or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple rumored to disable Atom support with Mac OS X 10.6.2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple rumored to disable Atom support with Mac OS X 10.6.2 - Page 4

post #121 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

Apparently we need to post this again - how software is used or operated (same thing) is not a protection of Copyright:

Quote:
What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.

Convenient how you missed out emphasising the part I have made red, which completely goes against your point.
post #122 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

Umm, no. Why try to take his post out of context when he was simply making an analogy on the business case being used by Gillette vs. Apple? His argument had nothing to do with the Copyright issue.

Apparently we need to post this again - how software is used or operated (same thing) is not a protection of Copyright:

Installing a software, which is considered copying by the way, is protected under the copyright law. This is the center of the problem. Once you install the software you can use it in anyway you want.
post #123 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Even if Apple relelased a Netbook for $700 as opposed to Windows $400 I think it would be classy and the public would have supported it. But Apple apparently thinks that margin is not enough or those machines aren't powerful enough to back them . The public however has proven Apple wrong. Netbooks are everywhere.

Not $700 netbooks... they don't seem to be "everywhere" at all.
post #124 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx View Post

Yes, and dozens of PC manufacturers have taken over offering amazing replacements. The shame with Mac is that you have no choice. You cannot buy a full Mac that is 350 g, yet you can buy a full PC Windows that is 350 g. THAT IS THE POINT.

So go and buy your 350g Windows PC, and STFU complaining that it can't LEGALLY run OS X. You make your choice, you deal with the consequences.
post #125 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

Apparently we need to post this again - how software is used or operated (same thing) is not a protection of Copyright:

No, but the actual copying of it -- i.e., installation -- is covered. If it is legally installed, you can use it as you wish, but if the copy you make violates your license, the right to use legally made copies as you wish is irrelevant, since the copy itself was made in violation of the license.
post #126 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Even if Apple relelased a Netbook for $700 as opposed to Windows $400 I think it would be classy and the public would have supported it. But Apple apparently thinks that margin is not enough or those machines aren't powerful enough to back them . The public however has proven Apple wrong. Netbooks are everywhere.

Welcome back from your banning.

The public hasn't proven Apple wrong at all. As the margins on Netbooks are still pathetically low, as Apple said.

Marketshare has nothing to do with the amount of profit from a unit sale whatsoever.
post #127 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I don't know if anyone is expecting Apple to sell one for $300. It seems they can make one for $500 and wipe out that market. I do get the demand, it's not an ideal machine, but really, nothing is. There is a gulf between the 3.5" and 13" screens, I can picture a lot of uses that can be comfortably served somewhere roughly halfway between.

TOTALLY AGREE!


If Apple did a MacBook Mini with an 11.6" Screen sporting the 16:9 ratio, the new Pineville CPU with integrated CPU/GPU running one of their special cell batteries and sold it at $699 they'd have a winner. Hands down winner. Doesn't need ethernet. Just APX, BT, and 2 USB ports with a MiniDisplayPort to boot. Running OS X the 9 Cell battery powered MSI would go over 9 hours (roughly the train ride down to Charleston from DC). But Apple's engineers and the new platform could easily take it to double. Cost would be less than half. Your buying the OS, iApp's and support on a well designed state of the art machine with a 12+ hour battery. Winner, the end.
post #128 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

Welcome back from your banning.

The public hasn't proven Apple wrong at all. As the margins on Netbooks are still pathetically low, as Apple said.

Marketshare has nothing to do with the amount of profit from a unit sale whatsoever.

Margins suck because it's the SAME Hardware/OS combo where ever you go, IE: Price war. Apple is NOT the same. OS X, iApps and design more than make up for similar hardware. A trouble free LONG LIFE netbook that runs OS X, worth every penny of the $700.

Apple's problem then would be keeping them in stock.
post #129 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx View Post

Yes, and dozens of PC manufacturers have taken over offering amazing replacements. The shame with Mac is that you have no choice. You cannot buy a full Mac that is 350 g, yet you can buy a full PC Windows that is 350 g. THAT IS THE POINT.

What point is that exactly?
post #130 of 226
Simple: don't upgrade to 10.6.2.

