It would be the *user* who broke the EULA, not Psystar.
All Apple can do is not extend tech support to the hackintoshes.
C.
Read up on Napster (before they became a legal download site) and Grokster. Both of those sites were shut down because most of their users were illegally violating copyrights of music and movies. Either Napster or Grokster were actually engage in any of the illegal violations. But they were held accountable because their sites encouraged such activities. Napster wasn't even profitting from their site. But Grokster was selling advertising.
If you sold alcohol to some one that you knew was giving it to minors, you are also guilty of supplying alcohol to minors. If one of those minors gets in an auto accident that kills some one. And the actual person that gave the alcohol to him has little or no money, they will sue you. If it can be proven that you knew that the person was giving the alcohol to minors you will be 100% liable.
Tying is a nuanced concept, and a case can easily be made that a Mac is just nice looking generic hardware, while Mac OS is just software for (any) X86. Neither can be said about X-box or your electric razor.
You need to get a better understanding of "tying". Just because you don't like the match up, doesn't mean that it's illegal. iPhone is only on ATT (in US), Google phone is only on T-Mobile, Razr (at one time) was only on Verizon, Halo 3 is only for Xbox, Beta tapes only only works in a BetaMax, Zip disk only works in a Zip drive, DRMed music from iTunes Store only works on an iPod, DRMed music from MS only works on a Zune, etc. There is nothing illegal about "tying" products that are meant to work together. It doesn't matter if either of the matched products can work with other products. It only matters that the two products being "tied" functions together.
Most illegal "tying" is when you're force to buy a totally unrelated product in order for you to buy another product. It would be illegal for Apple to make you buy an iPod if you want a copy of OSX. Or if you had to buy life insurance in order for you get auto insurance. Or if you had to subscribe to XM radio before GM sold you the car. Apple is not forcing you to buy a Mac when you buy OSX (off the shelf). Microsoft is not forcing you to buy an Xbox when you buy Halo 3. Apple does not force you to use ATT when you buy an unlocked iPhone. ATT does not force you to to buy an iPhone in order to get their service.
Just because you may need to own a Mac or Xbox before you can use OSX or play Halo 3 doesn't make it illegal to "tie" them to certain hardware. The point is that you can buy these by themselves, without being forced to also by a Mac, Xbox or any unrelated product at the time of purchase.
I can buy a BMW fuel pump. But it doesn't fit on any other auto but a BMW. Is this illegal "tying"? Because the BMW fuel pump is made by BMW for a BMW. They sell the fuel pump for the benefit of BMW owners that needs a replacement. Suppose I can show, with a little modification, that the pump will fit and work in a Honda. Now would BMW be guilty of illegal "tying" because it can be shown the only reason why their pump won't work on a Honda is because of the position of the mounting holes and the electrical connectors they use? Just because you can make a BMW fuel pump work on a Honda doesn't mean that BMW have to start marketing their fuel pumps for a Honda or sell a version that fits a Honda. And it doesn't matter that you can make the case that a BMW is just a nice looking generic auto. Now it would be a case of illegal "tying" if BMW made you buy an iPod before they will sell you the pump.
You need to get a better understanding of "tying". Just because you don't like the match up, doesn't mean that it's illegal. iPhone is only on ATT (in US), Google phone is only on T-Mobile, Razr (at one time) was only on Verizon, Halo 3 is only for Xbox, Beta tapes only only works in a BetaMax, Zip disk only works in a Zip drive, DRMed music from iTunes Store only works on an iPod, DRMed music from MS only works on a Zune, etc. There is nothing illegal about "tying" products that are meant to work together. It doesn't matter if either of the matched products can work on with other products. It only matters that the two products being "tied" functions together.
Most illegal "tying" is when you're force to buy a totally unrelated product in order for you to buy another product. It would be illegal for Apple to make you buy an iPod if you want a copy of OSX. Or if you had to buy life insurance in order for you get auto insurance. Or if you had to subscribe to XM radio before GM sold you the car. Apple is not forcing you to buy a Mac when you buy OSX (off the shelf). Microsoft is not forcing you to buy an Xbox when you buy Halo 3. Apple does not force you to use ATT when you buy an unlocked iPhone. ATT doesn't not force you to to buy an iPhone in order to get their service.
Just because you may need to own a Mac or Xbox before you can use OSX or play Halo 3 doesn't make it illegal to "tie" them to certain hardware. The point is that you can buy these by themselves, without being forced to also by a Mac, Xbox or any unrelated product at the time of purchase.
I can buy a BMW fuel pump. But it doesn't fit on any other auto but a BMW. Is this illegal "tying"? Because the BMW fuel pump is made by BMW for a BMW. They sell the fuel pump for the benefit of BMW owners that needs a replacement. Suppose I can show, with a little modification, that the pump will fit and work in a Honda. Now would BMW be guilty of illegal "tying" because it can be shown the only reason why their pump won't work on a Honda is because of the position of the mounting holes and the electrical connectors they use? Just because you can make a BMW fuel pump work on a Honda doesn't mean that BMW have to start marketing their fuel pumps for a Honda or sell a version that fits a Honda. And it doesn't matter that you can make the case that a BMW is just a nice looking generic auto. Now it would be a case of illegal "tying" if BMW made you buy an iPod before they will sell you the pump.
