But you can't base an argument on your incorrect definitions. You may like them, but they're still incorrect.
Substitute my meaning in for the word each time it appears, the same way your brain reads words and replaces them with meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Your ideas are seriously messed up. You misinterpret things. most people would at least give up when they're wrong. Even when you agree you are, you persist.
"Seriously messed up", "you misinterpret things"... to use Wikipedia terminology, Citation Needed. Until then, you're just making baseless claims. And no, I do not agree I am wrong..?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Lemley is about as biased as you are about this. He's known for his views which are at odds with most everyone else.
...so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I'm not interested in the "free culture movement" either. Amazingly simplistic ideas.
The best ideas always are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Why don't you quote some mainstream sources? Don't like them, eh?
Wikipedia is not mainstream? And that's a rather silly argument... my view is very different from the vast majority of people. Of course I'm not going to find much mainstream support for my view, mainstream media appeals to people with mainstream ideas. Mainstream has to start somewhere, though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Here's one of your main problems. YOU don't have to think that something is of value for someone else to buy it. If you want it, then it has value. If it costs to much, then it doesn't have enough value to you, and you shouldn't get it.
It's like saying that you won't pay a fine because you don't like it. You still have to pay it.
And as I said before, if you don't think something is of value to you, then you aren't being forced to buy it.
You can always buy a $350 computer using Linux or Windows XP.
I really don't understand what you're saying... I believe that people should not have the right to control thoughts, ideas, etc. "intellectual property", which includes forcing others to pay for said "intellectual property" if they want it -- besides limited, short-term rights in order to promote business. When it comes to "intellectual property", that which has value to me, I pay for -- not because they say "this costs $50", because I believe they have no right to say so, but because I believe it is worth $50. I try to do this more for those who do not demand money from me in the first place.
I recommend you watch the film "Steal This Film II". It's in my sig.
I do believe these guys are stealing from Apple. The purpose of copyright is not to stop the use of an idea, but to protect it as a source of income for the inventor. The *result* is that sometimes a particular use will be vetoed, but that's not the *purpose* of copyright. Now letting someone else open up a business selling "Macs," is clearly not protecting the Mac qua source of income for the inventor.
I disagree with said judge. Because a judge ruled it does not necessarily make it right.
Disagreeing doesn't make you right either.
Quote:
This must be taken into consideration with other factors... Sony makes very high-quality PCs compared to a lot of their competitors. I agree, Apple also makes very high-quality hardware (usually) -- but there is absolutely no one legally making hardware that can run OS X targeting the budget crowd (as compared to Apple hardware pricing), because Apple decrees it so.
Your point was that Apple's higher prices was evidence of monopoly. I responded with that as poor evidence. You are now avoiding that fact by saying that Apple's doesn't cater to the "budget crowd". So what you are really saying is that Apple does not sell a larger range (price wise) of computers. So what? Once again look at Sony. It's a business choice not an illegal or even immoral act.
Quote:
They were much more lax about clones even before that, and I'm not just talking about clones, I'm talking about overall policy of vertical integration. And it appears you cannot debate using only logic... Keep your discussion to the actual subject matter, please. I have no interest in being the only one actually interested in a true debate.
How were they "more lax about clones"? Any links or citations?
The "subject matter" was Apple tying their OS to their own hardware, since their inception. You say it is only a recent phenomenon. It is not!
Quote:
If you want to lable my efforts as something they're not... well, sorry, but I don't much care. In the comments thread of a news article, the article is up for debate -- not the commenter.
I have been debating the facts of the article with you. I am still trying to. I am trying to understand your own personal motivation for seeing the world as so different from most other people. From your comments and your language and your signature links it appears that you do adhere to a particular ideology. That is not a personal attack. It's an observation. Why be so defensive about it?
To me the basics of this case are really simple. Apple is just one player in a multi player computer hardware market. They already have competition. Apple's share of that market, though rising is pretty small. It was much higher over a decade ago.
Dell has the right to make cheap computers as well as well as expensive computers. Apple (and anyone else) has the right to not make cheap computers.