Chances are you're more worried about the bugs you're experiencing from running OSX on a PC than the 150 bug fixes that come with the update.
post #131 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx View Post

Yes, and dozens of PC manufacturers have taken over offering amazing replacements. The shame with Mac is that you have no choice. You cannot buy a full Mac that is 350 g, yet you can buy a full PC Windows that is 350 g. THAT IS THE POINT.

I can't buy a new BMW for $15,000, either. Therefore, Hyundai should be allowed to copy the BMW and put a BMW logo on it and sell it to me for $15,000.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #132 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by vbeeno View Post

Personally I think thats pretty messed up, they should let the peopel decide!

Problem is, people are very stupid! Only about 5% of the population are capable of rational decisions IMO.

Thank god 'the people' dont decide the fate of Apple's products, what hideous creations they would be, devoid of vision, style and foresight.
post #133 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

No, but the actual copying of it -- i.e., installation -- is covered. If it is legally installed, you can use it as you wish, but if the copy you make violates your license, the right to use legally made copies as you wish is irrelevant, since the copy itself was made in violation of the license.

Apple doesn't have sued the German company which sells Hackintoshes, does it?
post #134 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

You totally missed the point because razor blades are not copyrighted material. Software, including OS, are copyrighted materials and therefore the owner of the software (Apple) is given rights to govern how their software is used. The EULA agreement is legal as shown in lawsuits before. However, the challenges are usually to specifics in the EULA.

No, but razor blade designs are patented.

Copyright does not protect the use of the work. It simply protects the market value of work by preventing imitators from profiting from the original work. That's what makes Psystar guilty of copyright violation and Hackintoshers not.

The EULA is a supplementary document, which is only valid so long as it doesn't violate the rights of the end-user.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

How much is that in Rupees again?



Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

I'm not saying anybody is stealing. I'm saying it costs Apple, Dell, or whoever money. And you cannot deny that.

Then accessing the eligibility of a support request is a cost that must be covered by any company with a support line. That doesn't make the one who calls the support line wrong for doing so!

hahaha, how ridiculous...
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #135 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

deliberate "laziness." as in, it isn't part of apple's business model. For a reason.

Call it stupid then, if you prefer...
Remember the infamous and now obsolete unibody Macbook without FW? I think it was sheer laziness not to implement FW on this otherwise highly attractive model. But at least they fixed it with the 13" Pro and finally turned it into a major hit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

not quite the "expoloding" number of hackintoshes. They don't even make an infinitesimal dent in the market. Apple treated netbooks (which *are* on the market in abundance) as if they didn't exist, and didn't even flinch. What did consumers do in response? They bought *more* macs.

These glorious Apple sales numbers will tell you absolutely nothing about the netbook consumer and their behaviour, simply because Apple doesn't offer any netbooks! Who knows, despite growing sales they might have lost tons of sales from potential Apple netbook users who went Hackintosh or even Windows instead.

I certainly was shocked when I saw a the result of a poll (with over 3000 responses) on a MSI Wind forum about a year ago. There were more users with OSX on their netbooks than XP! Sadly Linux came in last, but there were also a great numbers of multi-boot systems. Unfortunately the poll didn't ask about the systems being used on these configurations, but my guess is the majority was OSX/XP.

Just check out some netbook user forums and compare the numbers of posts in the different OS categories.
For example http://www.s10lenovo.com/
Linux: 882 posts
Windows: 1566 posts
OSX: 6857 posts

These netbook forum post numbers indicate a huge OSX installation base on certain netbook models that are easily hackable. At some time Realtek even offered an OSX driver for a popular netbook WiFi card. They certainly wouldn't do this just for a handful of hackintosh users...

Think about how much better these Apple sales figures (and profits) could look, even if they had a rather expensive $700 10"or 11" netbook in their program.
Netbooks are seldom being used as main computers. They are simply 2nd or even 3rd computers to complement your desktop and/or large screen laptop. These small things are great for traveling, especially now when luggage size becomes more restricted and more expensive.
Therefore PC netbooks won't hurt Apple sales at all, but if Mac versions were available could boost their figures immensely.

But Apple seems to think it is good business NOT selling us a third computer. LOL, not even with a hefty 300$ profit margin?

Of course I would never switch to Win 7 on my perfect Mac Pro, but for basic on the road computing I could probably live with Win 7.

