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 is apple in the wrong to defend their IP? That is the most insane thing I've ever heard. If I built a KIOSK for JC Penny, and a company took my software off of that KIOSK install disc and resold their own KIOSK without my permission, that would be theft. Plain and simple. That is virtually what psystar is doing. It is not my responsibility to make sure it can't be stolen / hacked / cracked / reverse engineered. I don't have enough hours in the day to do that as a programmer. I work very hard as a programmer, and to be stolen from is a huge blow to the face.
1) Line item Mac OS X incl. iLife on the Apple Store at ~$699.00; naturally included with any Apple Macintosh purchase.
2) PROMINENTLY display UPGRADE ONLY on all retail boxes of Mac OS X, which is in fact, only an upgrade.
This would kill the Apple-Tax debate on hardware. Just because MS decides to "give away" licenses (OEM), doesn't mean Apple is forced to.
Any and all potential clone-makers, would have to show receipts, as well as try to make a profit. Even if they were able to get ultra-cheap parts, who would buy from a clone maker, or Dell, to save maybe ~100,00(?)... knowing full well that the quality wouldn't even be close to an original Mac.
Also, no OSX support whatsoever from Apple on non-Apple hardware; community driven only, or from the clone-makers.
Would OSX sell stand-alone? I doubt it... but who cares? Most of us here buy Apple only anyway, and mostly because of OSX AND the quality hardware.
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.
In software it's an "adaptation". All installed software is an "adaptation" because it has to be adapted from what's on the original installation disc so that it can run on your specific hardware. Even if it's a straight install. You are allow to modify the original installation to fit your needs. That includes updating or adding any drivers of third party venders that weren't included in the original installation. This includes updates and bug fixes by the original software owner. Which were not included in the original installation. The OSX in a Mac is no where near what the OSX on the disc is. The installed OSX is an adaptation derived from the original. Copyright laws protects the owner on what's on the original installation disc and all adaptation derived from that disc. Even if the modifications was not part of the original installation. Or if no modification was even done after the installation.
Because of a lack of complete standardization among programming languages and hardware in the computer industry, one who rightfully acquires a copy of a program frequently cannot use it without adapting it to that limited extent which will allow its use in the possessor’s computer. The copyright law, which grants to copyright proprietors the exclusive right to prepare translations, transformations, and adaptations of their work, should no more prevent such use than it should prevent rightful possessors from loading programs into their computers. Thus, a right to make those changes necessary to enable the use for which it was both sold and purchased should be provided. The conversion of a program from one higher-level language to another to facilitate use would fall within this right, as would the right to add features to the program that were not present at the time of rightful acquisition. These rights would necessarily be more private in nature than the right to load a program by copying it and could only be exercised so long as they did not harm the interests of the copyright proprietor. Unlike the exact copies authorized as described above, this right of adaptation could not be conveyed to others along with the licensed or owned program without the express authorization of the owner of the copyright in the original work. Preparation of adaptations could not, of course, deprive the original proprietor of copyright in the underlying work. The adaptor could not vend the adapted program, under the proposed revision of the new law, nor could it be sold as the original without the author’s permission. Again, it is likely that many transactions involving copies of programs are entered into with full awareness that users will modify their copies to suit their own needs, and this should be reflected in the law. The comparison of this practice to extensive marginal note-taking in a book is appropriate: note-taking is arguably the creation of a derivative work, but unless the note-taker tries to copy and vend that work, the copyright owner is unlikely to be very concerned. Should proprietors feel strongly that they do not want rightful possessors of copies of their programs to prepare such adaptations, they of course, make such desires a contractual matter. {FN12: CONTU Rep. at 13}
1) Line item Mac OS X incl. iLife on the Apple Store at ~$699.00; naturally included with any Apple Macintosh purchase.
2) PROMINENTLY display UPGRADE ONLY on all retail boxes of Mac OS X, which is in fact, only an upgrade.