To me competition means that a competitor is someone who makes a similar product. That product could be just the same as yours, or cheaper, or maybe better... whatever. A competitor is not someone who acquires part of your product (arguably the most important part) and uses it against you.
You may be responding to this particular news post but in reality all your arguments boil down to the facts that you disagree with certain US laws that have been in pace for many many years.
Dell gross margin for their computers (Dell do break down their margins for individual product lines) is about 17%. But over half of Dells revenue for computers comes from the under $1000 hardware. Which is known to have margins in the 10% and under range. This means that in order for Dell to get to 17% gross margin, their other hardware must also have margins at about the 20 to 25% range.
David W, you missed out one large factor ... that makes your argument even stronger.
For each Windows PC that Dell sells Microsoft is walking away with a tidy profit. (consensus opinion says it's around 40 -50 dollars). If Apple had to pay Microsoft too their margins would drop and the gap would be even smaller.
The difference between a EULA and copyright holder rights is that the EULA generally goes beyond those rights in the form of a contract. So that's where the difference lies.
It begins with the rights granted the copyright holder, and then extends them.
The problem is that even if the EULA isn't allowed, it still can't break the copyright holders right to control distribution. That's an important point here.
Right, agreed.
Quote:
I would agree if the parts do something that can't be done otherwise. But is that true with a Mac? Is there something in the computer hardware that precludes this?
The only possibility that I can think of is a modified EFI. There's nothing else in the machine that's not standard.
If I follow your point... sure, you can build hardware capable of running OSX but it's still not a Mac without OSX. The hardware alone makes a very nice doorstop. Likewise, the OSX disc by itself make a good but expensive coaster for your coffee cup, unless it's installed on the hardware. A Mac is the combination of two; neither alone is a Mac. Lest we forget, the Mac is the product Apple is really defending here -- not OSX, and not Apple hardware.
And again, a great many patented and copyrighted products are made up of combinations of nonproprietary, readily available, and even completely generic parts. That does not mean the combined product is not protected. This is the fundamental mistake which it seems is being made by Psystar and its defenders. They think if they can obtain the parts, that they can then make and sell the product. If that was really the case, then a great many copyrighted and patented products would lose their protections. Start with every book in the world.
simply put something in OSx so that it will not run on any non-Apple hardware. Surely there's something in the hardware that they could check for? Then they could try to hack around that, but then Apple could go after then under DMCA.
simply put something in OSx so that it will not run on any non-Apple hardware. Surely there's something in the hardware that they could check for? Then they could try to hack around that, but then Apple could go after then under DMCA.
There already is.
Psystar isn't simply installing vanilla copies of OS X onto generic PCs without any issues. They are also modifying the OS.
"I'll clarify this as best I can given my first-hand knowledge of the subject:
In general (in U.S. law, anyway):
What a signature-less contract / license / terms of use may accomplish in regards to a copy of a copyrighted work:
1. Reiterate restrictions created within the law
2. Suggest limited options for remedies and venue
3. Dictate terms for additional privilege, if any
In no way may such a 'contract' create a restriction where a legal right exists, that would negate the purpose of the law. No EULA can require you to do something special to exercise your rights. The law does not distinguish between entities ( a business has the same rights as an individual ).
It is important to realize, naturally, that you have no legal right to the source code to a program, period. In order to gain this privilege, it must be given. Almost any terms placed upon this access is legally enforceable. This access can also be granted without signature - you use this special right, you are bound to the license.
A EULA can give you additional privilege, but it can not restrict you beyond your rights in law ( which are well defined ).
As such, you should know your rights:
* You can do anything you want with YOUR copy of a copyrighted work without ANY interference or restriction from the copyright holder... except:
1. Make illegal copies for redistribution purposes
2. Make more than one backup copy
3. Use any significant portion in your own works
-- a) what constitutes significant is up to the courts
That is pretty much it - no piracy!
You can modify an existing copy and resell, so long as you are truthful about said changes.
There are also, now, interoperability laws. This means any entity can reverse engineer a copyrighted or even patented work in an effort to interface with the technology.
Be that a spark plug, a car's ECU, an intel CPU, a proprietary light bulb socket, or a software program. Almost any effort to accomplish interoperability is legal in the U.S..
