Psystar claims Apple exec "unprepared" for testimony

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Halvri View Post


    Copyright law is becoming more and more important by the day.



    Should have put this in my last post. On this point I entirely agree with you, but I believe that needs to be put right by statute.
  • Reply 62 of 79
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    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.



    Ok, we may need to agree to disagree here. But I would point out that the law makes a distinction between physical property and intellectual property. You can, in fact, do whatever you want with the physical property (DVD, box, etc) that came with OS X. You can break it, use it as a coaster, play frisbee, hang it on the wall as art. But the law treats intellectual property differently. You own the physical material, but you license the intellectual material it contains.



    This is not new or unique to software. It also applies to books, CDs, paintings, photographs (you should see some of the photographic release forms I've had to read!), etc. The copyright holder is within their rights to set terms and conditions for use of their intellectual property. For software, these terms and conditions are set forth in the EULA.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    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.



    Agreed, but it's a little more complex. I think copyright laws were not adequate when software rights first began to be an issue. For example, in order run software, you first had to copy it to your hard drive (ignoring Apple IIe days when everything ran off the floppy disk!). You then had to copy it again into memory to run it. These are probably covered by fair use, but it may have been unclear at the time (I believe copyright law has since been updated to cover this usage).



    But what about installing it on multiple computers? Or what if you sold your computer but kept the installation disks, or vis versa? These types of questions probably led to the need for EULAs. Not to replace copyright laws, but to clarify the copyright holder's rights to control their copyrighted materials in a situation not contemplated by the law or previously determined by court rulings.



    It's interesting to note that the RIAA as recently as a couple of years ago still had the stance the ripping your CD for your own personal use was not covered by fair use. How long have CDs been around? I was making cassette tape copies of my CDs to play in the car over 2 decades ago. Ripping CDs is the same concept, and yet there were still differing interpretations of what the copyright law allowed and didn't allow. So it's not surprising that there is still a lot of gray area as to how it applies to software.



    Bottom line, the copyright law allows the copyright older to set conditions of sale on how their work is used (outside of those exceptions explicitly provided for such as fair use). So I consider it within their rights to state the OS X can only be installed on Apple computers. Because that right is expressed in the EULA vs on a separate form is irrelevant.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    I think my biggest problem with EULAs are the length and complexity of them.



    100% agree!!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    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.



    A. Just good business sense. The option is to put in technical barriers that would get in the way or your legitimate customers, too. There are too many dishonest people out there that would take advantage if the didn't try to protect their rights (either via EULA or other measures).



    B. They are able to not because the law is not good enough, but because the law specifically allows them to set those limits.





    Good discussion!!
  • Reply 63 of 79
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    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.



    Ah, but you are assuming that every copy of OSX brings in $129 of revenue to the company. MS only gets around $40 per copy of Windows sold with a PC, from what I've read. Who knows what internal value Apple allocates to the value of the OS as a part of it's hardware revenue. But because not every copy of the OS "sells" for the same price, it's impossible to know if $129 is a loss or a profit.



    Ok, it's in all likelihood a profit. But is the profit from the sale of the OS less than the profit from the sale of the combination of the hardware + OS? Probably. So every OS-only sale is a loss to Apple, in the form of lower profit. Apple is willing to sell the OS-only to previous Apple hardware customers, because it makes for happy customers to not have to buy new hardware every time. But selling OS-only copies to non-Apple hardware customers is of no benefit to Apple and results in lower profit.
  • Reply 64 of 79
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    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.



    On this we 100% agree. But recognizing Apple's rights as provided for in copyright law, I'd rather have them express their rights (ie, the conditions of sale of their copyrighted material) in the EULA than to waste time and money developing technical control mechanism to enforce those rights. Not only is that a waste of money, but potentially interferes with the ease of use when installing the software.



    BTW: I've enjoyed the calm, rational discussion (such a rarity on message boards these days). But now it's time to go get me some dinner!
  • Reply 65 of 79
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,205member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Just my uninformed opinion, but to anyone not up to speed on these matters might say these filings sound like the ramblings of a drunken idiot.



    well yes. they do.



    in point of fact, Psystar should only have been asking questions that actually relate to the proceedings. Asking about profit margins etc does not have a fig to do with hardware tying, copyright and patent filings or even the legality of an EULA. It's harassment plain and simple. And Apple would be in all rights to file for an injunction barring Psystar from deposing anyone else from Apple since really there's nothing any of these execs could say that is on point to the arguments Psystar has made (and lost in court already) and is trying to make.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    For copyright and trademark violations, I don't think they holder has to prove there is harm, they only need to show that copyrights and/or trademarks are violated.



