MacBook Airs ship; Psystar plans Mac notebook, Blu-ray desktop - Page 4

A while ago the DVD Writer failed in my iMac, it took me over an hour (and around 40 euro for the taxi ride) to get to the repair centre, and I had to wait for around two weeks for the replacement to arrive, then I got take the two hour return trip (and another 40 Euro) to pick it up. Now I live in Dublin, so I am glad I am so close to a repair centre...

Just because there is store right next to you doesn't mean it is that way in the rest of the world.

I paid for it, I have the receipt, I own it. It is absolutely mine to do whatever the heck I want to with it. I don't care what the license agreement says, I don't even recognize their right to have a EULA.

Imagine a flour manufacturer putting a "not to be used to making bread" clause on the bag because they also sell their own bread. No one would settle for that. Yet that's the same crap people are trying to pull with this intellectual property B.S.

It is not the EULA that say you don't own the software, It is the copyright laws. Unless the owner of the copyrighted material state otherwise, you don't own the software you are licensed to use it (why do you think there is an open source license agreement?). Imagine if you wrote a book and someone bought it, photo copied it, and started selling it for $0.01. "He paid for it, he have the receipt, he own it. It is absolutely his to do whatever the heck he wants to with it." right? I don't so. Maybe then you will start to appreciate copyright laws. Software is no difference since it is a set of written code. If you are a programmer then you will know that two programmers can write two different codes that can basically do the exact the same thing.

Me and my colleagues have written few engineering programs that we used in our firm few years back. Even though we didn't sell it commercially some copies somehow were leaked to one of our competitors. Our lawyers sent them a letter and they agreed to stop using our software (We really could not tell but at least this stopped them from marketing the program as their own). Now, If it wasn't for the copyright laws we would have wasted the hundreds of man hours we spent on developing the softwares.

So you now own the software do you? It's not Apple's Mac OS X? It's now bsenka OS X. How are you people so naive?

What do you think will happen to the IT guy who buys ONE copy of Windows Seven, and then proceeds to upgrade his company's 10,000 PCs?
"I paid for it, I have the receipt, I own it. It is absolutely mine to do whatever the heck I want to with it."

Oh. That's OK then.

If I have nothing, and I take the following gamble:

50% zero; bankruptcy
50% Three hundred million dollars


For a single guy who worrries not about bankruptcy, this is a VERY intelligent gamble. The expected value is 150 million dollars in my example. Sure he might go bankrupt. We all might. He also has the potential of a fine family fortune that generations of his heirs can spend. Those who can take risks, do take risks and should. That is how innovation happens. Steve Jobs could easily have gone bankrupt by creating Apple. In many ways Steve Jobs was horribly illogical and stupid. Yet he came out victorious didn't he. So did Bill Gates, despite stealing nearly everything he sold.

This Psystar guy is reaching critical mass. It is not child's play for Apple to kill him anymore. He can cry some awfully nasty things if Apple kills him. Perversely, in a court of law these 2 parties are forced to engage in an argument on the merits. The very fact that an argument will take place (with its risks for AAPL and potential payoff to Psystar) is a profound victory for Psystar.

Your original question was how is Apple repair service is different from Psystar (where your only choice is to mail the computer or HDD and wait for at least 3 weeks to get it back). I was not comparing the rest of the world to the US, I was comparing your options. Yes, sometimes it take time for a repair but not always. By the way, I live an hour away from Apple store too.

It happened to me once that my iMac required a new logic board and they were out of stock with 2 weeks waiting period. I called Apple and explain to them that I need my computer ASAP because I am working on my Masters thesis. Two days later the repair shop (not Apple store by the way) called and told me that they received the part this morning and my computer is ready.

Oh i have money, just not money i am willing to spend on Apple hardware. but thats not the problem. I dont really WANT OS X, it just would be nice to install it on MY pc not Apples pc.

i really dont want a Porsche, but i have a Chevy LS1 Powered sandrail, and i can afford Porsche 911 CV Joints (and buy them on the open market) would it be wrong for me to use these Porsche 911 CV Joints on something other than a Porsche? ( i really dont know i did not see an EULA in the box)

Really how is it that bad that OSX gets installed on a PC(especially when apple makes and installs OS X on PC's all day long)

But at the end of the day, the Apple experience for me, is exactly the same as what you claim Psystar woul d, I had to take the machine in, wait two weeks and then get it back.