This is, obviously, where Psystar and others are get off with thinking they aren't doing anything wrong - because they are simply exercising their rights. Apple, actually, knows this. They have to know this by now anyway... But they know one more thing: judges generally are computer illiterate morons who think that nothing in the I.T. world has parallels in the real world - they will then ignore legal rights concerning "books" and "cars" and "everything else" and make up something that makes sense in the given situation - which, too often, depends on who paid them more money.
We best pray EULAs don't become restrictive contracts, then all McDonald's would need to do to prevent lawsuits is place a small sticker that says "Opening this box means you agree to the license agreement - details inside" (Yes, this is actually how many software companies do it!). When you read the agreement, while eating the crushed worms and chicken beaks they called a hamburger, you see a nice clause: "McDonald's is not responsible for anything, at all, thanks."
Great, another one-post wonder who doesn't even bother reading the thread because he already knows everybody is out to lunch.
I read through three pages of this thread and a large part of the discussion revolves around the legality of Psystar selling computers with legaly bought retail copies of OS X installed.
My post of a quote concerns EULA's "licenses" and Copyright and what you can or not legally do with said Copyrighted products
So yeah actually my post was spot on the discussion.
I read through three pages of this thread and a large part of the discussion revolves around the legality of Psystar selling computers with legaly bought retail copies of OS X installed.
My post of a quote concerns EULA's "licenses" and Copyright and what you can or not legally do with said Copyrighted products
So yeah actually my post was spot on the discussion.
Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117 (b)
(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.? Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.
An adaptation is any copy that you install on your hardware to make it work. Whethered modified from the original installation or not. But it can be modified in any way for the purpose of making it run on your hardware. Copyright Laws actually protects a consumer from any infringement violations when doing this. Which is what Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117 (a) of the Copyright law is all about. Which is why Apple has not gone after anyone from the "Hackintosh" community.
But no matter how you modify the installed software, it still belongs to the original owner. And you need permission from the original owner when you transfer it. This is why Dell or HP haven't tried selling hardware with OSX on it. They would be like Psystar, in violation of COPYRIGHT LAW. Apple is going after Psystar for COPYRIGHT violation. Nevermind the legality of their EULA.
If I follow your point... sure, you can build hardware capable of running OSX but it's still not a Mac without OSX. The hardware alone makes a very nice doorstop. Likewise, the OSX disc by itself make a good but expensive coaster for your coffee cup, unless it's installed on the hardware. A Mac is the combination of two; neither alone is a Mac. Lest we forget, the Mac is the product Apple is really defending here -- not OSX, and not Apple hardware.
Well, yes.
Quote:
And again, a great many patented and copyrighted products are made up of combinations of nonproprietary, readily available, and even completely generic parts. That does not mean the combined product is not protected. This is the fundamental mistake which it seems is being made by Psystar and its defenders. They think if they can obtain the parts, that they can then make and sell the product. If that was really the case, then a great many copyrighted and patented products would lose their protections. Start with every book in the world.
"I'll clarify this as best I can given my first-hand knowledge of the subject:
In general (in U.S. law, anyway):
What a signature-less contract / license / terms of use may accomplish in regards to a copy of a copyrighted work:
1. Reiterate restrictions created within the law
2. Suggest limited options for remedies and venue
3. Dictate terms for additional privilege, if any
In no way may such a 'contract' create a restriction where a legal right exists, that would negate the purpose of the law. No EULA can require you to do something special to exercise your rights. The law does not distinguish between entities ( a business has the same rights as an individual ).
It is important to realize, naturally, that you have no legal right to the source code to a program, period. In order to gain this privilege, it must be given. Almost any terms placed upon this access is legally enforceable. This access can also be granted without signature - you use this special right, you are bound to the license.
A EULA can give you additional privilege, but it can not restrict you beyond your rights in law ( which are well defined ).
As such, you should know your rights:
* You can do anything you want with YOUR copy of a copyrighted work without ANY interference or restriction from the copyright holder... except:
1. Make illegal copies for redistribution purposes
2. Make more than one backup copy
3. Use any significant portion in your own works
-- a) what constitutes significant is up to the courts
That is pretty much it - no piracy!
