ok, let me connect the dots for you. If i create a software, i want to make money out of it because i spend my time creating it. If there is no EULA, everybody can buy it from me and then mass produce it and resell it, they are taking profit from me up to the point where there is no more profit. In the end, why do I want to create something for nothing? therefore, no motivation to create new software. This is just one person. Think if there is more than one person, a company think like that. Then, why the hell you innovate at all when in the end, everyone else is going to profit from it.
Do you understand now?
Silly person, no EULA doesn't mean the copyright is void.
1/ Buying the software has the characteristics of a sale...as has been mentioned previously..NOT licensing it. Pretty sure you can't read or even see the EULA without opening it..meaning possible misrepresentation by the shop and or Apple. The Apple website doesn't clealry state that you are buying a licence not an actual produt.
2/ Apple labelled??? fine just put a sticker on it!!!
edit according to PCMAG.com the thrust of Apple's case is reputational damage and assumed afilliation to them by unwitting Psystar customers!
a weak case on both points IMO.
your first point, however, is not really a weak point. the problem is every software is like that. so its kind of general knowledge or supposedly.
but then again, psystar only needs to violate one to be shutdown. So it doesnt matter whether the other two point are weak. They are still violating EULA if they violate one.
i see what u mean. I was wrong on that. So it is clear that the copyright is not violated, its the EULA that is being disputed.
No, copyright may have been violated in the very beginning, because in addition to transferring the original copy of the software, they were also including a modified derivative copy of the software.
Copyright was almost certainly being violated as soon as they started distributing unauthorized duplications of Apple's downloadable software updates.
No, copyright may have been violated in the very beginning, because in addition to transferring the original copy of the software, they were also including a modified derivative copy of the software.
Copyright was almost certainly being violated as soon as they started distributing unauthorized duplications of Apple's downloadable software updates.
But isn't it EULA that deals with redistribution? Because in the Leopard EULA, it clearly discusses that particular subject.
But isn't it EULA that deals with redistribution? Because in the Leopard EULA, it clearly discusses that particular subject.
Even if the EULA was totally mum on the subject of redistribution, copyright law clearly states that making duplications of somebody else's work without their permission, and then distributing those duplications to others (except under a very narrow set of circumstances), is a criminal offense. In this particular case, the concept of a license agreement might actually be used to convey additional rights to the user beyond those that normally exist under copyright law. The GPL is an example of such a license agreement.
Contrast this with the case where you have legal ownership of one complete embodiment of a copyrighted work, and you transfer (ie. sell or give away) the entire original body of work to somebody else without keeping any duplications of it for yourself. This is acceptable in the eyes of copyright law under first-sale doctrine.
your first point, however, is not really a weak point. the problem is every software is like that. so its kind of general knowledge or supposedly.
but then again, psystar only needs to violate one to be shutdown. So it doesnt matter whether the other two point are weak. They are still violating EULA if they violate one.
Pardon my brevity and syntax errors as I am trying to beat iPhone Safari from crashing on me again.
They started out in violation of the copyright when they DLed and installed OSx86. No matter how many copies of OS X they bought they are still short by at least one. And it's this 'stolen' copy that is being installed on every single Psystar OpenComputer. This is even worse as they DLes new hacked copies that have new point releases included in the builds.
1/ Buying the software has the characteristics of a sale...as has been mentioned previously..NOT licensing it. Pretty sure you can't read or even see the EULA without opening it..meaning possible misrepresentation by the shop and or Apple. The Apple website doesn't clealry state that you are buying a licence not an actual produt.
2/ Apple labelled??? fine just put a sticker on it!!!
edit according to PCMAG.com the thrust of Apple's case is reputational damage and assumed afilliation to them by unwitting Psystar customers!
a weak case on both points IMO.
The whole notion of the user consenting by clicking on a button to complete an installation is so weak in law. Firstly you would have to establish who exactly clicked on the button, which would involve co-operative self incrimination in the absence of witnesses. Then you would have to establish the user's understanding of the implications of clicking on the button.
There used to be a lovely piece of software in Mac OS classic called Okey Dokey. It's sole function was to auto click on any enter buttons that would pop up in your absence. I could legitimately have a piece of software that did that on my machine and then no human intervention would be needed for installation. Even log-ins could be handled by software.
So you could have resident software on your computer that could be the legal entity by Apple's EULA definition that would be legally responsible for installations. Maybe a trained parrot or monkey could do the job.
