Its not really a win for Pystar, more of a moot point really.
I don't think Pystar are good guys either. They took from the OSX86 community and didn't give back, and continue to do so. OSX86 are the good guys. I would agree that the fruit aren't the good guys, but neither are Pystar. Now, if (and against what many would say here) Apple would open up their OS to be used on any x86/x64 computer, then my tune would change. Till then, no money more of mine will go to support Apple (and same goes for MS, since they lock up their stuff good too, just in different ways)
The obvious reason for Apple to not "open up their OS to be used on any x86/x64 computer" is to guarantee the quality of every user experience by manufacturing every computer it operates on. This is not "rocket science". What part of this do you not understand? I'd really like to know. Please.
I wouldn't be too surprised to see Apple lose this case, actually. I am not so sure about the argument that Pystar is actually breaking the law. An EULA is not the same as a contract, after all, and tends to be less enforceable. If they do lose, Apple will probably just step up their efforts to lock OS X to Macs, possibly by adding some sort of hardware authentication chip to their computers.
At the very worst, they could be forced to *gasp* compete with Pystar on low-priced hardware, and I think we can all guess who would come out on top there.
Don't hold your breath on that one. The protection of intellectual property does have legal rights, not to mention moral ones.
Now, since Apple uses the SAME parts as the other PC vendors, I don't feel they are worth the higher price, which is why I won't buy from them any more.
If they open it up to any PC (careful about craptastic, because Apple hardware is the same hardware as the "craptastic" PCs!) then yes, you will have driver issues. I am fine with that. Have the different hardware companies write their own drivers... like they already do for OS X. Apple doesn't have to support any hardware, but I feel they are wrong in cutting hardware off that is identical to their own. Viruses will only become an issue if the Mac becomes more of a lead in the business area, where it isn't. I'd like to see more Macs out there, but only if Apple gets its head out of its ... mud pile in the backyard.
Tell me something, if, as you say , Mac hardware is the same as PC hardware, why does every customer satisfaction survey rate Apple at or near the top? Why is the resale price of Mac computers higher (check Ebay) than any PC?
You probably think that all cars are created equal too because they "all use the same parts".
Trust me, any manufacture of any product will tell you that there is quality difference in any manufactured item, even from same manufacturers. Are all televisions alike ... are all refrigerators alike? Come on ...get real.
"Can be installed on an Intel Mac without a prior installation of OSX" - No mac comes without a prior installation of Mac OS X. All Macs come with it preloaded. Therefore, its impossible NOT to have a previous installation having occurred. Whether or not that installation is still in place is immaterial.
This is simple.
Apple chooses to sell the full OS ONLY with the hardware in a bundled package.
You buy upgrade disks. You only buy a full licence with the actual mac itself. You NEVER pay for OS X in a disk form.
That is Apple's choice - Greed or not, they are a business and have that right. You have the choice to purchase or not purchase.
Just because you don't like their business practices doesn't make stealing from them right.
Semantic? No. Its plain. You can't buy a CD licence of Mac OS X. You can only buy an upgrade licence only. That does not allow installation on a device that it wasn't previously installed on in an earlier version. If you only buy an upgrade, you are ONLY buying the upgrade licence. That is not a full licence. You don't like it? Don't buy it. Don't steal and then whine that you didn't get it available in the way you liked.
Sorry to have to disagree with you because I'm on Apple's side on this issue but ... SL disc can be installed as a "clean install" and it comes as a OS disc stand alone. The only limitation is it has to be installed on an intel Mac.
If you are referring to 8 and 9, those Systems ran on completely different hardware than x86, if I remember correctly. That is not the same situation, and Steve wasn't around.
What I envision for OS X and what you are mentally stumbling on is that the hardware does not make any difference now. They are the same thing, and this is proven by Windows running on Macs. .
Yes, but not without special software ... so they are not "the same" .. most cars run on gas, does that make them all the same?
First EULA doesn't matter. Psystar is not end user, Psystar was granted no license to distribute OS X.
Right. In addition, Pystar wants to sell Macintosh computers, a product which they have no proprietary right to sell. That right belongs exclusively to Apple.
Quote:
Secondly you can't just compare Apple to Microsoft. Just because licensing software works for Microsoft it doesn't mean it would work for Apple. The reason why Microsoft is making money are OEM vendors. The profits from retail are far far behind.