You can modify an existing copy and resell, so long as you are truthful about said changes.
There are also, now, interoperability laws. This means any entity can reverse engineer a copyrighted or even patented work in an effort to interface with the technology.
Be that a spark plug, a car's ECU, an intel CPU, a proprietary light bulb socket, or a software program. Almost any effort to accomplish interoperability is legal in the U.S..
This is, obviously, where Psystar and others are get off with thinking they aren't doing anything wrong - because they are simply exercising their rights. Apple, actually, knows this. They have to know this by now anyway... But they know one more thing: judges generally are computer illiterate morons who think that nothing in the I.T. world has parallels in the real world - they will then ignore legal rights concerning "books" and "cars" and "everything else" and make up something that makes sense in the given situation - which, too often, depends on who paid them more money.
We best pray EULAs don't become restrictive contracts, then all McDonald's would need to do to prevent lawsuits is place a small sticker that says "Opening this box means you agree to the license agreement - details inside" (Yes, this is actually how many software companies do it!). When you read the agreement, while eating the crushed worms and chicken beaks they called a hamburger, you see a nice clause: "McDonald's is not responsible for anything, at all, thanks."
--The loon"
That's mostly true. But what is the determination of what consists of:
"3. Use any significant portion in your own works
-- a) what constitutes significant is up to the courts
"
What consists of "work" is also up to the courts.
A computer that is manufactured by another company is their "work" Apple's OS is their copyrighted item.
Psystar wants to have Apple's copyrighted item become part of their "work".
You've oversimplified the situation, and even some of the law.
(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.? Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.
An adaptation is any copy that you install on your hardware to make it work. Whethered modified from the original installation or not. But it can be modified in any way for the purpose of making it run on your hardware. Copyright Laws actually protects a consumer from any infringement violations when doing this. Which is what Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117 (a) of the Copyright law is all about. Which is why Apple has not gone after anyone from the "Hackintosh" community.
But no matter how you modify the installed software, it still belongs to the original owner. And you need permission from the original owner when you transfer it. This is why Dell or HP haven't tried selling hardware with OSX on it. They would be like Psystar, in violation of COPYRIGHT LAW. Apple is going after Psystar for COPYRIGHT violation. Nevermind the legality of their EULA.
That's correct. It's why I keep saying that it's also the distribution rights of the copyright holder that are important here. ONLY the copyright holder is allowed to make that determination.
The entity that has been granted the license by buying the media, or, in the case of electronic distribution, the code, must receive permission to transfer that material to another.
As I've also said, any copies must also be destroyed first. Permission is usually assumed, but legally the copyright holder can deny it. If permission wasn't asked for, and granted, then that's a risk they assume.
That's correct. It's why I keep saying that it's also the distribution rights of the copyright holder that are important here. ONLY the copyright holder is allowed to make that determination.
The entity that has been granted the license by buying the media, or, in the case of electronic distribution, the code, must receive permission to transfer that material to another.
As I've also said, any copies must also be destroyed first. Permission is usually assumed, but legally the copyright holder can deny it. If permission wasn't asked for, and granted, then that's a risk they assume.
This part of the Copyright Law is the reason why Psystar defense is to try to invalidate Apple copyright. They are trying to say that Apple didn't properly obtained their copyright on OSX and thus OSX is not protected by Copyright Laws. Psystar knows that they are toast unless they can convince the courts on this.
This part of the Copyright Law is the reason why Psystar defense is to try to invalidate Apple copyright. They are trying to say that Apple didn't properly obtained their copyright on OSX and thus OSX is not protected by Copyright Laws. Psystar knows that they are toast unless they can convince the courts on this.
They are sweating. That's one reason they are playing like a child now, saying that they will release all the info and code they have to circumvent Apple's requirements.
Of course, a lot of this is already available, so how much damage it would do is questionable. But the fact they they have said it, shows that those in the company are not real business people.
Comments
But you can't base an argument on your incorrect definitions. You may like them, but they're still incorrect.
