Psystar files for bankruptcy likely delaying Apple case - Page 4

Correct. Mac OS X is much less of a threat to Redmond tied only to Apple hardware. Dell, HP, Acer, or Lenovo would have much more to gain.


Apple designed their own chipsets during the PPC days. They weren't off the shelf. A PPC Mac running Apple's chipset and a Pentium machine running a VIA chipset wouldn't use the same drivers. A Mac and non-Apple machine running the same Intel or Nvida chipset would.

Make up your mind!

You replace it with a Honda and you don't have to drive on a different set of roads. Apple is 100% of the Mac platform, except in rare cases, software licenses are sold for a specific platform. When you buy a HP and you're not happy, you can move everything over to a different machine. When you're not happy with Apple you have to choose between continuing on displeased or replacing all your software and moving to a different platform probably losing some files in the process.


So, you're needs are met. that's great. How about those who aren't as lucky? Having one of those improved iMacs, I can tell you that it doesn't hold a candle to the PowerMacs that came before it.


Its declining. My first few Macs were problem free. My iBook had to have its motherboard replaced four different occasions, but at least they paid for it to be airmailed both ways and besides the occasional apathetic. When the iMac broke, instead of airmail, I had to take a day off of work to drive a couple hours to the nearest Apple store. When I called to inquire the first time I was cut off. The second time, they were doing additional work that they didn't bother to give me a call about. They finally called a week later from a guy who calling the owners of Macs that had not been picked up. It was done for three or so days, the person who was supposed to call me to tell me it was ready forgot.


No, I'm one of those who think you should get a quad core for a quad core's cost, not a sealed dual core laptop on a stick. I'm one that crunches the numbers of the Mac Pro price increases, notices there there are conspicuously no price overlaps anymore in the SFF/AIO/Workstation range (why say desktop when there aren't any) and sees that something doesn't quite add up. I'm willing to pay more for a superior machine, but I'm not will to sit idly by while being taken advantage of.

I think you're not getting it. This is not about unauthorized reselling. No matter what they choose to call it, the product Psystar is selling is a Macintosh computer, which is Apple's product to sell in the manner they choose. I'm not interested in whether this is "stealing" by someone's definition. Either way, it's illegal because it violates Apple's intellectual property rights. The point being, we don't have to complicate this issue with debates over the validity of the EULA. Apple's IP rights are not defined by the EULA.

Did they even sell one of those pieces of shit? For those of you that think Psystar isn't doing anything illegal, why haven't you supported their cause and purchased one of their Mac Clones? What are you afraid of if you think they are so great?

Why doesn't anyone mention their "fine print?" That would be enough to turn anyone away from them. The copy of Leopard you receive is an unopened box that does nothing for you. If you need to reinstall Leopard, you must request their special CD (that illegally installs Leopard). By requesting their CD, you sign away all your rights against suing them in the future, and you agree that you are 100% totally satisfied with your purchase. Now do you think they offer a good product? Who would agree to such terms? Also, their computers are unable to run Boot Camp because they claim that is an Apple-specific technology.

Very good!

You aren't "asking" a question at all it seems. Yu are just making a statement that is extreme, and aren't interested in anything that supplants it.


What you are saying is daft. You know nothing about business, or you would understand something about basic protections business use. Apple stopped using the term "Mac OS", because they are putting the OS into devices other than Macs.

Apple did license their OS out before, and it's absurd to think that they don't want to protect themselves if they decide to do so again.


There is a direct relationship. Apple can very fairly claim that a sale to Psystar is a lost sale to them. We say very clearly that the reason why the original cloning didn't work well for Apple was that the clones, less expensive than Apples', took sales away from them. While clone sales rose, Apple's sales fell in almost lock-step.

Therefor, in using evidence from that, Apple could show that sales to Psystar are siphoning sales from them. and the term "stealing sales" is entirely appropriate.

Even if you refuse to use that time honored term for this, you can use others that essentially mean the same thing, if it make you feel better. There are a lot of synonyms.

A good one would be "misappropriate". It might even be better, but doesn't have the same ring to it.

So how do you define legitimate competition when copyright is being broken. Something that is after all, enshrined in the Constitution itself (as well as in the basic laws of every other country, as well as that of international bodies), as copyright protections were, and are considered to be so important to a HEALTHY intellectual environment?

How is it proper for a company improperly taking another's works, and using it in a fashion for which they have no permission, and so taking business from the rightful copyholder?

No explanation can be given to justify that.

Other companies have the right to do their own OS, or to license one that is licensable, so there's no excuse for them to appropriate one that isn't. Even you seem to agree with that.

