Congratulations Apple! You paid for Mac OS X development, therefore you should get to decide who can license it (which computers), and should not have to permit someone else to use your technology to run on their PCs.
they should send these sh*thead psystar-creators to Guantanamo!
That's total nonsense. It's obnoxious when people put politics into tech forums, so to clarify...
US Constitution and Federal Court System apply to US citizens. Since Psystar is a US 'company' they would be subject to US Courts.
Now if they weren't citizens, didn't pay taxes, weren't here on a visitor visa, and picked up abroad after committing heinous crimes or working for such an organization, then Guantanamo would be the place. People in other countries don't benefit from the Constitution, unless there is some partisan political effort here to try and 1up a differing political party. Not sure why, it's not like foreigners can vote and help in elections? However, then it seems to be ok bending or breaking rules, but only in obvious cases of political gain, or if you don't like somebody, or you have - at maximum- vague accusations of a conspiracy.
In my mind it seems pretty clear the place for Psystar is the US Federal Court System. I'm not a lawyer (was inoculated as a child), but I think if it were possible to send Psystar to Guantanamo, then Pirate Bay could be tried here rather than in the Kingdom of Sweden.
But hey, I don't make the rules, I just read 'em. Not sure why this is so confusing to people?
That's total nonsense. It's obnoxious when people put politics into tech forums, so to clarify...
US Constitution and Federal Court System apply to US citizens. Since Psystar is a US 'company' they would be subject to US Courts.
Now if they weren't citizens, didn't pay taxes, weren't here on a visitor visa, and picked up abroad after committing heinous crimes or working for such an organization, then Guantanamo would be the place. People in other countries don't benefit from the Constitution, unless there is some partisan political effort here to try and 1up a differing political party. Not sure why, it's not like foreigners can vote and help in elections? However, then it seems to be ok bending or breaking rules, but only in obvious cases of political gain, or if you don't like somebody, or you have - at maximum- vague accusations of a conspiracy.
In my mind it seems pretty clear the place for Psystar is the US Federal Court System. I'm not a lawyer (was inoculated as a child), but I think if it were possible to send Psystar to Guantanamo, then Pirate Bay could be tried here rather than in the Kingdom of Sweden.
But hey, I don't make the rules, I just read 'em. Not sure why this is so confusing to people?
Why does a judge rule on a key issue before the trial has even started? I understand that a judge has to rule on issues of what exactly the trial is about (ie, what charges are dismissed and which go to trial) and what evidence should be allowed.
A summary judgement is asked for if one believes one's position is so obviously and manifestly correct (or the other side's position is so obviously a fantasy), that the trial itself would be a travesty and waste everyone's time. The judge can agree or not.
In this case Psystar basically said that Apple was misusing copyright when it obviously and clearly was not, so the judge agreed and now they aren't able to even argue that if the trial continues.
This happens all the time. Like if OJ argued that aliens killed his wife and was prepared to make some big defence based on that, the other team could argue for a summary judgement that such a defence was just a big waste of time because, you know, aliens are a fantasy. It's a way of clearing out all the real BS before the arguments begin.
Man, that sucks. Goodbye, freedom. Of course, we Apple users all hate that, anyway.
(And yes, I have a Mac and an iPhone)
You still have the freedom to make a hackintosh, you just don't have the freedom to make money selling them out of your garage. The end user is the winner here.
Dummies. They should have just sold the computers along with the necessary apps to install the bootloader, kexts and drivers, then let the consumer buy and install the OS. Apple wouldn't have been able to touch them since they wouldn't have been the ones violating the EULA. As difficult as it is to build a perfectly working Hackintosh, lots of people would pay for hardware that runs OS X flawlessly (and I don't mean genuine Macs).
If I was to take the Psystar side of the argument, I'd have to defend the position that copyright itself is invalid, given that it's not real physical property, and has been abused, extended, etc. Other than that, I'd have no clue how to go about it.
That's not my personal position, just how I'd approach defending them if I were in a debating class or something.
They can't. Firstly, it's a Constitutional issue that's guaranteed in the Constitution.
Secondly, it's been tried many times, and has failed because of the first reason.
The only way copyright can be overturned, rather than modified, is by a Constitutional Amendment.
Dummies. They should have just sold the computers along with the necessary apps to install the bootloader, kexts and drivers, then let the consumer buy and install the OS. Apple wouldn't have been able to touch them since they wouldn't have been the ones violating the EULA. As difficult as it is to get a perfectly working Hackintosh, lots of people would pay for hardware that runs OS X flawlessly (and I don't mean genuine Macs).
That's still illegal. And if you read the complete judgement, you would see that the judge already said they were guilty of "contributorily infringement", which also covers what you just said they should have done.
