What you espouse is that someone can use a contract to secure greater rights for themselves that they normally would have. That seems a bit outrageous if you just think about it. The Psystar case will show many different areas of the law, but on the specific issue on the enforceability of certain provisions in the EULA, Apple has a fairly weak case - especially in regards to the "you can install only on Apple hardware". If Apple sells a boxed copy of OS X and I go in and buy it, Apple cannot put artificial restrictions on my use of that item that would deny my normal legal rights.
If you think you can contract away everything and anything, then you just are plain wrong and there's no sense discussing it.
I guess we'll just have to wait for the courts then. However, i am confident that a contract, such as a licensing agreement, will hold as with any other contract unless they can prove Apple misrepresented itself, or the conditions unfairly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky King
if Apple were to follow a strategy similar to how Microsoft is adjusting theirs - including unchaining their OS from their computers, I personally think that Apple would have a lot larger of a customer base then it does now.
Quote:
I totally agree. Apple would indeed gain a significantly larger marketshare. On the other hand, many of us consider it extremely important to retain all the simplicity built into what you call the "Apple Experience". That's why we did not go to the PC to begin with.
I strongly suspect that this could be one of those cases where you can't have cake until you eat the broccoli.
If it were market share Apple wanted, Apple would do just that, as they did before with allowing clones. When they did have clones, they were horrible and gave Apple a bad name. They did not help to further Apple's penetration. What they want is control over the process and materials so that an experience is achieved equally. Something M$ can't do. But M$ does not want quality, they want market share. Apple wants beautiful, and extremely well made products, not mass market share. Look at all the problems M$ has! Do you think Apple wants that? When are you M$ lovers going to realize that is is NOT always JUST about money. Some people want to create, for the sake of creating. Not that Apple is hurting for money. Don't they have a larger market cap then Dell and HP?
This is all futile as i would speculate Apple would solve this with hardware. Actually, i would not even sell retail versions, but only allow online purchases for upgrades. Many end users will be upset, but the simple explanation of Pirating will justify this course of action. Therefore the OS can only be sold with new machines and through the online store.
Speaking of which. I thought the boxed OSes were upgrades only? How are they using an upgrade OS to install fresh?
Call me evil if you wish, but if Apple were to follow a strategy similar to how Microsoft is adjusting theirs - including unchaining their OS from their computers, I personally think that Apple would have a lot larger of a customer base then it does now.
Why should we care if Apple will get a larger customer base if it opens up OS X to other computers. As Mac users the only thing we should be concerned about are :
1) We can get Macs
2) We can get continued development on Macs
As long as Apple is healthy those 2 points should be satisfied. Why should we care if 100 million additional other people use Macs. Its not like their using it or not affects me in any way shape or form.
Basically what it comes down to is people wanting to get a Mac but are unwilling (not unable) to pay Apple's asking price, so they turn to hackintoshes justifying it with Apple not giving them choices. You do have a choice. The choice to not buy.
I'm an attorney. There is little chance Pystar will win this thing nor should it. Apple has more then one cause of action including copyright, licensing, and trademark. It only needs to win on one issue, and it has strong arguments on all three. Moreover, Apple filed the case on it's own turf.
People like to compare Apple to Microsoft, but Apple is a hardware company whereas Microsoft is a software company. People who study Apple's business model understand that the software is a loss leader for Apple that it uses to sell the hardware. If Apple were forced to open up it's hardware to other vendors it would in effect be forcing Apple to be a software company. Apple would have to adjust it's software pricing like Microsoft does for full installations as opposed to upgrades. Currently, all of Apple software is essentially an upgrade and is priced as such.
Forcing a business model on Apple is anti-free market. Consumers have the choice of choosing to buy Apple products while being fully informed of the business model. Moreover, Apple is not going against individuals who wish to install it's OS on PC hardware. For good reason. That's probably fair-use. Instead, it is challenging a for profit company wishing to violate it's copyrights to change Apple's selected business model. It should lose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt_s
Here's hoping the little guy can pull a win out.
The whole electronics industry has gotten completely absurd and needs a total overhaul. Somebody has to turn the whole industry upside down and shake it out.