Read up on Napster (before they became a legal download site) and Grokster. Both of those sites were shut down because most of their users were illegally violating copyrights of music and movies. Either Napster or Grokster were actually engage in any of the illegal violations. But they were held accountable because their sites encouraged such activities. Napster wasn't even profitting from their site. But Grokster was selling advertising.
This is not comparable.
Stealing copyrighted music without compensating the author is theft.
Purchasing an OS at full retail price and installing it on (drumroll) a wrong computer isn't a crime against humanity. No crime occurred. It's putting 3rd party ink in your Epson printer. You broke the warrany not the law.
The McClone manufacturer would not even be breaking the EULA.
Microsoft Windows XP Professional FULL VERSION with SP2 $ 260
Microsoft Windows XP Professional UPGRADE VERSION with SP2 $ 186
Source. Amazon
That's fine. But if MS added the following, it would be illegal.
MS-branded computer + Windows XP $250
If they did that, it would mean they're selling the computer at a loss, and that is called predatory pricing.
Apple can sell a full version for more than the upgrade version. What they can't do, is sell the OS for more than what they charge for the Mini bundled with the OS.
If they did offer the Mini without the OS (say, for running LInux or Windows), they could even charge less for the Mini+OS bundle than they do for both products sold separately. But they can't use pricing to drive Psystar out of the market. That's anti-competitive, and it is not allowed in a properly-regulated free market - only in protectionist markets.
Quote:
So you now say that it is illegal for a company to set the price of it's own products.
A company may not price its products so as to drive competition out of the market. I'm not claiming that PsyStar are going to prevail, and that Apple will be forced to sell its OS to OEMs. I'm saying that if they do, then they will have to price their OS fairly.
Quote:
Are you even beginning to get the feeling that you really have very little notion ... of what you are talking about?
Stealing copyrighted music without compensating the author is theft.
Purchasing an OS at full retail price and installing it on (drumroll) a wrong computer isn't a crime against humanity. No crime occurred. It's putting 3rd party ink in your Epson printer. You broke the warrany not the law.
The McClone manufacturer would not even be breaking the EULA.
C.
Yes it is comparable. My response was to your assertion that Apple would have to go after the end user because they were the one's violating Apple's EULA, not Psystar. Napster and Grokster are two cases where the RIAA and movie industry went after the people that was encouraging the violation of some ones else's copyright. Thus Apple can go after Psystar even if all they're doing is encouraging people to violate their EULA. And Apple will go after them for sure if Psystar is profiting from it.
Here's another case by Blizzard that I posted earlier for another post.
That's fine. But if MS added the following, it would be illegal.
MS-branded computer + Windows XP $250
If they did that, it would mean they're selling the computer at a loss, and that is called predatory pricing.
Apple can sell a full version for more than the upgrade version. What they can't do, is sell the OS for more than what they charge for the Mini bundled with the OS.
If they did offer the Mini without the OS (say, for running LInux or Windows), they could even charge less for the Mini+OS bundle than they do for both products sold separately. But they can't use pricing to drive Psystar out of the market. That's anti-competitive, and it is not allowed in a properly-regulated free market - only in protectionist markets.
What you fail to understand is that the OSX license you get with a Mac Mini is not a "full" license. It's an OEM license. Another words, the license is good only for the computer it came with. It's the same for Dell, HP, Sony, etc. The OEM OSX (or MS Windows) license you get with the purchase of a computer is non transferable to another computer. The recovery disk that the OS resides in will not let you install the OS on another computer. The OSX that comes with a Mac Mini will only install on a Mac Mini. And most likely will not install on any earlier models of the Mini or later models.
It's been a long time since I worked on a PC with Windows. But I'm not even sure if you can use an OEM license (that came with a Dell, HP, Sony, etc.) as proof of a previous license if you want to install an upgrade version of Windows on a PC that you built. For sure you can upgrade the Windows on the computer that the OEM license was for.
An off the shelf "full" or "upgrade" license of OSX can be installed on any Mac. Including a G3, G4 and G5. So Apple can price the full version accordingly. Regardless of how much a Mac cost with an OEM version of OSX pre-installed.
Quote:
A company may not price its products so as to drive competition out of the market. I'm not claiming that PsyStar are going to prevail, and that Apple will be forced to sell its OS to OEMs. I'm saying that if they do, then they will have to price their OS fairly.
Yes they (Apple) can price OSX in such a way that it would be unprofitable for Psystar to sell a computer with OSX on it. It would only be anti-competitive if OSX was the only OS that Psystar can use to stay in business. For that to happen, OSX would have to be a monopoly. But this isn't the case. Psystar can still sell their computers installed with MS Windows or Linux. Psystar would have to explain to the judge or jury why they can't stay in business by selling computers with an OS that 95% of the World uses.
Now MS could not do this because it would be easy to prove that without a fair price for a Windows license, they would be driven out of business because they can't sell computers that 95% of the World uses.
Just because MS can make a lot of money selling OEM licenses to PC venders for less than $30 per PC, doesn't mean that Apple will make a lot of money selling OEM licenses of OSX for $30 per PC. MS Windows is on 95% of the World computers. MS can sell OEM licenses for $5 per PC and still make a ton of money. Apple may not even make money at $30 an OEM license.
The price that Apple charges for an OEM license or for a "full" version of OSX only needs to be fair for Apple.