This would kill the Apple-Tax debate on hardware. Just because MS decides to "give away" licenses (OEM), doesn't mean Apple is forced to.
Any and all potential clone-makers, would have to show receipts, as well as try to make a profit. Even if they were able to get ultra-cheap parts, who would buy from a clone maker, or Dell, to save maybe ~100,00(?)... knowing full well that the quality wouldn't even be close to an original Mac.
Also, no OSX support whatsoever from Apple on non-Apple hardware; community driven only, or from the clone-makers.
Would OSX sell stand-alone? I doubt it... but who cares? Most of us here buy Apple only anyway, and mostly because of OSX AND the quality hardware.
My 2 cents regurgitated
Most people would jump all over the Dell deal because it would be cheaper (better or not). Not offering support, and OS X not being on quality hardware would eventually tarnish the name apple and OS X. Bad strategy
In software it's an "adaptation". All installed software is an "adaptation" because it has to be adapted from what's on the original installation disc so that it can run on your specific hardware. Even if it's a straight install. You are allow to modify the original installation to fit your needs. That includes updating or adding any drivers of third party venders that weren't included in the original installation. This includes updates and bug fixes by the original software owner. Which were not included in the original installation. The OSX in a Mac is no where near what the OSX on the disc is. The installed OSX is an adaptation derived from the original. Copyright laws protects the owner on what's on the original installation disc and all adaptation derived from that disc. Even if the modifications was not part of the original installation. Or if no modification was even done after the installation.
Adaption or not adaption, the fact remains it's still apple's property. They have the right to say what hardware it's installed on. They have the right to protect their name (OS X being installed on non approved hardware that reaches the masses could destroy the reputation OS X has), they have the right to protect their business strategy via their own software, they have the right to protect their research and development time into OS X, and they have the right to determine how the software is distributed.
1) Line item Mac OS X incl. iLife on the Apple Store at ~$699.00; naturally included with any Apple Macintosh purchase.
2) PROMINENTLY display UPGRADE ONLY on all retail boxes of Mac OS X, which is in fact, only an upgrade.
(From ArsTechnica)
Windows 7
Prices as of 10/2009 \t
Home Premium - $199.99
Professional - $299.99
Ultimate - $319.99
I just thought I'd reply to my own post, to justify my price point of *OSX and iLife. Considering that there is nothing even close to iLife on Windows, easily add ~200,00 for assorted programs. Also add yearly subscriptions for security suites and assorted other security measures ~100,00.
As far as I"m concerned, *OSX/iLife is a far better deal, because it all ties and works together nicely... so add another ~100,00 for "peace of mind and user-experience".
This is where it gets dangerous. Apple gets sort of a 'carte blanche' because people are happy with them. For now. This is <somewhat> O.K. while Apple is still a minority. However, as Apple gets bigger and more popular, they become the very Big Brother that they railed against back in 1984. They make the rules. We, the minions, must walk in lockstep with them. They determine what a 'proper' computing experience should be, both in hardware and software, integrated. This is where I think companies like Psystar are doing a good thing. They are kicking the giant's shins. I think they have a very good case that it's unfair to link the hardware with the software, just like Microsoft insisted it had the right to link its browser with its operating system. And in Microsoft's case, that didn't even involve hardware, it was only a software issue, and they lost.
Your logic is backwards.
Microsoft sells an OS. They have a monopoly in the OS market. Because of their OS monopoly they were forcing it's user to use IE. IE was not a monopoly in the browser market (at the time). It wasn't the "tying" of IE to their OS that got them in trouble. It was not allowing their competitors (Netscape) to fairly compete, by leveraging their OS monopoly, that got them in trouble.
Apple sells a computer, the Mac. For your sake (and others who don't know any better), were going to say that Apple has a monopoly in the Mac market. Apple do not force you to use OSX on their Mac. Even though OSX is "tied" to it. A Mac is not "tied" to OSX. Apple has done nothing to limit any other OS from running on a Mac. (Which by your standard, is a monopoly.) OSX is not a monopoly in the OS market by any stretch of the imagination. So Apple can "tied" OSX to their hardware. So long as they allow others to install OS's into their hardware.