Quote:
\t2.\tCONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT. 11\tApple next asserts that Psystar is liable for contributory infringement. Psystar offers no opposition on this issue. “One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement.” See MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 930 (2005). \tPsystar is a contributory infringer through its sale of unauthorized copies of Mac OS X to the public. This is contributory infringement. Accordingly, summary judgment must be granted for Apple on contributory infringement.
If I was to take the Psystar side of the argument, I'd have to defend the position that copyright itself is invalid, given that it's not real physical property, and has been abused, extended, etc. Other than that, I'd have no clue how to go about it.
That's not my personal position, just how I'd approach defending them if I were in a debating class or something.
That argument is a loser as well. But I've seen people actually use it... denying the physics of the medium they're using to make their point = clueless.
Just because code is really, really small or impossible to see with the naked eye doesn't mean it's "not real physical property". Even if were just light it is still a real 'physical' matter. It's just another example of writing. Copying someone else's novel onto different paper is still theft.
I've seen this argument thrown around as well. Again, as in most matters dealing with online 'copyright' opinion... just more fantasy illogic to try and defend or facilitate theft. Usually by useless parasites like Psystar, only jealous of others' ability to create.
That argument is a loser as well. But I've seen people actually use it... denying the physics of the medium they're using to make their point = clueless.
Just because code is really, really small or impossible to see with the naked eye doesn't mean it's "not real physical property". Even if were just light it is still a real 'physical' matter. It's just another example of writing. Copying someone else's novel onto different paper is still theft.
I've seen this argument thrown around as well. Again, as in most matters dealing with online 'copyright' opinion... just more fantasy illogic to try and defend or facilitate theft. Usually by useless parasites like Psystar, only jealous of others' ability to create.
In addition, computer programs are included within the copyright laws.
This is part of the code. It's in several of the subs. Note 506.
Apple will now sue for damages (lost revenue, etc.. plus punitive) thus driving Psystar to bankruptcy and shutter of doors. The main reason I like this is because if any manufacturer can do this it will severely hurt Apple and thus the millions of consumers that are served by a strong and robust Apple. Also, if Psystar wins then mobile OSX would be used on other phones.
That's still illegal. And if you read the complete judgement, you would see that the judge already said they were guilty of "contributorily infringement", which also covers what you just said they should have done.
On the one hand, that would tend to be supported by the Grokster case cited, which says even third parties could be found guilty. Curiously, though, the summary judgment specifically says, "Psystar is a contributory infringer through its sale of unauthorized copies of Mac OS X to the public." So what would happen to that judgment if Psystar wasn't selling those unauthorized copies?
Why did have to go and ruin a perfectly reasonable discussion with a legal link?
Yep, because code is 'physical property' too. It's a failure of logic in those that can't see that...
Solid, liquid, gas, plasma - all 'physical' tangible things. Code and computer programs have to be one of those. I guess some people think all this stuff runs on 'magic' or 'love' or something.
It was said earlier, and it's correct, that a motion for summary judgment is made when a party wishes to stipulate to the facts and let the judge rule as a matter of law on whether the case should go forward. In this case, Apple's summary judgment motion would basically say: even if we view the facts in the light most favorable to Pystar, we STILL win as a matter of law. If all sides' summary judgment motions are dismissed, the case proceeds. Despite what someone else said, grants of summary judgment are not rare. Trials, on the other hand, are extremely rare.
With regard to copyright law, Pystar could not argue that the copyright law is invalid. It's very well entrenched around the world that computer code is protected under copyright law, as it is an "original work" and it is "fixed in a manner that is capable of being perceived." You can decide for yourself whether you think computer object or source code is the same as, say, a novel or a painting (both works for which copyright laws were originally envisioned hundreds of years ago), and thus protected by copyright (as opposed to, say, patent law); but that's not at issue here. For over 25 years courts have held that software is copyrightable, and that won't change anytime soon.
Lastly, in response to an earlier comment, it would not take a constitutional amendment to change copyright law. While you're right that the US Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to enact laws protecting artistic (copyright) and scientific (patent) works for a limited period of time, the actual laws are passed by Congress and can be altered or altogether eliminated at any time.
My question is: does Apple have a legal remedy available to it to 'force' disclosure of the financial backers of Psystar? Could this occur if Apple sues for damages, and thus can find the deep pockets via discovery in that legal process?
Also, if Psystar wins then mobile OSX would be used on other phones.
Doubtful. Psystar's argument was that once the copies of OS X are purchased, they or the end user should be allowed to do anything they want with it, EULA be damned. The iPhone OS is not sold separately so there's no way to buy it except in a device. I'm pretty sure it's encrypted in firmware so nobody can just pull it off the ROMs and copy it, which would be blatant copyright infringement anyway. I know the baseband is, which is why so many early iPhones were permanently bricked when people trying to jailbreak them messed up without making a backup copy of the baseband first.