What if General Motors sued YOU because you were putting THEIR OIL in somebody else's engine?
I am sick and tired of perverted protectionism where every company in the business carves out their little piece of turf and then hunkers down with an army of lawyers and sues the shit out of everybody who walks by.
The reason we can't record a TV show and automatically bypass the commercials is because TV-land's entrenched gentry sued the company who developed the technology until they drove them out of business.
Who gives a flying rat's ass whether Pystar violated Apple's End User License or not? Just because it's called an "End User License" does not make it law, or even legal for that matter; nor does it make it right or even ethical. This is why we have a legal system and courts. If allowed, Apple would frame their End User Agreements to tell all of us when we can or can't sit down on the crapper.
From the IP attorneys who work for us, the opinion seems to be that there's a good chance Pystar can win this case, and if there wasn't, it's highly doubtful an experienced, busy & expensive law firm such as Carr & Ferrell would have agreed to take the case on.
I don't think it is fair to suggest these lawyers won the last time against Apple. First, Burst had some legitimate patent claims, much like Apple this time around has valid copyright, licensing, and trademark claims. If you do a Google search, you will see that many insiders thought Apple might have to settle the matter for over a hundred million dollars, much like it had to do with Creative. Microsoft, paid 60 million, and it's infringing use was arguably less. Had Apple taken the matter to court, it would have probably paid close to 10 million dollars. When news of this settlement came out, most news sources (including probably this one) were surprised by the low number related to the settlement. So if anything, Apple's lawyers probably got the better end of that deal.
I don't think it is fair to suggest these lawyers won the last time against Apple. First, Burst had some legitimate patent claims, much like Apple this time around has valid copyright, licensing, and trademark claims. If you do a Google search, you will see that many insiders thought Apple might have to settle the matter for over a hundred million dollars, much like it had to do with Creative. Microsoft, paid 60 million, and it's infringing use was arguably less. Had Apple taken the matter to court, it would have probably paid close to 10 million dollars. When news of this settlement came out, most news sources (including probably this one) were surprised by the low number related to the settlement. So if anything, Apple's lawyers probably got the better end of that deal.
Excellent point! I had forgotten that the settlement was surprisingly low.
Good point. While Apple does make good products, it does get a little overprotective about its intellectual property. The company basically has a DRM-like policy for everything the company creates. Meanwhile, Microsoft - although their OS is obviously shitty in the first place - has an attitude of transparency, where different companies can implement their own creative juices into the Windows experience. If you ask me, Apple is being much more of a Napoleon than a messiah here.
What Pystar is doing is anti-free market. Apple should have the right to select a business model that it wants. Currently, consumers have the right to not support this as a business model by choosing not to buy Apple products. Much like I do when I choose not to buy Microsoft products. Fact is, Pystar is cheating Apple out of money buy stealing Leopard, which is priced as upgrade software, and using it as full install software. Moreover, when people get pissed off by the low quality experience of the hardware, who do you think they are going to blame, Apple or Pystar? If enough people say Apple, this is clearly a trademark violation.
Why should we care if Apple will get a larger customer base if it opens up OS X to other computers. As Mac users the only thing we should be concerned about are :
1) We can get Macs
2) We can get continued development on Macs
As long as Apple is healthy those 2 points should be satisfied. Why should we care if 100 million additional other people use Macs. Its not like their using it or not affects me in any way shape or form.
Basically what it comes down to is people wanting to get a Mac but are unwilling (not unable) to pay Apple's asking price, so they turn to hackintoshes justifying it with Apple not giving them choices. You do have a choice. The choice to not buy.
Why should Apple care what you want? Why should they care that you want them to have huge market share when they don't??
You would be hard pressed to show me any company that remained healthy while letting competitors misuse their products.
Why are you so obsessed with Apple gaining huge market share? Are you not happy with having great products that you somehow believe you will have better products through cloning? Since when has the knockoffs been better than the original? They aren't as they sacrifice and cut corners to gain market share. Apple does not, so we get high quality products each and every time.