Even more to the point, Microsoft does not sell PCs. If Apple were to license OSX to hardware vendors, they'd be competing with themselves. This is not only a radical business strategy, it is very stupid one.
They don't need permission to distribute OS X. The doctrine of first sale gives permission of the legitimate owner of any physical medium on which a copyrighted work is contained, to transfer ownership of that physical medium over to any other person without seeking the copyright holder's permission.
This is a little twisted. First, the doctrine of first use applies to consumer purchases, not purchase for commercial resale. Second, this not simply a matter of resale. Psytar is installing OSX on their hardware and selling the combination (a Macintosh computer), which they have no right to do under any legal doctrine.
make any machine a legitimate, fully paid-for OS X client. Which can be sold, if you wish, as a used computer.
That's pretty funny. People used to do that in the old days with Amiga - find an old boot rom from a used Apple.
There are probably dozens of old macs lying around. Pull out the cpu and solder on to the outside of the case of your brand new home built PC- then technically it is still a Mac. Not that I would do that but someone might
This is a little twisted. First, the doctrine of first use applies to consumer purchases, not purchase for commercial resale.
I believe you'll find that they (Psystar) paid the retail rate to purchase OSX. That makes them a retail customer, and the owner of the disc, until such time as they may or may not transfer ownership to somebody else at some undetermined point in the future. Or, to put it simply, for the sake of this discussion, they are the initial "consumer". Somebody else (Psystar's customer) will become a second-hand consumer if or when the customer purchases the computer from Psystar.
The fact that they bought it with the full intention of turning around and reselling it afterwords, as far as I know, has not been shown to have any bearing on the applicability of first sale doctrine. If I am wrong on this point, I would genuinely appreciate being referred to the precedence that says so.
Quote:
Second, this not simply a matter of resale. Psytar is installing OSX on their hardware and selling the combination (a Macintosh computer), which they have no right to do under any legal doctrine.
First a point of clarification. They are not marketing it as a Macintosh(tm). They are marketing it as an "OpenComputer" that is configured to run Mac OS X.
Second, the general practice of reselling a computer with an OS already installed on it without first obtaining the copyright holder's consent most definitely is defined as non-infringing by US copyright law, provided you include all the original media provided with the OS along with the sale of the computer. In practice, you'll be exercising your rights under USC Title 17 Section 117 (b), where the additional copy in question was prepared in accordance with section 117 (a)(1), by installing the software on the computer's hard drive as an essential step of running the software.
The gotcha in this case is that "adaptations" can only be for internal use; unlike verbatim copies, they cannot be included in any such transfer of ownership without permission. If it is shown that the version of OS X included in Psystar computers counts as an "adaptation" instead of a verbatim copy, then I would agree that this defence is useless.
I still think, though, that if anything can make this a slam dunk for Apple, it will be the applicability of the EULA.
I believe you'll find that they (Psystar) paid the retail rate to purchase OSX. That makes them a retail customer, and the owner of the disc, until such time as they may or may not transfer ownership to somebody else at some undetermined point in the future. Or, to put it simply, for the sake of this discussion, they are the initial "consumer". Somebody else (Psystar's customer) will become a second-hand consumer if or when the customer purchases the computer from Psystar.
The fact that they bought it with the full intention of turning around and reselling it afterwords, as far as I know, has not been shown to have any bearing on the applicability of first sale doctrine. If I am wrong on this point, I would genuinely appreciate being referred to the precedence that says so.
First, how does the "rate" they paid make any difference? Second, we don't actually know how much they paid. Apple demanded these records in discovery but Psystar claimed to have lost them. The difference is that they are not simply transferring ownership, they are installing the software on their hardware first. It's no more than a theory that this protected under first use doctrine, which was created to allow owners of copies of copyrighted products to sell them to someone else, not to allow someone to trade on copyrighted materials.
Quote:
First a point of clarification. They are not marketing it as a Macintosh(tm). They are marketing it as an "OpenComputer" that is configured to run Mac OS X.
This is a HUGE fallacy. They are in fact attempting to sell Macintosh computers. If that was not the case, then they would not even bother. Psystar can't even claim otherwise with a straight face, if only because they attempted to sue Apple under antitrust law for preventing them from doing that very thing!
