #78 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

Wrong. US Copyright law actually takes that away from the copyright holder, and assigns it to the owner of the physical medium on which their copy was conveyed. They specifically have permission to transfer ownership of the physical medium over to somebody else, provided they also either destroy, or else include as part of the transfer, every other copy that has been made.


They don't need permission to distribute OS X. The doctrine of first sale gives permission of the legitimate owner of any physical medium on which a copyrighted work is contained, to transfer ownership of that physical medium over to any other person without seeking the copyright holder's permission.

Normally this doctrine only applies in cases where no additional copies of that copyrighted work were made. But in the case of computer software, additional copies may also be made for the purpose of running the software on a computer or for emergency backup purposes. But such copies must also be either destroyed, or else included along with the transfer of ownership of the original physical medium.

I believe the only copies that the purchaser has the right to transfer (along with the original) are exact copies that were made for back up purposes. Either that or they must be destroyed when they no longer own the original from which it was made.

The copy that was installed in the PC in order to run the software is considered an adaptive copy. What's on the HD is not an exact copy of what was on the original installation disc. It has been altered (adapted) to run on a specific computer. Plus it is no longer an installation copy. This adaptive copy can not be transfered without authorization from the original copyright holder of the software which was used to install it. Copyright laws gives ownership of this adaptive copy to the original copyright holder of the software used. Not the person that purchased and installed the software.

Section 117 of the Copyright law was included to protect the purchasers of software. That's because software must be copied on to the hardware in order to use it. Without Section 117 everyone installing software would be breaking copyright laws when making this copy.

It allows for making exact copies for back up purpose. These must be transfered along with the original or destroyed when the original is transfered.

It allows the purchaser to make any necessary changes to the software (once installed on the HD) in order for it to run on your hardware. This is an adaptive copy. This copy can not be transferred without the authorization of the original copyright holder.

It also allows for installation of software for maintenance purpose. This copy must also be removed from the hardware once the hardware is up and running.
post #79 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

In your opinion. That's nice, for what it is.

What evidence do you have to support your contention that Apple has ever sold (sold!) any full license copies of OS X?

I recommend you Google 'OS X Leopard' and get back to me. Full license copies were retail boxed. I know because I bought one.

Analysts have missed why Apple is suddenly not selling 10.6 as a full license anymore. Psystar is why they went to upgrade only. I am basing my story on Apple's actions, not some nonsense that I conjured out of thin air.

Apple knows they screwed up on licensing. Now they are trying to fix it. All wrapped up in a pretty bow, of course.
post #80 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Psystar does not have the right to sell Macintosh computers.

Their business model today is to provide OS X compatible client machines. Not Macintoshes. They say it up front on their site. They do not sell Macs.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's motion to include Snow Leopard in Psystar case denied