Just like MS can "tie" IE to Windows. So long as they allow other browsers to fairly compete in Windows. FYI- The last version of IE for a Mac OS was IE5. There is no IE6, 7 or 8 for OSX. Even if they unbundled IE from their OS, (like what the EU wants) IE is still "tied" to Windows. In order to run IE, you need Windows. In order to run OSX, you need a Mac.
It is a paid upgrade to and Apple system that you are getting and heavily subsidized price because you have purchased the computer that is being installed on from Apple the company the created the software. Now if you would like to pay $700 per copy for the unsubsidized version then lets do business.
That's not the question I am posing. I am simply asking whether you buy it or license it. Its cost is irrelevant to the argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
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'm not suggesting in any way that your forefathers lacked insight. They simply enshrined what was already evident in the mother country. Copyright can be traced back to before the English ever set foot on America. But that's all the by. I was trying to say that innovation flourished before the advent of IP law and not because of it.
No, it isn't. We've discussed this issue in several threads already, to death and beyond.
Quote:
.... This is why the EULA does not apply to commercial use and why it's of no real relevance in the case against Psystar.
then there is another question about whether Eula is valid of itself.
I'm totally for the Hackintosh community doing their thing but Pystar leeching off them and launching a commercial product is just wrong ethically. As for the conspiracy to undermine Apple, if such a conspiracy exists I would bet on the anonymous backer being a computer manufacturer seeking to discredit Apples EULA allowing it to be licensed to third parties. I hope that Windows 7 is as great as hyped, maybe people regaining their trust in Windows may stem the flow of people seeking the Mac experience via alternative means and bank rolling companies like Pystar.
Yeah right! Dell and HP sell one third of the world's computers. Both companies sell many many more "consumer" machines than Apple. Most of those machines cost less than $1000. Michael Dell has already been on record saying he would like to licence OS X.
They make the rules. We, the minions, must walk in lockstep with them. They determine what a 'proper' computing experience should be, both in hardware and software, integrated.
That is the whole point. That's the reason we choose Apple. They make the whole widget. They control the experience. This is why Apple rules the Premium end of the market and this is why they have developed a reputation for excellence in design and usability. This is why Macbooks are in demand. This is why investors wait with bated breath before every quarterly report from AAPL. This is more of what MS should be doing, but can't.
If Apple stops providing this satisfactory experience, users can leave and choose another platform. Stop buying Apple. It's just that simple.
From the average consumer's perspective, Apple providing the entire, turn-key solution is a Godsend. The average user has a life. They don't care how "powerful" Apple is, but merely that what they bought works as it should and is supported with solid customer service. They don't see themselves as "minions" (I'm not even sure where you got that idea - this isn't Tolkien), but they DO see a computer as an appliance meant to make their lives easier so they can get on with doing other things. THAT is the idea. And that is the ideal of any kind of technology.
To re-clarify my position, I DO believe Psystar has a moral right to their business.
And... what if it was your business? What if you are the Ranguvar Computer Company Inc.? You are only a tiny business in the scheme of things... but you sell a couple of thousand computers a year, complete with your own exclusive OS. You sell OS upgrade discs to your own customers.... You make a pretty decent living.
.... And then I come along... buy 1000 of your upgrade discs... build a cheaper computer and pinch half your customers.
Do you not realize that EULA stands for End User License Agreement and that Psystar is not the end user, they are an unauthorized vendor of Apple?s IP? 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? Do you not see that altering IP and copying the code without permission (which is required to get it from the disc to the harddrive after you agree that you the end user, thus not a vendor) is a violation of patents and copyrights?
The EULA should not ever be mentioned in this case as it?s the least meaningful aspect of this whole debacle.