What Pystar is doing is anti-free market. Apple should have the right to select a business model that it wants. Currently, consumers have the right to not support this as a business model by choosing not to buy Apple products. Much like I do when I choose not to buy Microsoft products. Fact is, Pystar is cheating Apple out of money buy stealing Leopard, which is priced as upgrade software, and using it as full install software. Moreover, when people get pissed off by the low quality experience of the hardware, who do you think they are going to blame, Apple or Pystar? If enough people say Apple, this is clearly a trademark violation.
It was exactly Apple back when cloning was allowed. Software is always to blame by the general consumer. What they know is what they see. They see the software. I'm sure Pystar is not pushing that they are selling Pystar computers but Mac clones or computers with Mac OSX. So the attention is therefore put onto the OS, and the OS will subsequently be blamed for any issues.
There has to be huge ground that Apple will stand on for Pystar selling upgrade software as a full install. That alone should be enough.
The highly extensible Open Computer is a configuration of PC hardware capable of running unmodified OS X Leopard kernels. All known Leopard software works flawlessly including the built-in Software Update utility. Leopard comes pre-installed on your Open Computer so that you can begin using it out of the box. Our restore disk will be shipping to new and existing customers in mid-July. Please note that Bootcamp is not supported by Open Computers because it is Apple-hardware specific.
Base Configuration
* Mac OS X Leopard preinstalled
They also have a restore CD, so they are then illegally distributing the OS as well?
Oh yes! Let's see Apple "taken down" again. I'm just itching to see the impression OS X makes on people when running on shitty hardware that looks like crap. You know, with keyboards that weigh all of 1 oz. and bend in the middle when you lay your hand on them. And the dull grey box, that's pretty too. All the I-got-no-life types who have no aesthetic appreciation for anything except the boogers they pick from their geek noses are hoping Apple is taken down to their level of dullness.
We have two PCs in my home. Once is a Falcon NW running Windows XP Home and the other is a hand-built system that I put together with all name-brand parts for my wife. Neither of them have "boogers" on them either.
You are a prime example of why so many folks see Apple users as snobs. I have been using Apple computers since my first Apple IIe and it is an embarrassment to see folks like you representing the average Mac user.
Perhaps give some thought as to why Apple does what it does Apple has never had the intention on being in every box, but being the best user experience. PERIOD! That has been the whole primes to their developing. Sure, they want sale like anyone else, but being the biggest, does not mean you are the best. And look at the $$; its not like they are struggling. So please STOP trying to make Apple out to be like M$. M$ competes on size while Apple competes on quality. They have tight controls which keeps the user experience very high!
WHAT? Please point out an example where M$ has transparency?? M$ has their OS locked tight while Apple uses large amounts of open source code. Please show me anything related to what you are talking about.
No you asshole, the reason why you can't record TV and automatically bypass commercials is because these commercials PAY to allow said TV shows to produce and air. Without sponsorship, there would be no content you fool!
Its called Capitalism you schmuck! But you see it as ok for someone to work hard, develop a product, establish themselves in a market place, and have someone else with an army of lawyers come and take it from them?? Or allow others to use it outside the intentions of the inventor?
I care rather anyone violates anyone else's IP agreements. It's Apples IP to do with as THEY want, not as you want. Why should they NOT be allowed to sell software on their hardware? Next, you will want to strip the TiVo code out and run it on a theft box, or run your phone software on another brands hardware?
What is there to win? You agree to install Apple software on to Apple hardware. When you don't you breach that agreement and can be held accountable.
I really hate assholes like you Thinking everyone has the right to take from anyone else. Why don't you list YOUR money making ideas here and let us run with them and make money for ourselves. I gather you think it is fine to download movies and music for free also!!
People like you are worse than lawyers.
How about avoiding the vulgarity and personal attacks.
Call me evil if you wish, but if Apple were to follow a strategy similar to how Microsoft is adjusting theirs - including unchaining their OS from their computers, I personally think that Apple would have a lot larger of a customer base then it does now.
I don't think anyone disagrees that OS market share would go up if they did that.
The big problem is that while OS sales would probably go up, hardware sales would likely drop, potentially decreasing income/profits overall.
Not to mention that if Apple had a release that would run on any PC, piracy of it would likely be extremely rampant.