Regarding that rumored tablet thing: I won't believe it until I finally see it. And in case this will just be another portable video/gaming device with iPhone OS: No thanks.
Watching Bluray discs on a large screen projector and listening to multichannel sound has spoiled my appetite for toy screen video once and for all.
post #136 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That is absolutely incorrect. For example, if you have a party with 1,000 guests and show a copy of the DVD you purchased at Best Buy, that would be a violation of copyright. Use of a copyrighted work for public display is not permitted.

True, but that wouldn't qualify as personal use either. A public display is a commercial act, regardless of whether you charge attendees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

In fact, your entire premise is wrong. 'Fair Use' specifically spells out the conditions required to use a copyrighted work:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

No, your understanding of Fair Use is wrong. Fair Use sets out guidelines on how a copyrighted work can be used within another work. For example, you can't take a story written by someone else, add a couple of lines to it, and republish it as if it was yours. This is pretty clear on the first line of the text you linked to:

Quote:
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords.

Also Fair Use spells out the difference in the very first doctrine where the rights of Copyright don't apply, again from your link:

Quote:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

Personal use has been ruled on many occasions to fall under the non-profit, educational purpose clause. Plus all I would have to say is "I tried to install OS X on my netbook to see if it would work" and that would qualify as educational research.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Again, you're wrong. Apple doesn't need to show harm to enforce its copyrights...

True, if it was a copyright infringement, which this is not. It's a violation of their EULA, which is a contract, that comes under civil law in which they do need to show harm. A Copyright violation would be a criminal offense prosecuted by the government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You're also wrong that they couldn't show damages simply because the infringer paid $30...

What the user paid for the license has nothing to do with any damages claimed by Apple. The importance of the fact that the user paid a sum (any sum) for the use of the software has more to do with which party is acting in bad faith. The user paid to use the software - thus acting in good faith. Apple trying to restrict how that software is then used can be interpreted as acting in bad faith. No jury would support Ford if they had a EULA that said you can only make left turns with their cars.
post #137 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Apple doesn't have sued the German company which sells Hackintoshes, does it?

Not yet, that I am aware of, but PearC and Psystar are unambiguously in violation of copyright law, since the EULA doesn't even apply to them -- i.e., since they are not end-users, they have no license whatsoever for what they are doing, not even one with possibly contestable points.
post #138 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

...consumers who buy a legal copy of OSX....

Sorry, but you CAN NOT buy a legal copy of OS X unless you buy a Mac! That "copy" you're talking about is a Legal UPGRADE of the OS X installed on your Mac.

Why for the love of Dawg, can't people understand that?

As for "buying a LEGAL copy of OS X", I've personally stated at USD 699,00, with no Apple support on any system but Apple's... could be "doable"... and "why not? No one would "BUY" it anyway (I don't think), but it would also take care of that same babble regarding the "Apple Tax" on Apple hardware.

It's not a TAX... it's the cost of developing OS X and iLife! Considering the reputation, and even articles from PC Mag as the "Best Operating System ever written", why would anyone expect it to be free is beyond me
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 #139 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

I hate to say it, but entitlement is precisely what it sounds like. You feel that you should be allowed to use Apple's OS independent of buying an Apple computer simply because you've deemed it's EULA unethical and it's the OS you've chosen to use. No offense, but it's not really up to you to determine what's within Apple's rights as a business and what isn't. What is within your right as a consumer is to buy something else if you don't agree with what the corporation in question does or stands for. But no amount of debate will change either of our minds one way or the other so we'll have to agree to disagree.

I hacked my RAZR so I could put my own ringtones on it. And by "my own," I actually mean music that I created, not copyrighted music that I copied from my iTunes library.

I also purchased Vista, yet proceeded to install the hacked and modified "Vista Black" because I didn't want MS breathing down my neck with all the "Genuine Windows" and authentication BS.

And, of course, I purchased OS X but installed it on my own a hardware profile which better fit my needs as a user.

Am I legally wrong? Yes.

Am I ethically wrong?

It's not a matter of entitlement. I fully acknowledge that I am not in compliance with the various EULAs in these scenarios. They are just completely unnecessary to the good operation of the product. As long as I am not truly abusing the use of or damaging the market value of these products, I honestly don't see the ethical problem with breaking their EULA.

