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 2

post #41 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

Also, if Psystar wins then mobile OSX would be used on other phones.

Doubtful. Psystar's argument was that once the copies of OS X are purchased, they or the end user should be allowed to do anything they want with it, EULA be damned. The iPhone OS is not sold separately so there's no way to buy it except in a device. I'm pretty sure it's encrypted in firmware so nobody can just pull it off the ROMs and copy it, which would be blatant copyright infringement anyway. I know the baseband is, which is why so many early iPhones were permanently bricked when people trying to jailbreak them messed up without making a backup copy of the baseband first.
post #42 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

I don't think he meant it seriously.

Any 'seriousness' on my part was accidental in relation to the disagreement with macmondos post.
post #43 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

Can somebody explain me this:
Why does a judge rule on a key issue before the trial has even started? I understand that a judge has to rule on issues of what exactly the trial is about (ie, what charges are dismissed and which go to trial) and what evidence should be allowed.

You already got the answer - a trial is to determine the facts. When the facts are already in evidence and there's no dispute over the facts, all the judge has to do is interpret the law as it applies to the case (i.e., 'summary judgment') - so a trial is not necessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Apple and Psystar both applied for summary judgments, hoping to score a deathblow.

In videogame terms, it's the equivalent of using up all your energy for a single, powerful shot, risking all (on part of the issues, or all of them.)

Not really. If the judge had rejected both requests for summary judgment the trial would have gone on. There's really no risk to asking for a summary judgment. If the judge rules for you, you win. If the judge rules against you, you have to go to trial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post

Anybody want to argue the Psystar side of the case? Come on! We're dying to hear from you!

People already are. The most common argument I've seen so far is that Apple won on a technicality and the issue isn't really decided yet. It's really amazing how delusional these "I want to steal Mac OS X because I'm too cheap to buy it" folks can be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyT View Post

Man, that sucks. Goodbye, freedom. Of course, we Apple users all hate that, anyway.

This is, of course, total nonsense. Copyright laws were implemented because lawmakers believed that if there were an incentive for people to benefit from their work that they'd do so more than if their work could be taken from them without compensation. The court simply upheld that principle.

No one took any freedoms from you (or anyone else). The court simply ruled that Apple has the right to benefit from its investment. You're still free to develop your own OS or buy a computer with a different OS. The only 'freedom' that you lost was the ability to steal Apple's work - but you never had that right in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

Dummies. They should have just sold the computers along with the necessary apps to install the bootloader, kexts and drivers, then let the consumer buy and install the OS. Apple wouldn't have been able to touch them since they wouldn't have been the ones violating the EULA. As difficult as it is to build a perfectly working Hackintosh, lots of people would pay for hardware that runs OS X flawlessly (and I don't mean genuine Macs).

Look up contributory infringement. If Psystar did what you suggest, they'd have still be guilty of contributory infringement. The judge implied such in his judgment.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens with this dongle that Psystar is selling. From today's ruling, it is also clearly illegal, but knowing the idiots at Psystar, they'll continue trying to sell it and Apple will have to go after them again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

Apple will now sue for damages (lost revenue, etc.. plus punitive) thus driving Psystar to bankruptcy and shutter of doors. The main reason I like this is because if any manufacturer can do this it will severely hurt Apple and thus the millions of consumers that are served by a strong and robust Apple. Also, if Psystar wins then mobile OSX would be used on other phones.

Actually, Apple probably won't have to wait for Psystar to go bankrupt. They asked for an injunction against Psystar selling computers with Mac OS X on them and the judge will almost certainly grant it. At that point, Pystar effectively goes out of business - whether they are bankrupt or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

On the one hand, that would tend to be supported by the Grokster case cited, which says even third parties could be found guilty. Curiously, though, the summary judgment specifically says, "Psystar is a contributory infringer through its sale of unauthorized copies of Mac OS X to the public." So what would happen to that judgment if Psystar wasn't selling those unauthorized copies?

