or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple says Psystar holding back info in Mac clone legal case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple says Psystar holding back info in Mac clone legal case - Page 4

post #121 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

This is not about Apple protecting its IP at all... It's about protecting its extra dollar.

Of course it's about dollars. What is the point of running a business and owning your own intellectual property if you can't make money from it?

Quote:
No, it's Apple's overreaching EULA....

Why are you guys so pissed at Apple's requirement to only install on a Mac... but you have no problem with the requirement to only install on ONLY ONE computer?
post #122 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

I've admitted wrong on these boards in the past. There's no reason I shouldn't be willing to do it again.



The reseller's license is the only thing of which I won't argue on Psystar's behalf. They don't have one. Does it matter? I'm not sure. There are hundreds of career power-sellers on eBay who get by without them, despite frequently reselling copyrighted work. I also don't understand this either. Regardless, I think it's the least important of the issues at stake here, so let's move on to something more substantial.

I can't speak for Psystar's method, but I know there exist install methods that require no "hacking" of OS X code. With the proper bootloader, OS X install disks will run natively on certain third-party hardware.

Regarding the copying of their software, that is the purpose of the install DVD. The DVD itself is not the copyrighted work, the OS is. When one buys that DVD, they are buying the right to install and use that code. The terms of the EULA attempt to bind that use to "Apple-labeled" hardware. This link is what is contested, as it's akin to saying that you can buy this $15 reproduction Monet painting, but you can only display it in a $150 "Monet-brand" frame.

Psystar is purchasing reproductions, putting them in their own frame and reselling the bundle. The copyrighted work is still intact (depending on the install method), the copyright-holder is getting paid for every reproduction purchased. The only thing that's different is the frame, which isn't copyrighted anyway, so that shouldn't matter, should it?

So what is this dispute really about? Installing one legally-purchased software DVD on one computer? No, it's Apple's overreaching EULA, which attempts to force end-users into buying a frame from Apple even though the reproduction is a legally-purchased, self-standing work.

This is not about Apple protecting its IP at all... It's about protecting its extra dollar.

-Clive

Oh no... Now you've gone and done it. The Apple Firster's are going to come after you with all of their Apple Inc. retreaded, prior restrained, hell hath no copyrighted infringed fury that they can muster. They can never, ever allow, or entertain the idea of OSX being used in any way, by any one, "independent" of Apple branded and sanctioned hardware. Everyone that advocated otherwise - is certainly guilty of the lowest form of IP thuggery and theft that ever was. To them, the sacredness of highly restrictive EULA's is beyond question, and eternal.

That is of course, until more and more independent minded binary hooligans quickly figured out that OSX performs flawlessly on almost any modern computer made (non-Apple branded) - with very minimal, or no (EFiX) code modifications - thus liberating the OS to the larger world of equipment options and competitive prices.

Even if Psystar didn't install, bundle, offer, or include a retail copy of OSX, but just sold the base hardware - and then provided post purchase instructionals of how to get OSX up and running smoothly on that hardware (which to me, is a much better and legally safer tact to take), Apple, and all of the rest of the OSX closed loop crowd would still be up in arms because in at the end of the day, this is, and always has been about locking OSX permanently onto Apple's own machines - from which it can never, ever be separated - till hardware death do them part.
post #123 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

Of course it's about dollars. What is the point of running a business and owning your own intellectual property if you can't make money from it?

No one is taking Apple's IP... Apple is using an EULA to make its IP worth more than it actually is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

Why are you guys so pissed at Apple's requirement to only install on a Mac... but you have no problem with the requirement to only install on ONLY ONE computer?

I may not be in the majority but one computer per license makes sense to me. If you replace your computer, most companies allow you to delicense the old one and reinstall on the new one (unless the company is EA and the software is SPORE, that is). If you own multiple computers, something like an OS should really have a license for each setup.

Being forced to install the software on a certain set of hardware that is functionally equivalent to most 3rd party hardware is unjustified. Either Apple should allow everyone to purchase and install OS X, regardless of the configuration -or- not sell OS X as a stand-alone product at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevielee View Post

Oh no...

hahaha! Substanceless, yet still hilarious!

