Psystar claims Apple exec "unprepared" for testimony

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 79
    chronsterchronster Posts: 1,894member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Buying the retail box copy (or a corporate deal) is what you need to get support from Microsoft.



    So when you buy a dell laptop and windows crashes, you're supposed to call dell?



    I've never called technical support a day in my life lol. I honestly didn't know it worked like that.
  • Reply 42 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gustav View Post


    I can see why people don't understand this. But consider this: It costs more than $129 per user to make MacOS X. Heck even Microsoft, with ten times the customers, charge more for Windows upgrades than this. So, how could Apple possibly sell MacOS X for $129 without taking a loss.



    Easily. There is no way they are taking a loss when selling the OS at $129. The cost to produce and distribute is almost nothing for something as simple as a DVD, so the cost to make it is almost entirely the cost of the software team who write it.



    Given Apples income statement shows their R&D costs (which the software development will be included in) were ~$1bn in their last full financial year, they would probably need to shift 10,000,000 copies per year to cover their entire R&D budget just on writing Mac OS sales. Of course their R&D budget will also have to cover hardware development, iPhone, iPod, iTunes etc. so in reality their breakeven will be much lower.



    Just because Microsoft seriously exploit their customers, doesn't mean Apple are not making money because they sell at a lower price.
  • Reply 43 of 79
    doroteadorotea Posts: 323member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    What do they represent? I mean, it's one thing to get bored with this whole thing and look down at them, but to hate them for what they "represent" just means you're investing too much emotion into this. I can't think of any reasons to like Psystar per say, but at the same time, no real reason to hate them unless you're Apple lol.



    This whole thing just shows how silly our legal process can be. If you're a lawyer who knows the law well enough, it's like playing a big game.



    Psystar represents the leeches of the world. Psystar somehow believes that they should be able to take someone elses work and sell it.

    Psystar needs a resellers license in order to sell computers with Mac OS X. They don't want to work with Apple just use it.



    Psystar represents the mentality that says "I can do anything I want - legal or illegal. If you don't like it SUE ME" Well they have been sued.
  • Reply 44 of 79
    It goes on to say that Apple's internal profit margin data is "closely guarded," and the risk of that information being leaked is not worth the lost profits it might be able to obtain from Psystar. As a result, Apple is no longer seeking those lost profits for recovery in the suit.





    This does concern me, but as businessman, i understand that companies do not want to disclose their profit margins and how this is calculated. For MS guys, stop your whining, since MS are doing the same thing, but providing a inferior product for inferior machine.



    Ask MS to disclose their profit model and you soon see all execs including "The Bald Turkey" Ballmer keep their mouth shut and call in lawyers.



    P.S. I was going to Bald Eagle, but eagles have a lot of common sense, Ballmer maybe intelligent, but is common sense is lacking and always opens his mouth and sells more apple products for Apple. remember iphone prediction, say no more.
  • Reply 45 of 79
    virgil-tb2virgil-tb2 Posts: 1,416member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    That's not true - this doesn't equate to having no copyright. The copyright laws are to prevent people stealing your work. I still maintain there is no stealing going on at all.



    In terms of business, everyone profits off work that is not their own. Psystar will be marking up the price of the hardware from what they pay for it and making some (although small) profit on it. Why should they be allowed to do that with what is in fact Intel's work designing and manufacturing the processor?



    No. You are mixing Apples and Oranges again.



    Intel sells hardware which is specifically intended, and sold under the understanding that it will be used in various ways in different machines that do various things. Software is more like a book or a painting. It's not a thing that you buy, but a work that you licence the right to reproduce. In this case it's also sold with the explicit understanding, (by way of the license you agree to when you buy it), that it won't be used in certain ways.



    There is lots of vagueness here, that Apple should have cleared up a long time ago. Like the agreement should be on the outside of the box, not a click-through. It's also the case that it should be clearly labelled as an upgrade product instead of implying that it's the same as buying a box of Windows.



