I think a world existed before the constitution. Which is not my constitution, as it happens.
Actually, this goes all the way back to the Roman Republic in the West, that we know of.[/quote]
It certainly didn't start with us.
Quote:
I think it is. It the product is sold, then Apple really don't get to say what you can do with it (as MelGross points out, it's the final act of release). With a licence, you are required to adhere to the terms of the grant or the license can be revoked. How can Apple ever realistically watch all x million of its licensees and revoke grants when the license terms are violated? They can't. Does that figure in whether something is a license or a sale? I don't know. That's all I'm saying.
The law is pretty straightforward. Someone isn't expected to be able to track down every violation. Not being able to do so doesn't invalidate the copyright. Not attempting to do so doesn't either. But that's more complex.
1) It IS a separate product to be sold separately. Apple provides them that way, believe it or not. Psystar just buys the OSX CD, not a whole Apple computer. You can actually buy the OSX that way yourself, sans computer.
2) Just because a company prints a restriction on the box doesn't necessarily make it legal. That is what Psystar is challenging. That's why we have laws about anti-competitive practices.
STUPID argument. Apple owns the copyright of the portion of OSX that it has created apart from the BSD Unix. NO damn idiot in this world can copy it and use it for any benefit - other than Apple itself. Per the GNU license Apple will happily give you the source code of the portion that it has modified. There are millions of hours of engineering spent on creating such a wonderful software - when there are imitations trying to come up with fist full of thoughts and billions of dollars to create copies - the competition has failed time and again (XP, Vista, Windows7 etc) in every conceivable aspect.
If I were the judge I will order to castrate the CEO of this psy* for stealing Apple's property - unfortunately I am not a judge.
If they turn out systems with the same specs, at a lower price, that will provide people with a viable choice. And Apple's response would have to be either lowering the price, or innovating new features that justify the price.
EITHER WAY, WE THE CONSUMERS, WIN.
- Xid
Not really. If Apple loses too much sales, they won't be able to compete well. They might have to cut back on R&D for the OS as well as for their hardware.
Where does this stop? Copying the iPhone OS somehow?
But why did MS have to allow other browsers at all? It's their OS, they can do what they like, can't they? That's the question. Why should MS be forced to accept competitors' browsers? If MS has to accept other competitors' browsers, why is it O.K. for Apple to have a monopoly that insists that their OS cannot be run on competitors' hardware?
It's a double standard. People want to force MS to be competitive, but for some reason Apple gets to keep their monopoly?
Is the same old misunderstanding of what a monopoly is?
I swear, we should just wipe the posts of people who keep up with this junk.
I think a world existed before the constitution. Which is not my constitution, as it happens.
No need to be cryptic. Why not tell us what country you live in, and when that county began protecting intellectual property.
BTW, the reason I mentioned the Constitution is because this was seen as being an important enough principle over 200 years ago to include in this document, which was designed to protect basic individual rights.
Quote:
I think it is. It the product is sold, then Apple really don't get to say what you can do with it (as MelGross points out, it's the final act of release). With a licence, you are required to adhere to the terms of the grant or the license can be revoked. How can Apple ever realistically watch all x million of its licensees and revoke grants when the license terms are violated? They can't. Does that figure in whether something is a license or a sale? I don't know. That's all I'm saying.
No, it isn't. We've discussed this issue in several threads already, to death and beyond.
First it is critical to understand that Pystar is combining their hardware with Apple's software to create a product that Apple has the exclusive right to sell. This is a major distinction from consumers using a product they bought themselves in a non-commercial manner not authorized by the license agreement. For the latter, the EULA theoretically applies if they install OSX on hardware not manufactured by Apple, but as a practical matter Apple doesn't even make an effort to enforce it. This is why the EULA does not apply to commercial use and why it's of no real relevance in the case against Psystar.
Do you not realize that Dell, HP and all the big name PC vendors would love to get ahold of a license from Apple to make Mac clones, but don?t because Apple will not allow it?
Nah. It is not their market. They would not be able to sell Mac clones to corporate market anyway (as majority of corporate users are tied to Windows platform), and they would not be able to sell Mac clones to existing Apple customers - if for no other reasons, then for brand loyalty. At the end, how many units would they sell on the market that covers 5% of world-wide IT market..? Development expenses for creating good looking and distinctive (yet affordable) units would probably be greater than profit on those units.