Substitute my meaning in for the word each time it appears, the same way your brain reads words and replaces them with meaning.
Your ideas are seriously messed up. You misinterpret things. most people would at least give up when they're wrong. Even when you agree you are, you persist.
"Seriously messed up", "you misinterpret things"... to use Wikipedia terminology, Citation Needed. Until then, you're just making baseless claims. And no, I do not agree I am wrong..?
Lemley is about as biased as you are about this. He's known for his views which are at odds with most everyone else.
...so?
I'm not interested in the "free culture movement" either. Amazingly simplistic ideas.
The best ideas always are.
Why don't you quote some mainstream sources? Don't like them, eh?
Wikipedia is not mainstream? And that's a rather silly argument... my view is very different from the vast majority of people. Of course I'm not going to find much mainstream support for my view, mainstream media appeals to people with mainstream ideas. Mainstream has to start somewhere, though...
Here's one of your main problems. YOU don't have to think that something is of value for someone else to buy it. If you want it, then it has value. If it costs to much, then it doesn't have enough value to you, and you shouldn't get it.
It's like saying that you won't pay a fine because you don't like it. You still have to pay it.
And as I said before, if you don't think something is of value to you, then you aren't being forced to buy it.
You can always buy a $350 computer using Linux or Windows XP.
I really don't understand what you're saying... I believe that people should not have the right to control thoughts, ideas, etc. "intellectual property", which includes forcing others to pay for said "intellectual property" if they want it -- besides limited, short-term rights in order to promote business. When it comes to "intellectual property", that which has value to me, I pay for -- not because they say "this costs $50", because I believe they have no right to say so, but because I believe it is worth $50. I try to do this more for those who do not demand money from me in the first place.
I recommend you watch the film "Steal This Film II". It's in my sig.
And the point to your brilliant post is what, exactly?
I believe his true point is that he is Gay for Steve Jobs.
I disagree with said judge. Because a judge ruled it does not necessarily make it right.
Disagreeing doesn't make you right either.
This must be taken into consideration with other factors... Sony makes very high-quality PCs compared to a lot of their competitors. I agree, Apple also makes very high-quality hardware (usually) -- but there is absolutely no one legally making hardware that can run OS X targeting the budget crowd (as compared to Apple hardware pricing), because Apple decrees it so.
Your point was that Apple's higher prices was evidence of monopoly. I responded with that as poor evidence. You are now avoiding that fact by saying that Apple's doesn't cater to the "budget crowd". So what you are really saying is that Apple does not sell a larger range (price wise) of computers. So what? Once again look at Sony. It's a business choice not an illegal or even immoral act.
They were much more lax about clones even before that, and I'm not just talking about clones, I'm talking about overall policy of vertical integration. And it appears you cannot debate using only logic...
How were they "more lax about clones"? Any links or citations?
The "subject matter" was Apple tying their OS to their own hardware, since their inception. You say it is only a recent phenomenon. It is not!
If you want to lable my efforts as something they're not... well, sorry, but I don't much care. In the comments thread of a news article, the article is up for debate -- not the commenter.
I have been debating the facts of the article with you. I am still trying to. I am trying to understand your own personal motivation for seeing the world as so different from most other people. From your comments and your language and your signature links it appears that you do adhere to a particular ideology. That is not a personal attack. It's an observation. Why be so defensive about it?
To me the basics of this case are really simple. Apple is just one player in a multi player computer hardware market. They already have competition. Apple's share of that market, though rising is pretty small. It was much higher over a decade ago.
Dell has the right to make cheap computers as well as well as expensive computers. Apple (and anyone else) has the right to not make cheap computers.
To me competition means that a competitor is someone who makes a similar product. That product could be just the same as yours, or cheaper, or maybe better... whatever. A competitor is not someone who acquires part of your product (arguably the most important part) and uses it against you.
You may be responding to this particular news post but in reality all your arguments boil down to the facts that you disagree with certain US laws that have been in pace for many many years.
Your beef is with the law.. not Apple.