OS X is proprietary intellectual property developed and supported by Apple. Apple owns OS X and licenses it use under Apple's conditions. You do not own OS X simply because you've bought a boxed copy of it. You have only purchased a license for its use.
That language is unclear. Did you, or did you not, buy a boxed copy of the software?
I mean, the physical object itself... is it your property, or is it Apple's porperty on long-term loan to you? Apple's license text says "You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple's licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself..."
I don't know if the situation would have actually been any different even if they hadn't included that sentence. I read it as a restatement of the statutory distinction between physical ownership versus intellectual ownership which would have been the case even if the license hadn't said anything at all about the subject, or even if there hadn't been any explicit license included in the first place.
And I don't think it's any different than any other situation in which you buy a physical object which contains a copyrighted work: When you buy a book, the physical object is your property, even though the words that are printed on the paper still belong to the author. Or when you buy a painting, the canvass is your property, even though the image that is visible on the surface belongs to the painter.
Quote:
You are not free to become an OS X resell vendor if Apple does not agree to allow you to. Because Apple owns it.
As long as no additional copies or derivative works have been made, first sale doctrine says that the owner of a physical object which contains a representation of a copyrighted work is always authorized to resell it, regardless of any objections voiced by the copyright holder.
On the other hand, the owner of a physical object generally has to obtain the copyright holder's permission before he makes any derivative works or additional copies. That's where the necessity of a license comes in to play - it's what allows the software to be duplicated (installed on the computer's hard drive) in the first place. (Unless of course you take a literal interpretation of the language of section 117 of the copyright law.) In any event, he would undeniably need to obtain the copyright holder's permission before he redistributed a modified version.
Anyway, Mac OS X's license also clearly states that the person who holds the license does have the ability to transfer (resell) the license to somebody else, so long as the transfer also includes the complete software product, the software is transferred in an unmodified state, it includes all the materials that came with it, and you don't keep any backup copies of the material for yourself.
Psystar is producing modified derivative works and trying to resell them. That is clearly prohibited by both the license and basic copyright law.
It seems as though a lot of Mac fanbois are upset over the prospect of losing their exclusivity arrangements with Apple. Don't worry though. You will still be permitted to overspend on Apple hardware in a couple years when OSX is available for non Mac systems.
Stealing copyrighted music without compensating the author is theft.
Purchasing an OS at full retail price and installing it on (drumroll) a wrong computer isn't a crime against humanity. No crime occurred. It's putting 3rd party ink in your Epson printer. You broke the warrany not the law.
The McClone manufacturer would not even be breaking the EULA.
C.
It is the exact same thing. You do not own the music you are purchasing a license to use the music. You do not own OS X you are purchasing a license to use OS X.
The McClone manufacturer is breaking the EULA because Apple did not agree for them to be a distributor of OS X. As it clearly states in the EULA.
That language is unclear. Did you, or did you not, buy a boxed copy of the software?
I mean, the physical object itself... is it your property, or is it Apple's porperty on long-term loan to you? Apple's license text says "You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple's licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself..."
I don't know if the situation would have actually been any different even if they hadn't included that sentence. I read it as a restatement of the statutory distinction between physical ownership versus intellectual ownership which would have been the case even if the license hadn't said anything at all about the subject, or even if there hadn't been any explicit license included in the first place.
And I don't think it's any different than any other situation in which you buy a physical object which contains a copyrighted work: When you buy a book, the physical object is your property, even though the words that are printed on the paper still belong to the author. Or when you buy a painting, the canvass is your property, even though the image that is visible on the surface belongs to the painter.
You are essentially saying the language isn't clear and then turn around and say Apple has stated the obvious.
Quote:
As long as no additional copies or derivative works have been made, first sale doctrine says that the owner of a physical object which contains a representation of a copyrighted work is always authorized to resell it, regardless of any objections voiced by the copyright holder.
You are authorized to sell your private license. You are not necessarily free to become a distributor and competitor using someone else's intellectual property.
Quote:
Anyway, Mac OS X's license also clearly states that the person who holds the license does have the ability to transfer (resell) the license to somebody else, so long as the transfer also includes the complete software product, the software is transferred in an unmodified state, it includes all the materials that came with it, and you don't keep any backup copies of the material for yourself.
Again you are not free to start a computer business using Apple's intellectual property and then compete against Apple using its own property.
You are essentially saying the language isn't clear and then turn around and say Apple has stated the obvious.
No; I was saying that YOUR language wasn't clear.
[edit]
First you said "you bought a boxed copy of it". Then you said "you only bought a license". On its surface, the two statements seemed to contradict each other.
In the first case, you bought a physical thing which also contained copyrighted material. As with all such transactions, ownershp of the copyrighted material remains in the hands of the author regardless of who owns the physical thing.
In the second case, you bought an intangible thing, and the physical object never actually entered into your ownership.
[/edit]
I wanted you to clarify your own statement. And then I presented my own understanding of the situation.
Quote:
You are authorized to sell your private license. You are not necessarily free to become a distributor and competitor using someone else's intellectual property.
Exactly. If I privately buy 10,000 licenses, I am then authorized to privately resell each of those 10,000 licenses.
Psystar is not doing that alone, as I try to reiterate every time I try to speak about this. Psystar is also modifying the software before reselling it - a clear violation of both the license and of copyright law.