Except that Psystar is enabling/assisting the end user to violate the EULA by running it on non-Apple hardware. I believe there have been cases in the past where people have been held liable for knowingly assisting someone else in violating an agreement. And there is a parallel example in music piracy. In situations where the "middleman" (such as Napster) was found to be knowing and/or actively helping their users obtain illegal music, they have been held liable.
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.
Except that your OS X upgrade price would quadruple. Do you really think that the cost of developing Snow Leopard is recouped by selling it for $29, or the development cost of previous versions worked out to $129 per copy? MS has a much larger volume of sales, and look how much they charge for upgrades. They have to because their development costs must be recovered in the sales of their OS. But Apple's hardware sales supports its OS development costs. If they were forced to decouple that dependancy, the cost of the software would increase dramatically.
Except that Psystar is enabling/assisting the end user to violate the EULA by running it on non-Apple hardware. I believe there have been cases in the past where people have been held liable for knowingly assisting someone else in violating an agreement. And there is a parallel example in music piracy. In situations where the "middleman" (such as Napster) was found to be knowing and/or actively helping their users obtain illegal music, they have been held liable.
Except there is no question of anyone getting stiffed out of money in this case. I see where you're going with the analogy but its not particularly apt.
Then why did Microsoft get shot down when they insisted they had a right to tie their browser with their OS? Didn't they have that 'right'? They determine where and how their own software should run. No?
Because they used their monopoly position in one market (operating systems) to leverage their way into another (web browsers). That is illegal. Apple does not have a monopoly position in either operating systems or computer hardware (note, don't try to say that Macintosh is a market onto itself).
Except there is no question of anyone getting stiffed out of money in this case. I see where you're going with the analogy but its not particularly apt.
Fair enough. But I would still think that if your business model involves knowingly enabling others to violate a license agreement it would be legally questionable at best. And you could argue that Apple is stiffed out of money if their business model includes hardware sales as an integral part of OS development/sales.
Still, it appears that copyright violation is the main issue. I was just wondering if violation of the EULA was in fact irrelevant to Apple's case against them.
Comments
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 is apple in the wrong to defend their IP? That is the most insane thing I've ever heard. If I built a KIOSK for JC Penny, and a company took my software off of that KIOSK install disc and resold their own KIOSK without my permission, that would be theft. Plain and simple. That is virtually what psystar is doing. It is not my responsibility to make sure it can't be stolen / hacked / cracked / reverse engineered. I don't have enough hours in the day to do that as a programmer. I work very hard as a programmer, and to be stolen from is a huge blow to the face.
1) Line item Mac OS X incl. iLife on the Apple Store at ~$699.00; naturally included with any Apple Macintosh purchase.
2) PROMINENTLY display UPGRADE ONLY on all retail boxes of Mac OS X, which is in fact, only an upgrade.
This would kill the Apple-Tax debate on hardware. Just because MS decides to "give away" licenses (OEM), doesn't mean Apple is forced to.
Any and all potential clone-makers, would have to show receipts, as well as try to make a profit. Even if they were able to get ultra-cheap parts, who would buy from a clone maker, or Dell, to save maybe ~100,00(?)... knowing full well that the quality wouldn't even be close to an original Mac.
Also, no OSX support whatsoever from Apple on non-Apple hardware; community driven only, or from the clone-makers.
Would OSX sell stand-alone? I doubt it... but who cares? Most of us here buy Apple only anyway, and mostly because of OSX AND the quality hardware.
My 2 cents regurgitated
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.
In software it's an "adaptation". All installed software is an "adaptation" because it has to be adapted from what's on the original installation disc so that it can run on your specific hardware. Even if it's a straight install. You are allow to modify the original installation to fit your needs. That includes updating or adding any drivers of third party venders that weren't included in the original installation. This includes updates and bug fixes by the original software owner. Which were not included in the original installation. The OSX in a Mac is no where near what the OSX on the disc is. The installed OSX is an adaptation derived from the original. Copyright laws protects the owner on what's on the original installation disc and all adaptation derived from that disc. Even if the modifications was not part of the original installation. Or if no modification was even done after the installation.