No need to be cryptic. Why not tell us what country you live in, and when that county began protecting intellectual property.
BTW, the reason I mentioned the Constitution is because this was seen as being an important enough principle over 200 years ago to include in this document, which was designed to protect basic individual rights.
No, it isn't. We've discussed this issue in several threads already, to death and beyond.
First it is critical to understand that Pystar is combining their hardware with Apple's software to create a product that Apple has the exclusive right to sell. This is a major distinction from consumers using a product they bought themselves in a non-commercial manner not authorized by the license agreement. For the latter, the EULA theoretically applies if they install OSX on hardware not manufactured by Apple, but as a practical matter Apple doesn't even make an effort to enforce it. This is why the EULA does not apply to commercial use and why it's of no real relevance in the case against Psystar.
The copyright and the owners rights are always valid.
Well the EULA is just the extension and explanation of the rights the "user" who is being granted the license has for its use. A copyright doesn't lose its validity because it's being used for business, in this case, rather than for individual use.
What makes you think that?
The big problem with many of these eula's is that they're "shrink wrapped". Some states allow that as a proper defense of the copyright, some don't, and others are still sitting on the wall about it.
But if someone can't even claim that they don't understand it, then they have no defense.
The case here is based on whether this is valid or not altogether. If Psystar wins, then everyone can install OS X anywhere they please.
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.
If you wanted to resell an Automobile as a New Car in the United States of America, do you need to get a dealership license to do so, or can you just resell the car that you just bought as a New Car?
You're right. Competition IS good. But Psystar and other such companies are not competitors... they're leeches. They break the rules, essentially taking another company's intellectual property, so they can make money for themselves.
Psystar would be competition if they created their own operating system for their own computers that provided features that equal or exceed those of Apple's (or any other computer company's) OS. THAT would be competition.
Bing does not take Google's algorithms and use them as their own. They created a search engine from based on their own way of doing things.
Microsoft stealing Apple's Quicktime code for use in Windows Media Player is not competition. Psystar's Mac clone business would not exist if not for Apple's copyrighted OS, because without a hacked version of OS X, Psystar's machines would just be like all other PCs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranguvar
...the company who everyone is surprised managed to have the cash to last _this_ long is "dragging this on as long as they can"? Err... if anyone wants to draw things out, it's Apple, who's easiest tactic would be to drown Psystar in legal fees and then laugh while Psystar bankrupts (which they already did once...), unable to get even a ruling.
And the flaw in your 'analogy' would be that their has been no reprimanding... only Apple saying "Mine!" (and Apple is no parent to Psystar, and has no right to control it IMHO in this situation).
@>_>;: Exactly. Competition == good. Example being, I like Google as a company far more than MS, but some competition from Bing wouldn't hurt at all. Forcibly limiting competition through legal means == bad (more or less).
I think it is. It the product is sold, then Apple really don't get to say what you can do with it (as MelGross points out, it's the final act of release). With a licence, you are required to adhere to the terms of the grant or the license can be revoked. How can Apple ever realistically watch all x million of its licensees and revoke grants when the license terms are violated? They can't. Does that figure in whether something is a license or a sale? I don't know. That's all I'm saying.
Taking what you say here at face value (read not applying it directly to Apple) this is a valid assertion. I believe the current Software market was shaped around "Licenses" because this afforded software creators some freedom from litigation as would normally be the case with a sale. i.e. a company makes a piece of software that behaves very badly and causes corruption or other damage can not be as easily sued (even though the court of public opinion may lash out). Imagine if they had to abide by the same terms as other industries, say infant car seats for instance. We would have to wait a lot longer for software, however what we did end up with when it shipped would be a much better product.
I'm not saying I agree with Pystar, on the contrary, I believe they're scum just set up to promote the agenda of a much larger organization. Conspiratorial as it may sound, it's still a logical assertion. They want to make a cause celb out of this case and although I like where I think they are going, I don't believe I want a company like this bringing it forward.
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 melgross
Is the same old misunderstanding of what a monopoly is?
I swear, we should just wipe the posts of people who keep up with this junk.
I love Apple to death, and would never dream of buying non-apple branded hardware.
... but ....
I'm really hoping Psystar wins. For us, the consumers, only good would come from it. It would force Apple to upgrade their systems faster, because if they don't people will have the choice to go elsewhere. Currently that choice simply doesn't exist.