    It's even a bit vague as to whether it would be legal as you say, to sell a computer with a copy of OS-X in the box and let the end user install it, as re-sales of anything *unchanged* are indeed perfectly legal. But in this case, Psystar is actually hacking into the product, altering it, and then installing it on hardware against the express wishes of the copyright holders. This is kind of like buying a movie and changing the titles on it, or some of the scenes and re-selling it as the same thing against the wishes of the studio that holds the copyright.



    Even then, as long as they didn't re-sell it, it would be legal. Or if they changed a significant amount of it, and called it art or satire, "fair use" would kick in (at least in civilised countries), because it wouldn't be a rip-off so much as it would be a "commentary" on the original.



    Sadly, Psystar is not only re-selling the product after changing it, they are re-selling it as "Mac OS-X" and implying that it is the same. To continue with my silly analogies, that's like taking a new car, changing the engine and re-selling it as the same brand of car.



    Nothing Psystar is doing is wrong if you are an individual and you are not making money off it. Everything they are doing is wrong is you are doing it as a business.
  • Reply 46 of 79
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,153member
    I am waiting to see what will happens when Apple release Snow Leopard. I bet Apple will label the $29 version "Upgrade Version" while they include the full OS DVD. This case Psystar will either have to buy the set box $169 version or go step further in their violation and use the upgrade version providing Apple another amendment to the lawsuit
  • Reply 47 of 79
    krreagankrreagan Posts: 218member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mavfan1 View Post


    Even on an pro Apple blog I would have thought there would have been more response to Apple suddenly saying uh, we don't care about getting any of Psystar's profit, just please don't make us show how much we make off everyone who buys a Mac!!!!



    Profit??? What profit! They just came out of bankruptcy! I think Apple realized that even in the best case they would get absolutely zilch from Pystar so why complicate the issue!



    KRR
  • Reply 48 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post


    No. You are mixing Apples and Oranges again.



    Intel sells hardware which is specifically intended, and sold under the understanding that it will be used in various ways in different machines that do various things. Software is more like a book or a painting. It's not a thing that you buy, but a work that you licence the right to reproduce. In this case it's also sold with the explicit understanding, (by way of the license you agree to when you buy it), that it won't be used in certain ways.



    There is lots of vagueness here, that Apple should have cleared up a long time ago. Like the agreement should be on the outside of the box, not a click-through. It's also the case that it should be clearly labelled as an upgrade product instead of implying that it's the same as buying a box of Windows.



    It's even a bit vague as to whether it would be legal as you say, to sell a computer with a copy of OS-X in the box and let the end user install it, as re-sales of anything *unchanged* are indeed perfectly legal. But in this case, Psystar is actually hacking into the product, altering it, and then installing it on hardware against the express wishes of the copyright holders. This is kind of like buying a movie and changing the titles on it, or some of the scenes and re-selling it as the same thing against the wishes of the studio that holds the copyright.



    Even then, as long as they didn't re-sell it, it would be legal. Or if they changed a significant amount of it, and called it art or satire, "fair use" would kick in (at least in civilised countries), because it wouldn't be a rip-off so much as it would be a "commentary" on the original.



    Sadly, Psystar is not only re-selling the product after changing it, they are re-selling it as "Mac OS-X" and implying that it is the same. To continue with my silly analogies, that's like taking a new car, changing the engine and re-selling it as the same brand of car.



    Nothing Psystar is doing is wrong if you are an individual and you are not making money off it. Everything they are doing is wrong is you are doing it as a business.



    I have to admit, I still disagree with you, but I do want to acknowledge that I think you make a very good argument.
  • Reply 49 of 79
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bizwarrior View Post


    Why is apple afraid to diclose some of their profit information?



    Do you share with your coworkers all of your personal financial information? Salary, other income, how much you invest and where, your personal expenses, you annual bonus, etc? How about you post it all online for us to take a look at?