The Constitution gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to determine the distribution channels, and the fitness of use for their work.

the answer to that depends on where things currently lie. If I recall correctly right now, today, Apple has been granted by the courts the legal right to control the hardware used with OSX, they have a valid EULA (since it hasn't been invalidated by the courts), valid copyright on the non open source elements of OSX, a valid trademark on the term OSX etc.

in other words, they are winning and Pystar was making a last ditch attempt to hit them again. so yeah if they can get a summary order by the courts telling Pystar to stop and don't even think about trying it again (without a successful lawsuit granting them the right), Apple will likely have no choice but to drop it and eat the legal fees etc. cause this bankruptcy is an attempt to claim they can't pay any fines and fees anyway.


no, it was formed to make some JoeSmo a profit.




actually they have. several times. that Apple is not violating any anti-trust laws. that they are not a monopoly because 'mac computers' is not a market but merely part of the 'personal computer' market. that Apple has all rights to control the hardware used with their software. that they have a valid claim to copyright on the non open source portions of the software (and thus DCMA protection against things like how Pystar hacked the software to get it to work on their machines). etc.


yes and no. they claimed to be shipping a retail disk but when Apple asked to see the receipts for each disk, they didn't have them to produce. claimed they were tossed out.

which begs the question, did they buy the copies or did they perhaps 5 finger them. it's not hard to do if you pick the right store and time of day. those boxes are very small and drop into bags very easy


regardless of the wording in the EULA, the courts have validated Apple's right to control the hardware and tossed out all anti-trust claims by Pystar, including the claim that "Mac Computers" is a unique market.



ethics aside (and if you believe it to be unethical, don't buy a Mac), the courts have said that yes Apple has the right to make you buy their frame if you want their painting.


well the courts don't agree with you. on several points in this matter

That's irrelevant. When you first make the choice, you are not restricted to one or the other. You can freely choose. The law doesn't break things down as minutely as you seem to think.

If that were so, every program that had its own file format would be considered a monopoly in its own little sphere. That clearly is not the case.

Many programs and file formats are easily transportable between the two major OS's, and in fact, between Linux distro's as well.

No one can make the claim that they can't switch between Apple's OS, MS's OS and the Linux distro's. Will some money need to change hands? Yes, what of it?

This is the easiest time for users of one OS to move to another than it's ever been.

Only if there were major obstructions to moving from one system to another might there some possibility that your statement might be true. but it doesn't even come close, and it never did.

By your reasoning, almost everything would be a monopoly.

My Canon camera would be one, Nikon would be one, etc. Neither have to license out their lens mounts, but they CHOOSE to do so.

Hassleblad, which went to a proprietary system, to cut out third party digital back manufacturers, would be considered a monopoly of Hassie cameras, in your view. But while many in the medium format industry were angry by what they had done, none is calling them monopolistic because of it. That just makes no sense.

But Psystar is not paying any "royalty" for their use of OSX. If they requested and got a license from Apple to sell that "adaptive" copy of OSX then what Psystar is doing would be legal under copyright law. But Psystar must request and get that license first. And there's no law that states that the owner of any IP must grant that license.


You can not just go out and buy CD's of the songs you want to use in a movie you're planning to releases to the public for profit. You have to ask the artist if you can use their songs in your movie. It doesn't matter that you think the artist got paid when you bought their CD's. Some of the artist might not want their songs used in your movie for what ever reasons. Some may ask for a small royalty or fee. Others may just let you use it for a credit line. Regardless, you need permission to use some else's IP for commercial gain. Copyright laws isn't just about protecting the monetary benefit of an owners IP. It also protects the owner rights to dictate how their IP can be used.


There are systems and laws in place that would allow Psystar to do what they're doing legal. The law is not that they can't modify and pre-load OSX. The law is that they can't do that without Apples permission. Psystar is never considered the owner of OSX. Apple retains all rights to how OSX can be used. Regardless that Psystar bought a copy of it. It's the way copyright laws work. And it's the way it should work. It's been like this for over 400 years (Worldwide) and it will most likely get stricter (in the US) with this administration. Nearly all developed nation have copyright laws in place to protect an owner's IP. If they didn't, they mostly likely wouldn't have ended up on the list of developed nations

You keep stating that Psystar is not stealing but just violating copyright laws. As though violating copyright law is some minor offense. It's stealing that can be the minor offense. If you shoplifted a $15 CD you'll most likely only have to pay for the $15 for the CD and get off with a misdemeanor citation. You violate copyright law and illegally copy that $15 CD, it can cost you up to a $10,000 fine. (per infraction)

I missed this earlier, but as it's been replied to, I think I have an even better response.

Apple here would be the artist.

