I'm not arguing that. It's perception that talks though. Most people don't notice most things around them.
I realize, on both counts. We've lived with the PC industry the way it is for so long, I think most people believe it's normal -- when in fact it's very far from normal. It all gets very strange when people start lambasting Apple for their method of doing business. Whenever this issue comes up, it causes me to stop to appreciate how remarkable it is that Apple has survived, even thrived, in this market, when most of the conventional wisdom is against it.
I realize, on both counts. We've lived with the PC industry the way it is for so long, I think most people believe it's normal -- when in fact it's very far from normal. It all gets very strange when people start lambasting Apple for their method of doing business. Whenever this issue comes up, it causes me to stop to appreciate how remarkable it is that Apple has survived, even thrived, in this market, when most of the conventional wisdom is against it.
An often overlooked factor. The Windows PC business is a commodity industry, in all but name. The manufacturers distinguish their products from each mainly on the basis of price. They control virtually nothing else, not even the functionalities of the products they sell. It's a pretty odd deal, which somewhere along the line, a lot of people decided was perfectly normal. In fact the way Apple runs its business is far more normal. They make the entire product. They decide how it will function. This is the way the vast majority of consumer products companies operate, the Windows PC business being the exception, not the rule. It's bizarre to me how many people are convinced that the Windows PC industry is normal, and Apple's model of doing business is weird and even dangerous -- when in reality, just the opposite is true.
I think it ultimately stems from the fact that at some point in the past, the concept of "the consumer is always right" morphed into "I always get exactly what I want no matter what." One of the sad truths of the internet age is that people have so much information available to them about how to do things that they really shouldn't, that they begin to form a very powerful sense of entitlement.
Richard Stallman is a great example of that concept: I'm honestly not sure that he can even comprehend the concept of illegality in terms of intellectual property theft because he looks at everything from the perspective of "if I can see it, it's completely and utterly mine."
In terms of hardware, I think people have a poor understanding of the word competition (and monopoly for that matter). They assume because more than one company makes something that there must be healthy competition. I've worked at Best Buy in the past and no one comes in for the coolest and newest and most innovative computers, they come in for the $399 crap lap-top on the front page of the advert that they've spent two days convincing themselves has everything and can do everything they need. They also automatically assume any free software on the internet clearly must be as good as the stuff one pays $50 or more for each month (ignoring fully many real and consequential differences).
I also think the lack of certain standardization in measurement causes a problem. For instance, Dell likes to claim that its 17" Studio lap-tops can achieve seven hours of battery life on a charge. Pretty much every review I've ever read of it concludes that one should never hope for more than three hours of battery life (and that's with the backlit turned way down). Even beyond that though, people don't have an appreciable amount of respect for the fact that a lap-top as thin as the 17" MacBook Pro that gets 8 hours of battery life is superior to a 17" lap-top that achieves the same thing by having a battery that extends out far beyond the bounds of the lap-top body.
It's very hard to get people to see past their desires and perceptions into reality.
I think it ultimately stems from the fact that at some point in the past, the concept of "the consumer is always right" morphed into "I always get exactly what I want no matter what." One of the sad truths of the internet age is that people have so much information available to them about how to do things that they really shouldn't, that they begin to form a very powerful sense of entitlement.
Richard Stallman is a great example of that concept: I'm honestly not sure that he can even comprehend the concept of illegality in terms of intellectual property theft because he looks at everything from the perspective of "if I can see it, it's completely and utterly mine."
In terms of hardware, I think people have a poor understanding of the word competition (and monopoly for that matter). They assume because more than one company makes something that there must be healthy competition. I've worked at Best Buy in the past and no one comes in for the coolest and newest and most innovative computers, they come in for the $399 crap lap-top on the front page of the advert that they've spent two days convincing themselves has everything and can do everything they need. They also automatically assume any free software on the internet clearly must be as good as the stuff one pays $50 or more for each month (ignoring fully many real and consequential differences).