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #124 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

No one is taking Apple's IP... Apple is using an EULA to make its IP worth more than it actually is.

Being forced to install the software on a certain set of hardware that is functionally equivalent to most 3rd party hardware is unjustified. Either Apple should allow everyone to purchase and install OS X, regardless of the configuration -or- not sell OS X as a stand-alone product at all.

Ok, let me try it this way. It is not a matter of their software over-reaching in any way at all. Apple is both a hardware and software company. While you are accurate to say that their parts for their computers are mainly off-the-shelf parts, that is their hardware.

Here is the rub though. Their hardware can run OS X, Windows, Linux, Solaris, etc. However Windows doesn't care what kind of hardware you have, it says so in their agreement. Same thing for Linux, Solaris, CentOS, et. al. (BTW, while those may all be Open Source, you are still agreeing to use it with their agreement, even if the agreement is nothing more than "have fun with this software").

Apple has decide that they only want their Operating System to be ran on Apple Hardware. They put it in their EULA. Does that mean that the end-user is going to do that; no. It also states quite plainly that it cannot be resold without a valid reseller's agreement. Resellers are a company that have access to shrink-wrapped boxes that they can buy in bulk and sell at an agreed amount of price (the MSRP, and yes, it is a suggestion).

Psystar's arguement of since it can run on any hardware, it should be allowed to do so does not hold any water. The perfect instance is a cell phone. Just because the G1 can operate outside the T-Mobile network, the agreement they have says that it won't. Same thing for the iPhone. Unless they have an agreement to work with each other, they won't work. It is the same thing here. Psystar is basically trying to force Apple to allow them to sell computers with their OS (or to run on their network, as with the phone analogy). Apple is saying no, which is well within their rights, as they OWN the IP to their Operating System.

-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Fanatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027

Reply

-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Fanatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027

Reply
post #125 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

Either Apple should allow everyone to purchase and install OS X, regardless of the configuration -or- not sell OS X as a stand-alone product at all.

Do you not see the stupidity of that statement?

You are complaining that Apple won't allow you to install OS X on a PC
and then in the next breath you say that it would be better if they didn't allow you to install it on the PC and on a Mac.

Which option do you think is more anti consumer Clive?
post #126 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Perhaps Psystar doesn't want to produce any financial statements because they haven't got any. I wouldn't be surprised -- this seems like a real shoestring operation.

Or they're getting their funding from some Jerk-off like Steve Ballmer
post #127 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

Of course it's about dollars. What is the point of running a business and owning your own intellectual property if you can't make money from it?



Why are you guys so pissed at Apple's requirement to only install on a Mac... but you have no problem with the requirement to only install on ONLY ONE computer?

I couldn't agree with you more...... there are some real freakin communists on this site.

Z
post #128 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphodsplanet View Post

Or they're getting their funding from some Jerk-off like Steve Ballmer

MS funding Psystar hurts MS no matter how you slice.
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 #129 of 158
[ed: How about NO]
post #130 of 158
[ed: let's not, please]
post #131 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphodsplanet View Post

I don't know if I'd agree with you on that. You see if Pystar....were actually successful in the crime they are committing... well.... then you start to drain the funds out of Apple eventually, thereby stifling the great innovation that comes out of there.

Despite what they are doing being illegal, people mostly buy notebooks, which Psystar can't compete with. They also sell budget machines using cheap components, regardless of a GPU or CPU here or there in some of their machines that are powerful, the rest if of poor quality so they aren't hitting Apple's core business. What they are doing is taking away a Windows sale from a PC vendor. They may also be taking a retail copy of Windows away from DIYers but many of them probably just DL Windows anyway and could just build their OSx86 machine if they wanted without Psystar's added fees.

So the only ones who are hurt by them is Microsoft. If Psystar were to win the case and Mac OS X was required to be licensed to other PC vendors then MS would be very damaged because the big PC vendors have been looking for ways to get from under MS' thumb for years. This would finally give them the opportunity. Of course, this is hypothetical scenario where Mac OS X becomes the only socialized OS in existence could never happen. Apple has a right to license their OS to whom ever and Psystar can't possibly win this case.. but you know that.
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 #132 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphodsplanet View Post

Capeche?