Comments
they should send these sh*thead psystar-creators to Guantanamo!
That's total nonsense.
US Constitution and Federal Court System apply to US citizens. Since Psystar is a US 'company' they would be subject to US Courts.
Now if they weren't citizens, didn't pay taxes, weren't here on a visitor visa, and picked up abroad after committing heinous crimes or working for such an organization, then Guantanamo would be the place. People in other countries don't benefit from the Constitution, unless there is some partisan political effort here to try and 1up a differing political party. Not sure why, it's not like foreigners can vote and help in elections? However, then it seems to be ok bending or breaking rules, but only in obvious cases of political gain, or if you don't like somebody, or you have - at maximum- vague accusations of a conspiracy.
In my mind it seems pretty clear the place for Psystar is the US Federal Court System. I'm not a lawyer (was inoculated as a child), but I think if it were possible to send Psystar to Guantanamo, then Pirate Bay could be tried here rather than in the Kingdom of Sweden.
But hey, I don't make the rules, I just read 'em. Not sure why this is so confusing to people?
(And yes, I have a Mac and an iPhone)
That's total nonsense.
US Constitution and Federal Court System apply to US citizens. Since Psystar is a US 'company' they would be subject to US Courts.
Now if they weren't citizens, didn't pay taxes, weren't here on a visitor visa, and picked up abroad after committing heinous crimes or working for such an organization, then Guantanamo would be the place. People in other countries don't benefit from the Constitution, unless there is some partisan political effort here to try and 1up a differing political party. Not sure why, it's not like foreigners can vote and help in elections? However, then it seems to be ok bending or breaking rules, but only in obvious cases of political gain, or if you don't like somebody, or you have - at maximum- vague accusations of a conspiracy.
In my mind it seems pretty clear the place for Psystar is the US Federal Court System. I'm not a lawyer (was inoculated as a child), but I think if it were possible to send Psystar to Guantanamo, then Pirate Bay could be tried here rather than in the Kingdom of Sweden.
But hey, I don't make the rules, I just read 'em. Not sure why this is so confusing to people?
I don't think he meant it seriously.
Can somebody explain me this:
Why does a judge rule on a key issue before the trial has even started? I understand that a judge has to rule on issues of what exactly the trial is about (ie, what charges are dismissed and which go to trial) and what evidence should be allowed.
A summary judgement is asked for if one believes one's position is so obviously and manifestly correct (or the other side's position is so obviously a fantasy), that the trial itself would be a travesty and waste everyone's time. The judge can agree or not.
In this case Psystar basically said that Apple was misusing copyright when it obviously and clearly was not, so the judge agreed and now they aren't able to even argue that if the trial continues.
This happens all the time. Like if OJ argued that aliens killed his wife and was prepared to make some big defence based on that, the other team could argue for a summary judgement that such a defence was just a big waste of time because, you know, aliens are a fantasy. It's a way of clearing out all the real BS before the arguments begin.
Man, that sucks. Goodbye, freedom. Of course, we Apple users all hate that, anyway.
(And yes, I have a Mac and an iPhone)
You still have the freedom to make a hackintosh, you just don't have the freedom to make money selling them out of your garage. The end user is the winner here.
If I was to take the Psystar side of the argument, I'd have to defend the position that copyright itself is invalid, given that it's not real physical property, and has been abused, extended, etc. Other than that, I'd have no clue how to go about it.
That's not my personal position, just how I'd approach defending them if I were in a debating class or something.
They can't. Firstly, it's a Constitutional issue that's guaranteed in the Constitution.
Secondly, it's been tried many times, and has failed because of the first reason.
The only way copyright can be overturned, rather than modified, is by a Constitutional Amendment.
Man, that sucks. Goodbye, freedom. Of course, we Apple users all hate that, anyway.
(And yes, I have a Mac and an iPhone)
That's absurd.
Should your employers given themselves the "freedom" to force you to work without paying you?
Dummies. They should have just sold the computers along with the necessary apps to install the bootloader, kexts and drivers, then let the consumer buy and install the OS. Apple wouldn't have been able to touch them since they wouldn't have been the ones violating the EULA. As difficult as it is to get a perfectly working Hackintosh, lots of people would pay for hardware that runs OS X flawlessly (and I don't mean genuine Macs).
That's still illegal. And if you read the complete judgement, you would see that the judge already said they were guilty of "contributorily infringement", which also covers what you just said they should have done.