Quote:
Again you are not free to start a computer business using Apple's intellectual property and then compete against Apple using its own property.
But that is not the point I was trying to argue against. See previous paragraphs.
It is the exact same thing. You do not own the music you are purchasing a license to use the music. You do not own OS X you are purchasing a license to use OS X.
The McClone manufacturer is breaking the EULA because Apple did not agree for them to be a distributor of OS X. As it clearly states in the EULA.
You kind of misread the thread. Asking what would happen if the McClone manufacturer did *not* install OS X. And sold a OS X ready hardware instead.
2) Embed more "security" - ie. Macintosh Genuine Advantage.
3) Adjust the business model.
4) Charge Windows Vista Ultimate full install prices for OS X so it's cost prohibitive
5) Make users verify that they have a Mac before selling them a retail copy of OS X
6) Add a P.A. Semi designed chip to their Macs so that they only install on Macs with these chips
7) Don't offer OS X retail copies but instead change the accounting model to GAAP so that users can get a single free OS X update to OS X either by download or by calling Apple.
8) Make the OS X update cycle equal to the average Mac usage time so version updates aren't necessary.
Psystar can't win, but if they did only 4 and 6 seem to be viable options. I am still amazed that people think Apple should be the only software developer in existence that should abandon the free market to offer a socialized OS.
4) Charge Windows Vista Ultimate full install prices for OS X so it's cost prohibitive
5) Make users verify that they have a Mac before selling them a retail copy of OS X
Good luck getting best buy and others to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
4)
6) Add a P.A. Semi designed chip to their Macs so that they only install on Macs with these chips
The old macs will not have the chip and apple can't lock out that many systems and you can't use the DMCA to lock out 3rd party's lexmark tried that and lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
4)
7) Don't offer OS X retail copies but instead change the accounting model to GAAP so that users can get a single free OS X update to OS X either by download or by calling Apple.
Mac os x is too big to be download only and how about people with older mac that want to pay for more then one update?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
4)
8) Make the OS X update cycle equal to the average Mac usage time so version updates aren't necessary.
That will not work and people will not like having to buy a full system just to get a os update MS will love that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
4)
Psystar can't win, but if they did only 4 and 6 seem to be viable options. I am still amazed that people think Apple should be the only software developer in existence that should abandon the free market to offer a socialized OS.
Even if apple goes that way there are other law that will force then to sell hardware with out the os and you will get the price of the os part that way.
7) Don't offer OS X retail copies but instead change the accounting model to GAAP so that users can get a single free OS X update to OS X either by download or by calling Apple.
Mac os x is too big to be download only and how about people with older mac that want to pay for more then one update?" [/quote]
Further, not every Mac owner has, or wants an internet connection, they would need a disk.
What is the 'that' that Best Buy et al. would be doing? They sell Windows Vista at prices based on what they bought it for.
Quote:
The old macs will not have the chip and apple can't lock out that many systems and you can't use the DMCA to lock out 3rd party's lexmark tried that and lost.
They wouldn't be locking out 3rd parties, it would just make OS X install on machines that have certain HW, like how Windows can't install on PPC.
Quote:
Mac os x is too big to be download only and how about people with older mac that want to pay for more then one update?
That will not work and people will not like having to buy a full system just to get a os update MS will love that.
Which is why I said they weren't viable options. The only viable options are raising the price to account for the loss of HW sales or using HW that isn't available on the retail market. There is nothing illegal about that
Quote:
Even if apple goes that way there are other law that will force then to sell hardware with out the os and you will get the price of the os part that way.
Try to buy an iPod without the OS. Try to buy a PS3 without the OS. There is no law saying that you have sell your HW bricked.
That's fine. But if MS added the following, it would be illegal.
MS-branded computer + Windows XP $250
If they did that, it would mean they're selling the computer at a loss, and that is called predatory pricing.
And predatory pricing only becomes a problem when you have a dominant, or monopoly position in a market. Like Microsoft has.
Quote:
Apple can sell a full version for more than the upgrade version. What they can't do, is sell the OS for more than what they charge for the Mini bundled with the OS.
Rubbish! You have just agreed that Microsoft can legally sell a full version and an upgrade version of Windows. At two different prices. Microsoft also sells a much cheaper version to the OEMs. That makes three versions. A cheapo one that is bundled with a computer. A pricier version if you are upgrading. And the most expensive version... if you are starting from scratch. Apple could do exactly the same and Apple can set the price!
Where do you get this stuff from?
Quote:
But they can't use pricing to drive Psystar out of the market. That's anti-competitive,
Until Apple has some kind of dominant, or monopoly, position in either the computer hardware or OS markets Apple are free to charge whatever they like for their products. They can sell all of their Macs for $10.00 and a full OS X for a dollar. Alternatively they can sell both products for $10,000.00 a piece. I don't think even Dell can compete at $10.00 but Michael Dell would be happy to see Apple go broke very quickly. He would also be pretty pleased to see Apple's sales plummet if they chose the ten thousand dollar route.
What is the 'that' that Best Buy et al. would be doing? They sell Windows Vista at prices based on what they bought it for.
for point 5 I don't see best buy doing that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
They wouldn't be locking out 3rd parties, it would just make OS X install on machines that have certain HW, like how Windows can't install on PPC.
This is not the same apple uses the same hardware has other pc's and useing a lock out chip is like what lexmark did.
