Psystar claims Apple asking for non-existent, redundant info - Page 9

If the motherboard is dead/not working, it is defective.
How it got defective is another matter.

Here's a better article (from Eric Ligman - Microsoft US Senior Manager)
http://blogs.msdn.com/mssmallbiz/arc...2/5424427.aspx
If the motherboard is replaced because it is defective, you do NOT need to acquire a new operating system license for the PC. The replacement motherboard must be the same make/model or the same manufacturer's replacement/equivalent, as defined by that manufacturer's warranty.

Here's more ->http://blogs.msdn.com/mssmallbiz/arc...6/8603850.aspx

Deal with it.

No you didn't misunderstand, I had just confused myself lol.

I guess I was thinking in terms of mass production like Dell or HP instead of simple one by one computer builds.

Well there is your problem, Sony didn't do all the work when it comes to Blu-Ray, they are only one of many companies (and not the largest one) that own patents used in Blu-Ray

From Ars Technica - http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...ncial-docs.ars

When we last left our intrepid pair of litigants, Apple and Psystar, the two companies agreed to keep certain sensitive details of evidence under court seal. The latest wrangling about discovery of evidence, however, resulted in the judge overseeing the case to compel Psystar to produce financial information that the company claims doesn't exist.

...

Actually the link states "Generally, you may upgrade or replace all of the hardware components on your computer and maintain the license for the original Microsoft OEM operating system software, with the exception of an upgrade or replacement of the motherboard. ... Therefore, if the motherboard is upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect then a new computer has been created, the original license expires, and a new full operating system license (not upgrade) is required."

"The replacement motherboard must be the same make/model or the same manufacturer's replacement/equivalent, as defined by that manufacturer's warranty.”

Defect in this manner means manufacture defect not defective user Ie if you do something stupid that violates the manufacturer's warranty that does not count as a defect.

Deal with it.

Are you really that ignorant about EULAs? Microsoft doesn't make computers. They sell software. There is minimal intellectual property consideration with Microsoft and hardware specificity. Microsoft restricting windows to non-macs would be like a record label restricting MP3 use to specific player. While the content of the music IS protected, there is nothing that violates IP law in terms of the player used. The same applies to Windows. If Microsoft wanted to build a computer, they would do it, but their entire business is designed around licensing OEM usage for Windows and of course, selling it on the retail market. Why the heck would they want to discourage windows on mac machines? They'd love it if every mac had windows installed as they'd make money on each one. The question of psystar is about the criminal use of OS X, as the DMCA violations are clear due to the hacking of the OS to make it work on non-Mac machines.. of course there is also the issue of payment.. Apple still hasn't gotten paid for OS X it shipped to Psystar in 2008. No invoices either.

So, why don't you study up on the law a little before coming to the big-boy table to speak about something about which, you clearly know little.

The problem with the "get the case thrown out of court" idea is that usually is due to lack of good evidence to bring the case forward and as such is generally applicable to the plaintiff not the defendant. Psystar getting their case throw out would not stop Apple one bit.

Take a good hard look at Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code Circular 92 and see all the fun things Apple can do Psystar and anyone who was stupid enough to buy from them.

Man oh man, there's some serious point-missing going on in this thread.


I don't think you're disagreeing, because in no instance is any software being offered for sale here. Copies of software are being licensed, and the license agreements dictate the terms of the license. This bypasses the Doctrine of First Sale, which would otherwise dictate that the copyright holder can only dictate the terms of the first sale of any media, which is how libraries and used book stores exist.

In the case of Psystar:

1) They are selling hardware, which is fine;
2) They are including CDs containing Mac OS X, which is fine. CDs are media, so the doctrine of first sale applies;
3) By rinstalling the software on the hardware and then selling the package, they are violating the terms of the EULA (end user license agreement) and that license is what they paid $129 to have. Psystar is not an end user.

Dell and HP and Sony can resell Windows because Microsoft offers licenses for Windows specifically for resellers, or OEMs. Apple doesn't. Therefore, there is nothing surprising about the fact that Dell can resell Windows and Psystar can't resell Mac OS X. It really is that simple.

As for "the right to profit from intellectual property they don't own," this is actually a far more complex question than you'd think. It's true that for the last decade or so that's been pretty close to true. Read the 1976 Copyright Act some time for a different interpretation. In fact, until about 1988, copyright was merely an incentive sufficient to get artists to produce work to enrich the public domain. It was not the absolute lock that it is now. The original term of copyright was 7 years, renewable for a total of 14, and there was no notion of derivative works or licenses.

Some of the changes to copyright law have reflected the fact that digital IP comes with a unique set of issues, and some of it reflects industry leaping at the chance to introduce longer terms, more serious punishments and more protective measures into what was, for most of this country's life, a uniquely hands-off approach to the problem. So really, the "right" asserted here is up for discussion.

But in the case at hand, the DMCA is the law and Psystar doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on. And even if they did have a shot at contesting the legality of EULAs, which would be fine with me, they've just blown it by claiming that the dog ate their paperwork. If they lose their case because they ran a shoddy operation they'll have no-one to blame but themselves.

You don't think I'm disagreeing with what, exactly?