Yes I do. But I don't agree. Suggest you tone down the insults.
post #133 of 158
We really don't need a repeat, continuance or escalation of the "If you don't agree with me, you're an idiot" kind of argument. If you don't understand that reasonable people can disagree reasonably on something and avoid seeing the other side as just being stupid or ignorant, maybe you don't belong here.
post #134 of 158
[ed: let's not, please]
post #135 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

Do you not see the stupidity of that statement?

You are complaining that Apple won't allow you to install OS X on a PC
and then in the next breath you say that it would be better if they didn't allow you to install it on the PC and on a Mac.

Which option do you think is more anti consumer Clive?

When did I ever saying anything about "anti-consumer" or "pro-consumer"? This is about Apple selling an OS independently then trying to control its use after the point of sale. That is what is unjustified.

And also, just because one might not be able to buy OS X as a stand-alone product doesn't mean they can't upgrade... Paid software updates, for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphodsplanet View Post

Piot.... you have to realize something.... besides the fact that I completely agree with you.... Clive at Five probably smokes 5 joints a day so arguing with him is most likely not going to get you anywhere. Because quite frankly, I don't think his brain is all there. Cooked his noodle a little too much and he's not capable of understanding your completely logical and intelligent point of view. For him it's about getting everything for free. For him it's about taking and not giving. For him it's only about having his most selfish and immediate emotional needs met. He wants the new version of OS X and he's ticked because he's supposed to actually pay for it.

Oh, that's a funny one, and totally relevant to the argument. I suggest Libertarianism in my signature and that means I'm a pot-smoking hippie, right? So if I told you I've never smoked dope once, it wouldn't matter because you have your mind made up about me already. Har har, a Libertarian, he must like weed. Har har.

And what the hell is this about me being a communist? I want MORE free-market competition! When copyright and IP laws become too powerful, they have the opposite effect of actually shielding companies against competition, decreasing the incentive to continue innovating. We need a careful balance of these laws and it is my opinion that we've crossed the line in allowing companies to control a product's use past the point of sale.

Is that too much "pot" for you to handle?

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #136 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthletter View Post

Yes Hiro thats a lease do you understand the difference between a software licence and lease ?

I do, but apparently in your haste you don't.

Quote:
every 3 years a leased item gets upgraded for free,

They do? Sign me up for that free new Porsche upgrade!

Now the truth is you don't get a free upgrade, at the end of three years (or whatever the lease period is) your widget gets taken away and your desk is empty. Normally just before that you are given the option to lease another widget which may be an upgrade for a higher price. Nobody comes to take away your OS X software, you leased it on a semi-perpetual basis.

Quote:
leased items break and they go back for repair, if I buy software then I own it, I do what I want with it,

QFT!

Leased/licensed software is repaired too. Have you ever heard of patches or software updates? And tell me, logically what does doing what you want with something have to do with whether or not something gets repaired as part of a lease? Oh wait, you can't because it doesn't. You just forgot to actually think straight before you wrote that sentence.

Quote:
Why are you defending corporations trying to get away with this shit, you'll be buying air to breath next, nope just leasing it really......iDiot

Nice ad hom there. That all you got, 'cause your logic and knowledge were truly pathetic.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #137 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

When did I ever saying anything about "anti-consumer" or "pro-consumer"?This is about Apple selling an OS independently then trying to control its use after the point of sale. That is what is unjustified.

Well maybe I jumped to a conclusion but the whole 'after the point of sale' thing implies that the consumer is experiencing the problem that you are upset about.

Quote:
And also, just because one might not be able to buy OS X as a stand-alone product doesn't mean they can't upgrade... Paid software updates, for example.

Clive, serious questions 'cos I'm getting confused.

You have no problem with a PC hardware company creating it's own exclusive OS?
You have no problem with the company selling new versions of their exclusive OS?
You do have a problem if that OS is made available on a piece of plastic, over the counter?
post #138 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Eggleston View Post

1) This case is a major thorn in Apple's side. Apple does not want to lose its tight integration of hardware and software,


more to the point, the courts have already said that there is no such thing as a Macintosh market so Apple isn't in violation of anti-trust and they are within their legal rights to restrict the hardware, etc.