Dell gross margin for their computers (Dell do break down their margins for individual product lines) is about 17%. But over half of Dells revenue for computers comes from the under $1000 hardware. Which is known to have margins in the 10% and under range. This means that in order for Dell to get to 17% gross margin, their other hardware must also have margins at about the 20 to 25% range.
David W, you missed out one large factor ... that makes your argument even stronger.
For each Windows PC that Dell sells Microsoft is walking away with a tidy profit. (consensus opinion says it's around 40 -50 dollars). If Apple had to pay Microsoft too their margins would drop and the gap would be even smaller.
I believe his true point is that he is Gay for Steve Jobs.
Actually, I think he's just Gay for Himself.
The difference between a EULA and copyright holder rights is that the EULA generally goes beyond those rights in the form of a contract. So that's where the difference lies.
It begins with the rights granted the copyright holder, and then extends them.
The problem is that even if the EULA isn't allowed, it still can't break the copyright holders right to control distribution. That's an important point here.
Right, agreed.
I would agree if the parts do something that can't be done otherwise. But is that true with a Mac? Is there something in the computer hardware that precludes this?
The only possibility that I can think of is a modified EFI. There's nothing else in the machine that's not standard.
If I follow your point... sure, you can build hardware capable of running OSX but it's still not a Mac without OSX. The hardware alone makes a very nice doorstop. Likewise, the OSX disc by itself make a good but expensive coaster for your coffee cup, unless it's installed on the hardware. A Mac is the combination of two; neither alone is a Mac. Lest we forget, the Mac is the product Apple is really defending here -- not OSX, and not Apple hardware.
And again, a great many patented and copyrighted products are made up of combinations of nonproprietary, readily available, and even completely generic parts. That does not mean the combined product is not protected. This is the fundamental mistake which it seems is being made by Psystar and its defenders. They think if they can obtain the parts, that they can then make and sell the product. If that was really the case, then a great many copyrighted and patented products would lose their protections. Start with every book in the world.
simply put something in OSx so that it will not run on any non-Apple hardware. Surely there's something in the hardware that they could check for? Then they could try to hack around that, but then Apple could go after then under DMCA.
There already is.
Psystar isn't simply installing vanilla copies of OS X onto generic PCs without any issues. They are also modifying the OS.
I first read about this on OSNews and I am going to quote looncraz (http://www.osnews.com/comments/21910) because he makes an awesome statement
"I'll clarify this as best I can given my first-hand knowledge of the subject:
In general (in U.S. law, anyway):
What a signature-less contract / license / terms of use may accomplish in regards to a copy of a copyrighted work:
1. Reiterate restrictions created within the law
2. Suggest limited options for remedies and venue
3. Dictate terms for additional privilege, if any
In no way may such a 'contract' create a restriction where a legal right exists, that would negate the purpose of the law. No EULA can require you to do something special to exercise your rights. The law does not distinguish between entities ( a business has the same rights as an individual ).
It is important to realize, naturally, that you have no legal right to the source code to a program, period. In order to gain this privilege, it must be given. Almost any terms placed upon this access is legally enforceable. This access can also be granted without signature - you use this special right, you are bound to the license.
A EULA can give you additional privilege, but it can not restrict you beyond your rights in law ( which are well defined ).
As such, you should know your rights:
* You can do anything you want with YOUR copy of a copyrighted work without ANY interference or restriction from the copyright holder... except:
1. Make illegal copies for redistribution purposes
2. Make more than one backup copy
3. Use any significant portion in your own works
-- a) what constitutes significant is up to the courts
That is pretty much it - no piracy!
You can modify an existing copy and resell, so long as you are truthful about said changes.
There are also, now, interoperability laws. This means any entity can reverse engineer a copyrighted or even patented work in an effort to interface with the technology.
Be that a spark plug, a car's ECU, an intel CPU, a proprietary light bulb socket, or a software program. Almost any effort to accomplish interoperability is legal in the U.S..
This is, obviously, where Psystar and others are get off with thinking they aren't doing anything wrong - because they are simply exercising their rights. Apple, actually, knows this. They have to know this by now anyway... But they know one more thing: judges generally are computer illiterate morons who think that nothing in the I.T. world has parallels in the real world - they will then ignore legal rights concerning "books" and "cars" and "everything else" and make up something that makes sense in the given situation - which, too often, depends on who paid them more money.
