Psystar claims Apple asking for non-existent, redundant info - Page 8

If I felt that any of these things were true and important, I certainly would not buy a Mac. If I did feel that any of these things were true and important, and bought a Mac anyway, some might rightly call me a hypocrite. The bottom line is, nobody buys anything that is "overpriced" -- by definition. If they thought a product was overpriced, they would not buy it. This is how pricing works.

The audience for a company like Psystar is at best going to be quite small. Discussions in forums like this tend to be far more geeky and technical than any you'll find in the real world. Most people prefer their computers to work without complications, and well-designed form factors -- which is the appeal of the Mac as it is sold by Apple. Most people don't have a clue about parts, nor should they.

Psystar's Mac clones appeal to almost nobody but true geeks. Apple correctly sees that if Macs are made and sold that don't implement Apple's vision for what a Mac should be, it could undercut their corporate strategy for positioning the Mac in the computer market. And if you don't like Apple's corporate strategy for positioning the Mac in the computer market, then you have the option of not buying one.

The sad, strange and weird situation as it exists, is that some geeky and technical people believe that Apple's strategy must change, and if Apple doesn't want to change it, that they must be forced to change it. The way they think it ought to be changed is for Apple to completely alter their strategy to copy Microsoft. This is the only true and correct model, as far as they are concerned. This is wrong on many levels, but it seems to be what many techno-geeks believe.

And?
That is what Joe_the_dragon stated in response to your other post.
Deal with it...

It would be nice for system builders to have OSX as an option for the OS though. I think that's where most people are saying they should copy MS.

Heck, even being able to install osx onto a pc laptop would be appealing to a lot of people. Does osx always require an expensive, cool looking laptop to run properly?

Were you trying to prove my point? If so, I believe you've done a splendid job of it. You are casually tossing off as "nice" (read: non-trivial) what in fact would be a complete change to Apple's entire approach to the computer market. The "lot of people" this would appeal to are geeks, which I am sorry to report, are not Apple's target market. If you don't like it, then you are free to buy something else.

The third paragraph of my post above answers your question, so I don't see any use in repetition.

It does because Apple chooses it to be so. We don't have to like it but we do have to accept it. I don't like that Ruth's Chris Steakhouse is all Ã* la carte so I have to buy a side that feeds four people when I go there by myself*, but that is how they do business.


* I'm not antisocial, I just travel constantly.

Hey, I said it would be nice, not realistic. Calm down.

You said its a sad, strange and weird situation that some geeks want Apple to copy Microsoft. As a system builder, I was merely pointing out why they would want this. They are used to pretty much having only one option when it comes to what operating system to use while building a system. I know for a fact, in my many years of building my desktops, I would definitely have given osx a try if it were available like Windows.

I don't agree with the fact that they must change, I simply said it would be nice to have osx as an option, but then again, it would be nice if cars flew and I could move things with my mind. Apple appealing to geeks is a fantasy I suppose.


lol very good analogy. I feel the same way about Chinese food

When you purchase a PS3/WII/XBOX game do you expect it to play in anything put the official system it was designed for? When you purchase Mac software or upgrade the OS do you do so with the expectations that you could just stick it in any 'ole slot that you could find and use it? It's not like Apple tricked you into buying "overpriced" hardware. If you don't like it then perhaps try Linux?

It may not be your view specifically, but as you know, for many the concept of "nice" translates into "must" or at least, "should." I know why some people believe this. I'm only pointing out that it's not in Apple's game plan for some very good reasons.

Is that calm enough for you?

It seems that a retarded and brainwashed bigot try to communicate from its cave. Pathetic.

QFT. A few common sense among the overwhelming boot-licking/brand addicted nonsense.

I don't think we are in total disagreement. I agree Apple is not fighting to insure the EULA cannot be violated under any circumstances. But I do think they are fighting for the validity of the EULA in a broad sense.

A book does come with its copywrite number and terms/conditions of use.

Very well stated, I completely agree.

Even to add to that. These teck geeks completely ignore the fact that Microsoft's business model has proven to be extremely burdensome in a way that Apple has been able to avoid. The fact that Windows has to be made to work on thousands of different configurations of machines was a benefit 15 years ago and is now a liability. At any one time OS X only has to work on about 20 machines that Apple designed.

The fact that Windows does not abandon legacy code sounded like a good idea years ago and is now a weight dragging down the entire OS. Apple has never had a problem with abandoning legacy code.