Market share isn't everything, and it's secondary to profitability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher
What you espouse is that someone can use a contract to secure greater rights for themselves that they normally would have. That seems a bit outrageous if you just think about it. The Psystar case will show many different areas of the law, but on the specific issue on the enforceability of certain provisions in the EULA, Apple has a fairly weak case - especially in regards to the "you can install only on Apple hardware". If Apple sells a boxed copy of OS X and I go in and buy it, Apple cannot put artificial restrictions on my use of that item that would deny my normal legal rights.
That's probably true if you're talking about an end user buying the software and violating the EULA - even if it violates the contract, it's hard to enforce.
But this isn't a case where an individual is buying - this is another company modifying and redistributing/reselling Apple's intellectual property without permission. The EULA strengthens apple's case, but they probably could win without even mentioning it at all.
Come on MATT. Apple does not want to support every little piece of hardware on the planet like Microsoft cares to do. THATS IT. That's not protectionism, it is common sense.
Having a right DENIED to you to do what you please with a inanimate object you purchased - i.e., exchanged currency of the land for said product - is protectionism. No one is claiming Apple must support anything, your argument is illogical.
Having a right DENIED to you to do what you please with a inanimate object you purchased - i.e., exchanged currency of the land for said product - is protectionism. No one is claiming Apple must support anything, your argument is illogical.
Apple isn't goign after those who are building home grown OS X machines or the websites devoted to figuring it out, they are going after a company who are selling their illegally had, hacked and distributed IP.
I'm an attorney. There is little chance Pystar will win this thing nor should it. Apple has more then one cause of action including copyright, licensing, and trademark. It only needs to win on one issue, and it has strong arguments on all three. Moreover, Apple filed the case on it's own turf.
People like to compare Apple to Microsoft, but Apple is a hardware company whereas Microsoft is a software company. People who study Apple's business model understand that the software is a loss leader for Apple that it uses to sell the hardware. If Apple were forced to open up it's hardware to other vendors it would in effect be forcing Apple to be a software company. Apple would have to adjust it's software pricing like Microsoft does for full installations as opposed to upgrades. Currently, all of Apple software is essentially an upgrade and is priced as such.
Forcing a business model on Apple is anti-free market. Consumers have the choice of choosing to buy Apple products while being fully informed of the business model. Moreover, Apple is not going against individuals who wish to install it's OS on PC hardware. For good reason. That's probably fair-use. Instead, it is challenging a for profit company wishing to violate it's copyrights to change Apple's selected business model. It should lose.
For an attorney, you're making a whole lot of hasty generalizations and jumping to conclusions.
No one is demanding that Apple "open up it's hardware." Pystar certainly doesn't "force" Apple to do so, nor has anyone else. You've drawn an inaccurate conclusion - something not even a point of contention between the parties - that has no bearing on this case.
Furthermore, a business model is not law nor legal, and has no rights in itself. No one gives a damn what Apple's business model is or why it should be important to the court. Having a business model provides no legal protection whatsoever.
Above, several people have made the confusing claim that simply because Apple writes in their EULA that up is down and red is green, that makes it so. This is as far from the truth - or legal precedent - that one can get.
You mention copyright on several occasions and we're not convinced this case is about copyrights at all. Pystar is not altering code, source or otherwise, they haven't appropriated any code, lifted code snippets or fragments for use elsewhere, damaged code, misappropriated code or finished software product, nor are they even selling OS X for profit. They've paid for their product. It is quite unclear legally why Apple is complaining, other than whining about being forced to compete in an open market, and their economic fear of losing potentially illegal control.
Apple isn't goign after those who are building home grown OS X machines or the websites devoted to figuring it out, they are going after a company who are selling their illegally had, hacked and distributed IP.
Please explain to me how Pystar has hacked Apple's product - actual OS X code.
Also, once again, no one is asking Apple to support anything.
You mention copyright on several occasions and we're not convinced this case is about copyrights at all. Pystar is not altering code, source or otherwise, they haven't appropriated any code, lifted code snippets or fragments for use elsewhere, damaged code, misappropriated code or finished software product, nor are they even selling OS X for profit.