If we look at the OS as a lithograph, Serigraph, or other original "copy" of the work (I say original copy, for those who don't know, because every impression of the work from those methods of reproduction is considered to be an original, though they are copies of each other), then Apple is allowed, obviously, to make as many as they wish, and can sell them any way they wish.

The art business is like the computer business in one way, works are sold either "naked", as in unframed, the way MS sells their OS, and "clothed", or framed, the way Apple sells theirs.

If the artist decides that their work is only complete when framed the way the artist insists, then that is the entire work. If that work is copyrighted, as it would be, then no one has the right to remove the frame and sell it separately, or to sell the painting, the other part of the work, separately. Copyrights state that works may not be altered without the copyright holders permission.

Is it ethical?

Of course it is! Who else has the right to decide what a finished work of art is other than the one who made it?

Apple's computers and OS combination can be considered to be a complete work of art when together. The OS upgrades, are sold exclusively to enhance that work of art, just as we see with copies of books that are corrected in later versions. It isn't sold to enhance someone else's work of art.

There isn't any question of ethics here.

Psystar by definition cannot sell a Macintosh. Psystar is selling an OS X-equipped PC. The strength in Apple's argument is in copyright violation from Psystar reselling pre-loaded PCs, not that Psystar is selling a "Macintosh."


You define legitimate competition as competition which complies in all ways with copyright laws. I am saying that the laws are preventing forms of competition which should be deemed legitimate... i.e. allowing a party to purchase a product, modify it, and resell it.


THERE IS NO TAKING. IT'S BUYING.

They BUY an installation of OS X and pay Apple's asking price. They install it on generic hardware and resell it. Aside from restating Apple's EULA or copyright law, explain to me how that is ethically wrong.

-Clive

There are thousands of computer users that has to face that same dilemma everyday of the year. And you know what? It still didn't stop them from moving to the Mac platform.

Understand something here Clive, I'M not defining anything. The Constitution is defining it, and the laws that the Constitution specifically states that Congesss may raise up to extend, or modify the basic inderstanding that is written into the Constitution are defining it. I'm simply referring to that.

You, and some other here, are the ones attempting to re-define Copyright, and the rights that extend from it.

It's been well thought out over centuries, and now a few get rich quick at other's expense people, are trying to define it in a way that benefits themselves. You seem to agree with them.



Wow. How many times do we have to explain that to you. If you don't want to understand, the number of explanations won't help. I've already explained it pretty clearly, as have others.

You simply don't want to believe it.

There's really no point to have to explain it again, as all we can do is to repeat our explanations.

All you are really saying is that you don't agree with what you consider to be correct. Thats confusing everyone who is trying to help you.

vista home premium oem is about that price with top oem ver at $200.

What defines a Macintosh computer is the combination of the hardware and the software. This is easily seen because neither functions as a Macintosh computer by itself. You (and Psystar) are trying argue that if you can buy any one piece of what makes up a Macintosh computer that you may combine those parts and sell Macintosh computers. This is to say the least, a novel argument. If applied to any other copyrighted or patented good, its absurdity would be readily understood and acknowledged. You seem to believe that an entirely different logic applies because the object in question is a computer. It doesn't.

I know that's what the law says. I'm saying I don't agree. If I buy a product, why should I have to have permission to resell that product?


Bad analogy. Movies get seen by thousands/millions of people. Copies of OS X purchased then resold by Psystar are 1:1.


Then I disagree with the requirements of a "developed nation" and I disagree with strengthening of copyright laws. It also seems pretty hypocritical of an administration that hates big business to armor it with stricter IP/copyright laws.


Once again, Psystar is not going into an Apple Store and shoplifting OS X. They are paying the full retail price and then reselling it.

Also, I'm so sorry to sound cavalier about breaking copyright, but one tends to sound that way when they disagree with a law.

FYI, in my state, it's illegal to sleep naked. If my wife wants to sleep naked, I'm going to let her.


I agree that if the entire work is the frame + graphic, then yes, Apple has the right to sell it that way. What I don't think Apple should have the right to do is sell you a duplicate of the graphic and force you to put it in a frame that can only be purchased from them.

Why do they get to have it both ways? Either they sell the whole thing as a complete work of art, or they sell the duplicate and let the buyer use it as (s)he chooses. Apple should not have the right to control how I use a product of theirs after I've paid for it and left the store.

-Clive

What you mean to say is that; as long as she wants to sleep naked with ME, I'm going to let her.

I just saved your marriage.


That's not what they're doing. they're selling an IMPROVED, fixed (as much as possible at the time) version of the graphic. They're even allowing you to keep the older version. Apple never sells just the frame. Every one comes with the graphic.


