Amended Psystar complaint vs. Apple repeats copyright claims - Page 2

But that isn't what Apple is saying which they have made clear this week. Apples position seems to be that you have no rights what so ever and appear to be in motion to surpress any sort of public discourse about it. Lets face it what you can do with a device will be limited if you can't communicate about it, which would happen if Apple is successful in using copyright law against some of the hacking sites.

In any event Pystar is but a bug on a big dog here. What is scarry is where Apple intends to ride this dog.

THIS IS NOT APPLES POINT OF VIEW AT ALL WHICH THEY MADE CLEAR THIS WEEK!!

Sorry about the yelling but I don't think people here have a clue where Apple could take us with their overbearing crusade against freedom on it's products. The thought that the DMCA should be used against the activities you descibe above ought to cause concern to anyone that buys Apple products.

The big problem is that it isn't clear that the good guys would win here.

I have to ask why not? There are modding industries for every other substantial product out there be it automobiles, motorcycles, guns, tools or whatever. Why should Apple have special rights here? A Mac or IPhone isn't any different than any other consummer item when it comes to the desire to tailor it for personal needs.

I don't buy blaming Apple for a bad mod either. If you put tires on your truck that didn't come with it and then end up with no traction in snow do you blame Ford. Or doe you blame Ford when you blow the head gaskets after installing one to many turbo chargers? Why should Apple be any different?

Frankly you really need to look in the mirror on this one. Apple has clearly demonstrated this week that they are indeed going after those rights outlined. They haven't been successful yet but it is pretty clear that they are putting the legal machinery in place to severly restrict ones ability to exercise those rights.

As to modded hardware I'm not sure where you get the idea that it is illegal. You can't trade on somebody elses good name but modded and customized consummer goods have been around a long time. This has even been the case with Apple hardware with the ModBook being a current example.

ModBook actually brings up an interesting point as it demonstrates that there is a market for Mac OS/X on hardware supported by other vendors. Kinda blows one of Apples arguements out of the water.


Dave

It IS fine and dandy for Apple to decide this. Computer to car analogies are ridiculous, but I will have to use them:

If you buy a new Ford car and, let's say, replace the shocks with 3rd-party out-of-spec ones, Ford reserves the right to revoke your warranty right. And they will.

Apple warranties and offers support for Mac OS X running on Apple-labelled computers, not on any other hardware. So, if you decide to run Mac OS X on any other computer, you're on your own. I am not against people running Mac OS X on any hardware they want, but these people should know they are waiving away any warranty and support rights.

There's also an issue about protecting Apple's image. If people assume Mac OS X will run fine and dandy on any hardware and they have problems, they will feel that it's Apple's problem, that Apple is the one to blame. Obviously, Apple is not responsible for making their products compatible with anything they don't want to.


That's not the point. The true point here is that you can do everything you want with it, but you can't blame Apple if anything goes wrong. Just imagine you wanted to stick your iPhone up your butt and you get an electric shock? Who's to blame?


If you think there's something wrong with a product, you can always decide to:

1. Not buy it; or
2. Return the product within a few days, after you tried it and got unsatisfied.

Also, if you have to reverse-engineer or modify copyrighted parts of any product to achieve your goal [of making the product work they way you think it should], it's just plain wrong. The EULA, which you agreed to, does not permit this. If you have a problem with that, it's not the right product for you. Get an open source solution instead.

So, I think it's pretty obvious that Apple has the right to pursue legal action against Psystar and every other company that tries to disrupt their business model.


Cheers,
_iCeb0x_

Adding software isn't the problem. Taking out and replacing software is since you are no longer reselling the OS X, but a derivative of it. Note that the GPL used by many open source codes specifically allows this use as long as the new derivative code is released into the open source community. This is why Apple returns the Webkit code back to the community.

Yes, I think the copyright and EULA would allow Axiotron to modify the Mac minis and resell them, provided they come with a valid license for the software included on them.

None of this strengthens Psystar's argument since they are not using any original Mac components. Look at the EULA for the hardware Apple sells - it is very different than the software EULA, so yes, there are definitely differences in the allowed use.

There are actually many instances of specific use licenses in the software world. Think about educational software. The license specifically states that it may only be used in an educational setting. Microsoft is very clearly restricting the use of software purchased under this license. Or, should MS only sell one version at the higher price?