I also think the lack of certain standardization in measurement causes a problem. For instance, Dell likes to claim that its 17" Studio lap-tops can achieve seven hours of battery life on a charge. Pretty much every review I've ever read of it concludes that one should never hope for more than three hours of battery life (and that's with the backlit turned way down). Even beyond that though, people don't have an appreciable amount of respect for the fact that a lap-top as thin as the 17" MacBook Pro that gets 8 hours of battery life is superior to a 17" lap-top that achieves the same thing by having a battery that extends out far beyond the bounds of the lap-top body.
It's very hard to get people to see past their desires and perceptions into reality.
Whenever this issue comes up, it causes me to stop to appreciate how remarkable it is that Apple has survived, even thrived, in this market, when most of the conventional wisdom is against it.
Companies have a right to defend their business, within reason. Nothing can be unlimited -- defending business is not a Holy Crusade. In this case, I believe Psystar to be in the right and Apple to be in the wrong, morally. That's all.
Companies have a right to defend their business, within reason. Nothing can be unlimited -- defending business is not a Holy Crusade. In this case, I believe Psystar to be in the right and Apple to be in the wrong, morally. That's all.
You can feel however you like. Ethically, Psystar is in the wrong, and very likely, legally as well.
You can feel however you like. Ethically, Psystar is in the wrong, and very likely, legally as well.
Yeah, I have always wondered where the "morality" part comes in for some. Either Psystar is trading illegally on Apple's property, or they are not. I happen to think they are, but it's not a moral issue.
Yeah, I have always wondered where the "morality" part comes in for some. Either Psystar is trading illegally on Apple's property, or they are not. I happen to think they are, but it's not a moral issue.
It comes from people who aren't really thinking about morality, but rather their own narrow minded desire to have the OS on a much cheaper computer.
Anything that thwarts that is considered by them to be "immoral".
It's this "me, me" society that's sprung up with easy to steal software, as opposed to hard to steal hardware.
Well said. A lot of this debate seems to come down to, "if it's good for me, it must be right."
Ever since the internet, that's been the norm, sadly.
But even before that, I used to know some PC people who would buy hundreds of floppies so they could pirate software.
The computer has made theft simple and easy, to the point that those doing it, with little risk, seem to not willingly think of it as theft.
They know that it is, but they try to convince themselves it's not, while also defending it to others.
The concept of, "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" seems to be something they think is a good excuse to steal it. I wonder how they would react if their boss decided to cut their pay in half.
Companies have a right to defend their business, within reason. Nothing can be unlimited -- defending business is not a Holy Crusade. In this case, I believe Psystar to be in the right and Apple to be in the wrong, morally. That's all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertofwater
Companies have a right to defend their business, within reason. Nothing can be unlimited -- defending business is not a Holy Crusade. In this case, I believe Psystar to be in the right and Apple to be in the wrong, morally. That's all.
How many different kind of idiots are on these boards?
You can feel however you like. Ethically, Psystar is in the wrong, and very likely, legally as well.
Disclaimer: I haven't read through the whole thread. But, I've been following the story.
I'm really not sure I agree with you here. I really need to speak to my brother, who was a patent examiner in technology, member of the patent bar, and is now in law school focusing on intellectual property. That said, here is my take right now:
1. Psystar claims once it purchases Mac OS X legitimately, it can install it and use it how it wants.
---I agree with this. The analogy they use is "What if Honda sold you a car, and told you what roads to drive it on?" It would seem to me that Apple can't tell you not to modify their product after you buy it legitimately.
2. Apple claims Psystar violated the DMCA by creating code to hack their OS. "Defendant has illegally circumvented Apple's technological copyright-protection measures" --wiki
---I disagree with this. Psystar is not "'circumventing copyright protections." It is merely offering a product (the code) that allows said product to run on other hardware.
3. Psystar believes it has the right to sell Mac OS X at retail (with their machines).
--I disagree and think they will lose on this point. I do believe Apple has the legal right to determine who may sell its products en masse, whether installed on computers or not.