This is not equivalent to believing I deserve for Apple to grant me free reign with their software, i.e.: entitlement.
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #140 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post

Not supporting non-Mac OS X installs is one thing and I support going after third parties trying to make money off selling OS X like Psystar, but actively targeting the hackintosh community doesn't seem a good choice. Tinkerers can often be the best supporter of a platform, especially through word of mouth, and the fact that OS X can run so flawlessly on netbooks can only be positive publicity. Whereas, actively thwarting the hackintosh community, who aren't really making money doing it, really only makes negative press. Given that Apple's target market is those looking for ease of use (ie. not tinkerers) and OS X market share is continuing to grow, it's doubtful that the hackintosh community is making a huge dent on Apple's bottom line.

I concur. It does seem out of form to purposely disable Atom like this. Regardless, Im certain the hackintosh community will be able to make builds of future version os DL with the Atom support from 10.6.1 inside.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #141 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


I would rather Apple charge "full price" for OS X than impose unethical restrictions past the point of sale.

-Clive

Ooops! There's one guy that would pay US$699,00...no? Really? Why not? Cheaper to by the Mac and then the upgrade disc? Thought so.
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 #142 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

True, if it was a copyright infringement, which this is not. It's a violation of their EULA, which is a contract, that comes under civil law in which they do need to show harm. A Copyright violation would be a criminal offense prosecuted by the government.

Copyright law is inexorably bound up in contract law since the licenses granted by copyright holders, licenses that govern the right to make copies and for what purposes, are in fact a kind of contract. So, to say that a violation of a EULA is a license contract violation, it to admit that it is a violation of copyright law. Under United States law, there are both civil and criminal penalties applicable to copyright violations.
post #143 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

It's not a matter of entitlement. I fully acknowledge that I am not in compliance with the various EULAs in these scenarios. They are just completely unnecessary to the good operation of the product. As long as I am not truly abusing the use of or damaging the market value of these products, I honestly don't see the ethical problem with breaking their EULA.

This is not equivalent to believing I deserve for Apple to grant me free reign with their software, i.e.: entitlement.

Tomatoe, tomatta. Sure, make up your own rules as you go along. Do you also find it ok to rip DVD rentals from Netflix so you can watch the movies you've rented on your terms. Hey, you did pay the rental fee after all. It kinda reminds me of what Adam Savage from Mythbusters said, "I reject your reality and substitute my own".
post #144 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

Convenient how you missed out emphasising the part I have made red, which completely goes against your point.

Would you care to explain how operating software is an expression of anything? What kind of nonsense argument is that?
post #145 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

No, but razor blade designs are patented.

Copyright does not protect the use of the work. It simply protects the market value of work by preventing imitators from profiting from the original work. That's what makes Psystar guilty of copyright violation and Hackintoshers not.

The EULA is a supplementary document, which is only valid so long as it doesn't violate the rights of the end-user.

Patents and copyrights are two different things. Patents protect designs, methods, and other aspects and does not effect the end user. On the other hand, copyrights protect the original work (the software in the DVD/CD, the text in the book, the images on websites.. etc) and does affect the end user rights to such work.

The EULA is not supplementary document. EULA it is legal agreement between you and the software developer, which you agree to when you purchased and installed the software. Legally you have the right to return the software (Operating systems included) if you don't agree to the terms even if you opened the package.
post #146 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

Tomatoe, tomatta. Sure, make up your own rules as you go along. Do you also find it ok to rip DVD rentals from Netflix so you can watch the movies you've rented on your terms. Hey, you did pay the rental fee after all. It kinda reminds me of what Adam Savage from Mythbusters said, "I reject your reality and substitute my own".

Love Mythbusters, especially that quote.

I don't rip Netflix, but I do rip my own DVDs to my aforementioned Atom-based Cube upgrade, even though that is technically illegal. If I had the commitment to delete the image of a ripped Netflix movie after a single viewing, I, again, wouldn't see an ethical problem, but it would be something unenforceable by Netflix and would undoubtedly be abused by others should it be made "legal" to do so.

Abuse of the "honor system" is the reason for these EULAs, but for those who don't abuse or damage the market value of the product, they're an unnecessary inconvenience.
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #147 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Actually, Apple could have decided to dop support for that chipset for completely different reasons.

That seems the most likely reasoning to me.

Apple doesnt compete with netbooks and they have allowed the OSx86 Project go on unabated this long so doing this now makes no sense with the given information.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #148 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Installing a software, which is considered copying by the way, is protected under the copyright law. This is the center of the problem. Once you install the software you can use it in anyway you want.