First, Intel does not want to be in a position of competing with their own customers (Dell, HP/Compaq, Acer, Gateway, etc.). If Dell viewed the merged Intel/Apple as competition rather than as a supplier, they would be eagerly shopping non-Intel parts to avoid enriching the very company they were competing with.
Secondly, Apple does not move that much Intel silicon. If Apple were buying 60% of Intel's output, then I could see such a merger, but not with the amount of silicon that Apple buys.
Third, Apple uses too many chips from Intel's competitors. Apple has gone AWAY from Intel for the graphics coprocessors to Nvidia. The CPUs in the iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPod Nano are all Samsung ARM CPUs. Apple uses Toshiba flash memory in some of the iPods. The list goes on and on. Were Intel to merge with Apple, there's no way that Apple would be able to buy the best parts -- they would have to use Intel parts. Depending on the application, that could lead to higher cost, lower performance, shorter battery life, or some combination thereof. Apple would find its hands tied while its competitors were free to shop the marketplace without stipulations on brand. Microsoft's Zune could become the slender, sexy market leader while the iPod might end up in a big clunky box loaded with sub-par Intel hardware. If GM merged with Goodyear, would you expect to find Firestone, Pirelli, or Bridgestone tires on new GM vehicles? Would you expect Ford to continue buying Goodyear tires for their cars?
I believe you'll find that they (Psystar) paid the retail rate to purchase OSX. That makes them a retail customer, and the owner of the disc, until such time as they may or may not transfer ownership to somebody else at some undetermined point in the future. Or, to put it simply, for the sake of this discussion, they are the initial "consumer". Somebody else (Psystar's customer) will become a second-hand consumer if or when the customer purchases the computer from Psystar.
The fact that they bought it with the full intention of turning around and reselling it afterwords, as far as I know, has not been shown to have any bearing on the applicability of first sale doctrine. If I am wrong on this point, I would genuinely appreciate being referred to the precedence that says so.
First a point of clarification. They are not marketing it as a Macintosh(tm). They are marketing it as an "OpenComputer" that is configured to run Mac OS X.
Second, the general practice of reselling a computer with an OS already installed on it without first obtaining the copyright holder's consent most definitely is defined as non-infringing by US copyright law, provided you include all the original media provided with the OS along with the sale of the computer. In practice, you'll be exercising your rights under USC Title 17 Section 117 (b), where the additional copy in question was prepared in accordance with section 117 (a)(1), by installing the software on the computer's hard drive as an essential step of running the software.
The gotcha in this case is that "adaptations" can only be for internal use; unlike verbatim copies, they cannot be included in any such transfer of ownership without permission. If it is shown that the version of OS X included in Psystar computers counts as an "adaptation" instead of a verbatim copy, then I would agree that this defence is useless.
I still think, though, that if anything can make this a slam dunk for Apple, it will be the applicability of the EULA.
I think thats well said. the EULA is sticky though, as judges have gone both ways on it. I think the adaptation/reverse engineering clause is the most solid. To my knowledge, there is no hardware system currently in existence (other than a Mac) that you can stick a retail copy of OS X into and install it. Which is why Psystar requires you to buy OS X with your order, and then they install it for you.
What i am really curious about is if the EFI(Firmware) is shipped in the OS X install disc, or if it exists ONLY on hardware purchased from Apple ( via the motherboard ROM/HD). If Psystar is using/modifying or copying such EFI in order to install OS X, then they are going to lose. They don't have the right to resell an EFI they did not purchase. Does Psystar buy a Mac for every Open system they sell? I dont think so. Anyone have insight onto the EFI?
I think thats well said. the EULA is sticky though, as judges have gone both ways on it. I think the adaptation/reverse engineering clause is the most solid. To my knowledge, there is no hardware system currently in existence (other than a Mac) that you can stick a retail copy of OS X into and install it. Which is why Psystar requires you to buy OS X with your order, and then they install it for you.
What i am really curious about is if the EFI(Firmware) is shipped in the OS X install disc, or if it exists ONLY on hardware purchased from Apple ( via the motherboard ROM/HD). If Psystar is using/modifying or copying such EFI in order to install OS X, then they are going to lose. They don't have the right to resell an EFI they did not purchase. Does Psystar buy a Mac for every Open system they sell? I dont think so. Anyone have insight onto the EFI?