I mean hell, they had a system available LAST YEAR with a blu-ray drive installed. Where is apple's blu-ray option? Granted, you can't watch them (unless you use bootcamp, which is fine) until Apple decides to license the software, but it's still a great example.
The only people who should be rooting against them are Apple Employees and people who have the majority of their assets invested in AAPL stock. Likely less than 1% of Appleinsider's userbase.
- Xid
mhmm better for us consumers when Apple ceases to exist and goes bankrupt. There is a reason Microsoft does not make any computers
1) It IS a separate product to be sold separately. Apple provides them that way, believe it or not. Psystar just buys the OSX CD, not a whole Apple computer. You can actually buy the OSX that way yourself, sans computer.
2) Just because a company prints a restriction on the box doesn't necessarily make it legal. That is what Psystar is challenging. That's why we have laws about anti-competitive practices.
It not the restriction on the box that gets Psystar in trouble. It's the little "c" in a circle followed by "Copyrighted" and a date.
Copyright laws protects software. All software. It's clearly states that you can not sell or give away any "derivative" work (adaptation) of some one elses copyrighted software without the authorization of the original copyright owner whose work it was derived from.
Another words, you can purchase OSX and install it on your non-Mac computer. Copyright laws actually protects you when you do this. That OSX in your PC is now a "derivative" (adaptation) of the original. You can use your computer with this copy. What you can't do is sell or give away that computer with that "derivative" copy of OSX in it. Not without the authorization of Apple.
Music works the same way. You can buy a copy of a song on a CD. You can use Garage Band to alter by adding your own vocal track so that you have a "derivative" copy of it to use in your personal home movie. But you can't market your home movie, use it in a commercial or have it shown in a public forum (like "Sundance Film Festival") without getting permission fom the copyright holder of that song from which you made that "derivative " copy. The copyright owner has every right to say "no", you can't use my song (even though it's a "derivative") in your movie because I don't like the subject matter of your movie. Or the copyright holder can also say "yes", but Ill cost you.
Here's another example of how copyright laws work. You can buy a bunch of copyrighted CD's and legally (though the RIAA may think otherwise) make "derivative" MP3's out of them to play on your own personal computer or MP3 player. But this don't give you the right to sell a MP3 disc with those songs on it. It doesn't matter that you purchsed all the CD's with the originals on them. It doesn't matter if you include all the original CD's with each sale of your MP3 disc. The original copyright holder stills control what you can do with those "derivative" MP3's you made. You will need permission from the copyright holder to do anything, but for personal use, with those MP3's.
Bottom line is that Psystar can not sell of even give away a PC with an unauthorize "derivative" copy of OSX installed. It's not the EULA. It's the Copyright Laws that they are breaking. And Apple did not write the Copyright Laws. They do not have to state it on the box. Apple only needs to infrom you that it's contents is protected by Copyright Laws by displaying that little "c" in the circle. It is up the purchaser to look up what he can or can't legally do based on Copyright Laws.
1) It IS a separate product to be sold separately. Apple provides them that way, believe it or not. Psystar just buys the OSX CD, not a whole Apple computer. You can actually buy the OSX that way yourself, sans computer.
2) Just because a company prints a restriction on the box doesn't necessarily make it legal. That is what Psystar is challenging. That's why we have laws about anti-competitive practices.
You're either trolling, ignorant, selfish or all the mentioned. Will the next analogy you'll want to use to compare Psystar and Apple involve a blow-up doll?
What part of "copyright" eludes you?
People like you make up that 1% that ruins it for everyone else. Get a clue. No EULA for that. Get all you want. You'll need it.
I love Apple to death, and would never dream of buying non-apple branded hardware.
... but ....
I'm really hoping Psystar wins. For us, the consumers, only good would come from it. It would force Apple to upgrade their systems faster, because if they don't people will have the choice to go elsewhere. Currently that choice simply doesn't exist.
If Apple had to upgrade their hardware faster they would have to spend more money designing their motherboards etc. and creating the device drivers. Meaning they'd need claw back more money to retain their margins (ergo more expensive Macs, sounds like a loss).
If Mac OS X could be installed on anything they'd have to ensure a level of compatibility etc. and it'd become a bloated mess like Windows (sounds like another loss to me).
Apple would lose hardware sales and as a result would have to raise the price of OS X (a definite loss).