The law says that if you don't agree the license terms then you can return it even if you opened it (remember the blogger who returned Windows Vista CD because he did not wish to agree to the terms?). In earlier ruling, the judge already said that people who purchase Mac OS DVD already know that they are only allowed to install it on Apple machines. So, unless the buyer is an idiot your argument is not valid. People who buy Mac OS DVD already know that they are only allowed to install it on Apple computer.

Which pretty much supports Pystar in that there is a market for Mac OS/X outside of Apple branded products.

Baring a legal agreement it isn't really clear that ModBook would be acceptable considering Apples attitude of the last few weeks.

Well that is what isn't clear here. They do have some rights with respect to interoperability. Since they are doing a minimal amount of work to circumvent restrictions with respect to installation of the software it is not clear that there is an issue. Besides what gets installed is Mac OS, it really isn't a derivative.

The point is that eula don't exist for such because they don't have law to support them. The software industry seems to be the only industry involved in shrink wrapped legal agreements even when many points in those agreements are not legal. Not to mention the very validity of and agreement you did not agree to in writing.

It would be more useful if you would explain why it is not in question. Especially considering how Apple has run wild with the copyright sword of late.

Depends upon what you want to service. If access is so restricted that you can't get to system and configuration files then servicing will be difficult. At another level if you want to build diagnostic software you may need access to system features that are restricted.

Oh but they have just this week when they announced that jailbreaks violate the DMCA. That can be taken as the first step in the surpression and censorship of information related to such activities. This is not a stretch either as doing what you want with a machine implies being able to communicate about it.

In any event there isn't much difference between a jailbreak and installing Mac OS on different hardware. Also Apples position is a clear attack on the individuals right here.

Not really. If you don't have the freedom to inspect and modify your device how can you reasonable expect to work on or repair it? Or to get anybody to do it for you. If Apple is successful in using the DMCA to make distribution of software tools to access your machine illegal then how would you maintain it if they went belly up. Moreso how would you maintain it economical in the current fianacial environment.

I'm not sure I follow you here as this is exactly what I'm concerned about. That is systems so artificially restricted that the manufacture is the only source of upgrades Or parts. We have already seen this ignorance with respect to ink jet printers, we don't need to see wild expansion beyond this.

Agreed! But you can't have this point of view and also support Apples current tactics with respect to Pystar. When it comes right down to it, it is the same basic problem. That is artificial restrictions being placed on software execution on hardware. It is about the use of copyright and other laws to restrict people from getting all the value they can out of hardware they own.

There is no debate to it at all, it is very bad for consumers. Now I've been very much against Apples approach to Pystar but I'm actually surprised that they have had such a free hand with iPhone. Even with iPhone the software restrictions are excessive.

The courts already ruled that software is covered under the copyright laws and that software is licensed not sold. I guess you also want to be able to buy a book, take out some chapter, add them to your own text, and then resell it for profit. I really think you should read this to understand how and why software is covered under copyright laws.

No one is telling you what you can do with the "physical product." They are telling you what you can do with their copyrighted material. Being an unauthorized distributer of copyrighted material is one of those that companies tend to fight against. Just because you bought Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code doesn't mean you can rewrite parts and then reprint the book. That examples seems absurd, but what do you think Psystar is doing? They aren't selling an unopened boxed copy of OS X, they are selling a hacked copy of OS X installed (read: copied and reprinted) on their HDD.

Apple hasn't gone after the OSx86 Project that started since Intel Macs came to fruition. They also haven't made any move toward EFiX. The former is just hobbyists, the latter is completely legal because they aren't altering Apple's code or acting as a reseller, they are just tricking the OS into thinking the HW is a Mac.

True, there is a market, but that doesn't mean that they can use Apple's intellectual property to make themselves money without Apple's permission to use Apple's intellectual property.


When has Apple ever said anything about not being allowed to modify their hardware? The suit with Psystar is specifically about modifying their software and the hardware it can be installed on.


Apple's EULA is exactly like Microsoft saying that you can only use educational licensed software in an educational realm. Are you saying that someone who can purchase it at the educational price should be able to buy educational software and then sell it at full price?


So, I never signed anything saying that murder is bad, so I should be able to kill as I so please? There are many contracts that are implicit. You agree to many things when you buy an airline ticket and get on the plane, but you never sign anything.