Plus Psystar is on shaky ground with the copyright claim since they had to alter the software to make it work, thus in essence creating a Psystar Mac OS that is probably 95% copied from Apple.

Add these games and the court might just make a summary judgment against Psystar to be done with them/him

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

Apple can develop and market any product they want. What they should not be able to do, is tell people what they can do with those Apple products after purchase. You want to jailbreak your iPhone? That is none of Apple's business.

you want to jailbreak your phone? go for it. but Apple doesn't have to support it/fix it when you screw it up.

Quote:
You buy OS X, but want to try to install it on a Super Nintendo? Dumb thing to try, but still your own right as a consumer who paid for the product to do so.

again go for it.

what you do for yourself is one thing. no one is likely going to know you did it anyway. it's when you go on the web and offer to jailbreak phones for a profit or to use that hack of the OS to make a profit that you are going way past the whole "I bought it so I should be able to do anything" game

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 #139 of 158
Wow nice one..
post #140 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

Well maybe I jumped to a conclusion but the whole 'after the point of sale' thing implies that the consumer is experiencing the problem that you are upset about.

I wouldn't be so black and white as to call it "pro" or "anti"-consumer. It, to me, reflects an inappropriate "privilege" as a vendor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

Clive, serious questions 'cos I'm getting confused.

You have no problem with a PC hardware company creating it's own exclusive OS?
You have no problem with the company selling new versions of their exclusive OS?
You do have a problem if that OS is made available on a piece of plastic, over the counter?

No, I don't have a problem with it being stamped on a piece of plastic and sold over the counter, but if Apple sells it like any other piece of software, they can't expect to be able to control its use after it leaves the store.

That's why I say that they can either continue selling it as they do and shut up about Hackintoshes and Clones, or pull it and only make it available through closed channels, i.e. a paid Software Update.

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #141 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

IThat's why I say that they can either continue selling it as they do and shut up about Hackintoshes and Clones, or pull it and only make it available through closed channels, i.e. a paid Software Update.

I love how your solution is to throw copyright and distribution law out the window (but only when it pertains to Apple) while inconveniencing the consumer at the same time.

Apple has never gone after the OSx86 Project as they are not acting as a distributer. If Psystar bought OS X and used OS X to install on their personal machines, then fine Apple woudn't have bothered them, but they are selling their machines with a copied version of Mac OS X on the machines without getting permission to be a distributer. PSYSTAR IS NOT A CONSUMER! Ask your teacher about it when you finally get into your high school economics class.
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 #142 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Apple has never gone after the OSx86 Project as they are not acting as a distributer. If Psystar bought OS X and used OS X to install on their personal machines, then fine Apple woudn't have bothered them, but they are selling their machines with a copied version of Mac OS X on the machines without getting permission to be a distributer. PSYSTAR IS NOT A CONSUMER! Ask your teacher about it when you finally get into your high school economics class.

I don't think it's the copying of OSX which is so much at issue, as it is Psystar trading on Apple's patents and trademarks. This is a more difficult concept to grasp, but I believe equally important in this instance. Many if not most proprietary products are a combination of generic parts, or parts which can be purchased individually. Apple sells Macintosh computers, which are defined as the combination of Apple's hardware and software. The fact that parts of a Macintosh computer can be purchased individually does not give anyone else a right to assemble those parts and sell Macintosh computers.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #143 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I don't think it's the copying of OSX which is so much at issue, as it is Psystar trading on Apple's patents and trademarks. This is a more difficult concept to grasp, but I believe equally important in this instance. Many if not most proprietary products are a combination of generic parts, or parts which can be purchased individually. Apple sells Macintosh computers, which are defined as the combination of Apple's hardware and software. The fact that parts of a Macintosh computer can be purchased individually does not give anyone else a right to assemble those parts and sell Macintosh computers.