They would still be a contributory infringer. Anyone who takes action to encourage others to violate a copyright is a contributory infringer. I'll bet $100 that simply selling the dongles that they now offer is sufficient to make them a contributory infringer.
"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 #44 of 180
This Psystar case is a no- brainer. I want to see the Nokia case- Now that will be a good one.
post #45 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmondo View Post

they should send these sh*thead psystar-creators to Guantanamo!

Please keep things in perspective. This is a copyright case and the law seems to be able to deal with the issue adequately. The murder of almost 3,000 people by terrorists on 9/11 and the subsequent loss of life by those to prevent it from happening again should not be cheapened by such comments.
post #46 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post

If I was to take the Psystar side of the argument, I'd have to defend the position that copyright itself is invalid, given that it's not real physical property, and has been abused, extended, etc. Other than that, I'd have no clue how to go about it.

That's not my personal position, just how I'd approach defending them if I were in a debating class or something.

Let's try a free ride on public communication i.e. bus. You pay for service, you agree to rules on the bus (you need to know them before you get in), you can't change a route because you paid $2 fare. Psystar did and need to take consequences.
post #47 of 180
I'm very pleased by this.
post #48 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac_dog View Post

where's teckstud?

You rang? Psystar never had a case unlike Palm which Apple has yet to challenge legally. Apple has instead insisted on cat and mouse game. Hmmmmm.
post #49 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

I'm very pleased by this.

I wish I could legally run OSX on some decent hardware.
post #50 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

I wish I could legally run OSX on some decent hardware.

MacPro?
post #51 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxijazz View Post

MacPro?

I'll grant you that. Just doesn't meet my needs- too pricey. But if I had an unlimited budget I could go for that. Solves that matte issue at least.
post #52 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post



That's right, Apple's EULA is legal. It "means exactly what it says."

A win for Apple, a win for consumers, and a win for vendors who depend on the integrity of the EULA.

a key to the EULA issue is that Apple's agreement is merely a codification of the rights granted to them by other laws, like copyright. If they were trying to assert additional rights that were not previously granted or violated user rights legally granted to users, then it would be a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

Selling a product containing tampered copyrighted code has always been illegal, which makes me ask: Why did Psystar invest all those resources in the first place?

because they wanted to see if they could do it and then got cocky and figured they could pull an Apple -- copy someone else's work but better. Only they got a cease and desist and tried to play anti-trust etc. Probably figured they would be heroes when they forced Apple to allow cloning again.

Quote:
They do not seem interested in selling their computers, they do not answer their phones, attend to potential customer, and they are continuously on the move claiming to lose important records.

Yep. which is going to cost them their legit Windows/Linux sales and those lost records are going to be of great interest to the IRS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

Can somebody explain me this:
Why does a judge rule on a key issue before the trial has even started?

In a civil case you can ask the judge to rule before the trial. both sides did.

[QUOTE=Quadra 610;1521183]
In videogame terms, it's the equivalent of using up all your energy for a single, powerful shot, risking all (on part of the issues, or all of them.)

It's an imperfect explanation but maybe it simplifies it./QUOTE]

better example.

Asking for a summary judgment is like going all in at the table because you believe the other guy is bluffing (ie has a weak hand)

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.

Actually no. The DMCA doesn't care about profit. Anyone that makes an HackMac is breaking the law. The only grey area is that if you don't tell anyone you did it, you aren't likely to get caught. Psystar shouted it very loud and very clear so they were easy to catch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

Apple will now sue for damages (lost revenue, etc.. plus punitive) thus driving Psystar to bankruptcy and shutter of doors.

Actually on this particular issue Apple isn't likely to ask for damages. since they know there's nothing to collect. Shuttering the doors will be enough. the legal fees will bankrupt Psystar plenty

Quote:
The main reason I like this is because if any manufacturer can do this it will severely hurt Apple and thus the millions of consumers that are served by a strong and robust Apple.

this is part of why Apple needed to see the sitch all the way through and let Psystar toss out all their arguments. Get them shot down now and not when someone with a better rep and chance of actually selling machines decides to get cute.