You keep missing the point here. I just explained it in this very post, above. You're asking the same question twice!

They aren't selling a duplicate, they are selling that improved version to everyone who already bought the complete work of art.

No, you're interpreting my use of the word "legitimate" as "legally allowed." I'm using "legitimate" as meaning "justifiable, fair."

I understand why we have copyright laws and why they are important. I simply contend the massive power we've instilled into the rights that extend from it. That doesn't make me anti-Constitution as you are subtly implying, it means that I disagree with the modern interpretation of the Constitution within the realm of copyright laws.


I don't care whether Psystar lives or dies. I just believe that companies should not be able to control use of a product past the point of sale. That goes for modifying, installing, reselling, what have you. So long as that copy goes toward a single installation of OS X, I believe I am within my rights to do with it what I please.


No, you are the one who is not understanding. I know what copyright law says. I disagree with the law.

I'm looking for ethical reasons as to why you believe the law is correct, not simply "because copyright law says so." That's a circular argument.


You are creating that definition to strengthen your case. Apple owns the trademark "Macintosh" and by definition no one else can create a Macintosh. Apple cannot claim stake to any computer running OS X. So let's use this in an example and I will show you how not-ridiculous this is.

Say Warhol Jr. sells standalone duplicates of a painting "Ketchup Bottle" but also sells it with a special frame together as "The Complete Tomato." If I buy "Ketchup Bottle" and put it in my own frame, I have not created a "The Complete Tomato." If I purchase several copies of "Ketchup Bottle," frame them myself and then resell them, I am not selling "The Complete Tomato." I am selling framed duplicates of "Ketchup Bottle" (each duplicate legally purchased, by the way).

-Clive

Hah, you wish, buddy


How does that change that they're selling full versions of the OS off-the-shelf? Who cares if they never sell "just the frame?" They sell "just the OS" and that's what matters.


Calling it an upgrade doesn't make it functionally different from a full version. There is no prerequisite to installing OS X. It's available to everyone to purchase. So long as one's hardware has the proper boot-loader and instruction set, the installer will work.

If Apple only sold OS X through paid software updates, I'd be on Apple's side on this, but they do not. They sell the OS through retail channels as an independent work, as well as in a complete work, bundled with their hardware. That said, I don't believe they should be allowed to control the software's use after the point-of-sale.

-Clive

The copyright system WAS designed to be "fair". The fact that you want it to mean what YOU mean as fair is something else.


Copyright holders used to have even more power, except for the extensions of copyright over the times that I am not happy with either, as they've now gotten to be so long so as to be infinite in extent to most all practical purposes. I understand why certain areas should be extended, but not why all areas have been.

What modern interpretation do you mean other than the extension of time granted ?


This is your belief, which is something that has nothing to do with the argument about Psystar. It also has nothing to do with the law.



I understand quite well. You are of two thoughts here.


The concept of copyright was to make what happens to an original work be fair to bothe the creater of the work, and to those who would like to use the work. The entire concept is based on fairness, which is also therefore about ethics. it isn't ethical to take someone's work against their will. Or, to use it in a way they don't want.

When you understand that you aren't buyinh the work in these cases, but rather licensing them, then the argument become a different one.

If I buy that painting, its mine. that's recognized through caselaw going way back. But it's also recognized through caselaw, going back a ways, that for multiple copies of a work, we are just leasing in a sense.

Also, the modern world is vastly different from the old one when copyright was first established.

No one would buy a copy of a sculpture and admire it as the original, because it couldn't be an exact copy, and those who made the copies weren't as good as the original artist. Because of that, there wasn't that much worry. There's more of a problem with paintings, but even there, most of the time, it can be resolved, esp. if the artist is still alive.

But once printed works came about, copyright became more important. Few people care if a book is printed the same as the original as long as the words are the same, and it can be easily read. That's when the concept of licensing became of importance.

That carries through to todays computer programs, except that it's a bit more complex.

With that book, there was little others could do with original printed editions other than steal them from the bookstore.

But wih software, the computer they are used on is as important as the software itself.

With Apple, most of their sales come from the hardware that the software controls. When someone buys the software and uses it on another piece of hardware, they're taking that sale away from Apple. we already went through this carefully.

Now, according to you, you don't care. You just want what's good for you. But that's a problem.

If Apple were to lose enough sales of its hardware they might not be able to afford to continue developing, and supporting their software, as they are not set up as MS is to be a software company.

You need to take this to its logical end, which isn't being done.

Now today, Apple isn't as dependent on its computer sales as it used to be. But still, if they lost enough business there, it would be a hardship. Would that be fair? After all, Apple has a lot of employees also.