BTW, EFIX is great and they didn't do anything illegal to allow Mac OS X to install itself on a non-Mac PC, but setting yourself as a distributor without permission is illegal. EFI-X knows this as they removed to sell to EFiX USA after they tried to sell PCs with Mac OS X pre-installed. Since EFiX USA no longer has a distribution license for EFI-X products there Mac clone business is not defunct.
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 #144 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I love how your solution is to throw copyright and distribution law out the window (but only when it pertains to Apple) while inconveniencing the consumer at the same time.

Apple has never gone after the OSx86 Project as they are not acting as a distributer. If Psystar bought OS X and used OS X to install on their personal machines, then fine Apple woudn't have bothered them, but they are selling their machines with a copied version of Mac OS X on the machines without getting permission to be a distributer. PSYSTAR IS NOT A CONSUMER!

Apparently you missed the part where I said this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

The reseller's license is the only thing of which I won't argue on Psystar's behalf. They don't have one. Does it matter? I'm not sure. There are hundreds of career power-sellers on eBay who get by without them, despite frequently reselling copyrighted work. I don't understand this either. Regardless, I think it's the least important of the issues at stake here, so let's move on to something more substantial.

Instead, you opted to show your wisdom with this brilliantly mature statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Ask your teacher about it when you finally get into your high school economics class.

Like I said, brilliant. Soli, I appreciate your opinions on things, as you're typically a voice of sapience amongst voices of trolls. Have I misjudged you?

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #145 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

Apparently you missed the part where I said this:

Instead, you opted to show your wisdom with this brilliantly mature statement.

Like I said, brilliant. Soli, I appreciate your opinions on things, as you're typically a voice of sapience amongst voices of trolls. Have I misjudged you?

-Clive

Yes, I did miss that part. A brand can be irreparably hurt or even sabotaged by such action so it does matter.

I should to have an emoticon after that statement. While I disagree with you it was meant to jocular. My apologizes.
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 #146 of 158
The "reseller's license" argument is a bit of red herring. Whether or not they have a license to resell OSX, they don't have the right to assemble the parts of a Macintosh computer and sell Macintosh computers. As the holder of the copyrights, patents and trademarks, only Apple has that right. The fact that the parts of a Mac can be purchased seems to confuse a lot of people into believing that assembling those parts and selling Macintosh computers doesn't violate Apple's intellectual property rights.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #147 of 158
I doubt Apple would care much about an ebay power user selling boxed copies of OS X. This does not strictly violate Apple's terms as the seller has no direct responsibility for what the buyer does with that copy. An entirely different situation from installing OS X on a computer and selling the computer at a cost lower than the Mac. Which uses Apple's property to compete directly against Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five

Apparently you missed the part where I said this:
The reseller's license is the only thing of which I won't argue on Psystar's behalf. They don't have one. Does it matter? I'm not sure. There are hundreds of career power-sellers on eBay who get by without them, despite frequently reselling copyrighted work. I don't understand this either. Regardless, I think it's the least important of the issues at stake here, so let's move on to something more substantial.
post #148 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I should to have an emoticon after that statement. While I disagree with you it was meant to jocular. My apologizes.

Appreciated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

A brand can be irreparably hurt or even sabotaged by such action so it does matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I doubt Apple would care much about an ebay power user selling boxed copies of OS X. This does not strictly violate Apple's terms as the seller has no direct responsibility for what the buyer does with that copy.

Certainly a brand can be damaged by those who aren't licensed retailers... even eBay Power-sellers. What if they constantly shipped damaged boxes or scratched disks? Could that not, too, threaten Apple's image?

Just like with selling OS X OTC, Apple must be consistent with how they treat situations. Either they should crack down on all unauthorized retailers of their products, or none at all. Inconsistency is part of what makes this a frustrating situation. Apple is trying to pick and choose what rules to follow (or claim they care about) depending on whether it will benefit them. It's just like they have done with iPhone app store rejections: inconsistencies in acceptance depending on whether the product threatens them or not.

On a basic level, consistency is what this is about: Either OS X should be sold like an auxiliary piece of software AND TREATED THAT WAY after the point of sale, or not sold OTC at all. Either Apple should care about all unauthorized retailers, or none at all. (Or to use the iPhone app example again) either Apple should allow all iPhone apps, or none at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

An entirely different situation from installing OS X on a computer and selling the computer at a cost lower than the Mac. Which uses Apple's property to compete directly against Apple.