I could see this ending up as a split decision, so to speak. In other words, it's ruled that Psystar has the right to provide systems/code that can run legit copies of OSX, and that end users can, in fact, determine how they use purchased copies.
However, I can see Psystar being banned from selling OS X w/o Apple's permission. It could also be argued that Psystar is profiting from Apple's intellectual property by advertising their systems as being sold with Mac OSX. They're using the benefits of a product they didn't create to sell their computer, from images to even features. I could see this being a legal problem for them.
Disclaimer: I haven't read through the whole thread. But, I've been following the story.
I'm really not sure I agree with you here. I really need to speak to my brother, who was a patent examiner in technology, member of the patent bar, and is now in law school focusing on intellectual property. That said, here is my take right now:
1. Psystar claims once it purchases Mac OS X legitimately, it can install it and use it how it wants.
---I agree with this. The analogy they use is "What if Honda sold you a car, and told you what roads to drive it on?" It would seem to me that Apple can't tell you not to modify their product after you buy it legitimately.
This has nothing to do with anything. We're talking about copyrighted software, and the law is very clear here. I'm not sure your brother is an expert on copyright if he's going in for patent law, as they are quite distinct. My wife is an attorney, and has dealt with copyright and trademark law for over 25 years. She thinks, and I agree, based on my own business experience with this over several decades, that Apple is following the law as it is understood.
If, somehow, the judge interprets the law differently to what has been understood up until now, then after all the appeals, it may change. But so far, this is very different than buying a car, and putting a different engine inside, or telling you which roads to travel on. Neither has anything to do with copyright, or any of the other issues involved in this case..
Quote:
2. Apple claims Psystar violated the DMCA by creating code to hack their OS. "Defendant has illegally circumvented Apple's technological copyright-protection measures" --wiki
---I disagree with this. Psystar is not "'circumventing copyright protections." It is merely offering a product (the code) that allows said product to run on other hardware.
So you are telling us that you know enough programming that you've gone through all of Apple's code, and can state that Apple doesn't use any code that would constitute encryption, or equivalent technology? If so, please show us why.
Quote:
3. Psystar believes it has the right to sell Mac OS X at retail (with their machines).
--I disagree and think they will lose on this point. I do believe Apple has the legal right to determine who may sell its products en masse, whether installed on computers or not.
It isn't just that Psystar is "selling" Apple's software, it how they're selling it and for what purpose.
Quote:
I could see this ending up as a split decision, so to speak. In other words, it's ruled that Psystar has the right to provide systems/code that can run legit copies of OSX, and that end users can, in fact, determine how they use purchased copies.
However, I can see Psystar being banned from selling OS X w/o Apple's permission. It could also be argued that Psystar is profiting from Apple's intellectual property by advertising their systems as being sold with Mac OSX. They're using the benefits of a product they didn't create to sell their computer, from images to even features. I could see this being a legal problem for them.
Violating copyright and the DMCA are both illegal. The difference is that Psystar's use is criminal, and individual users is civil.
I really need to speak to my brother, who was a patent examiner in technology, member of the patent bar, and is now in law school focusing on intellectual property.
1. Psystar claims once it purchases Mac OS X legitimately, it can install it and use it how it wants. ---I agree with this.
Psystar doesn't buy OS X. They buy a licence to use OS X. Car analogies are crap. Fact.[/quote]
Psystar says that they go to the local Apple store and buy the OS at retail. That's their statement.
That also means that they aren't a licensed retailer or OEM.
Psystar doesn't buy OS X. They buy a licence to use OS X. Car analogies are crap. Fact.
Psystar says that they go to the local Apple store and buy the OS at retail. That's their statement.