I get the feeling though, that you will gloss over all of this the way you glossed over all my other explanations, as you just want to believe what you believe.

If that's so, we can both admit that there's no point in continuing this.

Sorry to hear your marriage is on the rocks. If there's anything I can do to help?


You've just disregarded the entire argument to which we both pretty much agreed to earlier!

You also disregarded your own statements from before.


It doesn't have to be functionally different. It just has to be aimed at a certain group. The group of people who bought the computer with the OS already on it.

Are you then saying that if Apple somehow worked it out so that it couldn't be used on a third party machine that it would be ok then? Because that's exactly how what you said comes out.

What if Apple required anyone buying the OS upgrade to have proof they bought a Mac? would that be ok then?

You are now basing your argument solely on the fact that the upgrade can be installed on a third party machine.



So you agree with I just said above?

You understand that the main, if not the only reason they sell the upgrade through other channels is because most people couldn't sustain a fast enough connection to be able to download the entire OS?

Why should the channel of distribution be a factor?

To be a bit more precise than I was above; If Apple only allowed someone to buy one copy per serial number of the machine(s) they owned, then would it be ok for them to buy it from a store?

Am I understanding you correctly that it's the fact that anyone can buy it without proof of ownership of an Apple product capable of using it that's bothering you?

I suppose that Apple could do that, and maybe they will. but I imagine that they don't because it would be a burden on those who lose their receipts, or forget to look on the machine for the serial number, and than how would the store check to see if it's a valid purchase?

They would need a device similar to a credit card swiper that could connect to Apple's network repository of serial numbers.

Hey!

Now we know what that billion dollar server farm Apple is going to build is for!

I am not creating the definition, it exists. It exists because it is true.

Many if not most proprietary products are composed of non-proprietary parts. The fact that you can buy any of these parts individually does not give you right to assemble and sell the product. This in a nutshell is Psystar's entire business plan. They believe (and sadly so do you) that because they can buy the hardware from one place and the operating system from another, that they have a right to combine them and sell the proprietary combination of the two. This is false. If it were true, the entire concept of intellectual property would be fatally damaged. I know this would not bother some people.


A ludicrous analogy, but I suppose no more ludicrous than any thing else you've argued.

You are assuming I haven't thought it out to the end. I have. I understand that Apple makes most of their money on hardware sales. That isn't the point. The point is that Apple is choosing to subsidize software cost. That's a business decision Apple has made. They don't have to do it that way but they do. Apple could just as easily charge $300+ for OS X and call it a day. If they're too proud to admit that they can't sustain subsidized software sales, then they deserve to suffer for it. That's not a good business practice.

The difference between you and I is that you argue sentimentally for Apple (emphasizing the hardship / misfortune / tragedy it would be to lose OS X). Certainly it would, but that alone is not a valid argument for Apple's behalf. Lady Justice is blind for a reason. She must not allow irrelevant information to influence her decisions, i.e. her personal affection for OS X.

So I challenge you to see it like Lady Justice sees it: A company sells two products, Product A and Product B, the latter of which is a combination of Product A and Product C. Should that company have the right to force those who purchase standalone product A that it must be used solely with product C? How is that fair to the customer?

Or scenario 2: A company sells a product. Person A buys that product at the manufacturer's asking price. Is it wrong for Person A to resell that product to Person B? Such an activity does no harm to the company that sells the product as Person B could have just as easily bought that product at the same price.

What if Person A bought two products, combined them and sold the bundle. Is that wrong? Both of the manufacturers received the asking price for their respective products. Once again, Person B could have just purchased the two products himself to create the bundle.

What if Person A wants to make a business of selling the bundles? What changes?

These are philosophical/ethical questions. If you quote existing laws, I will simply assume you can't defend your own beliefs - or better yet, don't have any of your own to follow - and therefore accept the world as it is because you don't have the passion to change it to reflect what you believe is just and right.

-Clive

I think there was a mis-understanding. I thought you were proposing my wife slept naked with you to fix my marriage. The marriage is fantastic!

More reply later.

I'm not sure you have thought this through either. And Melgross's arguments have been anything but sentimental.

When he puts forward the scenario of Apple's dwindling hardware sales affecting their ability to develop their software... he is not emphasizing the "misfortune and tragedy" to Apple but to Psystar. Can't you see that? Psystar's whole business model depends on Apple making Mac OSX. Yet Psystar's very success (and the others who would surely follow) could lead to Apple ending development of the desktop OS.


You keep saying stuff like this and to me it completely undermines your whole "ethical" argument. You are morally outraged by Apple using established laws to protect their property and yet you suggest that just bumping up the price or taking the product off the shelves would be fine. You suggest that laws should be changed so that a company like Psystar can legally compete with Apple. How could Psystar compete if Apple stopped selling OS X or charged $500 a copy? How would that be any more ethical?


