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. [/quote]
You don't have to like it.
Quote:
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.
I actually do know what I'm talking about. Otherwise, I would not have said it.
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.
I think you should have talked to your bother before you made that statement... If you read the Judge just found in favor of Apple and said that Psystar did violated the copy protection method that apple employed by overwriting various kernal files.
It is not like they went out and bought OSX and gave it to someone else to install it on their computer they are activity changing the software so they can sell it to others as part of their hardware.
Thanks for the link and for the clarification. I apologize...I didn't think that is where you were going. Obviously there is a legal distinction as you point out.
That said, I still think my point holds: According to Apple's EULA, I cannot install a copy of OS X I own on a PC I own. If your point is that Apple won't come after me because what I'm doing is not "criminal" under U.S. Copyright law, then fine. But Apple could still come after me for civil penalties, no?
I think you should have talked to your bother before you made that statement... If you read the Judge just found in favor of Apple and said that Psystar did violated the copy protection method that apple employed by overwriting various kernal files.
It is not like they went out and bought OSX and gave it to someone else to install it on their computer they are activity changing the software so they can sell it to others as part of their hardware.
To be fair I posted that before the decision. I agree with the second part.
Comments
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. [/quote]
You don't have to like it.
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.
I actually do know what I'm talking about. Otherwise, I would not have said it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...6----000-.html
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.
I think you should have talked to your bother before you made that statement... If you read the Judge just found in favor of Apple and said that Psystar did violated the copy protection method that apple employed by overwriting various kernal files.
It is not like they went out and bought OSX and gave it to someone else to install it on their computer they are activity changing the software so they can sell it to others as part of their hardware.
You don't have to like it.
I actually do know what I'm talking about. Otherwise, I would not have said it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...6----000-.html
Thanks for the link and for the clarification. I apologize...I didn't think that is where you were going. Obviously there is a legal distinction as you point out.
That said, I still think my point holds: According to Apple's EULA, I cannot install a copy of OS X I own on a PC I own. If your point is that Apple won't come after me because what I'm doing is not "criminal" under U.S. Copyright law, then fine. But Apple could still come after me for civil penalties, no?
I think you should have talked to your bother before you made that statement... If you read the Judge just found in favor of Apple and said that Psystar did violated the copy protection method that apple employed by overwriting various kernal files.
It is not like they went out and bought OSX and gave it to someone else to install it on their computer they are activity changing the software so they can sell it to others as part of their hardware.
To be fair I posted that before the decision. I agree with the second part.