Psystar is using code hacked by someone else, DLed from the internet without Apple's approval and installed on each and each and every OS X machine they are selling. The disc they ship with the device can't be used in their Mac clone in any regard. It's there as a placeholder in a vain attempt to shield them from legal action. Do you really think these garage-dwelling PC builders have really found away to get their off the shelf parts to read an EFI Mac to a proper OS X disc?
Comments
What you espouse is that someone can use a contract to secure greater rights for themselves that they normally would have. That seems a bit outrageous if you just think about it. The Psystar case will show many different areas of the law, but on the specific issue on the enforceability of certain provisions in the EULA, Apple has a fairly weak case - especially in regards to the "you can install only on Apple hardware". If Apple sells a boxed copy of OS X and I go in and buy it, Apple cannot put artificial restrictions on my use of that item that would deny my normal legal rights.
If you think you can contract away everything and anything, then you just are plain wrong and there's no sense discussing it.
I guess we'll just have to wait for the courts then. However, i am confident that a contract, such as a licensing agreement, will hold as with any other contract unless they can prove Apple misrepresented itself, or the conditions unfairly.
if Apple were to follow a strategy similar to how Microsoft is adjusting theirs - including unchaining their OS from their computers, I personally think that Apple would have a lot larger of a customer base then it does now.
I totally agree. Apple would indeed gain a significantly larger marketshare. On the other hand, many of us consider it extremely important to retain all the simplicity built into what you call the "Apple Experience". That's why we did not go to the PC to begin with.
I strongly suspect that this could be one of those cases where you can't have cake until you eat the broccoli.
If it were market share Apple wanted, Apple would do just that, as they did before with allowing clones. When they did have clones, they were horrible and gave Apple a bad name. They did not help to further Apple's penetration. What they want is control over the process and materials so that an experience is achieved equally. Something M$ can't do. But M$ does not want quality, they want market share. Apple wants beautiful, and extremely well made products, not mass market share. Look at all the problems M$ has! Do you think Apple wants that? When are you M$ lovers going to realize that is is NOT always JUST about money. Some people want to create, for the sake of creating. Not that Apple is hurting for money. Don't they have a larger market cap then Dell and HP?
This is all futile as i would speculate Apple would solve this with hardware. Actually, i would not even sell retail versions, but only allow online purchases for upgrades. Many end users will be upset, but the simple explanation of Pirating will justify this course of action. Therefore the OS can only be sold with new machines and through the online store.
Speaking of which. I thought the boxed OSes were upgrades only? How are they using an upgrade OS to install fresh?
Call me evil if you wish, but if Apple were to follow a strategy similar to how Microsoft is adjusting theirs - including unchaining their OS from their computers, I personally think that Apple would have a lot larger of a customer base then it does now.
Why should we care if Apple will get a larger customer base if it opens up OS X to other computers. As Mac users the only thing we should be concerned about are :
1) We can get Macs
2) We can get continued development on Macs
As long as Apple is healthy those 2 points should be satisfied. Why should we care if 100 million additional other people use Macs. Its not like their using it or not affects me in any way shape or form.
Basically what it comes down to is people wanting to get a Mac but are unwilling (not unable) to pay Apple's asking price, so they turn to hackintoshes justifying it with Apple not giving them choices. You do have a choice. The choice to not buy.
People like to compare Apple to Microsoft, but Apple is a hardware company whereas Microsoft is a software company. People who study Apple's business model understand that the software is a loss leader for Apple that it uses to sell the hardware. If Apple were forced to open up it's hardware to other vendors it would in effect be forcing Apple to be a software company. Apple would have to adjust it's software pricing like Microsoft does for full installations as opposed to upgrades. Currently, all of Apple software is essentially an upgrade and is priced as such.
Forcing a business model on Apple is anti-free market. Consumers have the choice of choosing to buy Apple products while being fully informed of the business model. Moreover, Apple is not going against individuals who wish to install it's OS on PC hardware. For good reason. That's probably fair-use. Instead, it is challenging a for profit company wishing to violate it's copyrights to change Apple's selected business model. It should lose.