I'm failing to see the consumer wins you speak of.
you can purchase OSX and install it on your non-Mac computer. Copyright laws actually protects you when you do this. That OSX in your PC is now a "derivative" (adaptation) of the original.
Although I'm on Apple's side with this... It's not a derivative if you haven't had to modify any source or binaries (which I hear is possible).
Installation does not constitute a derivative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
Music works the same way. You can buy a copy of a song on a CD. You can use Garage Band to alter by adding your own vocal track so that you have a "derivative" copy of it to use in your personal home movie.
This one is a derivative.
But you can't market your home movie, use it in a commercial or have it shown in a public forum (like "Sundance Film Festival") without getting permission fom the copyright holder of that song from which you made that "derivative " copy. The copyright owner has every right to say "no", you can't use my song (even though it's a "derivative") in your movie because I don't like the subject matter of your movie. Or the copyright holder can also say "yes", but Ill cost you.
Here's another example of how copyright laws work. You can buy a bunch of copyrighted CD's and legally (though the RIAA may think otherwise) make "derivative" MP3's out of them to play on your own personal computer or MP3 player. But this don't give you the right to sell a MP3 disc with those songs on it. It doesn't matter that you purchsed all the CD's with the originals on them. It doesn't matter if you include all the original CD's with each sale of your MP3 disc. The original copyright holder stills control what you can do with those "derivative" MP3's you made. You will need permission from the copyright holder to do anything, but for personal use, with those MP3's.
Bottom line is that Psystar can not sell of even give away a PC with an unauthorize "derivative" copy of OSX installed. It's not the EULA. It's the Copyright Laws that they are breaking. And Apple did not write the Copyright Laws. They do not have to state it on the box. Apple only needs to infrom you that it's contents is protected by Copyright Laws by displaying that little "c" in the circle. It is up the purchaser to look up what he can or can't legally do based on Copyright Laws.[/QUOTE]
Comments
I think a world existed before the constitution. Which is not my constitution, as it happens.
Actually, this goes all the way back to the Roman Republic in the West, that we know of.[/quote]
It certainly didn't start with us.
I think it is. It the product is sold, then Apple really don't get to say what you can do with it (as MelGross points out, it's the final act of release). With a licence, you are required to adhere to the terms of the grant or the license can be revoked. How can Apple ever realistically watch all x million of its licensees and revoke grants when the license terms are violated? They can't. Does that figure in whether something is a license or a sale? I don't know. That's all I'm saying.
The law is pretty straightforward. Someone isn't expected to be able to track down every violation. Not being able to do so doesn't invalidate the copyright. Not attempting to do so doesn't either. But that's more complex.
1) It IS a separate product to be sold separately. Apple provides them that way, believe it or not. Psystar just buys the OSX CD, not a whole Apple computer. You can actually buy the OSX that way yourself, sans computer.
2) Just because a company prints a restriction on the box doesn't necessarily make it legal. That is what Psystar is challenging. That's why we have laws about anti-competitive practices.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/image...ies/1oyvey.gif
STUPID argument. Apple owns the copyright of the portion of OSX that it has created apart from the BSD Unix. NO damn idiot in this world can copy it and use it for any benefit - other than Apple itself. Per the GNU license Apple will happily give you the source code of the portion that it has modified. There are millions of hours of engineering spent on creating such a wonderful software - when there are imitations trying to come up with fist full of thoughts and billions of dollars to create copies - the competition has failed time and again (XP, Vista, Windows7 etc) in every conceivable aspect.
If I were the judge I will order to castrate the CEO of this psy* for stealing Apple's property - unfortunately I am not a judge.
If they turn out systems with the same specs, at a lower price, that will provide people with a viable choice. And Apple's response would have to be either lowering the price, or innovating new features that justify the price.
EITHER WAY, WE THE CONSUMERS, WIN.
- Xid
Not really. If Apple loses too much sales, they won't be able to compete well. They might have to cut back on R&D for the OS as well as for their hardware.
Where does this stop? Copying the iPhone OS somehow?
The consumers lose big time.
But why did MS have to allow other browsers at all? It's their OS, they can do what they like, can't they? That's the question. Why should MS be forced to accept competitors' browsers? If MS has to accept other competitors' browsers, why is it O.K. for Apple to have a monopoly that insists that their OS cannot be run on competitors' hardware?