    Psystar was asking for a much more detailed breakdown of Apple's finances that simple profit. And they would surely find a way to release that info into the public. Why would Apple want their competitors to have that info any more than you wanting your coworker to know how much you make. (BTW, in case you don't work in a typical office environment, salary is a very sensitive subject between coworkers who might be doing similary jobs but are getting paid differently.)
  • Reply 50 of 79
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    I think I know what you mean, but the two are not really comparable. When Apple came into being, they were part of the computer homebrew culture that was formed as a reaction to the monolithic mainframe corporations, like IBM who had no interest in fostering the creation of personal computers. Psystar is more akin to a leech.



    I am in agreement with you generally. I think Psystar is ballsy for standing up to Apple. A leech, perhaps but ballsy nonetheless.



    But you could argue that when Psystar came into being they were part of a entrepreneurial culture that in part was formed as a reaction to the monolithic corporations, like Apple who had no interest cutting margins and producing computers attainable by the masses.



    I am not saying that Psystar fights for anybody but Psystar. I am not saying that Apple has an obligation to sell its wares at a lower price or give up its intellectual properties in order to make the world a better place. Im just sayin'...
  • Reply 51 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post


    Do you share with your coworkers all of your personal financial information? Salary, other income, how much you invest and where, your personal expenses, you annual bonus, etc? How about you post it all online for us to take a look at?



    No, but I'm not a publicly traded company!



    I actually agree with you though - Psystar seem to be asking for this for no good reason.
  • Reply 52 of 79
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,743member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bizwarrior View Post


    Whu is there an outcry in so many quarters against eula's the way they are now written? I for one say that the way most eula's are written these days are about as unethical as what you are accusing Psystar of.



    GO PSYSTAR!



    Why is apple afraid to diclose some of their profit information?



    What outcry? From where? From people wanting to run OS X on the cheap on their fake macs? From people that want to play fast and loose with copyright/trademark holders' rights?
  • Reply 53 of 79
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    For me this comes down to a debate about how much legal power an EULA should have. Personally I lean towards the idea that if you have purchased something and it belongs to you, you should be allowed to do whatever you like with it. EULA's have become incredibly restrictive and anti-consumer, so I personally am in favour of people/companies that challenge them.



    For the sake of argument, let's say that Apple decided to sell two versions of OS X. One version sells for $129 and is intended for upgrading an existing Apple branded computer. Another version sells for $250 and is intended to be installed on any brand computer that meets the hardware requirements. On the outside of the box, the upgrade version lists as requirements an Apple Macintosh computer and other specs (CPU, RAM, etc). The other version also lists the hardware requirements on the outside of the box, but doesn't specify that it be an Apple computer. And Apple doesn't put any painful licensing key/registration processes like Windows has, or any cryptic hardware verfication tests, because they want to make things easier for their customers.



    Now, do we have the right to go buy the $129 copy and install it on a non-Apple computer, simply because the installer doesn't prevent me from doing it? Are we saying that Apple doesn't have the right to charge a different price for an Apple upgrade version vs a new, non-Apple hardware version?



    If the answer is no, why would that answer change simply because Apple chooses to not make the $250 version available?



    Further, just becuase some parts of some EULA are questionable, does that make the whole concept of EULA bad? Does that mean every term in an EULA is invalid just because some are? And because Apple chose to express it's rights in the EULA instead of enforcing them with registration processes or hardware validation, does that take away their rights? If I leave the door to my house open, does that mean it's OK to rob me just because I made it easy for you?



    EDIT: BTW, I do agree with you that some terms of EULAs are bad. Examples are terms that allow a company to not be held responsible for software the damages systems, create security problems, etc. There would perhaps be fewer software problems if they were held to safety standards like other products are.
  • Reply 54 of 79
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    So when you buy a dell laptop and windows crashes, you're supposed to call dell?



    I've never called technical support a day in my life lol. I honestly didn't know it worked like that.