No, not really. Modification really only relates to the DMCA violation claim, which is only one of several of which Apple is making against Psystar. You are making the error of thinking that the level of difficulty required to violate a copyright or trademark is in some way related to the legality of doing so. It isn't. EULA or no EULA, Psystar does not have the right to sell Macintosh computers. As I pointed out above, they previously asserted that they do have this right, that they were entitled to create a Macintosh compatible computer market. This claim was thrown out.
Wrong. US Copyright law actually takes that away from the copyright holder, and assigns it to the owner of the physical medium on which their copy was conveyed. They specifically have permission to transfer ownership of the physical medium over to somebody else, provided they also either destroy, or else include as part of the transfer, every other copy that has been made.
They don't need permission to distribute OS X. The doctrine of first sale gives permission of the legitimate owner of any physical medium on which a copyrighted work is contained, to transfer ownership of that physical medium over to any other person without seeking the copyright holder's permission.
Normally this doctrine only applies in cases where no additional copies of that copyrighted work were made. But in the case of computer software, additional copies may also be made for the purpose of running the software on a computer or for emergency backup purposes. But such copies must also be either destroyed, or else included along with the transfer of ownership of the original physical medium.
I believe the only copies that the purchaser has the right to transfer (along with the original) are exact copies that were made for back up purposes. Either that or they must be destroyed when they no longer own the original from which it was made.
The copy that was installed in the PC in order to run the software is considered an adaptive copy. What's on the HD is not an exact copy of what was on the original installation disc. It has been altered (adapted) to run on a specific computer. Plus it is no longer an installation copy. This adaptive copy can not be transfered without authorization from the original copyright holder of the software which was used to install it. Copyright laws gives ownership of this adaptive copy to the original copyright holder of the software used. Not the person that purchased and installed the software.
Section 117 of the Copyright law was included to protect the purchasers of software. That's because software must be copied on to the hardware in order to use it. Without Section 117 everyone installing software would be breaking copyright laws when making this copy.
It allows for making exact copies for back up purpose. These must be transfered along with the original or destroyed when the original is transfered.
It allows the purchaser to make any necessary changes to the software (once installed on the HD) in order for it to run on your hardware. This is an adaptive copy. This copy can not be transferred without the authorization of the original copyright holder.
It also allows for installation of software for maintenance purpose. This copy must also be removed from the hardware once the hardware is up and running.
What evidence do you have to support your contention that Apple has ever sold (sold!) any full license copies of OS X?
I recommend you Google 'OS X Leopard' and get back to me. Full license copies were retail boxed. I know because I bought one.
Analysts have missed why Apple is suddenly not selling 10.6 as a full license anymore. Psystar is why they went to upgrade only. I am basing my story on Apple's actions, not some nonsense that I conjured out of thin air.
Apple knows they screwed up on licensing. Now they are trying to fix it. All wrapped up in a pretty bow, of course.
Their business model today is to provide OS X compatible client machines. Not Macintoshes. They say it up front on their site. They do not sell Macs.
They can try to tell their story any way they like on their web site, with any select and meaningless buzzwords they choose -- but that does not change what they are doing. They are attempting to sell Macintosh computers, a proprietary device defined as OSX plus hardware, not either one by itself.
They also can't alter the assertions they have already made in court. They have claimed, in court filings, to be participating in a "Macintosh compatible computer market." Since no such market in fact exists, it is clear that they are trying to create one.
Comments
Vinny Gambini: It is possible that the two yutes...
Judge Chamberlain Haller: ...Ah, the two hwat? Uh... uh, hwat was that word?
Vinny Gambini: Uh... what word?
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Two hwat?
Vinny Gambini: What?
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Uh... did you say 'yutes'?
Vinny Gambini: Yeah, two yutes.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Hwat is a yute?
[beat]
Vinny Gambini: Oh, excuse me, your honor...
[exaggerated]
Vinny Gambini: Two YOUTHS.
Its not really a win for Pystar, more of a moot point really.