It's a double standard. People want to force MS to be competitive, but for some reason Apple gets to keep their monopoly?
Is the same old misunderstanding of what a monopoly is?
I swear, we should just wipe the posts of people who keep up with this junk.
I think a world existed before the constitution. Which is not my constitution, as it happens.
No need to be cryptic. Why not tell us what country you live in, and when that county began protecting intellectual property.
BTW, the reason I mentioned the Constitution is because this was seen as being an important enough principle over 200 years ago to include in this document, which was designed to protect basic individual rights.
I think it is. It the product is sold, then Apple really don't get to say what you can do with it (as MelGross points out, it's the final act of release). With a licence, you are required to adhere to the terms of the grant or the license can be revoked. How can Apple ever realistically watch all x million of its licensees and revoke grants when the license terms are violated? They can't. Does that figure in whether something is a license or a sale? I don't know. That's all I'm saying.
No, it isn't. We've discussed this issue in several threads already, to death and beyond.
First it is critical to understand that Pystar is combining their hardware with Apple's software to create a product that Apple has the exclusive right to sell. This is a major distinction from consumers using a product they bought themselves in a non-commercial manner not authorized by the license agreement. For the latter, the EULA theoretically applies if they install OSX on hardware not manufactured by Apple, but as a practical matter Apple doesn't even make an effort to enforce it. This is why the EULA does not apply to commercial use and why it's of no real relevance in the case against Psystar.
Do you not realize that Dell, HP and all the big name PC vendors would love to get ahold of a license from Apple to make Mac clones, but don?t because Apple will not allow it?
Nah. It is not their market. They would not be able to sell Mac clones to corporate market anyway (as majority of corporate users are tied to Windows platform), and they would not be able to sell Mac clones to existing Apple customers - if for no other reasons, then for brand loyalty. At the end, how many units would they sell on the market that covers 5% of world-wide IT market..? Development expenses for creating good looking and distinctive (yet affordable) units would probably be greater than profit on those units.
No need to be cryptic. Why not tell us what country you live in, and when that county began protecting intellectual property.
BTW, the reason I mentioned the Constitution is because this was seen as being an important enough principle over 200 years ago to include in this document, which was designed to protect basic individual rights.
No, it isn't. We've discussed this issue in several threads already, to death and beyond.
First it is critical to understand that Pystar is combining their hardware with Apple's software to create a product that Apple has the exclusive right to sell. This is a major distinction from consumers using a product they bought themselves in a non-commercial manner not authorized by the license agreement. For the latter, the EULA theoretically applies if they install OSX on hardware not manufactured by Apple, but as a practical matter Apple doesn't even make an effort to enforce it. This is why the EULA does not apply to commercial use and why it's of no real relevance in the case against Psystar.
The copyright and the owners rights are always valid.
The copyright and the owners rights are always valid.
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean.
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean.
Well the EULA is just the extension and explanation of the rights the "user" who is being granted the license has for its use. A copyright doesn't lose its validity because it's being used for business, in this case, rather than for individual use.
What makes you think that?
The big problem with many of these eula's is that they're "shrink wrapped". Some states allow that as a proper defense of the copyright, some don't, and others are still sitting on the wall about it.
But if someone can't even claim that they don't understand it, then they have no defense.
The case here is based on whether this is valid or not altogether. If Psystar wins, then everyone can install OS X anywhere they please.
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.
If you wanted to resell an Automobile as a New Car in the United States of America, do you need to get a dealership license to do so, or can you just resell the car that you just bought as a New Car?
Psystar would be competition if they created their own operating system for their own computers that provided features that equal or exceed those of Apple's (or any other computer company's) OS. THAT would be competition.
Bing does not take Google's algorithms and use them as their own. They created a search engine from based on their own way of doing things.
Microsoft stealing Apple's Quicktime code for use in Windows Media Player is not competition. Psystar's Mac clone business would not exist if not for Apple's copyrighted OS, because without a hacked version of OS X, Psystar's machines would just be like all other PCs.
...the company who everyone is surprised managed to have the cash to last _this_ long is "dragging this on as long as they can"? Err... if anyone wants to draw things out, it's Apple, who's easiest tactic would be to drown Psystar in legal fees and then laugh while Psystar bankrupts (which they already did once...), unable to get even a ruling.