This is a different issue that the Psystar issue. I agree that jailbreaking violating the DMCA is a bad sign.


There is a big difference. One is about installing their software on something outside the bounds of the license AND selling it for profit. Jailbreaking is about personal use, which is a serious problem for consumers and I would be very worried about that.

There is no designed for Mac OS X anymore. Everything under the hood consists of stock PC parts. The only difference between a Dell laptop and one of Apple's products are the enclosure (does not need drivers), EFI firmware instead of BIOS, and the operating system.

I most certainly can do exactly that if I wanted to. The publisher already made their profit from the original copy. What I do with it after that is none of their business. There are companies that do this very thing. Here's one example of a company that turned printed books into journals: http://bookjournals.com/

Look at the law firm. Their either doing it pro bono to increase their notoriety or have agreed to part of the settlement. Both of which are commonplace in high profile cases.


Unfortunately artwork is just about all that they are nowadays. Those who actually use their Macs and love the OS are at the mercy of those who only want something pretty to look at.

End User License Agreements are for people who actually use the computer. I.E. - the END user. The final point in the distribution. Psystar is not the end user of the system. They have NO license from Apple. Do they even have a re-distribution agreement with Apple? Betting not.

Mac OS X has never been marketed as a stand alone product. Mac OS X is always sold as part of an Apple Computer or else it is an upgrade to an existing Apple computer running MAC OS X. BTW, notice the name - MAC OS X (not just OS X)

Just because people want MAC OS X to be a stand-alone product doesn't make it one.

Unfortunately, it may be that upgrades will need to be distributed in a different manner. No more walking into a retail store and buying the upgrade. Or long lines on the upgrade release day. Software will be distributed via internet in a very lonely and unsocial manner.

I really dislike Psystar. They act like a bunch of whiny kids who want to what they want - just because!

No.

You can't do this, it's illegal in exactly the same way as originally described. The journals you point to merely recycle old paper, not the actual printed works. They use old book covers that are *out* of copyright to make interesting covers for blank paper journals. Not the same thing at all.

Again, this is just not true.

Most Apple computers use custom Apple-designed motherboards. The fact that they use intel chips and the fact that some of the parts are the same as in other computers does not equate to them being "the same as a Dell" at all.

People keep pushing this meme but it isn't true.

Your analogy is poor and not thought out. If what you wanted ever came to pass, there wouldn't be much art, writing or music on the planet.

If I take your idea to the extent that you are proposing, I could go to the store and buy a paperback copy of Lord of the Rings and then, since it is my "right," could change the character names, replace the ending and change the title. I could then sell this book under my name and a different title and the Tolkien estate could do nothing but sit back and watch me make money. You are having trouble with analogies.

CPU, North bridge, south bridge, GPU, firewire controller, audio processor, network controller, wireless chipset, etc. Not all, but just the major ones. The only thing that are really Apple designed are the fan controllers and the shape of the pCB board. But hey, if pretending we're still in the PowerPC era where all the chips were custom made for the given machine makes you feel better, go ahead.

I swear that some of you posting on this thread must really be "Apple Insiders" - the way that you are bleating on and on in defense of Apples's defenseless, anti-consumer, anti-choice and anti-trust market monopoly in regards to OSX compatible hardware. Do some of you have stock in Apple as well?

As a certified Apple Tech and freelance Consultant, I have bought and sold hundreds of thousands of dollars in Apple's hardware and software. I have no problems respecting Apple's right to protect their branded and designed products (software/hardware) from being illegally copied or patent compromised by another company without due compensation, or prior authorization from Apple.

What I am strongly objecting to - is Apple's position that only Apple can sell the hardware that can run it's software exclusively. And the fact that Apple is purposely writing code into it's OS that specifically locks the user of their software into using ONLY Apple's own proprietary hardware (closed loop business model), is precisely why the EU ( as well as other parts of the world outside the US ) will not legally recognize Apple's absurd monopoly as it now stands.

We all know what Apple is really afraid of here - real competition in the hardware market. Once Apple loses it's current stranglehold over the hardware that can run it's OS and applications, then the whole "we don't do $500 computers" arrogance is kaput overnight.