The most recent ruling in this case was predicated on the EULA, but you will note that the infringement issues have not yet been ruled upon. The point I have made in all of these discussions is that the latter does not depend upon the former, and that Apple would have a strong copyright and trademark infringement case against Psystar even if the EULA did not exist. Psystar's entire argument for themselves boils down to this: Because it it technically possible to built and sell Macintosh computers, we should have the right to do so. Extend this argument to any other copyrighted, trademarked or patented product and it would look as plainly ridiculous as it is, but for some reason, a lot or people are snookered into accepting it, for no other reason than the product in question is a computer. They think Apple should be forced into adopting Microsoft's business plan, whether they want to or not.

I realize this is a complex issue when you get into the hairy details of particular cases, but the basic premise is not very complex at all, and it's one that seems to be poorly understood.

The centrality of the license agreement, which is precisely the terms under which Mac OS X can be used, because the license is what you're paying for--well, OK, except for the 50 cents it costs Apple for the CD and the jacket. That is what determines who can use Mac OS X for what when, at least according to Apple.

Conventional copyright law has always relied on the fact that the copyrighted material is distilled into the medium, so there's no need to protect the font that a book is printed in, and no illusion that what you've bought is one copy of one book rather than the rights to the manuscript. Software is not similarly baked into any medium in any significant way, and so the license agreement exists. Essentially, there is no longer any cost barrier to piracy, and I use the word in the traditional sense of unauthorized, large-scale publication.

The analogy is intended to be direct: Instead of buying a collection of papers that happen to have a manuscript printed on them, and whose use is implicitly restricted by its physicality, you're buying a CD that happens to have software printed on it, and the use of the software is explicitly restricted by the accompanying license agreement. I have a lot of problems with the implementation, but I have sympathy for the effort.

Your argument has more problems. It is literally impossible for me, or for anyone, to not make money off the work of other people. Shoenberg could not have done what he did without Brahms. Apple's design language comes straight out of Germany in the 1960s. Copyright exists to secure for creators and publishers some ability to be rewarded well enough for their work, but this is intended to be limited. Otherwise, the creators of Ten Things I Hate About You would be paying royalties to the estate of William Shakespeare. There is, to quote a certain someone, nothing new under the sun.

So the real argument rests on the legal protections afforded to created[1] work, not any inherent right. There are two protections afforded to software: The by now indisputable right of the copyright holder to determine the terms of the first sale, and the disputed enforceability of the EULA. Psystar is clearly hoping for the former, and Apple for the latter. I am torn here, because as much as I think the EULA is broken by design I think there needs to be something like it. But it should be known to the buyer before they pay up and before they take the CD out of the packaging.


Now you're confused. Copyright, trademark and patent law are totally different things. Until fairly recently in historical terms it was entirely possible to build your own work on someone else's copyrighted work. Even now there are arrangements worked out: if my band wants to cover a song, we pay the writer a set royalty per copy pressed, record it, and print it. (We also ask for permission as a courtesy.) This liberality allows songs to be reimagined in ways that the original composer would never have thought of. Trademarks are merely intended to unambiguously refer to a product. As long as they do, any competitor who wishes to use them may do so. Patents actually protect systems and designs, so they would be relevant to your would-be computer maker if they were building systems using patented designs without paying the patent owners.

The fact is that if I want to build a computer, I can buy parts that contain patented systems and pay the patent owners through the purchase price. I can use any relevant trademarks to identify e.g., the CPU. And if there are some copyrighted manuals or instructions I want to include, I can buy them and include them, and the copyright holder is paid. If I sell the computers, I'm making money off the work of hundreds of thousands of people, all legally.

What's the exception? The software EULA. That's why it's at issue. If the judge rules that the EULA isn't valid, and the doctrine of first sale holds, then Apple will have received its fair price of $129 and Psystar will have its system. I'm not sure that's what will happen, but EULAs are on fairly shaky legal ground and because of the way they're done they should be. That's not Apple's fault, but it's true.

And incidentally, this is not Microsoft's business model. Microsoft's business model is all about discounted bulk OEM licensing in order to squeeze out competitors and saturate the market. Psystar would be paying far more for Mac OS X than Dell does for Windows 7 whether the judge rules in their favor or not.

It seems that this will all be moot anyway, since apparently Psystar has been sloppy with their financial documents.

[1] prior to 1988, this would have been 'published'.

No, I'm not confused. You are confused about what I am arguing, and mistaking that for not having an understanding of the relevant issues.

Copyright, patents and trademarks are certainly not "completely different" things. They are similar in that they all protect intellectual property. That is the only comparison I am making between them. You are also mistaken when you insist that I am arguing that nothing can be built on the intellectual property of others. That would be a ludicrous argument, which is at least one good reason why I did not make it, or anything even remotely like it.

What am pointing out here is that Psystar's sole argument for their "business" is in effect, that if they can duplicate a Mac computer, that they should be able to make this their business. This is akin to someone purchasing the parts of a given car and then making the leap of logic to having permission to manufacture and sell those cars. Anyone who tried this would find themselves instantly sued by the holder of the copyrights and trademarks on that car.

This is unsurprisingly precisely where Psystar finds themselves today, still facing trade dress and infringement complaints -- none of which have yet to be ruled upon by the judge in the lawsuit. These were separate complaints to which Psystar will still need to answer, which suggests to me as it should to you, that they weren't dependent on the license agreement issue which has already been decided.