    I also don't see how Apple's margins are applicable to the case.



    nope, it doesn't and they don't. and in point of fact, details about harm are really more part of Apple's argument in getting anything out of Psystar which they have actually said they don't care about. they don't intend to punish anyone that actually bought a computer by forcing a recall, they aren't going to try to correct money they know they won't anyway cause the company is broke and everyone knows it. they just want the courts to say once in for all that there is NOTHING that allows a company to build and distribute a hackintosh computer. end of story.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mavfan1 View Post


    just please don't make us show how much we make off everyone who buys a Mac!!!!



    no one is saying anything because it's standard form. no company has to give out such information. it is within the realm of trade secret.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by paxman View Post


    But they bring cheaper macs to the market (do they? I really have no idea about their products) and they don't let themselves get bullied.





    hardly, they are liars and lazy gits that basically stole someone else's work.



    this isn't David V Goliath. this is more you and the kid sitting at the next desk who cheated off your paper and is arguing with the teacher that he should get an A also even though he didn't do the work.
  • Reply 66 of 79
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,205member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    I'm sorry, I don't understand in what way they are thieves? They are selling hardware that they have made themselves (having bought, not stolen the off the shelf parts) and have installed an operating system, which is an off the shelf part, which they had also purchased.



    first off, they don't have any proof that they actually did purchase anything. those little boxes are pretty each to lift.

    same for the hardware. they don't keep receipts they say. they lost some of them in a flood they say. the dog ate them they say (pick a day and the excuse is something new)



    second, copyright law and the courts validation, says that Apple has every legal right to control what hardware and through what vendors you can get a machine that will run OSX. and to that end they created certain subsystems to verify you have the approved hardware. the DCMA says that any knowledge or technology or the use of such to circumvent such subsystems is illegal. Psystar violated the DCMA in order to make OSX load on their machines via a bootloader that causes the subsystem check to be skipped.



    so even if you don't use the word 'thief' they are still bad guys. they still broke the law



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    The right already exists to do exactly this as fan-fiction or slash-fiction, but only if you don't sell it. It's the commercial distribution of someone elses work that's the issue.



    that's not entirely true. money is not a factor in the right or wrongness.



    it is only a factor in that the companies don't see the point in suing someone they know they can't get even legal fees off of cause few fan fic writers make any real money in their day jobs. so why bother risking some bad press over no reward.
  • Reply 67 of 79
    rot'napplerot'napple Posts: 1,839member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    In another twist, Apple has told the court it will not seek recovery of lost profits from Psystar. The decision came after Apple allegedly reviewed the "still-incomplete financial records" provided by the company, which recently emerged from bankruptcy.[/url][/c]



    Simply put... can't get blood from a turnip!
  • Reply 68 of 79
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,205member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post


    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.



    the courts currently say otherwise. they say the clickthrough is fine, particularly when you provide a copy elsewhere (like on Apple's website).



    Quote:



    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.




    but it isn't an upgrade. an upgrade implies that every time I want to install Y, I must first install X. that isn't the case. When I bought my computer it had tiger on it. when leopard came out, I backed up my data, completely erased my drive and installed Leopard off the disk I bought. because it was a full product. with an upgrade I would have first had to reinstall Tiger.



    Quote:

    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,



    if the product installs without the use of anything to 'break' built in copyright protections sure. but this is not the case with Psystar. even if they didn't install OSX they provided the means to break the protection system.



    Quote:

    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.



    something that was actually tried by one of those militant parent groups and they were totally sued and totally lost.

    Quote:



    Even then, as long as they didn't re-sell it, it would be legal.




    wrong. even making a hackintosh for free for yourself or someone else is illegal. the only difference is that if you kept your mouth shut, no one would know and you wouldn't be caught.



    Quote:

    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.



    again wrong (it's great having lawyers in the family). commentary doesn't count when it comes to changing software.



    commentary is more akin to printing shots of software for a review or a text, printing a photograph or a a photo of a work of art for critical review or quoting the text of Hamlet for that term paper you wrote in the 12th grade.



    Quote:



    Sadly, Psystar is not only re-selling the product after changing it, they are re-selling it as "Mac OS-X"




    now that you are correct about. they did indeed add unauthorized use of trademarked names and symbols to their issues.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    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.



    lets say that Apple did see Psystar as some nerd in his basement, pissant, blah blah. a tiny little fire on some rocks that would run out of fuel and burn itself out. so they ignore them. let them do their thing.