That also means that they aren't a licensed retailer or OEM.[/QUOTE]
Whatever. I know what EULA's are, and regardless of recent legal rulings, I think the fact that I can be told where to install software I purchased is horse shit. Now, once I start selling it as part of something else...that's different.
melgross:
Quote:
This has nothing to do with anything. We're talking about copyrighted software, and the law is very clear here. I'm not sure your brother is an expert on copyright if he's going in for patent law, as they are quite distinct. My wife is an attorney, and has dealt with copyright and trademark law for over 25 years. She thinks, and I agree, based on my own business experience with this over several decades, that Apple is following the law as it is understood.
I just mentioned him because he's a lot closer to being qualified on the topic than I am.
Quote:
If, somehow, the judge interprets the law differently to what has been understood up until now, then after all the appeals, it may change. But so far, this is very different than buying a car, and putting a different engine inside, or telling you which roads to travel on. Neither has anything to do with copyright, or any of the other issues involved in this case..
The recent legal ruling means that in the eyes of the law, you're correct. That said, the fact that Apple can tell me not to install a purchased copy on my own personal Intel machine is ludicrous. The difference here is that Psystar is modifying the product and then selling it.
Quote:
So you are telling us that you know enough programming that you've gone through all of Apple's code, and can state that Apple doesn't use any code that would constitute encryption, or equivalent technology? If so, please show us why.
Obviously I have not been through the code. Even if I had, the standard for proving that one circumvented copyright protection is not necessarily what you claim it is above. Frankly, I don't know the standard, legally speaking.
Quote:
It isn't just that Psystar is "selling" Apple's software, it how they're selling it and for what purpose.
It's both. You can't just sell Apple's software at retail w/o permission. Correct?
Quote:
Violating copyright and the DMCA are both illegal. The difference is that Psystar's use is criminal, and individual users is civil.
1. Really? No shit.
2. You have no idea what you're talking about here. Their actions are not "criminal" in any sense. It's a CIVIL lawsuit. Any penalties would be civil in nature.
Either way, I'm pretty sure their EULA prohibits one using OS X on a non-Apple branded product, whether it's what Psystar did, or whether it's you sitting in your bedroom installing it on a $399 PC.
Comments
I'm not arguing that. It's perception that talks though. Most people don't notice most things around them.
I realize, on both counts. We've lived with the PC industry the way it is for so long, I think most people believe it's normal -- when in fact it's very far from normal. It all gets very strange when people start lambasting Apple for their method of doing business. Whenever this issue comes up, it causes me to stop to appreciate how remarkable it is that Apple has survived, even thrived, in this market, when most of the conventional wisdom is against it.
I realize, on both counts. We've lived with the PC industry the way it is for so long, I think most people believe it's normal -- when in fact it's very far from normal. It all gets very strange when people start lambasting Apple for their method of doing business. Whenever this issue comes up, it causes me to stop to appreciate how remarkable it is that Apple has survived, even thrived, in this market, when most of the conventional wisdom is against it.
That's exactly correct.
That's exactly correct.
You mean we agree on something?
BTW, when do you sleep?
You mean we agree on something?
Often, in the end.
BTW, when do you sleep?
When I get around to it.
An often overlooked factor. The Windows PC business is a commodity industry, in all but name. The manufacturers distinguish their products from each mainly on the basis of price. They control virtually nothing else, not even the functionalities of the products they sell. It's a pretty odd deal, which somewhere along the line, a lot of people decided was perfectly normal. In fact the way Apple runs its business is far more normal. They make the entire product. They decide how it will function. This is the way the vast majority of consumer products companies operate, the Windows PC business being the exception, not the rule. It's bizarre to me how many people are convinced that the Windows PC industry is normal, and Apple's model of doing business is weird and even dangerous -- when in reality, just the opposite is true.
I think it ultimately stems from the fact that at some point in the past, the concept of "the consumer is always right" morphed into "I always get exactly what I want no matter what." One of the sad truths of the internet age is that people have so much information available to them about how to do things that they really shouldn't, that they begin to form a very powerful sense of entitlement.
Richard Stallman is a great example of that concept: I'm honestly not sure that he can even comprehend the concept of illegality in terms of intellectual property theft because he looks at everything from the perspective of "if I can see it, it's completely and utterly mine."