    According to the paperwork that I get with OEM Windows licenses, yes.



    Tech support is a last ditch thing for me too, I just do it all myself because telephone support is usually worthless anyway.
  • Reply 55 of 79
    [QUOTE=Virgil-TB2;1468780]

    Software is more like a book or a painting. It's not a thing that you buy, but a work that you licence the right to reproduce. In this case it's also sold with the explicit understanding, (by way of the license you agree to when you buy it), that it won't be used in certain ways.



    /QUOTE]



    Actually, it is both an explicit and implicit understanding. If you paint a painting or write a book - published or unpublished - your ownership and rights to that work are implied under copyright law. You don't even need to file with the US copyright office. You just have to prove that you are the creator of the work, should the issue ever arise.



    There is no reasoned explanation as to why software is not protected in the exact manner that a book or a painting is. You cannot modify and then resell a book without expressed permission from the rights holder. The law is very simple and clear in that regard. It is the law that is creating confusion, and not Apple.
  • Reply 56 of 79
    halvrihalvri Posts: 146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    What do they represent? I mean, it's one thing to get bored with this whole thing and look down at them, but to hate them for what they "represent" just means you're investing too much emotion into this. I can't think of any reasons to like Psystar per say, but at the same time, no real reason to hate them unless you're Apple lol.



    This whole thing just shows how silly our legal process can be. If you're a lawyer who knows the law well enough, it's like playing a big game.



    It's actually quite easy to hate them whether or not you love Apple. I'm a legal scholar, as are a few other of the posters on this forum, and Psystar represents, in my mind, the biggest problem with the world today: entitlement.



    You have a company who has done absolutely nothing of any merit trying to rip off a company that has spent thirty years building a solid reputation. Psystar was a joke from the beginning: they don't understand copyright law at all, they are clearly violating tax procedures if their claims are true, & they have little, if any, respect for the real competition Apple provides the market.



    Psystar is so obviously a bullshit little company run by a man who has, to say the least, extreme delusions of grandeur. But I guess the biggest problem in my mind is that you have plenty of people on this forum who seem to see Psystar less for what it is and more for what they want it to be: a crusader for justice. There are far too many people on AppleInsider who believe that anything they can see is theirs.



    By the nature of what they are, businesses exist to make money, but just because they don't allow you to do absolutely anything you want with their product doesn't mean they're trying to stifle your freedom. You have choice: Mac, Windows, Linux. These systems each provide a distinctly different experience and that's because of the way that each operates. If you don't like the way one does it, choose one of the others. Don't complain just because one has certain stipulations that the others don't, especially when those are some of the very things its customers love about it.
  • Reply 57 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post




    Now, do we have the right to go buy the $129 copy and install it on a non-Apple computer, simply because the installer doesn't prevent me from doing it? Are we saying that Apple doesn't have the right to charge a different price for an Apple upgrade version vs a new, non-Apple hardware version?




    Actually, I think yes, you would have the right to put the $129 version on non-Apple hardware. My position remains the same, once you own something, it should be pretty much your call what you do with it.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post


    Further, just becuase some parts of some EULA are questionable, does that make the whole concept of EULA bad? Does that mean every term in an EULA is invalid just because some are?



    I have to admit, I'm not 100% sure where I stand on this. Without giving it much thought, I'd say I think EULAs are a bad thing as a concept, though I would say that if I gave it some thought I could come up with some areas that they serve a good purpose.



    My position is that copyright laws should be strong enough to cover this sort of thing. The thing that I think it is important to stop is stealing, but that should be covered by statute law, and not require some incredibly complex EULA to do it.



    I think my biggest problem with EULAs are the length and complexity of them. Honestly, it seems like I agree to a more extensive and complex legal document when I agree to the terms of a piece of softwares EULA, it seems more extensive than when I bought my house! Something seems to be wrong with a system when companies feel that:



    a. They have to and

    b. They are able to



    implement rigorous legal limits on what people can do, purely because statute law is not good enough.
  • Reply 58 of 79
    halvrihalvri Posts: 146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bizwarrior View Post


    Whu is there an outcry in so many quarters against eula's the way they are now written? I for one say that the way most eula's are written these days are about as unethical as what you are accusing Psystar of.