A can't face wading through your other 'alphabetti challenges', but I'll take this one on!


How's this for a business idea? Go to iTunes and start buying bundles of individual tracks by .... say ... Pink Floyd. Then try selling those bundles as "Pink Floyd's Greatest Hits" from your own web site. See how far you would get. Pink Floyd don't care that you have paid for every track. They don't want to sell those tracks in that bundle. They don't want that running order. And they certainly object to the great big picture of Clive at Five on the cover.

Pink Floyd did not give you permission to do any of this. You don't have the legal right to do it, why should you have a moral or ethical right to do it. Its not your stuff. This is not nuts and bolts that you are buying and selling. It's another persons intellectual property. Who is being immoral? Pink Floyd or you?

You do have enery right to resell that product you bought. There's even a law that states you can. It the rights you have under the "first sale doctrine". No EULA can take away that right. Psystar can buy a copy of OSX and resell that copy for what ever they can get for it. They can frame it, wrap it in a pretty box, break it in half, paint it or what ever. So long as the original IP is exactly the way they bought it.

It's the copy that they put in their PC that is in question. That's why all your painting analogy don't work. You're talking about reselling the copy that you bought. Psystar is also reselling a copy that they made from the original. And copyright laws protect the IP owner and user in regards to that copy. Software by nature has to be copied before anyone can use it. This would mean that everyone using copyrighted software would be violating the old copyright laws when they make a copy of it to use on their machines. So a special section of the copyright law was written to protect software users and the IP owners when a copy is made to be used on a machine. And that copy is treated differently than the copy Psystar bought.

Theoretically, if that copy of OSX that is in the PC the Psystar sells was legally "derived" from the original copy of OSX that they bought in the store, then it doesn't really need to be in the PC when they sell it. The purchaser should be able to put OSX onto the PC. From the original he got with the purchase. After the purchase. Right?

Dell, HP, Acer needs permission (and maybe pay for a license) from Microsoft to sell PC's with pre-loaded Windows on them. Plus they got to pay for the OEM version of Windows that comes with the PC. Why should it be different for Psystar when it comes to Apple and pre-loaded OSX.




It doesn't matter if zero people sees it. You still need permission to use some one elses work in yours, if it's for commercial gain.




President Obama didn't seem to hate big businesses like Bio-tech, Silcon Valley, and Hollywood Studios (movies and music). I let you guess what they all have in common. Or maybe you don't think that the likes of Cisco, HP, Apple, Microsoft, MGM, Warner Bros., Disney, Merck and pfiser constitute "big business".




Once again. Psystar is also reselling a copy of that OSX on their PC. They are buying one copy and selling two copies. It's the second "adaptation" (derivative) copy that they can't re-sell or give away without Apples permission. "Derivatives have been addressed in copyright laws for as long as copyright laws existed.



You're still looking at it backwards. Apple don't force you to buy their computers when you buy a retail copy of OSX. You're suppose to already have an Apple computer when you buy the retail OSX. And Apple isn't forcing you to buy OSX. Want to use OSX? Buy a Mac. Hey, I can buy a retail copy of Halo 3. But guess what? I have to buy an Xbox to play it. No difference.

I know what you're trying to convey about restrictions in copyright laws. But you seem to also have that backwards. You want to restrict the amount of control an IP owner has on his IP so that competitors can step in and use it, without having to pay or even have to ask permission for that right to use it. If this were the case, then most IP would never exist in the form it exist today. Some how you think that competitors having almost free access to some one else's IP will offer a better product. But in reality most will only offer a cheaper inferior product.

You think Apple would pour billions in to R&D to develop OSX if they knew they couldn't protect OSX from companies like Psystar?

Would the Beatles have last long enough to make "Sgt. Pepper" if everyone began using their songs?

Would Rowling have even attemted to write any "Harry Potter" sequels if she had to compete with all the other writers that uses her first book to write their own "enhance" version of "Harry Potter".?

Would any drug company spend the billions it takes to develop drugs to cure diseases if they knew some generic company can come along right after the drug is release and sell a cheaper version because they didn't have to pay for any of the R&D that went into developing that drug?

You're more concern about the rights of a parasite to feed off a host blood, than about the host. But without the host supplying the blood in the first place, there would be no parasites.

I can only go by what you write, not by what you think. I have to assume that what you write is what you think.

Apple does not subsidize their software. They make a lot of profit on OS sales. That's stated every time the have a new upgrade come out.


It's not being sentimental. It's simply stating what is true. And what is true is based on past performance.