Apple has put out some great machines/hardware like the current model iMacs and the intel Mac Mini (badly in need of a upgrade), and they have also sold some really overpriced and overhyped stinkers- like the cheaply made, underspeced, recently discontinued, plastic Macbooks, or the bad logic board (ram slot failures) G4 Powerbooks and the whole G5 Powermac fiasco - especially the "Liquid Cooled" Dual processor models that sold for almost 3K and are now fancy doorstops or sculpture for many unlucky owners.

I know that there is a boatload of crappy PC hardware out there with just as many if not more issued concerning quality and performance - so there is no perfect alternative hardware for running OSX, but at least one should have the option (CHOICE) as a consumer in purchasing or building a computer that can run any OS that is sold in the retail market - especially when they all basically on on the very same hardware.

In this economy, Apple will not be able to continue forcing us OSX users/fans to purchase ONLY their "high-end" computers and other hardware without resistance. We WILL hack, modify, or reconfigure any and all products to suit our needs as an end user/owner. OSX can run as easily and efficiently on a generic $500 laptop or desktop, as well as a top-of-the-line Mac Pro. Apple knows this - that's why they are fighting so hard too keep the hardware loop closed by modifying OSX - purposely limiting it's compatibility to only Apple branded machines. OSX flies on an AMD quad core, and is quite respectable on a $399 Asus EEE PC.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/dreams-ca...-pc-323279.php.

Psystar might not win their battle against the Big Bad Apple and it's phalanx of lawyers, but they are another necessary chink in Apple's Anti-Competitive hardware armor that will eventually have to open up and liberate OSX from Apple only equipment.

OSX may be the best OS available right now and I'd be willing to pay more for it, but not if it's crippled and closed - opening it up will only make it better and more widely used, Apple's hardware revenue be damned.

No you can not. The site you pointed out to uses old books with expired copyright. think you should go and read carefully what is said on their website and if you don't believe me try contacting them and ask them if they can do one of the current copyrighted books. As I said earlier, you need to go read about the copyright law. There are many educational websites that explains what copyright laws means such as Wikipedia.

Ok, then...

How would you describe what Psystar is doing? My understanding is that they have assembled a PC and are modifying a reportedly purchased copy of Mac OS X to run on that hardware and then reselling the result as an OS X computer. In other words, it would appear that they are purchasing a licence to Mac OS X, modifying it the software, reselling it, and then denying Apple's claims of copyright violation. This was after their original complaint that Apple deliberately crippling Mac OS X to not run on their hardware was somehow illegal.

You clearly disagree strongly with Apple's choice of business model and would rather see Apple focus on its system software exclusively (and thus compete directly with Microsoft?). Apple chooses instead to remain a hardware company. That is their choice and one for which they will be judged ultimately by their shareholders (of which I am not one). So far, in these difficult times, Apple seems to be doing better than others.

I too am frustrated by the lack of a lower-priced headless desktop or an upgrade to the languishing Mac Mini. I would like to think that Apple will respond to that market but, in the meantime, I keep my G4 MDD dual 867 running, primarily in the role of a home media server.

Yes I can. I can rip apart a book, write in it, glue things to it, then turn around and sell it. The copyright holder has zero case against such a thing, because I paid them for their product.

As a holder of several registered copyrights, I'm quite aware of copyright law especially with regards to publishing. There is NO restriction on value added reselling of legally purchased works.

The Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys books (for example) that the journal maker in my link uses are absolutely NOT expired copyrights.



What you describe is absolutely legal, and does nothing to infringe on the profits of the Tolkien estate. Every one of your books sold requires the purchase of one of theirs.

But it is very true. I get sick of this argument that Apple's hardware is superior to everyone else.

Apple may use their own custom designed motherboards but this is something that everybody does to when standard motherboard sizes will not fit into their design of case or shell. What you are really saying is that Apple have cut a motherboard to fit the shape of a MBP's insides. Big deal. It is still a standard PC motherboard, the same standard motherboard that PC vendors have been using for years. Every other component of an Apple computer is shared with the PC world, they are all made in factories in the far East, you crack open a MBP and you will find components that are shared with everyone else windows PC's.

Dell et al. don't make any of that stuff. In fact, I'd wager that they produce less components than Apple, but what does any of that matter? Apple didn't make the PPC chips either, they jumped to Intel because IBM's roadmap was poor.