I don't think Pystar are good guys either. They took from the OSX86 community and didn't give back, and continue to do so. OSX86 are the good guys. I would agree that the fruit aren't the good guys, but neither are Pystar. Now, if (and against what many would say here) Apple would open up their OS to be used on any x86/x64 computer, then my tune would change. Till then, no money more of mine will go to support Apple (and same goes for MS, since they lock up their stuff good too, just in different ways)
The obvious reason for Apple to not "open up their OS to be used on any x86/x64 computer" is to guarantee the quality of every user experience by manufacturing every computer it operates on. This is not "rocket science". What part of this do you not understand? I'd really like to know. Please.
I wouldn't be too surprised to see Apple lose this case, actually. I am not so sure about the argument that Pystar is actually breaking the law. An EULA is not the same as a contract, after all, and tends to be less enforceable. If they do lose, Apple will probably just step up their efforts to lock OS X to Macs, possibly by adding some sort of hardware authentication chip to their computers.
At the very worst, they could be forced to *gasp* compete with Pystar on low-priced hardware, and I think we can all guess who would come out on top there.
Don't hold your breath on that one. The protection of intellectual property does have legal rights, not to mention moral ones.
Now, since Apple uses the SAME parts as the other PC vendors, I don't feel they are worth the higher price, which is why I won't buy from them any more.
If they open it up to any PC (careful about craptastic, because Apple hardware is the same hardware as the "craptastic" PCs!) then yes, you will have driver issues. I am fine with that. Have the different hardware companies write their own drivers... like they already do for OS X. Apple doesn't have to support any hardware, but I feel they are wrong in cutting hardware off that is identical to their own. Viruses will only become an issue if the Mac becomes more of a lead in the business area, where it isn't. I'd like to see more Macs out there, but only if Apple gets its head out of its ... mud pile in the backyard.
Tell me something, if, as you say , Mac hardware is the same as PC hardware, why does every customer satisfaction survey rate Apple at or near the top? Why is the resale price of Mac computers higher (check Ebay) than any PC?
You probably think that all cars are created equal too because they "all use the same parts".
Trust me, any manufacture of any product will tell you that there is quality difference in any manufactured item, even from same manufacturers. Are all televisions alike ... are all refrigerators alike? Come on ...get real.
"Can be installed on an Intel Mac without a prior installation of OSX" - No mac comes without a prior installation of Mac OS X. All Macs come with it preloaded. Therefore, its impossible NOT to have a previous installation having occurred. Whether or not that installation is still in place is immaterial.
This is simple.
Apple chooses to sell the full OS ONLY with the hardware in a bundled package.
You buy upgrade disks. You only buy a full licence with the actual mac itself. You NEVER pay for OS X in a disk form.
That is Apple's choice - Greed or not, they are a business and have that right. You have the choice to purchase or not purchase.
Just because you don't like their business practices doesn't make stealing from them right.
Semantic? No. Its plain. You can't buy a CD licence of Mac OS X. You can only buy an upgrade licence only. That does not allow installation on a device that it wasn't previously installed on in an earlier version. If you only buy an upgrade, you are ONLY buying the upgrade licence. That is not a full licence. You don't like it? Don't buy it. Don't steal and then whine that you didn't get it available in the way you liked.
Sorry to have to disagree with you because I'm on Apple's side on this issue but ... SL disc can be installed as a "clean install" and it comes as a OS disc stand alone. The only limitation is it has to be installed on an intel Mac.
When did they license OS X?
If you are referring to 8 and 9, those Systems ran on completely different hardware than x86, if I remember correctly. That is not the same situation, and Steve wasn't around.
What I envision for OS X and what you are mentally stumbling on is that the hardware does not make any difference now. They are the same thing, and this is proven by Windows running on Macs. .
Yes, but not without special software ... so they are not "the same" .. most cars run on gas, does that make them all the same?
First EULA doesn't matter. Psystar is not end user, Psystar was granted no license to distribute OS X.
Right. In addition, Pystar wants to sell Macintosh computers, a product which they have no proprietary right to sell. That right belongs exclusively to Apple.
Secondly you can't just compare Apple to Microsoft. Just because licensing software works for Microsoft it doesn't mean it would work for Apple. The reason why Microsoft is making money are OEM vendors. The profits from retail are far far behind.
Even more to the point, Microsoft does not sell PCs. If Apple were to license OSX to hardware vendors, they'd be competing with themselves. This is not only a radical business strategy, it is very stupid one.