The problem is hat most people most often look at this from one perspective. The system builder only sees the fact that they want the freedom to use OS X. Does not really explore the reasons why Apple would not want to follow this path or even what benefit this would be to the consumer.

Actually I think the pieces are falling into place to give someone a good opportunity to come up with a third operating system. Low cost computers and web based software offer a great opportunity for someone who is industrious and times it just right.

Possibly, but what I'm saying is that EULA or no EULA, nobody has the right to profit by the copyrighted or patented works of others without their express permission. The software industry may be peculiar in the sense that they make an effort to spell out use rights in detail on every copy sold, but whether they've done that or not, the basic principles of intellectual property protection don't change.


Some might, but not all. In fact it isn't even necessary for a book to contain an ISBN for it to be covered by copyright. All you really need is the word "copyright" and the name of the work's creator on the work. Sending copies to the Library of Congress and obtaining an ISBN helps prove who was the creator in the event of disputes, but it's not necessary for the owner to enjoy a copyright.


More to the point, the Microsoft model is not subject to duplication. Microsoft has tried with very limited success themselves, and in reality, they stumbled into it completely by accident. It has never been clear to me why so many people believe that Apple can (must!) attempt to copy Microsoft's approach to the market, when Microsoft's business was created by possibly the oddest series of events in the history of industry.

That's how IP works, but you have to own the technology. You unwittingly made an excellent point here regarding Blu-ray players. You're buying a player made by Sony or one made by someone who paid Sony to license the tech. Blu-ray players are also overpriced, by the way.

the thing is, I pay 25-35% off from apple friends. This is a fair price. Apple is not worth the extra 25% especially mao that most mac specialist don't k ow whY fab is, most one t one traniners only know iLife, no pro apps, and most geniuses, can't troubleshoot, they insert a CD, run it and if it says it's broke, they send it out. Apple gives the illusion that they should require more due to service when in fact, their service is limited at best with most consumers knowing more than the trained reta folk. Then of course, there is no reason that the pro should be built with server parts other than to demand a higher premium, all work stations should be i7 machines, no ecc memeory and sell for $1400 but then their iMac is over priced so they can't.

Not sure were most are from but these days the pro and iMac are more expensive than past prices with pro care and one to one more limited, and under trained then ever before.

BZZZ WRONG. ALL Joe_the_dragon said was "not if your are replacing a dead / not working one." He did not say state due to defect.

There are other things that can cause a motherboard to go dead or stop working: normal electronic component failure (rare these days but it still happens), user error ("I thought the computer was frozen so I rebooted." "In the middle of a Firmware update???"), poor care (put the computer where it doesn't have proper airflow or cleaning out the dust bunnies that some PCs tend to get on their CPU due to the fans), and doing something dumb.

None of these cause fall under defect (unless you consider the user being defective ;-))and since Joe_the_dragon did NOT specify the cause I was right to call him out on it. Deal with it.

Again this does NOT make sense because to put it bluntly this is not how court cases work. A case gets "thrown out" when the plaintiff has no case and plaintiff in this case is Apple. All Psystar could hope for by looking like idiots would be a summary judgment and that would basically give Apple everything it wants.

Looking around regarding the DMCA (Apple filed a claim against Psystar on this December 4, 2008) I found this little gem under Title 17 § 1203. Civil remedies of copyright law: "at any time while an action is pending, may order the impounding, on such terms as it deems reasonable, of any device or product that is in the custody or control of the alleged violator and that the court has reasonable cause to believe was involved in a violation"

No he didn't, you would pay the BDA to licence Blu-Ray, not Sony

This is a bad anaology because Psystar doesn't claim Mac OS as their property.

also what Psystar is editing is more like removing a region check / other drm stuff in the movie then editing the movie it self.

Even if my first line makes no sense in your interpretation, you followed it by validating the rest of my statement, more or less, with your explanation and case finding.

Would that not amount to pirating said software? if they are intentionally defeating the DRM/keylocks, in order to utilize it in a manner it was not meant to be used?

Would that not be an entirely different case? Possibly federal and criminal? Especially since they are seeking to profit from it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc

If Sony created and developed the Blu-Ray disk format, would they not have also created the association and therefore also, in essence be paid to license the format?

Anyway, since the association is a group of consumer electronics organizations, the producers of the hardware are insulated from the cost of licensing, thus only the "Member Companies" (Mostly movie studios and software providers) are paying the $50K annual fee.

I thought it was like they all chipped in, so they all get a piece. So Sony doesn't suck up all the money from licensing, it's shared. Being that they started everything though, I wouldn't doubt they get more money than anyone else.