Now this is all so Apple can sue you for using a legitimately purchased product. Compare the harm in that with guns freely sold without any EULAs attached.
your first point, however, is not really a weak point. the problem is every software is like that. so its kind of general knowledge or supposedly.
but then again, psystar only needs to violate one to be shutdown. So it doesnt matter whether the other two point are weak. They are still violating EULA if they violate one.
I really don't think the EULA would be legally enforceable.
Whether every software is like that is irrelevant. The reason it has never been challenged in court is a good one!!
the suit claims reputational damage...
"As alleged more fully below, by misappropriating Apple's proprietary software and intellectual property for its own use, Psystar's actions harm consumers by selling to them a poor product that is advertised and promoted in a manner that falsely and unfairly implies an affiliation with Apple," Apple's suit claims. "Psystar's actions also have caused, and are causing, harm to Apple and constitute a misuse of Apple's intellectual property."
how is it APPle to judge if it's a poor product? surely that right belongs to the purchaser? They could get all happy users to testify that its good and they are satisfied.
I would think there would be nothing clearer to the consumer than that this is NOT an affiliation with Apple.
If this is their legal case, I think they may see a rerun of their "triumph" over Microsoft's Windows.
If even one OpenComputer owner has called Apple tech support about issues with their system that claim could be deemed true. Anyone who is buying a Psystar product doesn't have a firm grasp on computing othwise they could have saved a good deal of money building their own.
ok, let me connect the dots for you. If i create a software, i want to make money out of it because i spend my time creating it. If there is no EULA, everybody can buy it from me and then mass produce it and resell it, they are taking profit from me up to the point where there is no more profit. In the end, why do I want to create something for nothing? therefore, no motivation to create new software. This is just one person. Think if there is more than one person, a company think like that. Then, why the hell you innovate at all when in the end, everyone else is going to profit from it.
Do you understand now?
Ha ha!
Do you understand now? Poor little boy.
I'm laughing at you. I hope you know that, especially since you went on about this for so fucking long and every other poster on here knew just how stupid you were being. Holy shit, you actually thought the EULA was the copyright. Even when it was spelled out for you! My God, perhaps I should try pictures and small words next time to try to illustrate the concept.
And now you'll continue to proclaim yourself as some sort of authority on the subject. Fuck, that's pathetic. No one in their right mind is going to take you seriously.
Do you have any idea how funny your "China has no EULA" comment is to me now? Any idea?
Actual lawyers? What a novel concept. Don't you prefer rampant speculation by trolls, know nothings and well intended armchair Gods? I know I sure as hell do. (By the way, I'm a troll.)
Actual lawyers? What a novel concept. Don't you prefer rampant speculation by trolls, know nothings and well intended armchair Gods? I know I sure as hell do. (By the way, I'm a troll.)
He he. Good link, thank you.
I don't care for the trolls, but I like the armchair experts. There is a big difference between being a lawyer and knowing some fundamentals about the law. I think most here people understand the concepts, but like lawyers we have different viewpoints as to how the law is interpreted.
yes, but you are modifying the usage of the product which is specified in EULA
But is that legally binding? Can a contract, particularly one that I was not a equal negotiating partner with, prevent me from modifying a product for my own use? I don't think this has yet been fully tested under EULA case law. And what has been tested appears (at least in the headlines) to be siding with the reverse engineers and the modifiers. This will be interesting to watch. -- That is if it becomes a test of the EULA and not a copyright issue. I think Apple would like it to remain a copyright issue.
P.S. Why is it that nobody is thinking that Pystar might be a front company for a bunch of lawyers who want to break the EULAs?
Edit: I just read the Engadget article and it appears that EULAs have further tested than I thought. Though they did leave an opening that Pystar might prevail in a EULA fight.
Dont you pay subscription fee for ISP? Thats your license to go online. You don't pay each site license, you pay license to get access to the internet.
Dude, Nothing is for free!!!
But there are ISPs that limit what protocols you use; What newsgroups you can see; Put blocks on different sites; Even directing you to their preferred sites and/or replacing site ads with ads of their own choosing.
I don't think this has yet been fully tested under EULA case law.
Check out the Engadget link, above. Apparently there have been cases and Florida, where Psystar resides, has such laws.