In terms of hardware, I think people have a poor understanding of the word competition (and monopoly for that matter). They assume because more than one company makes something that there must be healthy competition. I've worked at Best Buy in the past and no one comes in for the coolest and newest and most innovative computers, they come in for the $399 crap lap-top on the front page of the advert that they've spent two days convincing themselves has everything and can do everything they need. They also automatically assume any free software on the internet clearly must be as good as the stuff one pays $50 or more for each month (ignoring fully many real and consequential differences).
I also think the lack of certain standardization in measurement causes a problem. For instance, Dell likes to claim that its 17" Studio lap-tops can achieve seven hours of battery life on a charge. Pretty much every review I've ever read of it concludes that one should never hope for more than three hours of battery life (and that's with the backlit turned way down). Even beyond that though, people don't have an appreciable amount of respect for the fact that a lap-top as thin as the 17" MacBook Pro that gets 8 hours of battery life is superior to a 17" lap-top that achieves the same thing by having a battery that extends out far beyond the bounds of the lap-top body.
It's very hard to get people to see past their desires and perceptions into reality.
I think it ultimately stems from the fact that at some point in the past, the concept of "the consumer is always right" morphed into "I always get exactly what I want no matter what." One of the sad truths of the internet age is that people have so much information available to them about how to do things that they really shouldn't, that they begin to form a very powerful sense of entitlement.
Richard Stallman is a great example of that concept: I'm honestly not sure that he can even comprehend the concept of illegality in terms of intellectual property theft because he looks at everything from the perspective of "if I can see it, it's completely and utterly mine."
In terms of hardware, I think people have a poor understanding of the word competition (and monopoly for that matter). They assume because more than one company makes something that there must be healthy competition. I've worked at Best Buy in the past and no one comes in for the coolest and newest and most innovative computers, they come in for the $399 crap lap-top on the front page of the advert that they've spent two days convincing themselves has everything and can do everything they need. They also automatically assume any free software on the internet clearly must be as good as the stuff one pays $50 or more for each month (ignoring fully many real and consequential differences).
I also think the lack of certain standardization in measurement causes a problem. For instance, Dell likes to claim that its 17" Studio lap-tops can achieve seven hours of battery life on a charge. Pretty much every review I've ever read of it concludes that one should never hope for more than three hours of battery life (and that's with the backlit turned way down). Even beyond that though, people don't have an appreciable amount of respect for the fact that a lap-top as thin as the 17" MacBook Pro that gets 8 hours of battery life is superior to a 17" lap-top that achieves the same thing by having a battery that extends out far beyond the bounds of the lap-top body.
It's very hard to get people to see past their desires and perceptions into reality.
Very true, and well said.
Whenever this issue comes up, it causes me to stop to appreciate how remarkable it is that Apple has survived, even thrived, in this market, when most of the conventional wisdom is against it.
Vote for the sustainability of Apple,
[right]Carte De Creditsales tracking softwarewrongful death lawyersInterest Only Mortgage[/right]
Companies have a right to defend their business, within reason. Nothing can be unlimited -- defending business is not a Holy Crusade. In this case, I believe Psystar to be in the right and Apple to be in the wrong, morally. That's all.
You can feel however you like. Ethically, Psystar is in the wrong, and very likely, legally as well.
You can feel however you like. Ethically, Psystar is in the wrong, and very likely, legally as well.
Yeah, I have always wondered where the "morality" part comes in for some. Either Psystar is trading illegally on Apple's property, or they are not. I happen to think they are, but it's not a moral issue.
Yeah, I have always wondered where the "morality" part comes in for some. Either Psystar is trading illegally on Apple's property, or they are not. I happen to think they are, but it's not a moral issue.
It comes from people who aren't really thinking about morality, but rather their own narrow minded desire to have the OS on a much cheaper computer.
Anything that thwarts that is considered by them to be "immoral".