You seemed to miss the point. A summery judgment would acknowledge that there are these unnamed John Does and as part of the settlement Psystar would have to cough their names up or be found in contempt.

To be honest, if I did all of the work and provided most or all of the funding, I would want the majority of the reward as well.....

But, sony did learn from Beta, and made a standard that was better and offered more storage capacity., so they do nearly deserve the lions share........

Just a quick reference for people who belive they OWN their copy of Mac OSX, not just pay for the license to USE it.

"What is a license?" A license is an agreement to use software issued by a publisher that allows an individuals to use that software in the ways described in the End User License Agreement. Example: OS X may only be used on Apple computers. (Duh, Pystar loses)

"Proprietary Licensing" The most significant effect of this form of licensing is that, if ownership of the software remains with the software publisher, then the end-user must accept the software license. In other words, without acceptance of the license, the end-user may not use the software at all. (Duh, Pystar loses again)

Most of the people who complain about not being able to do what they will with software honestly think they own it. Did you pay millions of dollars to Apple to buy OS X? No, you're merely paying for the license to use it.

I get what you were saying, in essence. It's just how it was opened and worded I was drawing attention to. Also, the last part of my statement, if not under correct procedure or terminology, said what you did: that some finding would force them to produce everything being withheld.

I think we just sort of but heads on direction (terminology), but we both meant to get to the same destination in the end.

But they're installing it on non-Apple systems which is strictly against Apple's EULA. See my above post about licensing agreements. Pystar installs it and MUST click that they agree to the EULA to install it. Is Pystar at the legal level to decide that Apple's EULA and licensing agreements are valid? No. If they had a problem, they need to settle it in court - not by acting like imbeciles.

I feel like I'm being repetitive, probably because I'm repeating myself. The EULA isn't the critical issue. The critical issue is that Psystar has no right to profit from intellectual property which they don't own. They would lack this right whether Apple included a EULA with OSX or not. I keep repeating this point if only because probably 90% of this debate could be lopped off if it was understood.

Yeah, just like how when Apple decides for people what is objectionable and rejects an app from the app store, and then these idiots have the nerve to turn around and get mad that Apple decided that for them for a device they "own." Like, duh, DUH, just because you paid money for it doesn't mean it's yours to do whatever with it! Such morons for thinking when you buy something you actually own it. Jeez those people are dumb.

Even if they did pay Apple for each copy of OSX, since there isn't a price tag it would be completely opinionated.

Bottom line, Psystar is stealing from Apple and they are wrong here. There's no debate about that.

I suppose, but that's not my point. You can go to your local car dealership (if you still have one) and they will be happy to sell you all kinds of proprietary car parts. But that does not give you the right to assemble and sell their cars.


I don't know if I'd call it stealing per se, since they do (I will assume for purposes of discussion) pay for their copies of OSX. I'd call it more like poaching. Possibly not an important distinction.

Which is likely why Apple added DMCA to their list of charges against Psystar on Dec 2, 2008. More reason that delaying this case makes no sense.

Do you really think that adding facts, logic and informed thinking is going to change the level of debate in a Psystar thread?

Personally I think some of the posters here have already had a little too much 'lopped off '

The problem that created the need for the EULA is the fact that software does not really exist in a physical form. Since it ca be easily manipulated, hashing out the rights of the author and the rights of the user has been an on going battle. In real practice copywirte and patents have not really been as cut and dry when it comes to software.

Their have been several court battles where software was used in a way not intended by the author. The user argued that they saw no particular rule stipulating that the software could not be used in that particular way. The user has won several of these court battles over the author. Much of that is the reason you are forced to agree to terms before you are allowed to the use of most software.

Begging your forgiveness most humbly...


I know that the software industry feels a need to protect their copyrights in this additional manner, for reasons which are somewhat unique to the industry. But the fact remains that intellectual property right are in force no matter how easy it may be to violate them.

I persist in making this point because it seems to be one of the keys to this entire debate. Some argue that the ability to violate is tantamount to permission to violate. Leaving your front door unlocked does not make it legal for someone to steal your TV. If someone breaks the lock on your front door to steal your TV, they've now violated two laws -- but stealing the TV is no more or less illegal. That's how I view the EULA -- as the lock on the door.

How are they paying for it if Apple doesn't sell it alone?

I suppose they could walk into an Apple Store and buy copies right off the shelf, or order it from Amazon, which would be less expensive. Or did I misunderstand your question?