or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple earns key legal victory against Psystar
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple earns key legal victory against Psystar - Page 5

post #161 of 180
if you want a hackintosh, do it yourself. don't depend on a shady company like psystar.

case closed.
post #162 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Was that under warrantee? Why would this be any different if Your Dell's video card was fried and you were waiting for repair/replacement?

he could then just go to the store and purchase any video card he wanted if he didnt want to wait for the replacement.
post #163 of 180
1. Bye Bye Prystar and anyone else who THINKS they can pull something else like this in the future!!!
2. Go Apple!
post #164 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

I agree that Psystar did not have the legal right to sell the modified OS.

I do feel that Apple should open up OS X to other hardware, but I do see why Apple does it, and it is not because of a "potential loss of sales". Most people that would buy OS X and run it on their PCs are not going to buy a Mac (initially), but if given the opportunity to try OSX for about $125.00, they may change their minds. The reason that Apple does not allow this is actually because they do not want to support other hardware. This is why OS X "just works"...it has hand-picked hardware that is guaranteed to work. If Apple opened up OS X to anyone who wanted to install it on a PC, they would find that OS X simply does not "just work". It seems that Apple is concerned about how others folks would view OS X if it was not the "wonder OS" they claim it to be. If OS X were opened up to a wider range of hardware, they would have all the same problems Windows does regarding drivers, etc. Apple doesn't not want to rely on third parties to write drivers for OS X to support other hardware. If the code was badly written it would look bad on OS X/ Apple.

The reasoning is actually far simpler than this. If Apple licensed OSX to other hardware makers, they would be creating competitors for their own products. As a business concept, this is a really desperate and dumb idea. Apple is not a stupid company, and it isn't desperate, so that is why they don't do it.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #165 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Gee, until I got to this, I was going to comment that I agree with your entire post.

You apparently didn't read mine carefully enough before you responded to that part.

Therefor, I will quote the relevant part for you:



What does that say?

Not sure what you're getting at. Congress could tomorrow pass a statute that says the US will no longer provide any copyright protection for any work. Leaving aside US treaty obligations on intellectual property, this would be totally legal and would effectively eliminate Copyright protection for all works. So, in this manner, copyright law can be completely "overturned" (not the correct word, but I'll ride with it) without constitutional amendment. The Constitution allows for copyright protection, but it does not guarantee it.
post #166 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by shavex View Post

I am a supporter for Psystar. I personally use Linux (many different flavours) as my main OS, I have a hackintosh as well as a "real" Mac and honestly I think its very un-innovative and anti-competitory for Apple to withhold all its software like it does.

The open source community is ever expanding and ever growing because it has no limitations to the developers imaginations! But with Apple, you have to wait and let the hired developers come up with the ideas. Now after saying that I am in NO way meaning that Apple should just open source their OS (hhahaha way far fetched of that even being an idea) but if they plan on keeping their inclining take of market share they are either going to have to cut prices or expand their OS to more hardware.

Think about how anti-competitor this is for hardware vendors! If Apple is to gain 25% of market share (just for example) then that would cut into hardware vendors pockets for sure! Especially ATI and AMD, with Apple choosing Intel and Nvidia, they will lose those customers that use to be in that percentage that had a PC with their hardware.

So unless Apple plans on REALLY having anti-trust laws problems they better release Mac's with more hardware vendors or keep their prices high where they dont gain much more market share.

Help me understand. I'm not trying to argue your point, I just want to understand the premise of monopoly and anti-trust with respect to Apple. With such a small almost insignificant marketshare compared to Microsoft, Apple is just a tiny niche market much like the Ferrari brand....I'd love a Ferrari, but I cant afford one, that doesn't mean that they should find a way for me to have the Ferrari experience, so, help me understand why Apple is obligated to provide the Apple experience to everyone if they choose not to do so much like Ferrari?? What percentage of marketshare will put Apple in the position that it will be subject to anti-trust lawsuits?
post #167 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraBuggy View Post

Help me understand. I'm not trying to argue your point, I just want to understand the premise of monopoly and anti-trust with respect to Apple. With such a small almost insignificant marketshare compared to Microsoft, Apple is just a tiny niche market much like the Ferrari brand....I'd love a Ferrari, but I cant afford one, that doesn't mean that they should find a way for me to have the Ferrari experience, so, help me understand why Apple is obligated to provide the Apple experience to everyone if they choose not to do so much like Ferrari?? What percentage of marketshare will put Apple in the position that it will be subject to anti-trust lawsuits?