Refer to - "I.D. The CONTU Recommendations"
here
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise17.html
Here's an excerpt _ (bold is added by me)
Because of a lack of complete standardization among programming languages and hardware in the computer industry, one who rightfully acquires a copy of a program frequently cannot use it without adapting it to that limited extent which will allow its use in the possessor’s computer. The copyright law, which grants to copyright proprietors the exclusive right to prepare translations, transformations, and adaptations of their work, should no more prevent such use than it should prevent rightful possessors from loading programs into their computers. Thus, a right to make those changes necessary to enable the use for which it was both sold and purchased should be provided. The conversion of a program from one higher-level language to another to facilitate use would fall within this right, as would the right to add features to the program that were not present at the time of rightful acquisition. These rights would necessarily be more private in nature than the right to load a program by copying it and could only be exercised so long as they did not harm the interests of the copyright proprietor. Unlike the exact copies authorized as described above, this right of adaptation could not be conveyed to others along with the licensed or owned program without the express authorization of the owner of the copyright in the original work. Preparation of adaptations could not, of course, deprive the original proprietor of copyright in the underlying work. The adaptor could not vend the adapted program, under the proposed revision of the new law, nor could it be sold as the original without the author’s permission. Again, it is likely that many transactions involving copies of programs are entered into with full awareness that users will modify their copies to suit their own needs, and this should be reflected in the law. The comparison of this practice to extensive marginal note-taking in a book is appropriate: note-taking is arguably the creation of a derivative work, but unless the note-taker tries to copy and vend that work, the copyright owner is unlikely to be very concerned. Should proprietors feel strongly that they do not want rightful possessors of copies of their programs to prepare such adaptations, they of course, make such desires a contractual matter. {FN12: CONTU Rep. at 13}
Very Simple Solution:
1) Line item Mac OS X incl. iLife on the Apple Store at ~$699.00; naturally included with any Apple Macintosh purchase.
2) PROMINENTLY display UPGRADE ONLY on all retail boxes of Mac OS X, which is in fact, only an upgrade.
This would kill the Apple-Tax debate on hardware. Just because MS decides to "give away" licenses (OEM), doesn't mean Apple is forced to.
Any and all potential clone-makers, would have to show receipts, as well as try to make a profit. Even if they were able to get ultra-cheap parts, who would buy from a clone maker, or Dell, to save maybe ~100,00(?)... knowing full well that the quality wouldn't even be close to an original Mac.
Also, no OSX support whatsoever from Apple on non-Apple hardware; community driven only, or from the clone-makers.
Would OSX sell stand-alone? I doubt it... but who cares? Most of us here buy Apple only anyway, and mostly because of OSX AND the quality hardware.
My 2 cents regurgitated
Most people would jump all over the Dell deal because it would be cheaper (better or not). Not offering support, and OS X not being on quality hardware would eventually tarnish the name apple and OS X. Bad strategy
In software it's an "adaptation". All installed software is an "adaptation" because it has to be adapted from what's on the original installation disc so that it can run on your specific hardware. Even if it's a straight install. You are allow to modify the original installation to fit your needs. That includes updating or adding any drivers of third party venders that weren't included in the original installation. This includes updates and bug fixes by the original software owner. Which were not included in the original installation. The OSX in a Mac is no where near what the OSX on the disc is. The installed OSX is an adaptation derived from the original. Copyright laws protects the owner on what's on the original installation disc and all adaptation derived from that disc. Even if the modifications was not part of the original installation. Or if no modification was even done after the installation.
Refer to - "I.D. The CONTU Recommendations"
here
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise17.html
Adaption or not adaption, the fact remains it's still apple's property. They have the right to say what hardware it's installed on. They have the right to protect their name (OS X being installed on non approved hardware that reaches the masses could destroy the reputation OS X has), they have the right to protect their business strategy via their own software, they have the right to protect their research and development time into OS X, and they have the right to determine how the software is distributed.