I'm thrilled that Apple has won. Being forced to reopen the cloning game means more time having to support all the various options which means I won't necessarily get the attention I want them to pay to my machine which is a fully AppleMac. I don't want to have to wait 3 times as long to get a bug fixed cause they have to test a zillion set ups. yeah it sucks that I have to play $4000 to get the imac I want, but if I"m going to be able to use it for the next 5 years, that's not so bad (yeah, I max'd that baby out all the way)

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 #53 of 180
One word: OWNED!

---
iMac Early '08- 20", 2.66 Ghz C2D, 320Gb HD, ATI 2600 Pro, 4Gb RAM 800 Mhz DDR2 SDRAM
MBP Mid '10 - 15", 2.4 Ghz i5, 320Gb HD, NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M, 4Gb RAM 1066 Mhz DDR3
4Gen. iPod Nano - 8Gb

Reply

---
iMac Early '08- 20", 2.66 Ghz C2D, 320Gb HD, ATI 2600 Pro, 4Gb RAM 800 Mhz DDR2 SDRAM
MBP Mid '10 - 15", 2.4 Ghz i5, 320Gb HD, NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M, 4Gb RAM 1066 Mhz DDR3
4Gen. iPod Nano - 8Gb

Reply
post #54 of 180
[QUOTE=teckstud;1521249I want to see the Nokia case- Now that will be a good one.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Come back in about 3 years.
post #55 of 180
While all of the Apple-bashers are trying to come up with novel (read: bizarre) arguments to back their position that Psystar was perfectly OK, doing what they did, let's explore what the consequences would have been if Psystar had won:

1. Software vendors would no longer be able to sell an OEM version. After the software left their hands, it could be used on new equipment or by a DIYer.
2. Software vendors would no longer be able to sell an upgrade version at reduced price. There would be only one price for software - whether it were used on new equipment, existing equipment, upgrade, whatever.
3. Software vendors would no longer be able to give a discount for quantity purchases. IBM probably buys Windows for a license fee of $10 or 20 per unit - but they would be free to sell it on the open market for whatever price they wished.
4. There would be no way to prevent reverse engineering of software. I could buy a copy of Windows (probably one of those $10 IBM site licenses), modify the launch screen with my own name and sell it as my own product.
5. Home DVDs are for personal use only. You can not legally use it for commercial purposes or public displays. That restriction would no longer be binding.
6. Book copyrights would disappear. Once you buy a book, you would be free to reprint it with your own cover and call it your own work.

And so on.

This one was a no-brainer. If the judge had ruled in Psystar's favor, copyright laws would essentially have ceased to exist.
"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 #56 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

Selling a product containing tampered copyrighted code has always been illegal, which makes me ask: Why did Psystar invest all those resources in the first place?

What makes this case a head-scratcher is Psystar's behavior of not attempting to become a successful business. They do not seem interested in selling their computers, they do not answer their phones, attend to potential customer, and they are continuously on the move claiming to lose important records.


I can't wait either!


REASON----simple, they were a shell for other pc makers i hope as time goes by that apple finds out

the SHREDDING MACHINES WILL WORK OVERTIME TONIGHT

now what
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #57 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

On the one hand, that would tend to be supported by the Grokster case cited, which says even third parties could be found guilty. Curiously, though, the summary judgment specifically says, "Psystar is a contributory infringer through its sale of unauthorized copies of Mac OS X to the public." So what would happen to that judgment if Psystar wasn't selling those unauthorized copies?

Anyone who is an infringer is guilty. No one has the right to make a hackintosh. However, those who do so for themselves are violating civil law.

Selling the unauthorized copies is just part of the problem with that. They have no license to sell the OS as a vendor.