There is no magic percentage. In order for a company to be found to have violated antitrust laws, they must be found to have market power in an appropriately defined market, and to have abused that power by creating artificial barriers to competition. It's a tall order, which is why it happens so seldom. The problem most people seem to have in understanding this is the appropriately defined market concept. This is not the market for the company's own products, but a larger market in which the company is a participant. In Apple's case this would be the personal computer market.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #168 of 180
For those of you wanting more background on Psystar, the LA Weekly did a front cover article on them just this week. How timely. It's a typical "ooh, aren't they rebellious!" slobber-piece, but it may be of interest:

http://www.laweekly.com/2009-11-12/n...-in-the-apple/

GTSC
post #169 of 180
M I S S I O N A C C O M P L I S H E D ! ! !





They're what, like 0 for 2 in high profile tech cases now?

Remember what Al Bundy said, "It's only cheating, if you get caught." So now cheaters just buy up patents and sue for cash. No muss, no fuss and your hands stay silky smooth.

To all the whiners who think that this case would have opened up more choices for hardware to run OS X, I have a solution. Start making your own drivers for video cards, motherboards, and such and make your own hackintosh. Just don't start selling them and don't cry when it blows up just minutes before your project deadline.

Or just use Windows 7, I friggin dare you.
post #170 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

You still have the freedom to make a hackintosh, you just don't have the freedom to make money selling them out of your garage. The end user is the winner here.

Actually, because of DCMA, you don't even technically have the freedom to do that. Since you are not making money off Apple, Apple is rather unlikely going to pursue individuals as an individual would be in violation of the EULA as well. Apple may go after those that sell "kits" or disseminate information on how to create a Hackintosh, but not those in their garage.

As for EULAs themselves, in Canada, they may or may not hold up in a court of law. EULAs, like other contracts, do not necessarily have to be followed. That is dependent on how complicated the agreement is. If the EULA is overly complicated, a judge may decide that the EULA is unreasonable and essentially "throw it out." Wouldn't surprise me if things were somewhat similar in the US.

As to the request for someone to defend Psystar, would we be saying the same thing if Apple was behaving like Microsoft and abusing its monopoly status?

Personally, I do not see anything wrong with Apple defending its property in this way.
post #171 of 180
I can see a court treating a EULA as a contract of adhesion -- it's presented to the consumer as a "Take or Leave It" proposition, no one has the ability to negotiate with Apple over the terms of an EULA. The consequence is that any ambiguity in the EULA is to be construed against the party who drafted it (I.e., Apple); and there are certainly issues about unreasonable terms which might crop up. There's no question that a successful EULA has to be straight-forward for an end user to understand and abide by.

Having said that, a EULA provision which prohibits the end user from installing OS X on non-Apple hardware is pretty easy for the end user to understand and abide by; it is not inherently coercive (don't have an Apple machine? Don't buy an Apple OS); and it is not ambiguous.

I would not go so far as to say that a Psystar victory would have destroyed all copyright protection, but it would have destroyed the ability of a software publisher to define or limit the copyright licenses which it grants. This, of course, would substantially limit the possible universe of profitable software development.
post #172 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by HammerofTruth View Post

M I S S I O N A C C O M P L I S H E D ! ! !





They're what, like 0 for 2 in high profile tech cases now?

Remember what Al Bundy said, "It's only cheating, if you get caught." So now cheaters just buy up patents and sue for cash. No muss, no fuss and your hands stay silky smooth.

To all the whiners who think that this case would have opened up more choices for hardware to run OS X, I have a solution. Start making your own drivers for video cards, motherboards, and such and make your own hackintosh. Just don't start selling them and don't cry when it blows up just minutes before your project deadline.

Or just use Windows 7, I friggin dare you.

You've brightened up this thread. Thank you!
post #173 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by tullius View Post

I would not go so far as to say that a Psystar victory would have destroyed all copyright protection, but it would have destroyed the ability of a software publisher to define or limit the copyright licenses which it grants. This, of course, would substantially limit the possible universe of profitable software development.

No one, but NO ONE, selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principle of the EULA.
post #174 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickwalker View Post

Actually, because of DCMA, you don't even technically have the freedom to do that. Since you are not making money off Apple, Apple is rather unlikely going to pursue individuals as an individual would be in violation of the EULA as well. Apple may go after those that sell "kits" or disseminate information on how to create a Hackintosh, but not those in their garage....

Bingo. This is where I agree with Psystar. The fact that Apple can tell me what to do with my copy of OS X is ridiculous. Granted, I can't sell it at retail--or modify it and then sell it as part of my product. This, in my opinion, is where Psystar screwed the pooch. Had they sold "open computers" with code on their HDDs that allowed them to install OS X, I think it's possible the case would have gone differently.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #175 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Bingo. This is where I agree with Psystar. The fact that Apple can tell me what to do with my copy of OS X is ridiculous. Granted, I can't sell it at retail--or modify it and then sell it as part of my product. This, in my opinion, is where Psystar screwed the pooch. Had they sold "open computers" with code on their HDDs that allowed them to install OS X, I think it's possible the case would have gone differently.