Very Simple Solution:
1) Line item Mac OS X incl. iLife on the Apple Store at ~$699.00; naturally included with any Apple Macintosh purchase.
2) PROMINENTLY display UPGRADE ONLY on all retail boxes of Mac OS X, which is in fact, only an upgrade.
(From ArsTechnica)
Windows 7
Prices as of 10/2009 \t
Home Premium - $199.99
Professional - $299.99
Ultimate - $319.99
I just thought I'd reply to my own post, to justify my price point of *OSX and iLife. Considering that there is nothing even close to iLife on Windows, easily add ~200,00 for assorted programs. Also add yearly subscriptions for security suites and assorted other security measures ~100,00.
As far as I"m concerned, *OSX/iLife is a far better deal, because it all ties and works together nicely... so add another ~100,00 for "peace of mind and user-experience".
*OSX/iLife = not sold seperately
Please do.
I would, but I like free speech too much. Dumb ideas aren't really enough to be purged.
This is where it gets dangerous. Apple gets sort of a 'carte blanche' because people are happy with them. For now. This is <somewhat> O.K. while Apple is still a minority. However, as Apple gets bigger and more popular, they become the very Big Brother that they railed against back in 1984. They make the rules. We, the minions, must walk in lockstep with them. They determine what a 'proper' computing experience should be, both in hardware and software, integrated. This is where I think companies like Psystar are doing a good thing. They are kicking the giant's shins. I think they have a very good case that it's unfair to link the hardware with the software, just like Microsoft insisted it had the right to link its browser with its operating system. And in Microsoft's case, that didn't even involve hardware, it was only a software issue, and they lost.
Your logic is backwards.
Microsoft sells an OS. They have a monopoly in the OS market. Because of their OS monopoly they were forcing it's user to use IE. IE was not a monopoly in the browser market (at the time). It wasn't the "tying" of IE to their OS that got them in trouble. It was not allowing their competitors (Netscape) to fairly compete, by leveraging their OS monopoly, that got them in trouble.
Apple sells a computer, the Mac. For your sake (and others who don't know any better), were going to say that Apple has a monopoly in the Mac market. Apple do not force you to use OSX on their Mac. Even though OSX is "tied" to it. A Mac is not "tied" to OSX. Apple has done nothing to limit any other OS from running on a Mac. (Which by your standard, is a monopoly.) OSX is not a monopoly in the OS market by any stretch of the imagination. So Apple can "tied" OSX to their hardware. So long as they allow others to install OS's into their hardware.
Just like MS can "tie" IE to Windows. So long as they allow other browsers to fairly compete in Windows. FYI- The last version of IE for a Mac OS was IE5. There is no IE6, 7 or 8 for OSX. Even if they unbundled IE from their OS, (like what the EU wants) IE is still "tied" to Windows. In order to run IE, you need Windows. In order to run OSX, you need a Mac.
It is a paid upgrade to and Apple system that you are getting and heavily subsidized price because you have purchased the computer that is being installed on from Apple the company the created the software. Now if you would like to pay $700 per copy for the unsubsidized version then lets do business.
That's not the question I am posing. I am simply asking whether you buy it or license it. Its cost is irrelevant to the argument.
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'm not suggesting in any way that your forefathers lacked insight. They simply enshrined what was already evident in the mother country. Copyright can be traced back to before the English ever set foot on America. But that's all the by. I was trying to say that innovation flourished before the advent of IP law and not because of it.
No, it isn't. We've discussed this issue in several threads already, to death and beyond.
.... This is why the EULA does not apply to commercial use and why it's of no real relevance in the case against Psystar.
then there is another question about whether Eula is valid of itself.
Nah. It is not their market.
Yeah right! Dell and HP sell one third of the world's computers. Both companies sell many many more "consumer" machines than Apple. Most of those machines cost less than $1000. Michael Dell has already been on record saying he would like to licence OS X.
And you say there is no market?