Here's hoping the little guy can pull a win out.
The whole electronics industry has gotten completely absurd and needs a total overhaul. Somebody has to turn the whole industry upside down and shake it out.
What if General Motors sued YOU because you were putting THEIR OIL in somebody else's engine?
I am sick and tired of perverted protectionism where every company in the business carves out their little piece of turf and then hunkers down with an army of lawyers and sues the shit out of everybody who walks by.
The reason we can't record a TV show and automatically bypass the commercials is because TV-land's entrenched gentry sued the company who developed the technology until they drove them out of business.
Who gives a flying rat's ass whether Pystar violated Apple's End User License or not? Just because it's called an "End User License" does not make it law, or even legal for that matter; nor does it make it right or even ethical. This is why we have a legal system and courts. If allowed, Apple would frame their End User Agreements to tell all of us when we can or can't sit down on the crapper.
From the IP attorneys who work for us, the opinion seems to be that there's a good chance Pystar can win this case, and if there wasn't, it's highly doubtful an experienced, busy & expensive law firm such as Carr & Ferrell would have agreed to take the case on.
I don't think it is fair to suggest these lawyers won the last time against Apple. First, Burst had some legitimate patent claims, much like Apple this time around has valid copyright, licensing, and trademark claims. If you do a Google search, you will see that many insiders thought Apple might have to settle the matter for over a hundred million dollars, much like it had to do with Creative. Microsoft, paid 60 million, and it's infringing use was arguably less. Had Apple taken the matter to court, it would have probably paid close to 10 million dollars. When news of this settlement came out, most news sources (including probably this one) were surprised by the low number related to the settlement. So if anything, Apple's lawyers probably got the better end of that deal.
Excellent point! I had forgotten that the settlement was surprisingly low.
Good point. While Apple does make good products, it does get a little overprotective about its intellectual property. The company basically has a DRM-like policy for everything the company creates. Meanwhile, Microsoft - although their OS is obviously shitty in the first place - has an attitude of transparency, where different companies can implement their own creative juices into the Windows experience. If you ask me, Apple is being much more of a Napoleon than a messiah here.
What Pystar is doing is anti-free market. Apple should have the right to select a business model that it wants. Currently, consumers have the right to not support this as a business model by choosing not to buy Apple products. Much like I do when I choose not to buy Microsoft products. Fact is, Pystar is cheating Apple out of money buy stealing Leopard, which is priced as upgrade software, and using it as full install software. Moreover, when people get pissed off by the low quality experience of the hardware, who do you think they are going to blame, Apple or Pystar? If enough people say Apple, this is clearly a trademark violation.
Why should we care if Apple will get a larger customer base if it opens up OS X to other computers. As Mac users the only thing we should be concerned about are :
1) We can get Macs
2) We can get continued development on Macs
As long as Apple is healthy those 2 points should be satisfied. Why should we care if 100 million additional other people use Macs. Its not like their using it or not affects me in any way shape or form.
Basically what it comes down to is people wanting to get a Mac but are unwilling (not unable) to pay Apple's asking price, so they turn to hackintoshes justifying it with Apple not giving them choices. You do have a choice. The choice to not buy.
Why should Apple care what you want? Why should they care that you want them to have huge market share when they don't??
You would be hard pressed to show me any company that remained healthy while letting competitors misuse their products.
Why are you so obsessed with Apple gaining huge market share? Are you not happy with having great products that you somehow believe you will have better products through cloning? Since when has the knockoffs been better than the original? They aren't as they sacrifice and cut corners to gain market share. Apple does not, so we get high quality products each and every time.
What Pystar is doing is anti-free market. Apple should have the right to select a business model that it wants. Currently, consumers have the right to not support this as a business model by choosing not to buy Apple products. Much like I do when I choose not to buy Microsoft products. Fact is, Pystar is cheating Apple out of money buy stealing Leopard, which is priced as upgrade software, and using it as full install software. Moreover, when people get pissed off by the low quality experience of the hardware, who do you think they are going to blame, Apple or Pystar? If enough people say Apple, this is clearly a trademark violation.