And the flaw in your 'analogy' would be that their has been no reprimanding... only Apple saying "Mine!" (and Apple is no parent to Psystar, and has no right to control it IMHO in this situation).
@>_>;: Exactly. Competition == good. Example being, I like Google as a company far more than MS, but some competition from Bing wouldn't hurt at all. Forcibly limiting competition through legal means == bad (more or less).
I think it is. It the product is sold, then Apple really don't get to say what you can do with it (as MelGross points out, it's the final act of release). With a licence, you are required to adhere to the terms of the grant or the license can be revoked. How can Apple ever realistically watch all x million of its licensees and revoke grants when the license terms are violated? They can't. Does that figure in whether something is a license or a sale? I don't know. That's all I'm saying.
Taking what you say here at face value (read not applying it directly to Apple) this is a valid assertion. I believe the current Software market was shaped around "Licenses" because this afforded software creators some freedom from litigation as would normally be the case with a sale. i.e. a company makes a piece of software that behaves very badly and causes corruption or other damage can not be as easily sued (even though the court of public opinion may lash out). Imagine if they had to abide by the same terms as other industries, say infant car seats for instance. We would have to wait a lot longer for software, however what we did end up with when it shipped would be a much better product.
I'm not saying I agree with Pystar, on the contrary, I believe they're scum just set up to promote the agenda of a much larger organization. Conspiratorial as it may sound, it's still a logical assertion. They want to make a cause celb out of this case and although I like where I think they are going, I don't believe I want a company like this bringing it forward.
In this case, I believe Psystar to be in the right and Apple to be in the wrong, morally. That's all.
A moral right, to steal someone else's intellectual property and use it to undermine their business?
You're joking, 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.
Is the same old misunderstanding of what a monopoly is?
I swear, we should just wipe the posts of people who keep up with this junk.
Please do.
I love Apple to death, and would never dream of buying non-apple branded hardware.
... but ....
I'm really hoping Psystar wins. For us, the consumers, only good would come from it. It would force Apple to upgrade their systems faster, because if they don't people will have the choice to go elsewhere. Currently that choice simply doesn't exist.
I mean hell, they had a system available LAST YEAR with a blu-ray drive installed. Where is apple's blu-ray option? Granted, you can't watch them (unless you use bootcamp, which is fine) until Apple decides to license the software, but it's still a great example.
The only people who should be rooting against them are Apple Employees and people who have the majority of their assets invested in AAPL stock. Likely less than 1% of Appleinsider's userbase.
- Xid
mhmm better for us consumers when Apple ceases to exist and goes bankrupt. There is a reason Microsoft does not make any computers
1) It IS a separate product to be sold separately. Apple provides them that way, believe it or not. Psystar just buys the OSX CD, not a whole Apple computer. You can actually buy the OSX that way yourself, sans computer.
2) Just because a company prints a restriction on the box doesn't necessarily make it legal. That is what Psystar is challenging. That's why we have laws about anti-competitive practices.
It not the restriction on the box that gets Psystar in trouble. It's the little "c" in a circle followed by "Copyrighted" and a date.
Copyright laws protects software. All software. It's clearly states that you can not sell or give away any "derivative" work (adaptation) of some one elses copyrighted software without the authorization of the original copyright owner whose work it was derived from.
Another words, you can purchase OSX and install it on your non-Mac computer. Copyright laws actually protects you when you do this. That OSX in your PC is now a "derivative" (adaptation) of the original. You can use your computer with this copy. What you can't do is sell or give away that computer with that "derivative" copy of OSX in it. Not without the authorization of Apple.
Music works the same way. You can buy a copy of a song on a CD. You can use Garage Band to alter by adding your own vocal track so that you have a "derivative" copy of it to use in your personal home movie. But you can't market your home movie, use it in a commercial or have it shown in a public forum (like "Sundance Film Festival") without getting permission fom the copyright holder of that song from which you made that "derivative " copy. The copyright owner has every right to say "no", you can't use my song (even though it's a "derivative") in your movie because I don't like the subject matter of your movie. Or the copyright holder can also say "yes", but Ill cost you.