[QUOTE=solipsism;1336599]
Which is why I said they weren't viable options. The only viable options are raising the price to account for the loss of HW sales or using HW that isn't available on the retail market. There is nothing illegal about that
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Try to buy an iPod without the OS. Try to buy a PS3 without the OS. There is no law saying that you have sell your HW bricked.
But I'm talking about a PC that can use other os's dell and others where forced to offer pc's with out the cost of the windows os so apple must be able to do the same.
Comments
For what?
It would be the *user* who broke the EULA, not Psystar.
All Apple can do is not extend tech support to the hackintoshes.
C.
Read up on Napster (before they became a legal download site) and Grokster. Both of those sites were shut down because most of their users were illegally violating copyrights of music and movies. Either Napster or Grokster were actually engage in any of the illegal violations. But they were held accountable because their sites encouraged such activities. Napster wasn't even profitting from their site. But Grokster was selling advertising.
If you sold alcohol to some one that you knew was giving it to minors, you are also guilty of supplying alcohol to minors. If one of those minors gets in an auto accident that kills some one. And the actual person that gave the alcohol to him has little or no money, they will sue you. If it can be proven that you knew that the person was giving the alcohol to minors you will be 100% liable.
Tying is a nuanced concept, and a case can easily be made that a Mac is just nice looking generic hardware, while Mac OS is just software for (any) X86. Neither can be said about X-box or your electric razor.
You need to get a better understanding of "tying". Just because you don't like the match up, doesn't mean that it's illegal. iPhone is only on ATT (in US), Google phone is only on T-Mobile, Razr (at one time) was only on Verizon, Halo 3 is only for Xbox, Beta tapes only only works in a BetaMax, Zip disk only works in a Zip drive, DRMed music from iTunes Store only works on an iPod, DRMed music from MS only works on a Zune, etc. There is nothing illegal about "tying" products that are meant to work together. It doesn't matter if either of the matched products can work with other products. It only matters that the two products being "tied" functions together.
Most illegal "tying" is when you're force to buy a totally unrelated product in order for you to buy another product. It would be illegal for Apple to make you buy an iPod if you want a copy of OSX. Or if you had to buy life insurance in order for you get auto insurance. Or if you had to subscribe to XM radio before GM sold you the car. Apple is not forcing you to buy a Mac when you buy OSX (off the shelf). Microsoft is not forcing you to buy an Xbox when you buy Halo 3. Apple does not force you to use ATT when you buy an unlocked iPhone. ATT does not force you to to buy an iPhone in order to get their service.
Just because you may need to own a Mac or Xbox before you can use OSX or play Halo 3 doesn't make it illegal to "tie" them to certain hardware. The point is that you can buy these by themselves, without being forced to also by a Mac, Xbox or any unrelated product at the time of purchase.
I can buy a BMW fuel pump. But it doesn't fit on any other auto but a BMW. Is this illegal "tying"?
You need to get a better understanding of "tying". Just because you don't like the match up, doesn't mean that it's illegal. iPhone is only on ATT (in US), Google phone is only on T-Mobile, Razr (at one time) was only on Verizon, Halo 3 is only for Xbox, Beta tapes only only works in a BetaMax, Zip disk only works in a Zip drive, DRMed music from iTunes Store only works on an iPod, DRMed music from MS only works on a Zune, etc. There is nothing illegal about "tying" products that are meant to work together. It doesn't matter if either of the matched products can work on with other products. It only matters that the two products being "tied" functions together.
Most illegal "tying" is when you're force to buy a totally unrelated product in order for you to buy another product. It would be illegal for Apple to make you buy an iPod if you want a copy of OSX. Or if you had to buy life insurance in order for you get auto insurance. Or if you had to subscribe to XM radio before GM sold you the car. Apple is not forcing you to buy a Mac when you buy OSX (off the shelf). Microsoft is not forcing you to buy an Xbox when you buy Halo 3. Apple does not force you to use ATT when you buy an unlocked iPhone. ATT doesn't not force you to to buy an iPhone in order to get their service.
Just because you may need to own a Mac or Xbox before you can use OSX or play Halo 3 doesn't make it illegal to "tie" them to certain hardware. The point is that you can buy these by themselves, without being forced to also by a Mac, Xbox or any unrelated product at the time of purchase.
I can buy a BMW fuel pump. But it doesn't fit on any other auto but a BMW. Is this illegal "tying"?
Farvegnugen!
Read up on Napster (before they became a legal download site) and Grokster. Both of those sites were shut down because most of their users were illegally violating copyrights of music and movies. Either Napster or Grokster were actually engage in any of the illegal violations. But they were held accountable because their sites encouraged such activities. Napster wasn't even profitting from their site. But Grokster was selling advertising.
This is not comparable.
Stealing copyrighted music without compensating the author is theft.
Purchasing an OS at full retail price and installing it on (drumroll) a wrong computer isn't a crime against humanity. No crime occurred. It's putting 3rd party ink in your Epson printer. You broke the warrany not the law.
The McClone manufacturer would not even be breaking the EULA.
C.
Microsoft Windows XP Professional FULL VERSION with SP2 $ 260
Microsoft Windows XP Professional UPGRADE VERSION with SP2 $ 186
Source. Amazon
That's fine. But if MS added the following, it would be illegal.