\t2.\tCONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT. 11\tApple next asserts that Psystar is liable for contributory infringement. Psystar offers no opposition on this issue. “One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement.” See MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 930 (2005). \tPsystar is a contributory infringer through its sale of unauthorized copies of Mac OS X to the public. This is contributory infringement. Accordingly, summary judgment must be granted for Apple on contributory infringement.
It's all in there:
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Psystar-214.pdf
If I was to take the Psystar side of the argument, I'd have to defend the position that copyright itself is invalid, given that it's not real physical property, and has been abused, extended, etc. Other than that, I'd have no clue how to go about it.
That's not my personal position, just how I'd approach defending them if I were in a debating class or something.
That argument is a loser as well. But I've seen people actually use it... denying the physics of the medium they're using to make their point = clueless.
Just because code is really, really small or impossible to see with the naked eye doesn't mean it's "not real physical property". Even if were just light it is still a real 'physical' matter. It's just another example of writing. Copying someone else's novel onto different paper is still theft.
I've seen this argument thrown around as well. Again, as in most matters dealing with online 'copyright' opinion... just more fantasy illogic to try and defend or facilitate theft. Usually by useless parasites like Psystar, only jealous of others' ability to create.
That argument is a loser as well. But I've seen people actually use it... denying the physics of the medium they're using to make their point = clueless.
Just because code is really, really small or impossible to see with the naked eye doesn't mean it's "not real physical property". Even if were just light it is still a real 'physical' matter. It's just another example of writing. Copying someone else's novel onto different paper is still theft.
I've seen this argument thrown around as well. Again, as in most matters dealing with online 'copyright' opinion... just more fantasy illogic to try and defend or facilitate theft. Usually by useless parasites like Psystar, only jealous of others' ability to create.
In addition, computer programs are included within the copyright laws.
This is part of the code. It's in several of the subs. Note 506.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1_17_10_5.html
That's still illegal. And if you read the complete judgement, you would see that the judge already said they were guilty of "contributorily infringement", which also covers what you just said they should have done.
On the one hand, that would tend to be supported by the Grokster case cited, which says even third parties could be found guilty. Curiously, though, the summary judgment specifically says, "Psystar is a contributory infringer through its sale of unauthorized copies of Mac OS X to the public." So what would happen to that judgment if Psystar wasn't selling those unauthorized copies?
In addition, computer programs are included within the copyright laws.
This is part of the code. It's in several of the subs. Note 506.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1_17_10_5.html
Why did have to go and ruin a perfectly reasonable discussion with a legal link?
Yep, because code is 'physical property' too. It's a failure of logic in those that can't see that...
Solid, liquid, gas, plasma - all 'physical' tangible things. Code and computer programs have to be one of those. I guess some people think all this stuff runs on 'magic' or 'love' or something.
Adios, losers.
I can't wait until Psystar is forced to reveal their financial backers, as part of monetary relief for Apple. Should be very interesting.
The backers could be shielding even deeper backers.
It was said earlier, and it's correct, that a motion for summary judgment is made when a party wishes to stipulate to the facts and let the judge rule as a matter of law on whether the case should go forward. In this case, Apple's summary judgment motion would basically say: even if we view the facts in the light most favorable to Pystar, we STILL win as a matter of law. If all sides' summary judgment motions are dismissed, the case proceeds. Despite what someone else said, grants of summary judgment are not rare. Trials, on the other hand, are extremely rare.
With regard to copyright law, Pystar could not argue that the copyright law is invalid. It's very well entrenched around the world that computer code is protected under copyright law, as it is an "original work" and it is "fixed in a manner that is capable of being perceived." You can decide for yourself whether you think computer object or source code is the same as, say, a novel or a painting (both works for which copyright laws were originally envisioned hundreds of years ago), and thus protected by copyright (as opposed to, say, patent law); but that's not at issue here. For over 25 years courts have held that software is copyrightable, and that won't change anytime soon.
Lastly, in response to an earlier comment, it would not take a constitutional amendment to change copyright law. While you're right that the US Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to enact laws protecting artistic (copyright) and scientific (patent) works for a limited period of time, the actual laws are passed by Congress and can be altered or altogether eliminated at any time.
Also, if Psystar wins then mobile OSX would be used on other phones.
Doubtful. Psystar's argument was that once the copies of OS X are purchased, they or the end user should be allowed to do anything they want with it, EULA be damned. The iPhone OS is not sold separately so there's no way to buy it except in a device. I'm pretty sure it's encrypted in firmware so nobody can just pull it off the ROMs and copy it, which would be blatant copyright infringement anyway. I know the baseband is, which is why so many early iPhones were permanently bricked when people trying to jailbreak them messed up without making a backup copy of the baseband first.