Apple support was no good (they even told me the wrong location for the repair centre)


The repair centre was nice to me, kept me updated about everything, more than Apple did, Apple made me ring the third party repair agent and organise everything, not the best service shortly after forking out over 2000 euro for the thing.

- Installing OS X on non Mac hardware: Guilty
- Being a shady ass PC dealer: Guilty

If i want shady I'll sit under a tree. Yeathx

He also has the potential to incur a debt that he and his family will be paying off for years.


Psystar is not an innovator. Next to zero engineering goes into their boxes.


Both Jobs and Gates were innovators, pioneers and are successful in their field. Arguably Jobs and Gates stole ideas from each other and from others, but they reconciled their differences a decade ago. Apple and Microsoft have never been known to steal others' code as Psystar is doing.
In selling Mac clones at a discount (albeit unable to achieve the same performance), where is the market risk for Psystar?


Boo-hoo! When I cry for Psystar, I cry for all infringers everywhere who just wanted to earn a decent living by illegally copying others' hard-earned works.


This is just one battle, that also has its advantages for Apple, so it can not be profound. You need to look at the war.

Why should we care about your situation, if you don't really want Mac OS X? "Nice" doesn't mean diddly.


By installing the CV joints, you're not copying them. You paid Porsche for the copy of the joints you're using. In Psystar's case, they are installing Mac OS X onto a non-Apple computer hard disk, making a copy that no one has paid Apple for. The retail box of Mac OS X does not come with permission to copy the OS onto any computer other than an Apple-branded one.

I'm aware of that but I think AAPL mishandled it. I believe AAPL is inviting Dell and HP to pull a Psystar. They should've put the screw to Psystar immediately.

If you "believe" that Apple obeying the orders of a judge is "bungling" their case ... then yes.... they bungled it!

Isn't it funny what people believe when they don't know the facts?

Why Is it so hard to understand that there is a difference between what you can do personally with your copy of OSX and what a business that's trying to make a profit can do with their copy of OSX.

The "fair use" laws only covers "personal use". So you can take your copy of OSX and put it on to your own PC if you want. Apple may not like it but they won't (and haven't) come after anyone that's done this. Just like the RIAA have not gone after anyone that uses some one else's music in their personal home movies.

This is why the OSX hack (x86) is free. Apple would have a hard time convicting a hacker if he claims he's only doing it as a hobby. But if the hacker tries to market that hack, it would be easy for Apple to get a conviction based on unauthorize use of some else's copyrighted material for commercial gain. It's no longer a "fair use" issue.

It's one thing for you to buy Porsche CV joints to install on your own vehicle. But it's a competely different matter if GM did this to the vehicles they sell and then advertise that you don't need to buy an expensive Porsche to own a car that handles like a Porsche because our cars uses patented Porsche technology. Do you think for a second that Porsche response is going to be "Great, we get to sell a lot of CV joints. This ought to make up for lost auto sales."

Now if the CV joints that Porsche uses is made by a third party and that third party also sells their CV joints to GM. Then GM can make the claim that their cars handles like a Porsche because they use the same technology found on a Porsche.

And don't let those people that think that "Mac" is a monopoly hear you say that it's just a 'PC". If a "Mac" is just another "PC", then Apple for sure don't have a monopoly in the "Mac market".

I believe you're wrong there. Being for "personal use" isn't the sole criterion, maybe not even the most important criterion, and maybe even irrelevant in some cases for determining "fair use."

I am not a lawyer, but I don't believe "Fair Use" has been well defined through court rulings. There are just too many ways that creative works can be copied, distributed and used, and technology is changing too fast for the courts to keep up. One should note that manufacturers of DRMed DVD ripping software seem to be easily shut down when the mood strikes the movie studios, whereas copying of music from one's own CD onto other media for personal use seems to be immune to prosecution after one or more court rulings and, I believe, recording of television broadcasts has been ruled by the courts as being OK for personal use, too.