You can copy something for personal use and that is a valid form of Fair Use. If I copy a magazine article to read later at my house, that is a fair use. If I copy it and then send it to a bunch of people, that is not. Through my purchase, I have gained the license to use the software. Apple then telling me how I can use that copy personally is infringing on my Fair Use rights.

What seems to be complicating this issue perhaps is that many Hackintoshers have not come by their copies legally. I do not support that. But I am a believer in strong Fair Use rights. The constitution grants rights to individuals - not corporations. Your views may vary and I respect that, but it doesn't make either of our views more right than the other's. That's something for a court and a jury to decide.
post #149 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Isn't OQO dead?

yup. not a big market for tiny netbooks with a $3000 price tag.
post #150 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Installing a software, which is considered copying by the way, is protected under the copyright law. This is the center of the problem. Once you install the software you can use it in anyway you want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse

No, but the actual copying of it -- i.e., installation -- is covered. If it is legally installed, you can use it as you wish, but if the copy you make violates your license, the right to use legally made copies as you wish is irrelevant, since the copy itself was made in violation of the license.

In fact, according to US copyright law, 17 USC 117, copies made as an essential step in running a piece of software on a computer system, are specifically mentioned as not being violations. Which is to say, if you have legal possession of a copy of a piece of software, where a 'copy' can be interpreted as a physical embodiment such as a CD or DVD, then installing that software, even without the copyright holder's consent, does not constitute copyright infringement, if such installation is an essential step in running the software.

The same exception goes on to say, though, that you cannot transfer any such made copies over to anybody else's ownership without the copyright holder's permission. But, if you also include the original media as part of the transfer, and either include all other copies you made, or else destroy them, then again, you don't need to seek the copyright holder's permission.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

Which puts us back in the domain of EULA violations being purely violations of contract, not copyright.
post #151 of 226
I recently spent time travelling in Europe and had my Dell mini 9 running Leopard with me. It fit into my coat pocket which meant I could bring it anywhere w/o even thinking about it, pull it out at a cafe in Oslo or Paris and type so much faster than I can on an iPhone even after 3+ years of iPhone ownership. I could also upload and manage my photos easily and do so much else that's not possible to do, or to do as easily, on my iPhone.

If this rumor is true then it's the final confirmation that Apple plans their own "netbook/tablet" as the netbook hackintosh community is so small and it hasn't cost Apple a dime yet as there's not a single hackintosher that would have bought a macbook instead of a netbook.

I will keep my netbook running Leopard as I have for nearly a year. the only difference is that now I'm going to add F&*K Y*U on to the lid where I currently just have the Apple sticker covering the Dell logo. I'd been thinking about getting rid of my iPhone as the ATT network covers my area great except for my home. It looks like I'll be moving to the Droid.

Apple really is becoming more and more like the Evil Empire all the time
post #152 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by mavfan1 View Post

Apple really is becoming more and more like the Evil Empire all the time

Yeah but they sure do make tasty Kool-aid.
post #153 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

The EULA is not supplementary document.

False. There is no stipulation in Copyright or Patent law that allows an individual or corporation to extend further the rights given them through the Copyright and Patent laws. That would be like saying "Ok, the second amendment gives me the right to own a gun, so I'm going to write this contract that says I can shoot you with it." If we could all go around making up our own laws willy nilly, this country would be a lot more messed up than it is already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

EULA it is legal agreement between you and the software developer, which you agree to when you purchased and installed the software. Legally you have the right to return the software (Operating systems included) if you don't agree to the terms even if you opened the package.

This is true, however it is also not concrete. There have been many EULAs that have been overturned based on the terms of the license violating the rights given to the individual by our country's laws. A contract is not valid if there are laws that contradict it. There have been many cases where the validity of EULAs have been called into question because you can't see the terms before you open the package of software - an act that prevents the software from being returned and thus preventing you from exercising your rights of return granted by the EULA.

EULAs are a very gray area of the legal arena and why there is so much controversy surrounding them.
post #154 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

Love Mythbusters, especially that quote.

Well, at least we agree on one thing.
post #155 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by mavfan1 View Post

snip

I will keep my netbook running Leopard as I have for nearly a year. the only difference is that now I'm going to add F&*K Y*U on to the lid where I currently just have the Apple sticker covering the Dell logo. I'd been thinking about getting rid of my iPhone as the ATT network covers my area great except for my home. It looks like I'll be moving to the Droid.