They don't need permission to distribute OS X. The doctrine of first sale gives permission of the legitimate owner of any physical medium on which a copyrighted work is contained, to transfer ownership of that physical medium over to any other person without seeking the copyright holder's permission.
This is a little twisted. First, the doctrine of first use applies to consumer purchases, not purchase for commercial resale. Second, this not simply a matter of resale. Psytar is installing OSX on their hardware and selling the combination (a Macintosh computer), which they have no right to do under any legal doctrine.
make any machine a legitimate, fully paid-for OS X client. Which can be sold, if you wish, as a used computer.
That's pretty funny. People used to do that in the old days with Amiga - find an old boot rom from a used Apple.
There are probably dozens of old macs lying around. Pull out the cpu and solder on to the outside of the case of your brand new home built PC- then technically it is still a Mac. Not that I would do that but someone might
This is a little twisted. First, the doctrine of first use applies to consumer purchases, not purchase for commercial resale.
I believe you'll find that they (Psystar) paid the retail rate to purchase OSX. That makes them a retail customer, and the owner of the disc, until such time as they may or may not transfer ownership to somebody else at some undetermined point in the future. Or, to put it simply, for the sake of this discussion, they are the initial "consumer". Somebody else (Psystar's customer) will become a second-hand consumer if or when the customer purchases the computer from Psystar.
The fact that they bought it with the full intention of turning around and reselling it afterwords, as far as I know, has not been shown to have any bearing on the applicability of first sale doctrine. If I am wrong on this point, I would genuinely appreciate being referred to the precedence that says so.
Second, this not simply a matter of resale. Psytar is installing OSX on their hardware and selling the combination (a Macintosh computer), which they have no right to do under any legal doctrine.
First a point of clarification. They are not marketing it as a Macintosh(tm). They are marketing it as an "OpenComputer" that is configured to run Mac OS X.
Second, the general practice of reselling a computer with an OS already installed on it without first obtaining the copyright holder's consent most definitely is defined as non-infringing by US copyright law, provided you include all the original media provided with the OS along with the sale of the computer. In practice, you'll be exercising your rights under USC Title 17 Section 117 (b), where the additional copy in question was prepared in accordance with section 117 (a)(1), by installing the software on the computer's hard drive as an essential step of running the software.
The gotcha in this case is that "adaptations" can only be for internal use; unlike verbatim copies, they cannot be included in any such transfer of ownership without permission. If it is shown that the version of OS X included in Psystar computers counts as an "adaptation" instead of a verbatim copy, then I would agree that this defence is useless.
I still think, though, that if anything can make this a slam dunk for Apple, it will be the applicability of the EULA.
...
Grow up.
I think that captures it rather succinctly.
Apple can move to AMD tomorrow and put the systems on the shelves the same day.
Not going to happen.
The Intel/Apple merger is already in the works, it's obvious as day.
Google is out, Eric Schmidt is off the board at Apple and Apple has recently hired Intel's top lawyer most likely to ease the transition.
Steve Jobs is on borrowed time, Apple can't go through another bunch of loser CEO's like before.
Microsoft and AMD can merge, Microsoft is building their own retail stores...
I believe you'll find that they (Psystar) paid the retail rate to purchase OSX. That makes them a retail customer, and the owner of the disc, until such time as they may or may not transfer ownership to somebody else at some undetermined point in the future. Or, to put it simply, for the sake of this discussion, they are the initial "consumer". Somebody else (Psystar's customer) will become a second-hand consumer if or when the customer purchases the computer from Psystar.
The fact that they bought it with the full intention of turning around and reselling it afterwords, as far as I know, has not been shown to have any bearing on the applicability of first sale doctrine. If I am wrong on this point, I would genuinely appreciate being referred to the precedence that says so.
First, how does the "rate" they paid make any difference? Second, we don't actually know how much they paid. Apple demanded these records in discovery but Psystar claimed to have lost them. The difference is that they are not simply transferring ownership, they are installing the software on their hardware first. It's no more than a theory that this protected under first use doctrine, which was created to allow owners of copies of copyrighted products to sell them to someone else, not to allow someone to trade on copyrighted materials.
First a point of clarification. They are not marketing it as a Macintosh(tm). They are marketing it as an "OpenComputer" that is configured to run Mac OS X.