We best pray EULAs don't become restrictive contracts, then all McDonald's would need to do to prevent lawsuits is place a small sticker that says "Opening this box means you agree to the license agreement - details inside" (Yes, this is actually how many software companies do it!). When you read the agreement, while eating the crushed worms and chicken beaks they called a hamburger, you see a nice clause: "McDonald's is not responsible for anything, at all, thanks."
--The loon"
Great, another one-post wonder who doesn't even bother reading the thread because he already knows everybody is out to lunch.
I read through three pages of this thread and a large part of the discussion revolves around the legality of Psystar selling computers with legaly bought retail copies of OS X installed.
My post of a quote concerns EULA's "licenses" and Copyright and what you can or not legally do with said Copyrighted products
So yeah actually my post was spot on the discussion.
There already is.
Psystar isn't simply installing vanilla copies of OS X onto generic PCs without any issues. They are also modifying the OS.
More importantly, the EFI firmware could easily have a lock down that goes far beyond a NSString plist.
I read through three pages of this thread and a large part of the discussion revolves around the legality of Psystar selling computers with legaly bought retail copies of OS X installed.
My post of a quote concerns EULA's "licenses" and Copyright and what you can or not legally do with said Copyrighted products
So yeah actually my post was spot on the discussion.
Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117 (b)
(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.? Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.
An adaptation is any copy that you install on your hardware to make it work. Whethered modified from the original installation or not. But it can be modified in any way for the purpose of making it run on your hardware. Copyright Laws actually protects a consumer from any infringement violations when doing this. Which is what Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117 (a) of the Copyright law is all about. Which is why Apple has not gone after anyone from the "Hackintosh" community.
But no matter how you modify the installed software, it still belongs to the original owner. And you need permission from the original owner when you transfer it. This is why Dell or HP haven't tried selling hardware with OSX on it. They would be like Psystar, in violation of COPYRIGHT LAW. Apple is going after Psystar for COPYRIGHT violation. Nevermind the legality of their EULA.
You can educated yourself here-
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
Right, agreed.
If I follow your point... sure, you can build hardware capable of running OSX but it's still not a Mac without OSX. The hardware alone makes a very nice doorstop. Likewise, the OSX disc by itself make a good but expensive coaster for your coffee cup, unless it's installed on the hardware. A Mac is the combination of two; neither alone is a Mac. Lest we forget, the Mac is the product Apple is really defending here -- not OSX, and not Apple hardware.
Well, yes.
And again, a great many patented and copyrighted products are made up of combinations of nonproprietary, readily available, and even completely generic parts. That does not mean the combined product is not protected. This is the fundamental mistake which it seems is being made by Psystar and its defenders. They think if they can obtain the parts, that they can then make and sell the product. If that was really the case, then a great many copyrighted and patented products would lose their protections. Start with every book in the world.
And, um, well, yes.
Wow the Reality Distortion Field is strong here.......
I first read about this on OSNews and I am going to quote looncraz (http://www.osnews.com/comments/21910) because he makes an awesome statement
"I'll clarify this as best I can given my first-hand knowledge of the subject:
In general (in U.S. law, anyway):
What a signature-less contract / license / terms of use may accomplish in regards to a copy of a copyrighted work:
1. Reiterate restrictions created within the law
2. Suggest limited options for remedies and venue
3. Dictate terms for additional privilege, if any
In no way may such a 'contract' create a restriction where a legal right exists, that would negate the purpose of the law. No EULA can require you to do something special to exercise your rights. The law does not distinguish between entities ( a business has the same rights as an individual ).
It is important to realize, naturally, that you have no legal right to the source code to a program, period. In order to gain this privilege, it must be given. Almost any terms placed upon this access is legally enforceable. This access can also be granted without signature - you use this special right, you are bound to the license.
A EULA can give you additional privilege, but it can not restrict you beyond your rights in law ( which are well defined ).