It was exactly Apple back when cloning was allowed. Software is always to blame by the general consumer. What they know is what they see. They see the software. I'm sure Pystar is not pushing that they are selling Pystar computers but Mac clones or computers with Mac OSX. So the attention is therefore put onto the OS, and the OS will subsequently be blamed for any issues.
There has to be huge ground that Apple will stand on for Pystar selling upgrade software as a full install. That alone should be enough.
Pystar
The highly extensible Open Computer is a configuration of PC hardware capable of running unmodified OS X Leopard kernels. All known Leopard software works flawlessly including the built-in Software Update utility. Leopard comes pre-installed on your Open Computer so that you can begin using it out of the box. Our restore disk will be shipping to new and existing customers in mid-July. Please note that Bootcamp is not supported by Open Computers because it is Apple-hardware specific.
Base Configuration
* Mac OS X Leopard preinstalled
They also have a restore CD, so they are then illegally distributing the OS as well?
Oh yes! Let's see Apple "taken down" again. I'm just itching to see the impression OS X makes on people when running on shitty hardware that looks like crap. You know, with keyboards that weigh all of 1 oz. and bend in the middle when you lay your hand on them. And the dull grey box, that's pretty too. All the I-got-no-life types who have no aesthetic appreciation for anything except the boogers they pick from their geek noses are hoping Apple is taken down to their level of dullness.
We have two PCs in my home. Once is a Falcon NW running Windows XP Home and the other is a hand-built system that I put together with all name-brand parts for my wife. Neither of them have "boogers" on them either.
You are a prime example of why so many folks see Apple users as snobs. I have been using Apple computers since my first Apple IIe and it is an embarrassment to see folks like you representing the average Mac user.
Jeez...
Perhaps give some thought as to why Apple does what it does
WHAT? Please point out an example where M$ has transparency?? M$ has their OS locked tight while Apple uses large amounts of open source code. Please show me anything related to what you are talking about.
No you asshole, the reason why you can't record TV and automatically bypass commercials is because these commercials PAY to allow said TV shows to produce and air. Without sponsorship, there would be no content you fool!
Its called Capitalism you schmuck! But you see it as ok for someone to work hard, develop a product, establish themselves in a market place, and have someone else with an army of lawyers come and take it from them?? Or allow others to use it outside the intentions of the inventor?
I care rather anyone violates anyone else's IP agreements. It's Apples IP to do with as THEY want, not as you want. Why should they NOT be allowed to sell software on their hardware? Next, you will want to strip the TiVo code out and run it on a theft box, or run your phone software on another brands hardware?
What is there to win? You agree to install Apple software on to Apple hardware. When you don't you breach that agreement and can be held accountable.
I really hate assholes like you
People like you are worse than lawyers.
How about avoiding the vulgarity and personal attacks.
How about avoiding the vulgarity and personal attacks.
I concur. †MiMiC has good points, but they are easily missed when he takes get personal.
Could you clarify that? I have many 3rd-party apps on my Mac and OS X uses considerably more open-source code in their OS than MS does.
Yes and Apple also support open source and stardards. For example with webkit. So stop this no sense and let Psystar die, they deserve it.
Call me evil if you wish, but if Apple were to follow a strategy similar to how Microsoft is adjusting theirs - including unchaining their OS from their computers, I personally think that Apple would have a lot larger of a customer base then it does now.
I don't think anyone disagrees that OS market share would go up if they did that.
The big problem is that while OS sales would probably go up, hardware sales would likely drop, potentially decreasing income/profits overall.
Not to mention that if Apple had a release that would run on any PC, piracy of it would likely be extremely rampant.
Market share isn't everything, and it's secondary to profitability.
What you espouse is that someone can use a contract to secure greater rights for themselves that they normally would have. That seems a bit outrageous if you just think about it. The Psystar case will show many different areas of the law, but on the specific issue on the enforceability of certain provisions in the EULA, Apple has a fairly weak case - especially in regards to the "you can install only on Apple hardware". If Apple sells a boxed copy of OS X and I go in and buy it, Apple cannot put artificial restrictions on my use of that item that would deny my normal legal rights.