    Psystar would burn out and it's over right.



    wrong.



    by not doing anything the next company with a lot more resources figures that Apple doesn't care. So they go for it. They start building and selling Hackintosh machines. and they go huge. Now Apple has a problem. they have a bigger monster to kill. Maybe even more than one.



    so they want to nip it in the bud. they tell Psystar to cut it out. only Psystar is too stupid to back down when the only possibility solid argument (anti-trust) is shot down by the courts saying there's no such thing as a Macintosh Market. the market is Personal Computer Systems and owing to Apple being but a tiny drop in the pond they can do whatever they want and it's not abusive or anti-trust. Psystar has bitten down on Apple's leg and is refusing to let go. and Apple has little choice but to fight back, in part because it could lead to invalidating every possible argument next, and perhaps bigger dog, might have tried to use.
  • Reply 69 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    first off, they don't have any proof that they actually did purchase anything. those little boxes are pretty each to lift.

    same for the hardware. they don't keep receipts they say. they lost some of them in a flood they say. the dog ate them they say (pick a day and the excuse is something new)



    so even if you don't use the word 'thief' they are still bad guys. they still broke the law



    I have to say I disagree with your point here. There is absolutely no accusation from Apple or anyone that they have physically stolen anything. Had they walked into the Apple store and just stolen a copy of Mac OS, I would be the first to say they need to be prosecuted - you can't just take physical property.



    My problem is, I'm just not sure I'm willing to say they are bad guys. If I was being especially kind to them, I'd say they are being a champion of the people - trying to find a way that the masses can afford something that only the better off can these days. Much like Henry Ford did for example.....!



    I'll acknowledge that maybe they have broken the law in that they are not following the exact terms of the EULA, but my point is I'm not comfortable with the idea that the EULA itself is legal!
  • Reply 70 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post


    BTW: I've enjoyed the calm, rational discussion (such a rarity on message boards these days). But now it's time to go get me some dinner!



    Now, whilst we seem to have differences of opinions about copyright law, consumer rights and EULA's, that is something on which we can agree 100%!



    I've thought it a shame that the internet, the ultimate communications tool which should have allowed discussion and debate to thrive, has instead been hijacked by the childish to just throw insults at people who disagree with them.



    You've helped renew my faith in debate!
  • Reply 71 of 79
    halvrihalvri Posts: 146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    I have to say I disagree with your point here. There is absolutely no accusation from Apple or anyone that they have physically stolen anything. Had they walked into the Apple store and just stolen a copy of Mac OS, I would be the first to say they need to be prosecuted - you can't just take physical property.



    My problem is, I'm just not sure I'm willing to say they are bad guys. If I was being especially kind to them, I'd say they are being a champion of the people - trying to find a way that the masses can afford something that only the better off can these days. Much like Henry Ford did for example.....!



    I'll acknowledge that maybe they have broken the law in that they are not following the exact terms of the EULA, but my point is I'm not comfortable with the idea that the EULA itself is legal!



    I just don't get your point on this one. Even putting the focus of the lawsuit aside, Psystar has clearly shown itself to be doing several other illegal/unethical things. First there was the lack of a physical address, then the flood where they supposedly lost critical documents, then the fact that they don't seem to keep legally required finances on the books, filing for bankruptcy to avoid court proceedings, and now harassing Apple employees (and yes, I believe that because it fits their character so far).



    I honestly think Psystar is a company of morally backwards people led by a man with delusions of grandeur (they just released two new units under the "Rebel" name). I also honestly believe that Apple tying hardware and software together provides its customers with a better experience for many reasons I've outlined in other posts. If Apple weren't directly competing with other hardware manufacturers like Dell and HP, then I could understand your idea, but I don't get where the idea that just because Apple is the only company that can run OS X that it somehow lives in a bubble comes from.



    I like that Apple does it because it forces both hardware vendors and Microsoft alike to change. Windows created a commodity market where everyone goes for the cheapest hardware possible and the market has trouble progressing as a result. Windows systems are still bulky, batteries are still shorter lifespan, and body construction is still low grade plastic. Dragging Apple down into the same muck won't help anyone.



    That last part was a little off point, but I want you to understand where I'm coming from philosophically.
  • Reply 72 of 79
    ibillibill Posts: 392member
    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?





    Troll much?
  • Reply 73 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iBill View Post


    Troll much?



    I do not feel I am a troll. Yes I am negative at times but eula's are a concern for everyone and there is a quite legitimate argument against them as they are currently used. I look at the almost obsessive worship of apple on this forum and so I choose to tweak some as to give people some thought and maybe allow other people to feel free to voice their criticisms of apple in a forum that practically worships apple no matter what they do.
  • Reply 74 of 79
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,743member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bizwarrior View Post


    I do not feel I am a troll. Yes I am negative at times but eula's are a concern for everyone.