The Wikipedia is hardly authoritative but it is informative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

"[Fair Use] provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. [...]

the factors to be considered shall include:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

People might find the section on "Common Misunderstandings" very interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_us...understandings

wherein this little ditty is stated: "binding agreements such as contracts or license agreements may take precedence over fair use rights."


In contrast, Apple should have little difficulty going after a dongle manufacturer, where the only purpose for said dongle is to enable copyright infringement of Mac OS X.

It is illegal to sell someone else's product (Mac OS X) for personal profit. Therefore Psystar is breaking the law because the are selling OS X bundled with their computers for a profit. If they sold their computers and made you buy OS X they wouldn't be breaking any laws.

That isn't the problem. The issue stems from the fact that they are selling a derivative work without permission. There is nothing illegal about reselling an unmodified version of OSX. If I find a sucker willing to pay me more than what OSX is costs in retail I didn't violate any law. On the other hand if I modify the code and sell it I am illegally selling a derivative product. Were they selling an unmodified version of OSX and using EFIx to trick OSX into thinking that it is running on the same EFI that one would find on a Mac then you get into the issue of the EULA, which unlike derivative works is a far more gray area of law. Some contract law attorneys question the legality of shrink wrap EULAs, but there isn't much case law AFAIK to say how the courts would settle such a case. Copyright infringement seems like a much better legal strategy for Apple against Psystar.


You could theoretically sell a computer that used EFIx in order to run OSX, but EFIx may violate DMCA at least within the USA. Only time will tell whether EFIx stays on the market within the USA. If EFIx ever becomes popular I wouldn't be surprised if Apple attempts to use DMCA to pull it from sale within the USA.

Yes, IF I BOUGHT IT, it is mine. I can install it on anything I want. I can modify it in any way I choose, and I can turn around and sell it if I want to.


Psystar is buying and reselling a boxed version of OS X with each computer. They bought it, installed in on each machine, and sold both the machine and the boxed software. They bought each and every copy, they can do whatever they want with them.

Are you deliberately missing the point?

Can you legally install one copy of (most) paid software on an unlimited number of computers?
Can you legally install Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware.
Can you legally purchase software with an education discount when you don't qualify for that discount.

Companies, not just Apple, put restrictions on what you can do with THEIR software. They control how and who they sell THEIR software to.

Do you just choose to abide by the rules you agree with and ignore the rest? Stoopid question! Of course you do. And it looks like Psystar is doing the same.

It seems to me that Psystar presents a golden opportunity for Apple. Instead of battling them, Apple should embrace them.

Why?

Steve J has repeated said that Apple's DNA does not allow it to produce lower quality product. Fair enough. If Apple were to sell Leopard or next-gen OSX at $399 for non-apple machines (vs $129 for Apple machines) and offer a steeply priced path for upgrading non-apple machines, Apple would be able to
(1) profit handsomely from machines that it is unwilling to make (Apple's profit margin on each copy of Leopard is--I'm guessing--at least 50%, imagine a 90% profit margin on software from double the number of machines
(2) indirectly serve the low-end market
(3) avoid federal intervention for running a monopoly
(4) skirt all the lawyer fees

I doubt apple would lose many sales of its machines, simply because of the quality of their products and the R&D that goes into them; those who are forced to pinch pennies would still be able to use OSX, but depend on Pystar's warranty for breakdowns. No enterprise worth its salt would buy non-apple machines (enterprise is coming, mark my words), so Apple would have little to lose and a lot to gain

You can install Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer, but Apple has not authorized such copying. You might be found liable for copyright infringement.
You can sell the original DVD of Mac OS X that Apple produced, but you aren't authorized to sell copies of it in any way, shape or form.



It's the unauthorized installation (copying) onto non-Apple computers that is a problem. Psystar can not just do whatever they want with the boxed DVDs and not risk a legal battle and severe losses.