Possibly. The EULA portion of the suit might have turned out differently, and maybe Apple would not have got the summary judgement on that particular point. Note however that several major issues remain for trial, the ones that seem the most significant and damning to Psystar, including trademark infringement and dilution. Keep in mind that Psystar's main problem here is their argument that they have the right make and sell Macintosh computers, with no other justification than it's possible for them to do so. EULA or no EULA, they would still face that huge issue. It's this trading on Apple's IP that makes the case against them, a case it's much harder to bring against an individual doing a similar thing for their own use.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #176 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

No one, but NO ONE, selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principle of the EULA.

It's not possible. You're only seeing the beginnings of repercussions for people that have played fast and loose with copyright. There's a lot of precedent that's been set recently, and a lot of people have been self-justifying how they think copyright should work, while they pirate away. Psystar was the extension of this attitude into a 'corporate' structure.

Internet records last longer than the statute of limitations, lot's of companies and copyright owners have been silent, watching and keeping notes. In a tough economy, very juicy target for known criminals, with a few precedents to back you up. I expect lot's more whining (behind bars) about copyright in the near future.
post #177 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

I don't think "physicality" has anything to do with it. Copyrights don't have to do with physicality, they have to do with content. Is a novel physical? No, just the medium it is conveyed upon. The content is copyrighted, not the medium.

*If you re-read the thread, you'll see I was addressing the person with the concept that code isn't "real".
post #178 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Bingo. This is where I agree with Psystar. The fact that Apple can tell me what to do with my copy of OS X is ridiculous. Granted, I can't sell it at retail--or modify it and then sell it as part of my product. This, in my opinion, is where Psystar screwed the pooch. Had they sold "open computers" with code on their HDDs that allowed them to install OS X, I think it's possible the case would have gone differently.

You're not allowed to do certain modifications to firearms that you own as well.

In addition: Cars, cable/satellite box or modem, the electric meter on the side off your hut, inside your own body, etc.

In a lot of places you're also not allowed to put things into other things you own, like livestock.

You're also not allowed to modify movies, songs, book, or tv shows - while you may be sold a license to view or use the medium, you are not allowed to screw with someone else's hard work and creativity. That constitutes a malicious act, intent on damage to the work and owner.
post #179 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Possibly. The EULA portion of the suit might have turned out differently, and maybe Apple would not have got the summary judgement on that particular point. Note however that several major issues remain for trial, the ones that seem the most significant and damning to Psystar, including trademark infringement and dilution. Keep in mind that Psystar's main problem here is their argument that they have the right make and sell Macintosh computers, with no other justification than it's possible for them to do so. EULA or no EULA, they would still face that huge issue. It's this trading on Apple's IP that makes the case against them, a case it's much harder to bring against an individual doing a similar thing for their own use.

Excellent point. That is where I thought they would lose all along. Their public rhetoric never really matched what they were actually doing. The analogy to a car company telling you what roads you could drive on or what brand of gas to use was put forth by their owner. That doesn't hold up though, because they were basically putting new interior in the car and calling it their own brand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose View Post

You're not allowed to do certain modifications to firearms that you own as well.

That's a safety issue. Totally different.

Quote:

In addition: Cars, cable/satellite box or modem, the electric meter on the side off your hut, inside your own body, etc.

Cars: Any regulations are due to safety concerns. Honda doesn't make me use Honda Gas or Honda Floor Mats by law.

Cable/Sat/Modem: Again, a safety issue for the most part. I can't sell the mods as my own.

Electric meter: Well duh. That's called theft.

Body: What the fuck are you talking about?



Quote:

In a lot of places you're also not allowed to put things into other things you own, like livestock.

I don't even want to think about what you mean by that.

Quote:

You're also not allowed to modify movies, songs, book, or tv shows - while you may be sold a license to view or use the medium, you are not allowed to screw with someone else's hard work and creativity. That constitutes a malicious act, intent on damage to the work and owner.

False. It's not illegal for me to modify a movie for my own use. It's not illegal for a television network to edit films for content and time. As a music teacher, it's not even for me to modify a piece of choir music or a script to fit my performing group. Now, I can't take that modification and sell the "new" work as my own. You're confusing rules on things like copying commercial DVDs...that is another animal.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #180 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Was that under warrantee? Why would this be any different if Your Dell's video card was fried and you were waiting for repair/replacement?

What he is saying is that if you have a PC and the video card gets fried you can just go to your local best buy and buy a top of the line video card to put in there while with Apple the top of the line video cards are not very good.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple earns key legal victory against Psystar