It's this "me, me" society that's sprung up with easy to steal software, as opposed to hard to steal hardware.
Well said. A lot of this debate seems to come down to, "if it's good for me, it must be right."
Ever since the internet, that's been the norm, sadly.
But even before that, I used to know some PC people who would buy hundreds of floppies so they could pirate software.
The computer has made theft simple and easy, to the point that those doing it, with little risk, seem to not willingly think of it as theft.
They know that it is, but they try to convince themselves it's not, while also defending it to others.
The concept of, "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" seems to be something they think is a good excuse to steal it. I wonder how they would react if their boss decided to cut their pay in half.
Companies have a right to defend their business, within reason. Nothing can be unlimited -- defending business is not a Holy Crusade. In this case, I believe Psystar to be in the right and Apple to be in the wrong, morally. That's all.
Companies have a right to defend their business, within reason. Nothing can be unlimited -- defending business is not a Holy Crusade. In this case, I believe Psystar to be in the right and Apple to be in the wrong, morally. That's all.
How many different kind of idiots are on these boards?
You can feel however you like. Ethically, Psystar is in the wrong, and very likely, legally as well.
Disclaimer: I haven't read through the whole thread. But, I've been following the story.
I'm really not sure I agree with you here. I really need to speak to my brother, who was a patent examiner in technology, member of the patent bar, and is now in law school focusing on intellectual property. That said, here is my take right now:
1. Psystar claims once it purchases Mac OS X legitimately, it can install it and use it how it wants.
---I agree with this. The analogy they use is "What if Honda sold you a car, and told you what roads to drive it on?" It would seem to me that Apple can't tell you not to modify their product after you buy it legitimately.
2. Apple claims Psystar violated the DMCA by creating code to hack their OS. "Defendant has illegally circumvented Apple's technological copyright-protection measures" --wiki
---I disagree with this. Psystar is not "'circumventing copyright protections." It is merely offering a product (the code) that allows said product to run on other hardware.
3. Psystar believes it has the right to sell Mac OS X at retail (with their machines).
--I disagree and think they will lose on this point. I do believe Apple has the legal right to determine who may sell its products en masse, whether installed on computers or not.
I could see this ending up as a split decision, so to speak. In other words, it's ruled that Psystar has the right to provide systems/code that can run legit copies of OSX, and that end users can, in fact, determine how they use purchased copies.
However, I can see Psystar being banned from selling OS X w/o Apple's permission. It could also be argued that Psystar is profiting from Apple's intellectual property by advertising their systems as being sold with Mac OSX. They're using the benefits of a product they didn't create to sell their computer, from images to even features. I could see this being a legal problem for them.
Disclaimer: I haven't read through the whole thread. But, I've been following the story.
I'm really not sure I agree with you here. I really need to speak to my brother, who was a patent examiner in technology, member of the patent bar, and is now in law school focusing on intellectual property. That said, here is my take right now:
1. Psystar claims once it purchases Mac OS X legitimately, it can install it and use it how it wants.
---I agree with this. The analogy they use is "What if Honda sold you a car, and told you what roads to drive it on?" It would seem to me that Apple can't tell you not to modify their product after you buy it legitimately.
This has nothing to do with anything. We're talking about copyrighted software, and the law is very clear here. I'm not sure your brother is an expert on copyright if he's going in for patent law, as they are quite distinct. My wife is an attorney, and has dealt with copyright and trademark law for over 25 years. She thinks, and I agree, based on my own business experience with this over several decades, that Apple is following the law as it is understood.
If, somehow, the judge interprets the law differently to what has been understood up until now, then after all the appeals, it may change. But so far, this is very different than buying a car, and putting a different engine inside, or telling you which roads to travel on. Neither has anything to do with copyright, or any of the other issues involved in this case..
2. Apple claims Psystar violated the DMCA by creating code to hack their OS. "Defendant has illegally circumvented Apple's technological copyright-protection measures" --wiki
---I disagree with this. Psystar is not "'circumventing copyright protections." It is merely offering a product (the code) that allows said product to run on other hardware.