Quote:
And what has been tested appears (at least in the headlines) to be siding with the reverse engineers and the modifiers.
But they didn't reverse engineer anything. They stolen a hacked version of copyrighted software and used it on every singe Psystar machine. Regardless of how many licenses they bought they never used the actual OS X software they purchased, and they will always be at least one license shy as they never had a license for the copies that DLed illegally.
Quote:
P.S. Why is it that nobody is thinking that Pystar might be a front company for a bunch of lawyers who want to break the EULAs?
Check out the Engadget link, above. Apparently there have been cases and Florida, where Psystar resides, has such laws.
But they didn't reverse engineer anything. They stolen a hacked version of copyrighted software and used it on every singe Psystar machine. Regardless of how many licenses they bought they never used the actual OS X software they purchased, and they will always be at least one license shy as they never had a license for the copies that DLed illegally.
I'm glad to say that never once crossed my mind.
You got Florida law, California law, Federal law and common law here. The Engadget article did leave the opening that Pystar could win an EULA fight. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I mentioned reverse engineering because that clause is usually placed in the EULAs to prevent people form studying and modifying the software to their own specs. In this case the reverse engineering was done by a third party which Pystar used for their own purposes. I wonder what would have happened if Pystar had resold a Leopard disk with instructions or a software patch and had the purchaser do the modifications on their own? Especially the 10.5.4 upgrade.
I don't know why you didn't think that Pystar wasn't a front company. From day one Pystar has said that they have a team of lawyers waiting to take Apple on. This is no different than the civil rights lawyers and the environmental lawyers advertising for someone to break the law so that the law can be challenged in court. Anybody wanting to break Apples EULA needed to have Apple attempt to enforce it. And for that you needed to have somebody spit in Apple eye.
You know, this is getting me to think back 25 years and the breaking of the IBM BIOS chip.
Comments
ok, let me connect the dots for you. If i create a software, i want to make money out of it because i spend my time creating it. If there is no EULA, everybody can buy it from me and then mass produce it and resell it, they are taking profit from me up to the point where there is no more profit. In the end, why do I want to create something for nothing? therefore, no motivation to create new software. This is just one person. Think if there is more than one person, a company think like that. Then, why the hell you innovate at all when in the end, everyone else is going to profit from it.
Do you understand now?
Silly person, no EULA doesn't mean the copyright is void.
crikey I hope thats right.... Pystar can win..!!
1/ Buying the software has the characteristics of a sale...as has been mentioned previously..NOT licensing it. Pretty sure you can't read or even see the EULA without opening it..meaning possible misrepresentation by the shop and or Apple. The Apple website doesn't clealry state that you are buying a licence not an actual produt.
2/ Apple labelled??? fine just put a sticker on it!!!
edit according to PCMAG.com the thrust of Apple's case is reputational damage and assumed afilliation to them by unwitting Psystar customers!
a weak case on both points IMO.
your first point, however, is not really a weak point. the problem is every software is like that. so its kind of general knowledge or supposedly.
but then again, psystar only needs to violate one to be shutdown. So it doesnt matter whether the other two point are weak. They are still violating EULA if they violate one.
i see what u mean. I was wrong on that. So it is clear that the copyright is not violated, its the EULA that is being disputed.
No, copyright may have been violated in the very beginning, because in addition to transferring the original copy of the software, they were also including a modified derivative copy of the software.
Copyright was almost certainly being violated as soon as they started distributing unauthorized duplications of Apple's downloadable software updates.
Silly person, no EULA doesn't mean the copyright is void.
yes i was wrong on that.
No, copyright may have been violated in the very beginning, because in addition to transferring the original copy of the software, they were also including a modified derivative copy of the software.
Copyright was almost certainly being violated as soon as they started distributing unauthorized duplications of Apple's downloadable software updates.
But isn't it EULA that deals with redistribution? Because in the Leopard EULA, it clearly discusses that particular subject.
But isn't it EULA that deals with redistribution? Because in the Leopard EULA, it clearly discusses that particular subject.
Even if the EULA was totally mum on the subject of redistribution, copyright law clearly states that making duplications of somebody else's work without their permission, and then distributing those duplications to others (except under a very narrow set of circumstances), is a criminal offense. In this particular case, the concept of a license agreement might actually be used to convey additional rights to the user beyond those that normally exist under copyright law. The GPL is an example of such a license agreement.