So say I buy bags and bags of Starbucks coffee beans at my local grocery store. With them, I open a coffee shop. It just so happens that my mochas are marvelous and my lattes luscious; so much so, in fact, that I'm starting to pull some business from the Starbucks down the block. I legally purchased the beans in the store, I paid exactly what they charged me, they're getting paid for all the coffee I brew. Do they posses the ability to sue me?

Should they posses that ability?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

The "reseller's license" argument is a bit of red herring. Whether or not they have a license to resell OSX, they don't have the right to assemble the parts of a Macintosh computer and sell Macintosh computers. As the holder of the copyrights, patents and trademarks, only Apple has that right. The fact that the parts of a Mac can be purchased seems to confuse a lot of people into believing that assembling those parts and selling Macintosh computers doesn't violate Apple's intellectual property rights.

Psystar isn't selling "Macs." They're selling a generic computer that happens to run OS X.

--The crux of the matter:--

We have copyright and IP protection laws for a reason, yes, but when those laws allow companies to shield themselves from all relevant competition, have they not gone too far? Should Apple be allowed to hide itself away in the bunkers of OS X's EULA, (and now, the iPhone's)? Should they be able to say, "no, you cannot jailbreak this device that you legally purchased from us, and install the applications of your choice?" Should they be able to say, "no, you cannot use this piece of software which you legally purchased from us, and install it on whatever medium you choose? "

Thankfully, Apple has not yet sought to prosecute individual end-users who have done these things, but that doesn't mean they don't have the power to. Should Apple decide that they need to wring a few more dollars out of its customers and clamp down on Hackintosh builders and jailbreakers, Apple could, theoretically, win a legal suit against them. Is that right? Should companies posses the ability to dictate a product's use after cash has been exchanged and the product has left the store?

That is the true question here, my friends.

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #149 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

Certainly a brand can be damaged by those who aren't licensed retailers... even eBay Power-sellers. What if they constantly shipped damaged boxes or scratched disks? Could that not, too, threaten Apple's image?

I believe most people who use ebay know they are taking a roll of the dice on the quality of the product they are buying. I cannot see very many people blaming Apple for a damaged disk they bought from a stranger on ebay,

Quote:
Just like with selling OS X OTC, Apple must be consistent with how they treat situations. Either they should crack down on all unauthorized retailers of their products, or none at all. Inconsistency is part of what makes this a frustrating situation. Apple is trying to pick and choose what rules to follow (or claim they care about) depending on whether it will benefit them. It's just like they have done with iPhone app store rejections: inconsistencies in acceptance depending on whether the product threatens them or not.

Apple cannot police entirely every situation under which one of its products are sold. Selling an Apple product on ebay is fairly benign. Psystar is an entirely different matter. If Apple left it alone would set a bad precedent for others to use OS X to compete directly against their business model.

Quote:
On a basic level, consistency is what this is about: Either OS X should be sold like an auxiliary piece of software AND TREATED THAT WAY after the point of sale, or not sold OTC at all. Either Apple should care about all unauthorized retailers, or none at all. (Or to use the iPhone app example again) either Apple should allow all iPhone apps, or none at all.

It is sold as an auxiliary software. In the EULA it clearly states OS X is to be only used on a Mac, unless Apple has given permission to a third party licensee.

Quote:
So say I buy bags and bags of Starbucks coffee beans at my local grocery store. With them, I open a coffee shop. It just so happens that my mochas are marvelous and my lattes luscious; so much so, in fact, that I'm starting to pull some business from the Starbucks down the block. I legally purchased the beans in the store, I paid exactly what they charged me, they're getting paid for all the coffee I brew. Do they posses the ability to sue me?

Should they posses that ability?

Let me ask you this. Have you ever seen a neighborhood coffee bar buy retail bags of Starbucks instant coffee and sell it as its own? Starbucks lawyers would be down on them faster than,,,,,,,,,

Yes Starbucks has every right to protect its property. Just as Starbucks' competitors have the right to create their own coffee blends and compete against Starbucks, which is what they do.