MS-branded computer + Windows XP $250
If they did that, it would mean they're selling the computer at a loss, and that is called predatory pricing.
Apple can sell a full version for more than the upgrade version. What they can't do, is sell the OS for more than what they charge for the Mini bundled with the OS.
If they did offer the Mini without the OS (say, for running LInux or Windows), they could even charge less for the Mini+OS bundle than they do for both products sold separately. But they can't use pricing to drive Psystar out of the market. That's anti-competitive, and it is not allowed in a properly-regulated free market - only in protectionist markets.
So you now say that it is illegal for a company to set the price of it's own products.
A company may not price its products so as to drive competition out of the market. I'm not claiming that PsyStar are going to prevail, and that Apple will be forced to sell its OS to OEMs. I'm saying that if they do, then they will have to price their OS fairly.
Are you even beginning to get the feeling that you really have very little notion ... of what you are talking about?
No, but I'm getting that feeling about you.
This is not comparable.
Stealing copyrighted music without compensating the author is theft.
Purchasing an OS at full retail price and installing it on (drumroll) a wrong computer isn't a crime against humanity. No crime occurred. It's putting 3rd party ink in your Epson printer. You broke the warrany not the law.
The McClone manufacturer would not even be breaking the EULA.
C.
Yes it is comparable. My response was to your assertion that Apple would have to go after the end user because they were the one's violating Apple's EULA, not Psystar. Napster and Grokster are two cases where the RIAA and movie industry went after the people that was encouraging the violation of some ones else's copyright. Thus Apple can go after Psystar even if all they're doing is encouraging people to violate their EULA. And Apple will go after them for sure if Psystar is profiting from it.
Here's another case by Blizzard that I posted earlier for another post.
http://www.yougamers.com/news/19640_...tting_lawsuit/
That's fine. But if MS added the following, it would be illegal.
MS-branded computer + Windows XP $250
If they did that, it would mean they're selling the computer at a loss, and that is called predatory pricing.
Apple can sell a full version for more than the upgrade version. What they can't do, is sell the OS for more than what they charge for the Mini bundled with the OS.
If they did offer the Mini without the OS (say, for running LInux or Windows), they could even charge less for the Mini+OS bundle than they do for both products sold separately. But they can't use pricing to drive Psystar out of the market. That's anti-competitive, and it is not allowed in a properly-regulated free market - only in protectionist markets.
What you fail to understand is that the OSX license you get with a Mac Mini is not a "full" license. It's an OEM license. Another words, the license is good only for the computer it came with. It's the same for Dell, HP, Sony, etc. The OEM OSX (or MS Windows) license you get with the purchase of a computer is non transferable to another computer. The recovery disk that the OS resides in will not let you install the OS on another computer. The OSX that comes with a Mac Mini will only install on a Mac Mini. And most likely will not install on any earlier models of the Mini or later models.
It's been a long time since I worked on a PC with Windows. But I'm not even sure if you can use an OEM license (that came with a Dell, HP, Sony, etc.) as proof of a previous license if you want to install an upgrade version of Windows on a PC that you built. For sure you can upgrade the Windows on the computer that the OEM license was for.
An off the shelf "full" or "upgrade" license of OSX can be installed on any Mac. Including a G3, G4 and G5. So Apple can price the full version accordingly. Regardless of how much a Mac cost with an OEM version of OSX pre-installed.
A company may not price its products so as to drive competition out of the market. I'm not claiming that PsyStar are going to prevail, and that Apple will be forced to sell its OS to OEMs. I'm saying that if they do, then they will have to price their OS fairly.
Yes they (Apple) can price OSX in such a way that it would be unprofitable for Psystar to sell a computer with OSX on it. It would only be anti-competitive if OSX was the only OS that Psystar can use to stay in business. For that to happen, OSX would have to be a monopoly. But this isn't the case. Psystar can still sell their computers installed with MS Windows or Linux. Psystar would have to explain to the judge or jury why they can't stay in business by selling computers with an OS that 95% of the World uses.
Now MS could not do this because it would be easy to prove that without a fair price for a Windows license, they would be driven out of business because they can't sell computers that 95% of the World uses.
Just because MS can make a lot of money selling OEM licenses to PC venders for less than $30 per PC, doesn't mean that Apple will make a lot of money selling OEM licenses of OSX for $30 per PC. MS Windows is on 95% of the World computers. MS can sell OEM licenses for $5 per PC and still make a ton of money. Apple may not even make money at $30 an OEM license.
The price that Apple charges for an OEM license or for a "full" version of OSX only needs to be fair for Apple.
OS X is proprietary intellectual property developed and supported by Apple. Apple owns OS X and licenses it use under Apple's conditions. You do not own OS X simply because you've bought a boxed copy of it. You have only purchased a license for its use.
That language is unclear. Did you, or did you not, buy a boxed copy of the software?
I mean, the physical object itself... is it your property, or is it Apple's porperty on long-term loan to you? Apple's license text says "You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple's licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself..."
I don't know if the situation would have actually been any different even if they hadn't included that sentence. I read it as a restatement of the statutory distinction between physical ownership versus intellectual ownership which would have been the case even if the license hadn't said anything at all about the subject, or even if there hadn't been any explicit license included in the first place.
And I don't think it's any different than any other situation in which you buy a physical object which contains a copyrighted work: When you buy a book, the physical object is your property, even though the words that are printed on the paper still belong to the author. Or when you buy a painting, the canvass is your property, even though the image that is visible on the surface belongs to the painter.