So you are telling us that you know enough programming that you've gone through all of Apple's code, and can state that Apple doesn't use any code that would constitute encryption, or equivalent technology? If so, please show us why.
3. Psystar believes it has the right to sell Mac OS X at retail (with their machines).
--I disagree and think they will lose on this point. I do believe Apple has the legal right to determine who may sell its products en masse, whether installed on computers or not.
It isn't just that Psystar is "selling" Apple's software, it how they're selling it and for what purpose.
I could see this ending up as a split decision, so to speak. In other words, it's ruled that Psystar has the right to provide systems/code that can run legit copies of OSX, and that end users can, in fact, determine how they use purchased copies.
However, I can see Psystar being banned from selling OS X w/o Apple's permission. It could also be argued that Psystar is profiting from Apple's intellectual property by advertising their systems as being sold with Mac OSX. They're using the benefits of a product they didn't create to sell their computer, from images to even features. I could see this being a legal problem for them.
Violating copyright and the DMCA are both illegal. The difference is that Psystar's use is criminal, and individual users is civil.
I really need to speak to my brother, who was a patent examiner in technology, member of the patent bar, and is now in law school focusing on intellectual property.
1. Psystar claims once it purchases Mac OS X legitimately, it can install it and use it how it wants. ---I agree with this.
Psystar doesn't buy OS X. They buy a licence to use OS X. Car analogies are crap. Fact.[/quote]
Psystar says that they go to the local Apple store and buy the OS at retail. That's their statement.
That also means that they aren't a licensed retailer or OEM.
Psystar doesn't buy OS X. They buy a licence to use OS X. Car analogies are crap. Fact.
Psystar says that they go to the local Apple store and buy the OS at retail. That's their statement.
That also means that they aren't a licensed retailer or OEM.[/QUOTE]
Whatever. I know what EULA's are, and regardless of recent legal rulings, I think the fact that I can be told where to install software I purchased is horse shit. Now, once I start selling it as part of something else...that's different.
melgross:
This has nothing to do with anything. We're talking about copyrighted software, and the law is very clear here. I'm not sure your brother is an expert on copyright if he's going in for patent law, as they are quite distinct. My wife is an attorney, and has dealt with copyright and trademark law for over 25 years. She thinks, and I agree, based on my own business experience with this over several decades, that Apple is following the law as it is understood.
I just mentioned him because he's a lot closer to being qualified on the topic than I am.
If, somehow, the judge interprets the law differently to what has been understood up until now, then after all the appeals, it may change. But so far, this is very different than buying a car, and putting a different engine inside, or telling you which roads to travel on. Neither has anything to do with copyright, or any of the other issues involved in this case..
The recent legal ruling means that in the eyes of the law, you're correct. That said, the fact that Apple can tell me not to install a purchased copy on my own personal Intel machine is ludicrous. The difference here is that Psystar is modifying the product and then selling it.
So you are telling us that you know enough programming that you've gone through all of Apple's code, and can state that Apple doesn't use any code that would constitute encryption, or equivalent technology? If so, please show us why.
Obviously I have not been through the code. Even if I had, the standard for proving that one circumvented copyright protection is not necessarily what you claim it is above. Frankly, I don't know the standard, legally speaking.
It isn't just that Psystar is "selling" Apple's software, it how they're selling it and for what purpose.
It's both. You can't just sell Apple's software at retail w/o permission. Correct?
Violating copyright and the DMCA are both illegal. The difference is that Psystar's use is criminal, and individual users is civil.
1. Really? No shit.
2. You have no idea what you're talking about here. Their actions are not "criminal" in any sense. It's a CIVIL lawsuit.
Either way, I'm pretty sure their EULA prohibits one using OS X on a non-Apple branded product, whether it's what Psystar did, or whether it's you sitting in your bedroom installing it on a $399 PC.