As such, you should know your rights:
* You can do anything you want with YOUR copy of a copyrighted work without ANY interference or restriction from the copyright holder... except:
1. Make illegal copies for redistribution purposes
2. Make more than one backup copy
3. Use any significant portion in your own works
-- a) what constitutes significant is up to the courts
That is pretty much it - no piracy!
You can modify an existing copy and resell, so long as you are truthful about said changes.
There are also, now, interoperability laws. This means any entity can reverse engineer a copyrighted or even patented work in an effort to interface with the technology.
Be that a spark plug, a car's ECU, an intel CPU, a proprietary light bulb socket, or a software program. Almost any effort to accomplish interoperability is legal in the U.S..
This is, obviously, where Psystar and others are get off with thinking they aren't doing anything wrong - because they are simply exercising their rights. Apple, actually, knows this. They have to know this by now anyway... But they know one more thing: judges generally are computer illiterate morons who think that nothing in the I.T. world has parallels in the real world - they will then ignore legal rights concerning "books" and "cars" and "everything else" and make up something that makes sense in the given situation - which, too often, depends on who paid them more money.
We best pray EULAs don't become restrictive contracts, then all McDonald's would need to do to prevent lawsuits is place a small sticker that says "Opening this box means you agree to the license agreement - details inside" (Yes, this is actually how many software companies do it!). When you read the agreement, while eating the crushed worms and chicken beaks they called a hamburger, you see a nice clause: "McDonald's is not responsible for anything, at all, thanks."
--The loon"
That's mostly true. But what is the determination of what consists of:
"3. Use any significant portion in your own works
-- a) what constitutes significant is up to the courts
"
What consists of "work" is also up to the courts.
A computer that is manufactured by another company is their "work" Apple's OS is their copyrighted item.
Psystar wants to have Apple's copyrighted item become part of their "work".
You've oversimplified the situation, and even some of the law.
Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117 (b)
(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.? Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.
An adaptation is any copy that you install on your hardware to make it work. Whethered modified from the original installation or not. But it can be modified in any way for the purpose of making it run on your hardware. Copyright Laws actually protects a consumer from any infringement violations when doing this. Which is what Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117 (a) of the Copyright law is all about. Which is why Apple has not gone after anyone from the "Hackintosh" community.
But no matter how you modify the installed software, it still belongs to the original owner. And you need permission from the original owner when you transfer it. This is why Dell or HP haven't tried selling hardware with OSX on it. They would be like Psystar, in violation of COPYRIGHT LAW. Apple is going after Psystar for COPYRIGHT violation. Nevermind the legality of their EULA.
You can educated yourself here-
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
That's correct. It's why I keep saying that it's also the distribution rights of the copyright holder that are important here. ONLY the copyright holder is allowed to make that determination.
The entity that has been granted the license by buying the media, or, in the case of electronic distribution, the code, must receive permission to transfer that material to another.
As I've also said, any copies must also be destroyed first. Permission is usually assumed, but legally the copyright holder can deny it. If permission wasn't asked for, and granted, then that's a risk they assume.
That's correct. It's why I keep saying that it's also the distribution rights of the copyright holder that are important here. ONLY the copyright holder is allowed to make that determination.
The entity that has been granted the license by buying the media, or, in the case of electronic distribution, the code, must receive permission to transfer that material to another.
As I've also said, any copies must also be destroyed first. Permission is usually assumed, but legally the copyright holder can deny it. If permission wasn't asked for, and granted, then that's a risk they assume.
This part of the Copyright Law is the reason why Psystar defense is to try to invalidate Apple copyright. They are trying to say that Apple didn't properly obtained their copyright on OSX and thus OSX is not protected by Copyright Laws. Psystar knows that they are toast unless they can convince the courts on this.
This part of the Copyright Law is the reason why Psystar defense is to try to invalidate Apple copyright. They are trying to say that Apple didn't properly obtained their copyright on OSX and thus OSX is not protected by Copyright Laws. Psystar knows that they are toast unless they can convince the courts on this.
They are sweating. That's one reason they are playing like a child now, saying that they will release all the info and code they have to circumvent Apple's requirements.
Of course, a lot of this is already available, so how much damage it would do is questionable. But the fact they they have said it, shows that those in the company are not real business people.