Contrast this with the case where you have legal ownership of one complete embodiment of a copyrighted work, and you transfer (ie. sell or give away) the entire original body of work to somebody else without keeping any duplications of it for yourself. This is acceptable in the eyes of copyright law under first-sale doctrine.
your first point, however, is not really a weak point. the problem is every software is like that. so its kind of general knowledge or supposedly.
but then again, psystar only needs to violate one to be shutdown. So it doesnt matter whether the other two point are weak. They are still violating EULA if they violate one.
Pardon my brevity and syntax errors as I am trying to beat iPhone Safari from crashing on me again.
They started out in violation of the copyright when they DLed and installed OSx86. No matter how many copies of OS X they bought they are still short by at least one. And it's this 'stolen' copy that is being installed on every single Psystar OpenComputer. This is even worse as they DLes new hacked copies that have new point releases included in the builds.
If you do not recognize that socialism can only exist where freedom and a free market don't exist, then you have not spent enough years on Earth.
Of the 27 words you used, how many of them do you actually know what they mean without guessing?
Bloody clueless septic tanks!
crikey I hope thats right.... Pystar can win..!!
1/ Buying the software has the characteristics of a sale...as has been mentioned previously..NOT licensing it. Pretty sure you can't read or even see the EULA without opening it..meaning possible misrepresentation by the shop and or Apple. The Apple website doesn't clealry state that you are buying a licence not an actual produt.
2/ Apple labelled??? fine just put a sticker on it!!!
edit according to PCMAG.com the thrust of Apple's case is reputational damage and assumed afilliation to them by unwitting Psystar customers!
a weak case on both points IMO.
The whole notion of the user consenting by clicking on a button to complete an installation is so weak in law. Firstly you would have to establish who exactly clicked on the button, which would involve co-operative self incrimination in the absence of witnesses. Then you would have to establish the user's understanding of the implications of clicking on the button.
There used to be a lovely piece of software in Mac OS classic called Okey Dokey. It's sole function was to auto click on any enter buttons that would pop up in your absence. I could legitimately have a piece of software that did that on my machine and then no human intervention would be needed for installation. Even log-ins could be handled by software.
So you could have resident software on your computer that could be the legal entity by Apple's EULA definition that would be legally responsible for installations. Maybe a trained parrot or monkey could do the job.
Now this is all so Apple can sue you for using a legitimately purchased product. Compare the harm in that with guns freely sold without any EULAs attached.
your first point, however, is not really a weak point. the problem is every software is like that. so its kind of general knowledge or supposedly.
but then again, psystar only needs to violate one to be shutdown. So it doesnt matter whether the other two point are weak. They are still violating EULA if they violate one.
I really don't think the EULA would be legally enforceable.
Whether every software is like that is irrelevant. The reason it has never been challenged in court is a good one!!
the suit claims reputational damage...
"As alleged more fully below, by misappropriating Apple's proprietary software and intellectual property for its own use, Psystar's actions harm consumers by selling to them a poor product that is advertised and promoted in a manner that falsely and unfairly implies an affiliation with Apple," Apple's suit claims. "Psystar's actions also have caused, and are causing, harm to Apple and constitute a misuse of Apple's intellectual property."
how is it APPle to judge if it's a poor product? surely that right belongs to the purchaser? They could get all happy users to testify that its good and they are satisfied.
"?that falsely and unfairly implies an affiliation with Apple,"
I would think there would be nothing clearer to the consumer than that this is NOT an affiliation with Apple.
If this is their legal case, I think they may see a rerun of their "triumph" over Microsoft's Windows.
I would think there would be nothing clearer to the consumer than that this is NOT an affiliation with Apple.
If this is their legal case, I think they may see a rerun of their "triumph" over Microsoft's Windows.
If even one OpenComputer owner has called Apple tech support about issues with their system that claim could be deemed true. Anyone who is buying a Psystar product doesn't have a firm grasp on computing othwise they could have saved a good deal of money building their own.
ok, let me connect the dots for you. If i create a software, i want to make money out of it because i spend my time creating it. If there is no EULA, everybody can buy it from me and then mass produce it and resell it, they are taking profit from me up to the point where there is no more profit. In the end, why do I want to create something for nothing? therefore, no motivation to create new software. This is just one person. Think if there is more than one person, a company think like that. Then, why the hell you innovate at all when in the end, everyone else is going to profit from it.