If product B is dependent on product A, then yes. If product a is solely intended to be used with product, then again, yes.


If the product is actually a license to use that product, and the person has thereby used that license, then they must get permission from the copyright holder, and give all materials to the person they are selling it to, and wipe any copy they may have. That's the law, and I agree with it. It's what happens if you buy a book, and then sell that book to someone else, or a Cd, or whatever. normally, you don't really need to contact the copyright holder, but if what you bought includes a serial number, or registration of some sort, and you've already done that, then you should.


It's wrong if the copyright holder doesn't give permission for that act, as they are the sole decider in these matters.


Then again, by law, the breaking of copyright rises to a criminal rather than a civil violation, and can be prosecuted in criminal court.


I have no idea what you're talking about here. If I say that I agree with the present laws, you say I can't defend my beliefs? You've got to be joking!

My "beliefs" are that copyright law is pretty much correct and has evolved over the centuries, because it works, and serves a very important purpose, which is to give the originator protection so that they may make a living off their own works.

I don't see you making any logical argument so far at all. All you've said is that you don't agree with the laws. That's not defending your "beliefs" at all. You haven't given a single cogent reason, other than what amounts to an; I want it, so it must be right.

You also seem to think that having some absurd notion of "changing" society is something you have originated. I ca assure you that you are not the first to think so. Many think they are changing things "with passion" when it's just ignorance about the way things work.

Most people understand that once they grow up and get around in the world, but apparently, some do not.

Actually, I was assuming that she was sleeping with you.

Here is the bottom line in this whole Psystar/Hachintosh/OSX clone battle going on right now:

OSX - by itself - as an operating system - is the probably the best overall OS available to consumers, and can easily and quite successfully compete on it's own performance/stability-wise, and commercially as a stand alone product - especially against the much inferior Windows OS offerings on the market. Even if it was to sell for as much as $299 retail, if it was an installable option for all computers - whether they be PC, or Mac, I do believe that it would slowly but surely become the dominant OS within a couple of years

Where Apple cannot compete head-on - is in the general computer hardware market - even though they still appear to have an edge - with their superior overall exterior design (my subjective opinion). Sleek looking aluminum Uni-Bodies and heavy, aluminum cheese grater tower cases do not change the the fact that the internal components of Apple's computers are the same, or very similar in technical capability, or quality as their PC counter-parts and are assembled in the very same countries as PC's are (sometimes even in the very same factory). The notion (heavily propagandized by Apple and AppleFlacks here on AI ) that Macs are magically made to a "BMW*", or "Ferrari*" higher quality standard (to further flog the popular pet motor vehicle metaphor widely misused ), and that they are "much better built" (by Jobsian elves perhaps?) - is more legend and legacy* than reality (*Apple was at one time head-and-shoulders above their PC rivals - quality-wise - in the PPC era and did warrant, IMHO, what has become well known as the "Appletax").
(*To my knowledge, nether BMW's, nor Ferrari's are manufactured in some generic, low wage factory in China - as most, if not all of Apple's "premium" computers currently are)

As an Apple Technician/Consultant, I have seen the slow and steady demise of whatever quality edge that Apple may once have held over PC's - especially so in the last few years - in favor of much more of an emphasis on style over substance. This is not to suggest that there isn't a boatload of cheaply made, crappy PC machines currently available. But at least they are correspondingly cheap in price (sub-$500) to match.

With Apple, you also get cheaply made, craptastic, cracking plastic MacBooks that are some the most overpriced, underspec'ed, poorly made 1K+ laptops ever to be sold by anyone. I am seeing them falling apart left and right on many of my clients unfortunate enough to have plunked down 1-2K for them ( never on my recommendation ) - only to suffer from their HD's quickly dying, batteries failing - and with most of them now sporting polycarbonate cases that are rapidly discoloring (white models) and literally fracturing into pieces - and all of that is just within the first year. Many, many of the 24" iMacs have serious video/screen issues - mostly because of cheap LCD panels used, poor assembly, and faulty graphics cards that are frying. Apple has also made replacing/upgrading a simple thing like the HD on all of the Intel iMacs (the most common failure on any computer), nearly impossible without breaking the machine or warranty. And on and on..

Anyone thinking that just because they paid a "premium" for their Mac that they actually have any better hardware than an equivalent PC with the same specs is seriously drinking a little too much of the Apple koolaid.