In addition, any action taken to encourage the infringement by others is illegal.
post #58 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajr View Post

Lastly, in response to an earlier comment, it would not take a constitutional amendment to change copyright law. While you're right that the US Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to enact laws protecting artistic (copyright) and scientific (patent) works for a limited period of time, the actual laws are passed by Congress and can be altered or altogether eliminated at any time.

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:

Quote:
The only way copyright can be overturned, rather than modified, is by a Constitutional Amendment.

What does that say?
post #59 of 180
1) There are always less and less Psystar supporters with each article.

2) I dont recall anyone ever saying they had an Psystar machine, for better or for worse. Not one.

3) I imagine that Apple is going to ask for damages so severe that no one will attempt this again, at least in the US. How is that German Mac cloner doing?

4) A bit of a segue, but EFiX is one clone solution that may not be winnable in court. It changes no code and, as weve seen before, they refuse to license their product to anyone in the US that pairs OS X with the chip.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mac_dog View Post

where's teckstud?

Likely having trouble with his Psystar machine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyT View Post

Man, that sucks. Goodbye, freedom. Of course, we Apple users all hate that, anyway.

(And yes, I have a Mac and an iPhone)

Losing freedom is not having your work protected and not having the ability to choose who you wish to sell license your products to. Psystar winning would have been a huge loss for the consumer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

The backers could be shielding even deeper backers.

I have always had doubts that they have backers. Nothing about this case was ever winnable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

The iPhone OS is not sold separately so there's no way to buy it except in a device.

You can DL the entire iPhone OS for free off the internet.
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 #60 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

Please keep things in perspective. This is a copyright case and the law seems to be able to deal with the issue adequately. The murder of almost 3,000 people by terrorists on 9/11 and the subsequent loss of life by those to prevent it from happening again should not be cheapened by such comments.

- there the prisoners are not only people accused about 9/11, but I'm sorry that mentioning the name of that place was touching you so deeply. Of course, i didn't mean it seriously.

Seriously, why this company thought they could fight against law, against the whole industry? I mean, this behavior hasn't been usual before, at all (only mafias do it in countries where they control the law or the corruption is much higher than in the occidental countries).
Where does those jail-breakers come from or where do they hide themselves?
how could any tourist buy iPhone in really cheap price in China?

So, the act of Psystar sounded really stupid since the beginning, who does thing like that, must be either mentally ill or supported by well-informed backers.

I also don't understand how those really low-quality iPod-imitations can be sold out of Asia, in Europe e.g.? I thought the design of the apple products were protected.
post #61 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by BertP View Post

My question is: does Apple have a legal remedy available to it to 'force' disclosure of the financial backers of Psystar? Could this occur if Apple sues for damages, and thus can find the deep pockets via discovery in that legal process?

There is some legal recourse.

If Apple is granted a judgement that requires Psystar to pay them money, for example, and Psystar fails to comply, then Apple can examine the top executives of the company to attempt to find out who the backers of the company are, etc.

But, if the company complies with the judgement, then unless Apple forwards an additional case, they're through.
post #62 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It's going to be interesting to see what happens with this dongle that Psystar is selling. From today's ruling, it is also clearly illegal, but knowing the idiots at Psystar, they'll continue trying to sell it and Apple will have to go after them again.

They would still be a contributory infringer. Anyone who takes action to encourage others to violate a copyright is a contributory infringer. I'll bet $100 that simply selling the dongles that they now offer is sufficient to make them a contributory infringer.

Psystar is in trouble about the dongle already.

They are claiming it's their code, but it's been shown that it's open source code under a license (what isn't?). Because they're selling, and stripped the license notices, and some additional code away, they're in violation of those licenses as well. They can, and may be sued for that.

It's interesting to note that code that accomplishes an illegal act may be licensed if it isn't actually being used. It's a complex process.
post #63 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

This one was a no-brainer. If the judge had ruled in Psystar's favor, copyright laws would essentially have ceased to exist.