Just as Psystar has the right to create their own OS and compete against Apple.
post #150 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

Psystar isn't selling "Macs." They're selling a generic computer that happens to run OS X.

Which happens to be exactly the same thing for all intents and purposes. If you don't get that, then you're never going to understand why Psystar cannot legally continue doing what they have been doing.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #151 of 158
@ Clive,

And it's not so much that Psystar is hurting Apple's business right now, it's the potential that anyone and everyone from startups to major PC vendors would overnight be allowed to sell PCs with Mac OS X installed without needing permission from Apple first that would be a problem. No matter what theorectical outcome you can think of Psystar won't win and Apple won't lose (much), only the customer and MS would lose from a ruling in Psystar's favour.
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 #152 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

No, I don't have a problem with it being stamped on a piece of plastic and sold over the counter, but if Apple sells it like any other piece of software, they can't expect to be able to control its use after it leaves the store.

That's why I say that they can either continue selling it as they do and shut up about Hackintoshes and Clones, or pull it and only make it available through closed channels, i.e. a paid Software Update.

I'm still having trouble getting my head around your reasoning.

Either a company is allowed to control how there product is sold and used... or they are not. I really don't see why a paid software download is any different from a DVD.... just makes it a little harder to circumvent Apple's locks. Just like it was even harder when OS X was PowerPC only.

You seem to be saying that the easier Apple makes it to use their OS the the worse they are behaving.

Quote:
I wouldn't be so black and white as to call it "pro" or "anti"-consumer. It, to me, reflects an inappropriate "privilege" as a vendor.

What privilege? The privilege of denying non-Mac owners the use of their OS on a DVD.. vs the privilege of denying non-Mac owners the use of their OS via software update?

No difference.
post #153 of 158
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 #154 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Psystar files for Chapter 11.
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic...s_apples_case/

Chapter 11? That means they have some actual hope of surviving bankruptcy. I would have guessed Chapter 13, because as far as I can see, they have no chance of surviving bankruptcy.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #155 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Chapter 11? That means they have some actual hope of surviving bankruptcy. I would have guessed Chapter 13, because as far as I can see, they have no chance of surviving bankruptcy.

Good point. Can filing for bankruptcy allow them an out in having to supply their statements in the future? IOW, is this just a tactic from their lawyers?
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 #156 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Good point. Can filing for bankruptcy allow them an out in having to supply their statements in the future? IOW, is this just a tactic from their lawyers?

I don't really know, but I doubt it. The judge acts as a conservator -- he or she decides which creditors get paid and how much. So I'd assume the bankruptcy court needs to be apprised of all the relevant financial details. One thing the article says which might not be true is that this means the lawyers defending them will boogie because now they won't get paid. I'd always suspected that the law firm took this case on contingency. Could be we'll find out now.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #157 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I don't really know, but I doubt it. The judge acts as a conservator -- he or she decides which creditors get paid and how much. So I'd assume the bankruptcy court needs to be apprised of all the relevant financial details. One thing the article says which might not be true is that this means the lawyers defending them will boogie because now they won't get paid. I'd always suspected that the law firm took this case on contingency. Could be we'll find out now.

Actually the case isn't over so if it was on contingency the bankruptcy would be immaterial to the lawyers. But if they were being paid up front, the defense team will probably walk. They were pretty ineffective though, the only things they really got were timing-delay issues related to basic procedure, not to merits of the case.

Also, there is no guarantee any third-party smoking gun source of funding will be identified. Does anyone think some corporate intrigue plot player would be dumb enough to forward money directly through Psystar? There are only about a half dozen other ways to fund the case that don't touch Psystar directly and so will never see the interior of a bankruptcy courtroom.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #158 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Actually the case isn't over so if it was on contingency the bankruptcy would be immaterial to the lawyers.

Isn't that exactly what I said? I also said that we might find out if someone was funding Psystar and its legal defense, not that we certainly would. I personally doubt that any big money was behind this, so if and when we do find out, I'm predicting that the conspiracy theorists are going to be disappointed.
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 says Psystar holding back info in Mac clone legal case