    GO PSYSTAR!



    Why is apple afraid to diclose some of their profit information?



    Are you always so completely profane? I mean seriously, you don't even try to explain your point, you just interject with these poorly educated anti-Apple rants. If you don't like Apple, that's fine, you can just avoid buying its products and move on with your life.



    Apple has plenty of extremely legitimate reasons as to why it does not license its operating system out. If you can't understand how Apple's customers benefit from that, then you shouldn't be buying Apple products one way or another.



    And I agree with many of the other posters: there are numerous professions that rely on copyright law to protect their investments. Technological communism is a dead end.
  • Reply 59 of 79
    halvrihalvri Posts: 146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    Actually, I think yes, you would have the right to put the $129 version on non-Apple hardware. My position remains the same, once you own something, it should be pretty much your call what you do with it.







    I have to admit, I'm not 100% sure where I stand on this. Without giving it much thought, I'd say I think EULAs are a bad thing as a concept, though I would say that if I gave it some thought I could come up with some areas that they serve a good purpose.



    My position is that copyright laws should be strong enough to cover this sort of thing. The thing that I think it is important to stop is stealing, but that should be covered by statute law, and not require some incredibly complex EULA to do it.



    I think my biggest problem with EULAs are the length and complexity of them. Honestly, it seems like I agree to a more extensive and complex legal document when I agree to the terms of a piece of softwares EULA, it seems more extensive than when I bought my house! Something seems to be wrong with a system when companies feel that:



    a. They have to and

    b. They are able to



    implement rigorous legal limits on what people can do, purely because statute law is not good enough.



    Your notions are irrelevant because you made no purchase, you acquired a license. Again, it says that in the first paragraph of the EULA of both Windows and OS X. There is a substantial difference between the two and you're clearly intelligent enough to know that. Apple didn't hand its source code over to you, it simply granted you the right to use OS X in conjunction with their hardware. The same is true of hardware: when HP sells you a desktop computer, you're purchasing the physical components that construct it, not the various patents, trademarks, etc, that went into its construction.



    And how do you not see this as an issue of theft? Apple spends billions over decades in R&D and marketing to be side swiped by some piss ant little company who wouldn't buy a legit license to the system even if it could (It can't apparently even keep its books). OS X upgrades are subsidized by the price you pay for the software, which is why they don't cost $320 like the equivalent Windows version. If you bought an upgrade version of Windows Vista and hacked it to work as a standard install, you're just as guilty of software theft as you are with OS X.



    I'm sorry, but no one wants to live in a world where you can spend all your cash, create something truly amazing, and then have the jerk next door reverse engineer or hack it and sell it as his own at a lower price (since he never had to do R&D) and put you out of business. Copyright law has to regulate alot more than just theft. After all, we live in the era of the Free Software Foundation, where any and all ideas get assimilated into the Borg. Copyright law is becoming more and more important by the day.
  • Reply 60 of 79
    How do I see this not as theft? Because somebody legally purchased the software. I'm sorry, but I don't think it's right to say you are buying a license and not a product like anything else you buy. In both cases, MS and Apple are in my opinion attempting to re-write what has been effective legal precedent for years, i.e. you buy something, you own it, you can do pretty much what you like with it.



    The bottom line is, we're not going to come to a meeting of minds here. I believe that EULA's are becoming way too restrictive, and moving far too much power towards giant corporations with expensive lawyers, and away from the little guy.



    I'm actually less concerned about what Apple do with Psystar - in all honesty I suspect if they had ignored them, they would be out of business by now, but I am concerned about the creeping erosion of consumer rights.
Sign In or Register to comment.