A fair summary of what I've been saying all along, but I'm not sure the current summary judgement goes quite that far. It seems to rule only on the license and first sale issues. Note according to the judgement:

Quote:
Apple has also asserted the following claims, which remain for trial: (1) breach of contract; (2) induced breach of contract, (3) trademark infringement; (4) trademark dilution; (5) trade dress infringement; and (6) state unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code § 17200; and (7) common law unfair competition.

The other thing I've been saying all along is that even if there were no software license involved, Psystar has big problems with copyright and trademark infringement. As their original antitrust claim documents in gory detail, they were claiming the right to create a Macintosh compatible computer market. It astonished me that this was at one time their actual defense, since it was so completely damning, but that genie is well out of the bottle now. On the infringement complaints it's going to be virtually impossible for them to claim now that they were not trying to illegally manufacture and sell Mac computers.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #64 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

A fair summary of what I've been saying all along, but I'm not sure the current summary judgement goes quite that far. It seems to rule only on the license and first sale issues. Note according to the judgement:



The other thing I've been saying all along is that even if there were no software license involved, Psystar has big problems with copyright and trademark infringement. As their original antitrust claim documents in gory detail, they were claiming the right to create a Macintosh compatible computer market. It astonished me that this was at one time their actual defense, since it was so completely damning, but that genie is well out of the bottle now. On the infringement complaints it's going to be virtually impossible for them to claim now that they were not trying to illegally manufacture and sell Mac computers.

It's very likely that most of those arguments will fall in Apple's favor as well.
post #65 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

There is some legal recourse.

If Apple is granted a judgement that requires Psystar to pay them money, for example, and Psystar fails to comply, then Apple can examine the top executives of the company to attempt to find out who the backers of the company are, etc.

But, if the company complies with the judgement, then unless Apple forwards an additional case, they're through.

Thanks for response.

Nullis in verba -- "on the word of no one"

 

 

 

Reply

Nullis in verba -- "on the word of no one"

 

 

 

Reply
post #66 of 180
Psystar's continuous "losing" of all their financial record's, miraculously rising from bankruptcy and other flaunting of U.S. financial laws would seem to indicate otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose View Post

US Constitution and Federal Court System apply to US citizens. Since Psystar is a US 'company' they would be subject to US Courts.

Now if they weren't citizens, didn't pay taxes...
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #67 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by doyourownthing View Post

these psystar losers should take a cue or two from microsoft which have stolen and keep stealing from apple, but at least in a different way

Thank John Sculley for this - he made the deal licensing some of Apple technologies to MS...
post #68 of 180
I said that judges granting motions for summary judgement are generally rare. This is a subjective statement based on my experience and rare might be too strong a word. Perhaps, saying it is more probable that the motion will be denied then granted is more accurate. I would agree, however, that trials are rare (especially in civil matters). It isn't usually because Motions for Summary Judgement are normally granted though, but instead because most cases are settled before trial.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ajr View Post

Just to clarify:

It was said earlier, and it's correct, that a motion for summary judgment is made when a party wishes to stipulate to the facts and let the judge rule as a matter of law on whether the case should go forward. In this case, Apple's summary judgment motion would basically say: even if we view the facts in the light most favorable to Pystar, we STILL win as a matter of law. If all sides' summary judgment motions are dismissed, the case proceeds. Despite what someone else said, grants of summary judgment are not rare. Trials, on the other hand, are extremely rare.

With regard to copyright law, Pystar could not argue that the copyright law is invalid. It's very well entrenched around the world that computer code is protected under copyright law, as it is an "original work" and it is "fixed in a manner that is capable of being perceived." You can decide for yourself whether you think computer object or source code is the same as, say, a novel or a painting (both works for which copyright laws were originally envisioned hundreds of years ago), and thus protected by copyright (as opposed to, say, patent law); but that's not at issue here. For over 25 years courts have held that software is copyrightable, and that won't change anytime soon.