This is a HUGE fallacy. They are in fact attempting to sell Macintosh computers. If that was not the case, then they would not even bother. Psystar can't even claim otherwise with a straight face, if only because they attempted to sue Apple under antitrust law for preventing them from doing that very thing!
The Intel/Apple merger is already in the works, it's obvious as day.
I don't believe it's likely. These rumors have been going on for years. Here's one from Bob Cringely in 2005:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2...09_000855.html
I see this as a non-starter for three reasons:
First, Intel does not want to be in a position of competing with their own customers (Dell, HP/Compaq, Acer, Gateway, etc.). If Dell viewed the merged Intel/Apple as competition rather than as a supplier, they would be eagerly shopping non-Intel parts to avoid enriching the very company they were competing with.
Secondly, Apple does not move that much Intel silicon. If Apple were buying 60% of Intel's output, then I could see such a merger, but not with the amount of silicon that Apple buys.
Third, Apple uses too many chips from Intel's competitors. Apple has gone AWAY from Intel for the graphics coprocessors to Nvidia. The CPUs in the iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPod Nano are all Samsung ARM CPUs. Apple uses Toshiba flash memory in some of the iPods. The list goes on and on. Were Intel to merge with Apple, there's no way that Apple would be able to buy the best parts -- they would have to use Intel parts. Depending on the application, that could lead to higher cost, lower performance, shorter battery life, or some combination thereof. Apple would find its hands tied while its competitors were free to shop the marketplace without stipulations on brand. Microsoft's Zune could become the slender, sexy market leader while the iPod might end up in a big clunky box loaded with sub-par Intel hardware. If GM merged with Goodyear, would you expect to find Firestone, Pirelli, or Bridgestone tires on new GM vehicles? Would you expect Ford to continue buying Goodyear tires for their cars?
I'm going to remain skeptical on this one.
I believe you'll find that they (Psystar) paid the retail rate to purchase OSX. That makes them a retail customer, and the owner of the disc, until such time as they may or may not transfer ownership to somebody else at some undetermined point in the future. Or, to put it simply, for the sake of this discussion, they are the initial "consumer". Somebody else (Psystar's customer) will become a second-hand consumer if or when the customer purchases the computer from Psystar.
The fact that they bought it with the full intention of turning around and reselling it afterwords, as far as I know, has not been shown to have any bearing on the applicability of first sale doctrine. If I am wrong on this point, I would genuinely appreciate being referred to the precedence that says so.
First a point of clarification. They are not marketing it as a Macintosh(tm). They are marketing it as an "OpenComputer" that is configured to run Mac OS X.
Second, the general practice of reselling a computer with an OS already installed on it without first obtaining the copyright holder's consent most definitely is defined as non-infringing by US copyright law, provided you include all the original media provided with the OS along with the sale of the computer. In practice, you'll be exercising your rights under USC Title 17 Section 117 (b), where the additional copy in question was prepared in accordance with section 117 (a)(1), by installing the software on the computer's hard drive as an essential step of running the software.
The gotcha in this case is that "adaptations" can only be for internal use; unlike verbatim copies, they cannot be included in any such transfer of ownership without permission. If it is shown that the version of OS X included in Psystar computers counts as an "adaptation" instead of a verbatim copy, then I would agree that this defence is useless.
I still think, though, that if anything can make this a slam dunk for Apple, it will be the applicability of the EULA.
I think thats well said. the EULA is sticky though, as judges have gone both ways on it. I think the adaptation/reverse engineering clause is the most solid. To my knowledge, there is no hardware system currently in existence (other than a Mac) that you can stick a retail copy of OS X into and install it. Which is why Psystar requires you to buy OS X with your order, and then they install it for you.
What i am really curious about is if the EFI(Firmware) is shipped in the OS X install disc, or if it exists ONLY on hardware purchased from Apple ( via the motherboard ROM/HD). If Psystar is using/modifying or copying such EFI in order to install OS X, then they are going to lose. They don't have the right to resell an EFI they did not purchase. Does Psystar buy a Mac for every Open system they sell? I dont think so. Anyone have insight onto the EFI?