That's probably true if you're talking about an end user buying the software and violating the EULA - even if it violates the contract, it's hard to enforce.
But this isn't a case where an individual is buying - this is another company modifying and redistributing/reselling Apple's intellectual property without permission. The EULA strengthens apple's case, but they probably could win without even mentioning it at all.
And if they WIN...Apple software will be running on more defective Computers than VISTA.
Not sure if an Apple win would be good either though
itpc://www.bageltech.net/BagelTech/Podcast/rss.xml
Come on MATT. Apple does not want to support every little piece of hardware on the planet like Microsoft cares to do. THATS IT. That's not protectionism, it is common sense.
Having a right DENIED to you to do what you please with a inanimate object you purchased - i.e., exchanged currency of the land for said product - is protectionism. No one is claiming Apple must support anything, your argument is illogical.
Having a right DENIED to you to do what you please with a inanimate object you purchased - i.e., exchanged currency of the land for said product - is protectionism. No one is claiming Apple must support anything, your argument is illogical.
Apple isn't goign after those who are building home grown OS X machines or the websites devoted to figuring it out, they are going after a company who are selling their illegally had, hacked and distributed IP.
I'm an attorney. There is little chance Pystar will win this thing nor should it. Apple has more then one cause of action including copyright, licensing, and trademark. It only needs to win on one issue, and it has strong arguments on all three. Moreover, Apple filed the case on it's own turf.
People like to compare Apple to Microsoft, but Apple is a hardware company whereas Microsoft is a software company. People who study Apple's business model understand that the software is a loss leader for Apple that it uses to sell the hardware. If Apple were forced to open up it's hardware to other vendors it would in effect be forcing Apple to be a software company. Apple would have to adjust it's software pricing like Microsoft does for full installations as opposed to upgrades. Currently, all of Apple software is essentially an upgrade and is priced as such.
Forcing a business model on Apple is anti-free market. Consumers have the choice of choosing to buy Apple products while being fully informed of the business model. Moreover, Apple is not going against individuals who wish to install it's OS on PC hardware. For good reason. That's probably fair-use. Instead, it is challenging a for profit company wishing to violate it's copyrights to change Apple's selected business model. It should lose.
For an attorney, you're making a whole lot of hasty generalizations and jumping to conclusions.
No one is demanding that Apple "open up it's hardware." Pystar certainly doesn't "force" Apple to do so, nor has anyone else. You've drawn an inaccurate conclusion - something not even a point of contention between the parties - that has no bearing on this case.
Furthermore, a business model is not law nor legal, and has no rights in itself. No one gives a damn what Apple's business model is or why it should be important to the court. Having a business model provides no legal protection whatsoever.
Above, several people have made the confusing claim that simply because Apple writes in their EULA that up is down and red is green, that makes it so. This is as far from the truth - or legal precedent - that one can get.
You mention copyright on several occasions and we're not convinced this case is about copyrights at all. Pystar is not altering code, source or otherwise, they haven't appropriated any code, lifted code snippets or fragments for use elsewhere, damaged code, misappropriated code or finished software product, nor are they even selling OS X for profit. They've paid for their product. It is quite unclear legally why Apple is complaining, other than whining about being forced to compete in an open market, and their economic fear of losing potentially illegal control.
Apple isn't goign after those who are building home grown OS X machines or the websites devoted to figuring it out, they are going after a company who are selling their illegally had, hacked and distributed IP.
Please explain to me how Pystar has hacked Apple's product - actual OS X code.
Also, once again, no one is asking Apple to support anything.
You mention copyright on several occasions and we're not convinced this case is about copyrights at all. Pystar is not altering code, source or otherwise, they haven't appropriated any code, lifted code snippets or fragments for use elsewhere, damaged code, misappropriated code or finished software product, nor are they even selling OS X for profit.
Psystar is using code hacked by someone else, DLed from the internet without Apple's approval and installed on each and each and every OS X machine they are selling. The disc they ship with the device can't be used in their Mac clone in any regard. It's there as a placeholder in a vain attempt to shield them from legal action. Do you really think these garage-dwelling PC builders have really found away to get their off the shelf parts to read an EFI Mac to a proper OS X disc?