You are not free to become an OS X resell vendor if Apple does not agree to allow you to. Because Apple owns it.
As long as no additional copies or derivative works have been made, first sale doctrine says that the owner of a physical object which contains a representation of a copyrighted work is always authorized to resell it, regardless of any objections voiced by the copyright holder.
On the other hand, the owner of a physical object generally has to obtain the copyright holder's permission before he makes any derivative works or additional copies. That's where the necessity of a license comes in to play - it's what allows the software to be duplicated (installed on the computer's hard drive) in the first place. (Unless of course you take a literal interpretation of the language of section 117 of the copyright law.) In any event, he would undeniably need to obtain the copyright holder's permission before he redistributed a modified version.
Anyway, Mac OS X's license also clearly states that the person who holds the license does have the ability to transfer (resell) the license to somebody else, so long as the transfer also includes the complete software product, the software is transferred in an unmodified state, it includes all the materials that came with it, and you don't keep any backup copies of the material for yourself.
Psystar is producing modified derivative works and trying to resell them. That is clearly prohibited by both the license and basic copyright law.
This is not comparable.
Stealing copyrighted music without compensating the author is theft.
Purchasing an OS at full retail price and installing it on (drumroll) a wrong computer isn't a crime against humanity. No crime occurred. It's putting 3rd party ink in your Epson printer. You broke the warrany not the law.
The McClone manufacturer would not even be breaking the EULA.
C.
It is the exact same thing. You do not own the music you are purchasing a license to use the music. You do not own OS X you are purchasing a license to use OS X.
The McClone manufacturer is breaking the EULA because Apple did not agree for them to be a distributor of OS X. As it clearly states in the EULA.
That language is unclear. Did you, or did you not, buy a boxed copy of the software?
I mean, the physical object itself... is it your property, or is it Apple's porperty on long-term loan to you? Apple's license text says "You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple's licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself..."
I don't know if the situation would have actually been any different even if they hadn't included that sentence. I read it as a restatement of the statutory distinction between physical ownership versus intellectual ownership which would have been the case even if the license hadn't said anything at all about the subject, or even if there hadn't been any explicit license included in the first place.
And I don't think it's any different than any other situation in which you buy a physical object which contains a copyrighted work: When you buy a book, the physical object is your property, even though the words that are printed on the paper still belong to the author. Or when you buy a painting, the canvass is your property, even though the image that is visible on the surface belongs to the painter.
You are essentially saying the language isn't clear and then turn around and say Apple has stated the obvious.
As long as no additional copies or derivative works have been made, first sale doctrine says that the owner of a physical object which contains a representation of a copyrighted work is always authorized to resell it, regardless of any objections voiced by the copyright holder.
You are authorized to sell your private license. You are not necessarily free to become a distributor and competitor using someone else's intellectual property.
Anyway, Mac OS X's license also clearly states that the person who holds the license does have the ability to transfer (resell) the license to somebody else, so long as the transfer also includes the complete software product, the software is transferred in an unmodified state, it includes all the materials that came with it, and you don't keep any backup copies of the material for yourself.
Again you are not free to start a computer business using Apple's intellectual property and then compete against Apple using its own property.
You are essentially saying the language isn't clear and then turn around and say Apple has stated the obvious.
No; I was saying that YOUR language wasn't clear.
[edit]
First you said "you bought a boxed copy of it". Then you said "you only bought a license". On its surface, the two statements seemed to contradict each other.
In the first case, you bought a physical thing which also contained copyrighted material. As with all such transactions, ownershp of the copyrighted material remains in the hands of the author regardless of who owns the physical thing.
In the second case, you bought an intangible thing, and the physical object never actually entered into your ownership.
[/edit]
I wanted you to clarify your own statement. And then I presented my own understanding of the situation.
You are authorized to sell your private license. You are not necessarily free to become a distributor and competitor using someone else's intellectual property.
Exactly. If I privately buy 10,000 licenses, I am then authorized to privately resell each of those 10,000 licenses.
Psystar is not doing that alone, as I try to reiterate every time I try to speak about this. Psystar is also modifying the software before reselling it - a clear violation of both the license and of copyright law.
Again you are not free to start a computer business using Apple's intellectual property and then compete against Apple using its own property.
But that is not the point I was trying to argue against. See previous paragraphs.
It is the exact same thing. You do not own the music you are purchasing a license to use the music. You do not own OS X you are purchasing a license to use OS X.
The McClone manufacturer is breaking the EULA because Apple did not agree for them to be a distributor of OS X. As it clearly states in the EULA.
You kind of misread the thread. Asking what would happen if the McClone manufacturer did *not* install OS X. And sold a OS X ready hardware instead.
C.
Imagine if many PC manufacturers made hardware that was OS X ready?
What would Apple do then?
Fact of the matter is... They already are. It is faster to install OS X on a Dell than to install Vista.
As soon as Apple adopted standard PC hardware, Macs gained the ability to run Windows, and PCs gained the ability to run OS X.
Apple's options are
1) Wave the EULA a lot.
2) Embed more "security" - ie. Macintosh Genuine Advantage.
3) Adjust the business model.
Bill Gates would pick number 2.
Steve Jobs might just pick number 3.
C.