Lastly, in response to an earlier comment, it would not take a constitutional amendment to change copyright law. While you're right that the US Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to enact laws protecting artistic (copyright) and scientific (patent) works for a limited period of time, the actual laws are passed by Congress and can be altered or altogether eliminated at any time.
post #69 of 180
For those who can set aside a block of time to REALLY read up on all of this:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...91114101637997
post #70 of 180
We've been saying this all along. The main issue is Psystar installing modified copy of OS X.
post #71 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

"The only way copyright can be overturned, rather than modified, is by a Constitutional Amendment "

I believe it takes a judge in a federal court to overturn a copyright law. Not a Constitutional Amendment.

A judge can't modify the law, his/her job is to issue judgements based on his/her own interpretation of the law for a specific case. The copyright law can only be modified by congress (and maybe the supreme court).

Quote:
The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

(United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8)
post #72 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

A judge can't modify the law, his/her job is to issue judgements based on his/her own interpretation of the law for a specific case. The copyright law can only be modified by congress (and maybe the supreme court).

A judge can strike down any law for being unconstitutional, or overly broad, or contradictory, etc. That ruling would hold within the judge's jurisdiction unless and until a higher court rules differently on appeal.

It's theoretically possible a federal judge could rule certain kinds of copyrights illegal. Of course that ruling would undoubtedly be appealed to the Supreme Court, which would have final say. (This is not going to happen, but it's theoretically possible).

Any law is subject to rulings by the courts. The challenge to the law must come from someone who has been harmed by it.
post #73 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

"The only way copyright can be overturned, rather than modified, is by a Constitutional Amendment "

I believe it takes a judge in a federal court to overturn a copyright law. Not a Constitutional Amendment.

No. A Judge can declare that an individual law doesn't meet Constitutional requirements. But only Congress can make laws changing copyright.

But, and the point I thought I was making in an easy to understand statement, is that to overturn copyright, in other words eliminate the Copyright Clause in the Constitution, Congress would have to pass an amendment to the Constitution.
post #74 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

You are talking about the general right to a copyright that is written in the constitution. It doesnt take a Amendment to modify or overturn an individual copyright. People and companies sue each other all the time over copyright disputes in federal court. Like whats happening in this case.

You people are misunderstanding what I was saying in the first instance.

There are two areas here.

One is an individual law about copyright, which only Congress can promulgate, modify, or negate, and the Copyright Clause in the Constitution itself, which can only be eliminated or modified by a Constitutional Amendment.
post #75 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

I wish I could legally run OSX on some decent hardware.

I agree.
My 8800gt video card just fried a few days go, leaving me scrambling. It was BTO in my 2008 Mac Pro. It's still under Apple care, but non the less, left me screwed as I didn't have a replacement kicking around and have to wait a week for one ordered in.

I thought i'd upgrade the video and keep the (refurbished i bet) 8800gt as a backup. I looked at the best video card for the Pro on the market right now and it's the evga nVidea 285.
Retails for $450 and is %2 better then the 8800gt because Snow Leopard is a disaster when it comes to GPU's. (bearfeats.com)
The best cards you can buy Snow Leopard are running 30% slower then they do in Leopard. 10.6.2 even made things worse... so Apple is going in the wrong direction. (although they did fix a bug that made Maya unusable)

So what do you do? Wait for the next Pro's to find out they changed the chipset completely leaving everyone with a new Pro now, screwed with crap, and putting the Mac 3 years behind Windows users, or pray that they keep the same chipset and someone actually writes decent drivers for the new cards?

It's pretty obvious that Apple no longer has any love for the consumer base that kept them alive as a company in the 90's and early 00's (graphic design, printing, advertising). I would actually go as far as to say they fucking hate us. Where are our matt screens, video cards that don't completely suck?

Part of me wanted Pystar to win, so it gave me an option from having to switch to windoze. The complete contempt apple is showing to it's diehard loyal fan base is of concern, and while the soccer mom consumer market is gobbling up iMac's and iPhones... the creative industry is being completely hung out to dry.