Do you understand now?
Ha ha!
Do you understand now? Poor little boy.
I'm laughing at you. I hope you know that, especially since you went on about this for so fucking long and every other poster on here knew just how stupid you were being. Holy shit, you actually thought the EULA was the copyright. Even when it was spelled out for you! My God, perhaps I should try pictures and small words next time to try to illustrate the concept.
And now you'll continue to proclaim yourself as some sort of authority on the subject. Fuck, that's pathetic. No one in their right mind is going to take you seriously.
Do you have any idea how funny your "China has no EULA" comment is to me now? Any idea?
ni bu zhidao
Engadget appears to have had life lawyers take a gander at Apple's claims.
Actual lawyers? What a novel concept. Don't you prefer rampant speculation by trolls, know nothings and well intended armchair Gods? I know I sure as hell do. (By the way, I'm a troll.)
He he. Good link, thank you.
Actual lawyers? What a novel concept. Don't you prefer rampant speculation by trolls, know nothings and well intended armchair Gods? I know I sure as hell do. (By the way, I'm a troll.)
He he. Good link, thank you.
I don't care for the trolls, but I like the armchair experts. There is a big difference between being a lawyer and knowing some fundamentals about the law. I think most here people understand the concepts, but like lawyers we have different viewpoints as to how the law is interpreted.
yes, but you are modifying the usage of the product which is specified in EULA
But is that legally binding? Can a contract, particularly one that I was not a equal negotiating partner with, prevent me from modifying a product for my own use? I don't think this has yet been fully tested under EULA case law. And what has been tested appears (at least in the headlines) to be siding with the reverse engineers and the modifiers. This will be interesting to watch. -- That is if it becomes a test of the EULA and not a copyright issue. I think Apple would like it to remain a copyright issue.
P.S. Why is it that nobody is thinking that Pystar might be a front company for a bunch of lawyers who want to break the EULAs?
Edit: I just read the Engadget article and it appears that EULAs have further tested than I thought. Though they did leave an opening that Pystar might prevail in a EULA fight.
Dont you pay subscription fee for ISP? Thats your license to go online. You don't pay each site license, you pay license to get access to the internet.
Dude, Nothing is for free!!!
But there are ISPs that limit what protocols you use; What newsgroups you can see; Put blocks on different sites; Even directing you to their preferred sites and/or replacing site ads with ads of their own choosing.
I don't think this has yet been fully tested under EULA case law.
Check out the Engadget link, above. Apparently there have been cases and Florida, where Psystar resides, has such laws.
And what has been tested appears (at least in the headlines) to be siding with the reverse engineers and the modifiers.
But they didn't reverse engineer anything. They stolen a hacked version of copyrighted software and used it on every singe Psystar machine. Regardless of how many licenses they bought they never used the actual OS X software they purchased, and they will always be at least one license shy as they never had a license for the copies that DLed illegally.
P.S. Why is it that nobody is thinking that Pystar might be a front company for a bunch of lawyers who want to break the EULAs?
I'm glad to say that never once crossed my mind.
Check out the Engadget link, above. Apparently there have been cases and Florida, where Psystar resides, has such laws.
But they didn't reverse engineer anything. They stolen a hacked version of copyrighted software and used it on every singe Psystar machine. Regardless of how many licenses they bought they never used the actual OS X software they purchased, and they will always be at least one license shy as they never had a license for the copies that DLed illegally.
I'm glad to say that never once crossed my mind.
You got Florida law, California law, Federal law and common law here. The Engadget article did leave the opening that Pystar could win an EULA fight. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I mentioned reverse engineering because that clause is usually placed in the EULAs to prevent people form studying and modifying the software to their own specs. In this case the reverse engineering was done by a third party which Pystar used for their own purposes. I wonder what would have happened if Pystar had resold a Leopard disk with instructions or a software patch and had the purchaser do the modifications on their own? Especially the 10.5.4 upgrade.
I don't know why you didn't think that Pystar wasn't a front company. From day one Pystar has said that they have a team of lawyers waiting to take Apple on. This is no different than the civil rights lawyers and the environmental lawyers advertising for someone to break the law so that the law can be challenged in court. Anybody wanting to break Apples EULA needed to have Apple attempt to enforce it. And for that you needed to have somebody spit in Apple eye.
You know, this is getting me to think back 25 years and the breaking of the IBM BIOS chip.