This is plainly why Apple is white knuckling the OS to the hardware. Without their crown jewel (OSX) inextricably embedded onto the rapidly diminishing quality of their "premium" hardware - they would have to really compete with their inflated "premium" hardware directly in an open market on it's own merits and "value" - independent of OSX - since the same OS could be acquired on any PC of similar "value". Except for their very low end offerings like the iPhone & iPod, Apple would most likely lose a sizable percentage of their "closed-loop" market share in a very short period of time. They just cannot favorably compete with much lower priced PC's of equal, or better performance, features and quality that can also run OSX just as well, or better than anything that Apple is currently offering - "Premium" exterior design notwithstanding.

So it's easy to see why so many here on AI, and other Mac enthusiasts sites get nearly apoplectic when even the slightest suggestion of any kind of a decoupling of OSX from Apple's hardware. They know that their position within Apple (many, many Cuperatino Apple Inc.'ers and those that develop for them here), or their investments in AALP shares would end up take a major hit if OSX was ever "legally" liberated from being installed exclusively on Apple's "premium" hardware. That is why most Appleflacks will reflexively take up the old IP/copywrite sword to quickly undercut any who dare to challenge Apple's OS/Hardware monopoly (and yes, it is a monopoly, but strictly on the OS, and not on the hardware - which is mostly generic components sans Apple's proprietary aluminum exterior designs). We all know what most likely would happen if current PC consumers finally had the free choice (which most Mac users already have if they want to install Windows on their Mac) of buying OSX to run on any machine that APPLE, Dell, HP, Sony, or anyone else sold - especially with sub-1K laptops/desktops...it would most likely be bye, bye to what's left of Apple's junky, hugely overpriced MacBooks - as well as a dramatic sales decline for the overpriced, underspec'ed Mac Minis. Mid-range iMacs would most likely hold their own, but the high end MacBook Pro's (2.5K+), and the Mac Pro's across the line would also suffer steep sales declines in favor of much cheaper, but equivalent PC alternatives.

Lastly, to all of you IP/copywrite absolutist here on MR and your fanatical adherence to Apple's IP party line (like Apple themselves haven't ever, or continue to "appropriate" other lesser folk's IP "illegally): how many of you have ever received, downloaded, or somehow came to acquire something on your "premium" Mac, or Macs - that you didn't actually..shall we say... purchase? Whether it's a just a small program, an MP3 file, a video, an image, a copy of another competing OS (XP, or Vista) etc..? And how many of you have also violated Apple's own EULA by installing your sacrosant copy of OSX on more than one computer that you own, or use at work, or by obtaining a copy from another source without full compensation to Apple?
If any of you who have pilloried Psystar as "thieves", "Hustlers" and so on, have, or have ever had one tiny-tiny shred of someone else IP that you did not fully and completely compensate them for.....then you have undercut your entire high and holy IP/copywrite dogma to it's core. If you are going to live by, and enforce onto others complete IP purity, then you are fully subject to the same, absolute standards. To take a page from your IP/Copywrite scripture bible, it seems that the existing and convoluted IP/Copywrite laws do not care on whit whether it's just a single little file, or it's a company like Psystar reselling "modified" "unathorized" copies of OSX, it's straight-up "infringement", and by definition: it is all "stealing"- big, or small. And so, By most official calculations, the vast majority of us computer/technological users are flagrant "thieves", and should be subject to the very same contempt and scorn and punishment that has become the narrative here on AI, and on other Apple fanboy sites.

Psystar might be kaput (no real surprises there), but the movement to free OSX from increasingly mediocre, overpriced hardware has just begun in earnest.
And now that Psystar seems to be fading out of your wrathful IP infringing sites, will you now move full steam to the next satan of the month who dares to challenge OSX on Apple Hardware only orthodoxy - EFI-X?

Groan. Once again we have to suffer the putrid, regurgitated and utterly baseless argument that if Apple doesn't wish to adopt Microsoft's business plan, it is perfectly legitimate to force them to do so by any available means, legal or otherwise. Where do these screwball ideas come from, and how are they justified? That is what I would like to know.

Stevie Lee:

Beautifully stated. And true. The real question is how might Apple become itself once again - and create excellence? I need a new laptop - to move lots of data very quickly. Should my 20-year relationship with Apple come to an end because their marketing niche does not include the kinds of performance options (speed, graphics, hard drive space) which gamers on the PC take for granted?

deleted

No, what they are doing is selling a photocopy of the book..... same words, different hardware... same as going to any book store, buying a book, photocopying it hundreds of times and reselling those copies. its ILLEGAL and should be.

Not either, really. It's more like saying that because a book is nothing more than a combination generic words, paper and ink, that any given combination of the words, paper and ink aren't protected property.

yes !

I second Piots post. Always go with the product that fits your needs and wants best because perfection rarely occurs in life.

Where?

so this is the proof that we are in fact held hostage by our investment in closed systems. and our resentment at having to move on IS the bottom line in stevielee's post.