Apple's options are
1) Wave the EULA a lot.
2) Embed more "security" - ie. Macintosh Genuine Advantage.
3) Adjust the business model.
4) Charge Windows Vista Ultimate full install prices for OS X so it's cost prohibitive
5) Make users verify that they have a Mac before selling them a retail copy of OS X
6) Add a P.A. Semi designed chip to their Macs so that they only install on Macs with these chips
7) Don't offer OS X retail copies but instead change the accounting model to GAAP so that users can get a single free OS X update to OS X either by download or by calling Apple.
8) Make the OS X update cycle equal to the average Mac usage time so version updates aren't necessary.
Psystar can't win, but if they did only 4 and 6 seem to be viable options. I am still amazed that people think Apple should be the only software developer in existence that should abandon the free market to offer a socialized OS.
4) Charge Windows Vista Ultimate full install prices for OS X so it's cost prohibitive
5) Make users verify that they have a Mac before selling them a retail copy of OS X
Good luck getting best buy and others to do that.
4)
6) Add a P.A. Semi designed chip to their Macs so that they only install on Macs with these chips
The old macs will not have the chip and apple can't lock out that many systems and you can't use the DMCA to lock out 3rd party's lexmark tried that and lost.
4)
7) Don't offer OS X retail copies but instead change the accounting model to GAAP so that users can get a single free OS X update to OS X either by download or by calling Apple.
Mac os x is too big to be download only and how about people with older mac that want to pay for more then one update?
4)
8) Make the OS X update cycle equal to the average Mac usage time so version updates aren't necessary.
That will not work and people will not like having to buy a full system just to get a os update MS will love that.
4)
Psystar can't win, but if they did only 4 and 6 seem to be viable options. I am still amazed that people think Apple should be the only software developer in existence that should abandon the free market to offer a socialized OS.
Even if apple goes that way there are other law that will force then to sell hardware with out the os and you will get the price of the os part that way.
Originally Posted by solipsism
4)
7) Don't offer OS X retail copies but instead change the accounting model to GAAP so that users can get a single free OS X update to OS X either by download or by calling Apple.
Mac os x is too big to be download only and how about people with older mac that want to pay for more then one update?" [/quote]
Further, not every Mac owner has, or wants an internet connection, they would need a disk.
Good luck getting best buy and others to do that.
What is the 'that' that Best Buy et al. would be doing? They sell Windows Vista at prices based on what they bought it for.
The old macs will not have the chip and apple can't lock out that many systems and you can't use the DMCA to lock out 3rd party's lexmark tried that and lost.
They wouldn't be locking out 3rd parties, it would just make OS X install on machines that have certain HW, like how Windows can't install on PPC.
Mac os x is too big to be download only and how about people with older mac that want to pay for more then one update?
That will not work and people will not like having to buy a full system just to get a os update MS will love that.
Which is why I said they weren't viable options. The only viable options are raising the price to account for the loss of HW sales or using HW that isn't available on the retail market. There is nothing illegal about that
Even if apple goes that way there are other law that will force then to sell hardware with out the os and you will get the price of the os part that way.
Try to buy an iPod without the OS. Try to buy a PS3 without the OS. There is no law saying that you have sell your HW bricked.
That's fine. But if MS added the following, it would be illegal.
MS-branded computer + Windows XP $250
If they did that, it would mean they're selling the computer at a loss, and that is called predatory pricing.
And predatory pricing only becomes a problem when you have a dominant, or monopoly position in a market. Like Microsoft has.
Apple can sell a full version for more than the upgrade version. What they can't do, is sell the OS for more than what they charge for the Mini bundled with the OS.
Rubbish! You have just agreed that Microsoft can legally sell a full version and an upgrade version of Windows. At two different prices. Microsoft also sells a much cheaper version to the OEMs. That makes three versions. A cheapo one that is bundled with a computer. A pricier version if you are upgrading. And the most expensive version... if you are starting from scratch. Apple could do exactly the same and Apple can set the price!
Where do you get this stuff from?
But they can't use pricing to drive Psystar out of the market. That's anti-competitive,
Until Apple has some kind of dominant, or monopoly, position in either the computer hardware or OS markets Apple are free to charge whatever they like for their products. They can sell all of their Macs for $10.00 and a full OS X for a dollar. Alternatively they can sell both products for $10,000.00 a piece. I don't think even Dell can compete at $10.00 but Michael Dell would be happy to see Apple go broke very quickly. He would also be pretty pleased to see Apple's sales plummet if they chose the ten thousand dollar route.
What is the 'that' that Best Buy et al. would be doing? They sell Windows Vista at prices based on what they bought it for.
for point 5 I don't see best buy doing that.
They wouldn't be locking out 3rd parties, it would just make OS X install on machines that have certain HW, like how Windows can't install on PPC.
This is not the same apple uses the same hardware has other pc's and useing a lock out chip is like what lexmark did.
[QUOTE=solipsism;1336599]
Which is why I said they weren't viable options. The only viable options are raising the price to account for the loss of HW sales or using HW that isn't available on the retail market. There is nothing illegal about that
Try to buy an iPod without the OS. Try to buy a PS3 without the OS. There is no law saying that you have sell your HW bricked.
But I'm talking about a PC that can use other os's dell and others where forced to offer pc's with out the cost of the windows os so apple must be able to do the same.