Here's another example of how copyright laws work. You can buy a bunch of copyrighted CD's and legally (though the RIAA may think otherwise) make "derivative" MP3's out of them to play on your own personal computer or MP3 player. But this don't give you the right to sell a MP3 disc with those songs on it. It doesn't matter that you purchsed all the CD's with the originals on them. It doesn't matter if you include all the original CD's with each sale of your MP3 disc. The original copyright holder stills control what you can do with those "derivative" MP3's you made. You will need permission from the copyright holder to do anything, but for personal use, with those MP3's.
Bottom line is that Psystar can not sell of even give away a PC with an unauthorize "derivative" copy of OSX installed. It's not the EULA. It's the Copyright Laws that they are breaking. And Apple did not write the Copyright Laws. They do not have to state it on the box. Apple only needs to infrom you that it's contents is protected by Copyright Laws by displaying that little "c" in the circle. It is up the purchaser to look up what he can or can't legally do based on Copyright Laws.
1) It IS a separate product to be sold separately. Apple provides them that way, believe it or not. Psystar just buys the OSX CD, not a whole Apple computer. You can actually buy the OSX that way yourself, sans computer.
2) Just because a company prints a restriction on the box doesn't necessarily make it legal. That is what Psystar is challenging. That's why we have laws about anti-competitive practices.
You're either trolling, ignorant, selfish or all the mentioned. Will the next analogy you'll want to use to compare Psystar and Apple involve a blow-up doll?
What part of "copyright" eludes you?
People like you make up that 1% that ruins it for everyone else. Get a clue. No EULA for that. Get all you want. You'll need it.
I love Apple to death, and would never dream of buying non-apple branded hardware.
... but ....
I'm really hoping Psystar wins. For us, the consumers, only good would come from it. It would force Apple to upgrade their systems faster, because if they don't people will have the choice to go elsewhere. Currently that choice simply doesn't exist.
If Apple had to upgrade their hardware faster they would have to spend more money designing their motherboards etc. and creating the device drivers. Meaning they'd need claw back more money to retain their margins (ergo more expensive Macs, sounds like a loss).
If Mac OS X could be installed on anything they'd have to ensure a level of compatibility etc. and it'd become a bloated mess like Windows (sounds like another loss to me).
Apple would lose hardware sales and as a result would have to raise the price of OS X (a definite loss).
I'm failing to see the consumer wins you speak of.
you can purchase OSX and install it on your non-Mac computer. Copyright laws actually protects you when you do this. That OSX in your PC is now a "derivative" (adaptation) of the original.
Although I'm on Apple's side with this... It's not a derivative if you haven't had to modify any source or binaries (which I hear is possible).
Installation does not constitute a derivative.
Music works the same way. You can buy a copy of a song on a CD. You can use Garage Band to alter by adding your own vocal track so that you have a "derivative" copy of it to use in your personal home movie.
This one is a derivative.
But you can't market your home movie, use it in a commercial or have it shown in a public forum (like "Sundance Film Festival") without getting permission fom the copyright holder of that song from which you made that "derivative " copy. The copyright owner has every right to say "no", you can't use my song (even though it's a "derivative") in your movie because I don't like the subject matter of your movie. Or the copyright holder can also say "yes", but Ill cost you.
Here's another example of how copyright laws work. You can buy a bunch of copyrighted CD's and legally (though the RIAA may think otherwise) make "derivative" MP3's out of them to play on your own personal computer or MP3 player. But this don't give you the right to sell a MP3 disc with those songs on it. It doesn't matter that you purchsed all the CD's with the originals on them. It doesn't matter if you include all the original CD's with each sale of your MP3 disc. The original copyright holder stills control what you can do with those "derivative" MP3's you made. You will need permission from the copyright holder to do anything, but for personal use, with those MP3's.
Bottom line is that Psystar can not sell of even give away a PC with an unauthorize "derivative" copy of OSX installed. It's not the EULA. It's the Copyright Laws that they are breaking. And Apple did not write the Copyright Laws. They do not have to state it on the box. Apple only needs to infrom you that it's contents is protected by Copyright Laws by displaying that little "c" in the circle. It is up the purchaser to look up what he can or can't legally do based on Copyright Laws.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
And relying on public support?
LOL, right. Because Psystar is making crazy sales and their fake Macs are just flying off the shelves, right?
When in fact in a RECESSION, Apple can barely keep up with MBP demand.
Psystar is living in some alternate reality where people actually want the garbage they peddle.
Does anyone actually know of a Psystar computer that has been purchased? I like how they said "hundreds of copies". Friends and family