I think thats well said. the EULA is sticky though, as judges have gone both ways on it. I think the adaptation/reverse engineering clause is the most solid. To my knowledge, there is no hardware system currently in existence (other than a Mac) that you can stick a retail copy of OS X into and install it. Which is why Psystar requires you to buy OS X with your order, and then they install it for you.
What i am really curious about is if the EFI(Firmware) is shipped in the OS X install disc, or if it exists ONLY on hardware purchased from Apple ( via the motherboard ROM/HD). If Psystar is using/modifying or copying such EFI in order to install OS X, then they are going to lose. They don't have the right to resell an EFI they did not purchase. Does Psystar buy a Mac for every Open system they sell? I dont think so. Anyone have insight onto the EFI?
No, not really. Modification really only relates to the DMCA violation claim, which is only one of several of which Apple is making against Psystar. You are making the error of thinking that the level of difficulty required to violate a copyright or trademark is in some way related to the legality of doing so. It isn't. EULA or no EULA, Psystar does not have the right to sell Macintosh computers. As I pointed out above, they previously asserted that they do have this right, that they were entitled to create a Macintosh compatible computer market. This claim was thrown out.
Wrong. US Copyright law actually takes that away from the copyright holder, and assigns it to the owner of the physical medium on which their copy was conveyed. They specifically have permission to transfer ownership of the physical medium over to somebody else, provided they also either destroy, or else include as part of the transfer, every other copy that has been made.
They don't need permission to distribute OS X. The doctrine of first sale gives permission of the legitimate owner of any physical medium on which a copyrighted work is contained, to transfer ownership of that physical medium over to any other person without seeking the copyright holder's permission.
Normally this doctrine only applies in cases where no additional copies of that copyrighted work were made. But in the case of computer software, additional copies may also be made for the purpose of running the software on a computer or for emergency backup purposes. But such copies must also be either destroyed, or else included along with the transfer of ownership of the original physical medium.
I believe the only copies that the purchaser has the right to transfer (along with the original) are exact copies that were made for back up purposes. Either that or they must be destroyed when they no longer own the original from which it was made.
The copy that was installed in the PC in order to run the software is considered an adaptive copy. What's on the HD is not an exact copy of what was on the original installation disc. It has been altered (adapted) to run on a specific computer. Plus it is no longer an installation copy. This adaptive copy can not be transfered without authorization from the original copyright holder of the software which was used to install it. Copyright laws gives ownership of this adaptive copy to the original copyright holder of the software used. Not the person that purchased and installed the software.
Section 117 of the Copyright law was included to protect the purchasers of software. That's because software must be copied on to the hardware in order to use it. Without Section 117 everyone installing software would be breaking copyright laws when making this copy.
It allows for making exact copies for back up purpose. These must be transfered along with the original or destroyed when the original is transfered.
It allows the purchaser to make any necessary changes to the software (once installed on the HD) in order for it to run on your hardware. This is an adaptive copy. This copy can not be transferred without the authorization of the original copyright holder.
It also allows for installation of software for maintenance purpose. This copy must also be removed from the hardware once the hardware is up and running.
In your opinion. That's nice, for what it is.
What evidence do you have to support your contention that Apple has ever sold (sold!) any full license copies of OS X?
I recommend you Google 'OS X Leopard' and get back to me. Full license copies were retail boxed. I know because I bought one.
Analysts have missed why Apple is suddenly not selling 10.6 as a full license anymore. Psystar is why they went to upgrade only. I am basing my story on Apple's actions, not some nonsense that I conjured out of thin air.
Apple knows they screwed up on licensing. Now they are trying to fix it. All wrapped up in a pretty bow, of course.
Psystar does not have the right to sell Macintosh computers.
Their business model today is to provide OS X compatible client machines. Not Macintoshes. They say it up front on their site. They do not sell Macs.
Their business model today is to provide OS X compatible client machines. Not Macintoshes. They say it up front on their site. They do not sell Macs.
They can try to tell their story any way they like on their web site, with any select and meaningless buzzwords they choose -- but that does not change what they are doing. They are attempting to sell Macintosh computers, a proprietary device defined as OSX plus hardware, not either one by itself.
They also can't alter the assertions they have already made in court. They have claimed, in court filings, to be participating in a "Macintosh compatible computer market." Since no such market in fact exists, it is clear that they are trying to create one.