    No, it isn't. Why do you assume it is. I'm perfectly fine wth Apple's EULA, as are most users on this forum.



    Your attempts to drum up support for your personal crusade are failing.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bizwarrior View Post


    maybe allow other people to feel free to voice their criticisms of apple in a forum that practically worships apple no matter what they do.



    I'm sure that when Apple gives me (and others) an actual reason to criticize them, we will. In fact, if you visit the topic of Apple's response to the FCC, you'll find PLENTY of criticism there.



    Your problems seem to be your own.
  • Reply 75 of 79
    oc4theooc4theo Posts: 294member
    Leave it to the attorneys to screw your life up. Both sides know how to settle this issue, however attorneys make their fees by the hours and how many pages they dictated, typed and photocopied.



    Attorneys are a bunch of a-holes. They will screw you until you're bankrupt. Let's see how long these bastards at Pystar will take it.
  • Reply 76 of 79
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,205member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post




    My problem is, I'm just not sure I'm willing to say they are bad guys. If I was being especially kind to them, I'd say they are being a champion of the people - trying to find a way that the masses can afford something that only the better off can these days. Much like Henry Ford did for example.....!



    I'll acknowledge that maybe they have broken the law in that they are not following the exact terms of the EULA, but my point is I'm not comfortable with the idea that the EULA itself is legal!





    forget the flipping EULA issue. this is about their point blank violation of current copyright laws. the EULA argument is a smokescreen that is going to fail because even if the EULA is deemed invalid that doesn't make the copyright violation not a violation.



    and have you actually read the EULA for Leopard. EULA in PDF. Examine it point for point and you will see a written affirmation of Apple's legal rights (as validated by the Courts during this whole Psystar nonsense) and a few caveats etc. Along with some acknowledgements for those non open source bits they have licensed such as the Adobe Color Profiles.



    given this, what is there really to gripe about. only one thing. that they don't put all of this in a little booklet on the outside of the box for you to read before you open it. but honestly they will give you a refund if you find the agreement so distasteful so what's the big deal
  • Reply 77 of 79
    halvrihalvri Posts: 146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bizwarrior View Post


    I do not feel I am a troll. Yes I am negative at times but eula's are a concern for everyone and there is a quite legitimate argument against them as they are currently used. I look at the almost obsessive worship of apple on this forum and so I choose to tweak some as to give people some thought and maybe allow other people to feel free to voice their criticisms of apple in a forum that practically worships apple no matter what they do.



    Until you say something other than "GO PSYSTAR!" you are simply a troll because you're offering nothing of substance to the conversation. Also, understand that there is no idol worship of Apple on this forum, there are simply certain tenants of a company that make it what it is today. Apple making hardware and software together is at the core of the company's values and I agree with them strongly as do many others here. So, when you come along and tell people what they love about a company is bullshit, you have to expect a few of them are gonna tell you to go f*ck yourself.



    I really couldn't care less what your intentions are, your actions say you're a troll.
  • Reply 78 of 79
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    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.



    OS X does not belong to you. It does not belong to me. It does not belong to Psystar.



    Buying a retail copy of OS X, even hundreds of copies, does not mean it belongs to anyone.. other than ... it's creators.
  • Reply 79 of 79
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bizwarrior View Post


    I do not feel I am a troll. Yes I am negative at times but eula's are a concern for everyone and there is a quite legitimate argument against them as they are currently used. I look at the almost obsessive worship of apple on this forum and so I choose to tweak some as to give people some thought and maybe allow other people to feel free to voice their criticisms of apple in a forum that practically worships apple no matter what they do.



    While I do sometimes see some people that will try to explain away numskull decisions with fishy logic and selective memory, it hasn't happened so much in this thread. I've seen fishy logic and selective memory used in support of Windows/PCs too.



    Can you please explain why Apple's profit information is relevant to the case? That has nothing to do with whether or not their EULA is enforceable, nothing to do with whether Psystar is violating Apple's trademark, and nothing to do with whether they're violating Apple's copyrights. Apple making a profit in itself isn't wrong and Apple isn't on trial here. Apple's profits wouldn't exonerate Psystar if Psystar is proven to be in violation of Apple's rights.



    Nothing in this story mentions the EULA anyway. I'm not sure Apple is even suing over EULA violations, they didn't file suit until after Psystar hacked and redistributed Apple's service packs.
Sign In or Register to comment.