I'm wondering if this decision today won't be looked at in 10 years as the day Apple went down the toilet as a computer manufacturer, and became another Sony with gizmo's and gadgets for the larger consumer base.
In my mind... this judgment just condemned the Pro user base.

I want decent hardware too.
post #76 of 180
I hope Psystar burns. But Apple also has to worry about more hackintosh sellers.

I think it is best for Apple to do something proprietary in the hardware.

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #77 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

I agree.
My 8800gt video card just fried a few days go, leaving me scrambling. It was BTO in my 2008 Mac Pro. It's still under Apple care, but non the less, left me screwed as I didn't have a replacement kicking around and have to wait a week for one ordered in.

I thought i'd upgrade the video and keep the (refurbished i bet) 8800gt as a backup. I looked at the best video card for the Pro on the market right now and it's the evga nVidea 285.
Retails for $450 and is %2 better then the 8800gt because Snow Leopard is a disaster when it comes to GPU's. (bearfeats.com)
The best cards you can buy Snow Leopard are running 30% slower then they do in Leopard. 10.6.2 even made things worse... so Apple is going in the wrong direction. (although they did fix a bug that made Maya unusable)

So what do you do? Wait for the next Pro's to find out they changed the chipset completely leaving everyone with a new Pro now, screwed with crap, and putting the Mac 3 years behind Windows users, or pray that they keep the same chipset and someone actually writes decent drivers for the new cards?

It's pretty obvious that Apple no longer has any love for the consumer base that kept them alive as a company in the 90's and early 00's (graphic design, printing, advertising). I would actually go as far as to say they fucking hate us. Where are our matt screens, video cards that don't completely suck?

Part of me wanted Pystar to win, so it gave me an option from having to switch to windoze. The complete contempt apple is showing to it's diehard loyal fan base is of concern, and while the soccer mom consumer market is gobbling up iMac's and iPhones... the creative industry is being completely hung out to dry.

I'm wondering if this decision today won't be looked at in 10 years as the day Apple went down the toilet as a computer manufacturer, and became another Sony with gizmo's and gadgets for the larger consumer base.
In my mind... this judgment just condemned the Pro user base.

I want decent hardware too.

You can't just blame Apple for this. If you track the PC sites, the same thing happens. Every time MS has a new version of the OS, boards don't work, they are slow, etc.

When companies come out with new boards, the drivers are screwy for months at a time. Old boards don't work in new machines. New boards don't work in old machines.

This is an industry problem.
post #78 of 180
Now that the courts have confirmed that Apple owns OS X, hopefully they will feel more comfortable investing large sums of money in it, if and when required. This is a good ruling for anyone who makes their living from their intellectual creations.
post #79 of 180
@ Melgross

I know there are problems with new software/hardware... but how often do updates make things worse?
This is one area where Apple's secrecy and lack of communication drives me nuts. If they said "we are aware of the problem and are working on it" i'd be appeased and confident in my purchasing power.
The zero discussion and track record of Apple just up and dropping support on it's customers, only acting when they lose a class action law suit, is not a good way to conduct business in my mind.

If Apple acted this way 10 years ago... this site would be called linuxinsider, and we would be fidgeting with the SonyTouch.
post #80 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by lales View Post

Thank John Sculley for this - he made the deal licensing some of Apple technologies to MS...

Well, sort of, maybe. Bill Gates insisted on Apple licensing some elements of the Mac GUI to Microsoft, under pain of Microsoft not continuing developing Mac software. Since Microsoft was just about the only major developer of Mac software at the time, this was a pretty substantial threat. Apple thought this license only extended to the version of Windows Microsoft was developing at the time (2.0) but later a court ruled that it also applied to Windows 3.0. This all came to light when Apple sued Microsoft in the "look and feel" case. The suit was dismissed in part because of the license, but we don't know if it would have succeeded without it.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
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