Apple really is becoming more and more like the Evil Empire all the time

wow, what a rebel!

why not run linux then? granted - it doesn't come with apple stickers, but it seems that's your only way out of supporting evil empires - unless you count google and their 'surveillance' model of business.
post #156 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

Well, at least we agree on one thing.

It's a start...

Out of curiosity, where do you stand on ripping DVDs you've purchased?
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #157 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

In fact, according to US copyright law, 17 USC 117, copies made as an essential step in running a piece of software on a computer system, are specifically mentioned as not being violations. Which is to say, if you have legal possession of a copy of a piece of software, where a 'copy' is defined as a physical embodiment such as a CD or DVD, then installing that software, even without the copyright holder's consent, does not constitute copyright infringement, if such installation is an essential step in running the software.

Actually, it says:

"... provided that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner ..."

Given that all copies of OS X are sold either already on an Apple computer, or as an upgrade to an existing installation, this would hardly allow someone to legally obtain a license for some other purpose -- i.e., not an upgrade to an existing installation.
post #158 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

False. There is no stipulation in Copyright or Patent law that allows an individual or corporation to extend further the rights given them through the Copyright and Patent laws. That would be like saying "Ok, the second amendment gives me the right to own a gun, so I'm going to write this contract that says I can shoot you with it." If we could all go around making up our own laws willy nilly, this country would be a lot more messed up than it is already.

This was a reply to the original poster who stated that it is a supplemental document, which I understood as it has no legal standing. We all know that every contract is limited by the law

Quote:
This is true, however it is also not concrete. There have been many EULAs that have been overturned based on the terms of the license violating the rights given to the individual by our country's laws. A contract is not valid if there are laws that contradict it. There have been many cases where the validity of EULAs have been called into question because you can't see the terms before you open the package of software - an act that prevents the software from being returned and thus preventing you from exercising your rights of return granted by the EULA.

EULAs are a very gray area of the legal arena and why there is so much controversy surrounding them.

I already stated that. Refer to my earlier post. However, I don't see how Apple saying that "our software on our hardware only" is a violation of any law. As far as I know there is no constitutional law that say everyone have the right to install Mac OS on any computer
post #159 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Actually, it says:

"... provided that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner ..."

Given that all copies of OS X are sold either already on an Apple computer, or as an upgrade to an existing installation, this would hardly allow someone to legally obtain a license for some other purpose -- i.e., not an upgrade to an existing installation.

The exception doesn't say anything about the purposes for which the original copy was distributed or obtained. It only places conditions on the purpose for which the additional copy will be produced.

So the fact that the original copy from which you're making your installation, the DVD, was labelled as an "upgrade", is irrelevant for this statute.

The whole point is that unless you're creating redistributions (or violating other exclusive rights not covered by 117), a license to make use of a piece of software is not needed to satisfy copyright.

The license is still a potentially valid contract issue, to be sure. But not copyright.
post #160 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

They'll have to do more than buy the $30 upgrade and then they'd still be breaking the EULA.

By installing Mac OS X on a non-Apple, they are breaking the EULA no matter what they do! Then again, I believe the EULA violates consumer rights. Anyhow, 30 bucks is still better than pirated buccaneers. If I want iLife and iWork, I'd get the box set.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

I bet if you write Mr. Jobs and promise that you and your three best buddies will buy one each, they'll build it.

"Dear Buhdda: I want a pony, and a rocket ship..."
"If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak."

I know that SJ wouldn't build a Netbook in a form that we would like, that wasn't the point. My point is that with the same architecture as other netbooks, Apple could charge 200-300 more than the competition and still come out ahead with their margins in tact! And I know they would sell them... although it would cannibalize on the MacBook. It may spur more iMac purchases though, especially with its new screen sharing thing... think of the possibility there!

I assume the tablet will be Apple's responce to the Netbook. Sadly, the writing on the wall will have it as a THIRD platform for devs, and no real Mac OS X, but better than iPhone OS. Not a smart move since Netbooks run all the latest OSs (Ubuntu 9.10, Windows 7, OpenSuse 11.2, OS X 10.6.1) with no dumbing down.
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple rumored to disable Atom support with Mac OS X 10.6.2