What I don't get is this anti-American, anti-Capitalist position that some posters have on these forums. Why should OS X be the only Socialist operating system in existence? Why should Apple change its business model that works to one that will make them considerably less money per machine while costing them a great deal more in SW R&D and support in a vane attempt satisfy the cheap and perpetually unsatisfied? None of that helps Apple in any way. I'm sorry, but a single company can't be everything to everyone; thankfully we live in a society were we have the option to choose another product if one doesn't suit our needs.

Not if you want to run OSX it seems.

A Mac is the HW and SW. If any part of that doesn't suit your needs are you free to choose from a plethora of other vendor options.

If you send that new book to print without getting authorization from the copyright holder then they have a major case. Psystar isn't buying just buying boxes of OS X and selling the boxed copies of OS X. At the very least, they are opening up the boxes and installing the copyrighted material onto their machines which requires them to accept the EULA. What they are probably doing is copying the same hacked copy of OS X over and over again. This is piracy, regardless of how many boxed copies they buy.



Apple's HW is superior in many ways because they limit and integrate their HW to their SW. While some of the rudimentary measurements of their HW is the same as other vendors there are plenty of things you are considering. If two notebooks have trackpads, does that make them the same trackpads? If two notebooks have 15" LCD displays does that make them the same displays? If two notebooks have Intel C2D 2.4GHz CPUs does that make them the same processors? No, no and no!

Errr, Yes, Yes and Yes. If the two trackpads are actually the same, if the LCD panels are exactly the same and if the processor is just an off the shelf processor the same as you will find in a Dell.

OSX does not integrate with the components anymore than windows does. The whole thing is nonsense, In what way do you think that it does?

Solipsism wrote:
"What I don't get is this anti-American, anti-Capitalist position that some posters have on these forums. Why should OS X be the only Socialist operating system in existence?"

Jeeez, after all that's happen these past few months in regards to your high, holy "Capitalism position", don't you think you and your supply-side ilk would be a bit more humble and painstakingly careful in not unnecessarily highlighting the big "S" word - especially since the big "S" is exactly what is being implemented by our treasury to save "Capitalism" from it's own, self-inflicted excesses and greed.

Seems that real Capitalist like yourself only believe in "socialism" when it serves capitalist interest - as in - "socialize our losses, but privatize our profits", or, Wall Street is "too big to fail", but the rest of the "masses", are "too small to succeed".

Your jurassic, myopic brand of "solipsism" can be rightfully coined "high, late Capitalism". Nothing
can be more "anti-American" than slinging around damaging and discredited notions that only a small class of powerful, wealthy oligarchs know what is best for us "masses", and that they are the ones who will bestow us with their largess - if they feel so disposed. HA!

But they are not the same, and the comparisons that we see posted about others vendors are so much cheaper never use the same basic components. The core speed may be the same but then the L2 and FSB are lower, the screen size may be the same but the panel type and backlighting are different, and the other vendor's trackpads don't have multi-touch, which becomes a real annoyance for me when I have to use a difference machine. Could other vendors use these other components and update the Synaptic drivers and SW to make it more equivalent, sure they could, but that would increase the price without actually adding anything that most spec sheet buyers would understand so they usually don't go that route. Like all markets, there are different strategies. Do you expect expect Outback to a have dollar menu just because other restaurants do? They are certainly losing money to all those people too cheap to pay for a whole steak, just like Apple is losing money from not selling $500 notebooks that run dualcore Pentiums.

Yes, they do integrate more because they have more control over the environment.


I'm not in favour of any bailouts so your post is quite moot.

I think it comes down to marketing. Language affects us all in deep psychological and even physiological ways. To say that it's an upgrade somehow denotes that it's the same product with some fixes and minor changes. Apple likes to present major releases (Panther, Tiger, Leopard, etc) as though it's a whole new thing. Whereas upgrades are offered free and represents additional value to the consumer without further expense. New feels better than Upgrade, therefore write new on the box and skip the upgrade label.

From a purely technical standpoint...all retail boxes are upgrades as you would be "upgrading" the OS on your current Mac. The alternative would be being buying a new Mac which already includes a copy of the latest OS - making it a redundant and pointless expense to buy the retail box "upgrade".