They make the rules. We, the minions, must walk in lockstep with them. They determine what a 'proper' computing experience should be, both in hardware and software, integrated.
That is the whole point. That's the reason we choose Apple. They make the whole widget. They control the experience. This is why Apple rules the Premium end of the market and this is why they have developed a reputation for excellence in design and usability. This is why Macbooks are in demand. This is why investors wait with bated breath before every quarterly report from AAPL. This is more of what MS should be doing, but can't.
If Apple stops providing this satisfactory experience, users can leave and choose another platform. Stop buying Apple. It's just that simple.
From the average consumer's perspective, Apple providing the entire, turn-key solution is a Godsend. The average user has a life. They don't care how "powerful" Apple is, but merely that what they bought works as it should and is supported with solid customer service. They don't see themselves as "minions" (I'm not even sure where you got that idea - this isn't Tolkien), but they DO see a computer as an appliance meant to make their lives easier so they can get on with doing other things. THAT is the idea. And that is the ideal of any kind of technology.
To re-clarify my position, I DO believe Psystar has a moral right to their business.
And... what if it was your business? What if you are the Ranguvar Computer Company Inc.? You are only a tiny business in the scheme of things... but you sell a couple of thousand computers a year, complete with your own exclusive OS. You sell OS upgrade discs to your own customers.... You make a pretty decent living.
.... And then I come along... buy 1000 of your upgrade discs... build a cheaper computer and pinch half your customers.
How do you like those morals?
Do you not realize that EULA stands for End User License Agreement and that Psystar is not the end user, they are an unauthorized vendor of Apple?s IP? 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? Do you not see that altering IP and copying the code without permission (which is required to get it from the disc to the harddrive after you agree that you the end user, thus not a vendor) is a violation of patents and copyrights?
The EULA should not ever be mentioned in this case as it?s the least meaningful aspect of this whole debacle.
Except that Psystar is enabling/assisting the end user to violate the EULA by running it on non-Apple hardware. I believe there have been cases in the past where people have been held liable for knowingly assisting someone else in violating an agreement. And there is a parallel example in music piracy. In situations where the "middleman" (such as Napster) was found to be knowing and/or actively helping their users obtain illegal music, they have been held liable.
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.
Except that your OS X upgrade price would quadruple. Do you really think that the cost of developing Snow Leopard is recouped by selling it for $29, or the development cost of previous versions worked out to $129 per copy? MS has a much larger volume of sales, and look how much they charge for upgrades. They have to because their development costs must be recovered in the sales of their OS. But Apple's hardware sales supports its OS development costs. If they were forced to decouple that dependancy, the cost of the software would increase dramatically.
Except that Psystar is enabling/assisting the end user to violate the EULA by running it on non-Apple hardware. I believe there have been cases in the past where people have been held liable for knowingly assisting someone else in violating an agreement. And there is a parallel example in music piracy. In situations where the "middleman" (such as Napster) was found to be knowing and/or actively helping their users obtain illegal music, they have been held liable.
Except there is no question of anyone getting stiffed out of money in this case. I see where you're going with the analogy but its not particularly apt.
Then why did Microsoft get shot down when they insisted they had a right to tie their browser with their OS? Didn't they have that 'right'? They determine where and how their own software should run. No?
Because they used their monopoly position in one market (operating systems) to leverage their way into another (web browsers). That is illegal. Apple does not have a monopoly position in either operating systems or computer hardware (note, don't try to say that Macintosh is a market onto itself).
Maybe, I am just saying maybe, they have someone to back them up?
Except there is no question of anyone getting stiffed out of money in this case. I see where you're going with the analogy but its not particularly apt.
Fair enough. But I would still think that if your business model involves knowingly enabling others to violate a license agreement it would be legally questionable at best. And you could argue that Apple is stiffed out of money if their business model includes hardware sales as an integral part of OS development/sales.
Still, it appears that copyright violation is the main issue. I was just wondering if violation of the EULA was in fact irrelevant to Apple's case against them.