Are you also upset that you can't play Xbox 360 games on your Mac or Wii games on your Windows PC? Or that you can't cook your meals in your washing machine?

Just give me a F#CK@N laptop with an 11 inch screen , weighs 2 .5 lbs, non-highgloss screen (matte or hybrid), firewire, and HDMI running OSX- if not by Apple then someone else.

I'm also free to spend a large bundle replacing all of my software and lose a good portion of my files while figuring out how in God's name I'm going to transfer my files that can be read by windows from a Mac using HFS+ to a windows machine using NTFS. Its so black and white to you people, everyday practicality has no room in your argument. Steve Jobs' Apple is infallible and its up to the user to adapt to that. Personally, I prefer the days before his little power trip when you didn't have make major concession to have either the hardware or operating system you wanted. You could have both.

You can do what you want with the ORIGINAL copy (That is still protected by copyright) for PERSONAL use. But you are not allow to do what you want with any altered (derivative) copy that you made for PERSONAL use. You can't even give the altered (derivative) copies away for free. Profit has nothing to do with it. It is an infraction of the copyright law that applies to all copyrighted material. Except maybe for parody, educational use or documentation. Psystar falls under none of those.

Once again. Apple is NOT after Psystar for reselling retail copies of OSX. Or installing OSX on a generic PC's. Psystar has no legal right to sell or give away that altered (derivative) copy of OSX once they sell the original copy of OSX. That altered copy must be destroyed as it will no longer be for PERSONAL use. Which mean they must sell their computers without OSX installed.

And you don't think people using Windows now, that are switching to a Mac, don't encounter the same problems? But they still do it and don't bitch about it to MS.

And you don't seem to know what your talking about. How the files are stored in a Mac has no bearing on whether it can be read on a Windows machine. Mac HSF+ and NTFS are just different ways to format hard drives, NOT the files. You can transfer any file from a Mac to a flash thumb drive (FAT formated) and have it read on a Windows machine with no problem at all. All you need is the proper program that can open up the file.

Not even close. OSX can read and write FAT32 and read NTFS which means you can transfer files from a PC hard drive to a Mac. Windows cannot read a HFS drive.


And you seem to know no sense of practicality.


Yeah and you empty the Great Lakes if you have enough buckets and enough time. Sure I can do it. Of course transferring over 100GB worth of via a 4GB flash drive is going to take an awfully long and require keeping track of what files I've transferred. For those of us in the real world its not a very practical solution.

When you choose to go to a different OS you are going to need to update your SW in most cases. Only a few commercial developers create for multiple platforms and allow switching across the platforms. Why is that Apple's fault? Are you suggesting that all OSes should be exactly the same?

As for switching to Windows, you can install the pay for MacDrive or the free HFSEXplorer or TransMac to let Windows machines read and write to HFS+. You also have more common solutions, like optical media, formatting an external drive as FAT32 and all the various ways you send data over the internet, like FTP, SSH, HTTP, and email. For being black and white, as you say, there sure are a colourful assortment of options at hand.

I can't believe you really believe what you're saying!

If you were a singer, a writer, a painter or any other kind of artist, you would know how wrong you are.

Why did Eminem sue Apple when they used his work on an iPod ad? Do you remember that ad in which a boy was singing an Eminem's song? Yes, Eminem sued and he was right: Apple didn't ask for permission. Even if they didn't used an actual recording by Eminem, they used the lyrics, which Eminem has rights over.

When you buy a book, you buy the paper and ink that it's made of. The written work is still owned by the author. This is a fact. Just ask any lawyer.

And, just FYI, I don't like Eminem and his music. I don't really like the fact that Apple chose to use an Eminem song for their ad...


Really? I don't like "flaming", but you're really asking for it. Have you ever heard the term "troll"? Please, give up. Your argument is flawed...


Cheers,
_iCeb0x_

Good luck! What's stopping you?!


Can you please sell me some of your copyrighted work? I would like to make some easy money

Yeah I have an idea for a new tickle me Elmo toy, but instead we'll make it green and call it Elmer. We can use the original Elmo voice recordings too because we can just buy an Elmo doll and record direct from there - after all its our right! Then I can sell it and just use the original artwork from the box, but he'll be green of course.... I could make millions!

Morgan Freeman could make a lot of many making audiobook if we had no copyright law.