You almost have this right. Sure, there is a license between Apple and myself. However, the license is only legally enforceable to the extend Apple's conditions are legal. Copyright allows the fair use of copyrightable software even if the use is prohibited under the license. Fair use generally protects personal use, not commercial use. If I were to take OSX and install it on a hackintosh, Apple would likely have no legal argument against me.
Where Psystar falls into trouble is that it's use is commercial in nature. It is intending to compete with Apple. That is not fair use and under a strict copyright argument Pystar would lose.
Psystar also falls into trouble with Apple's trademark. This is because when people buy a Psystar machine that is unsupported by APple and it has a problem that Psystar doesn't fix, who do you think they are going to get pissed at? Hint it will not be Psystar. This diminishes the good will Apple has built up in it's Trademark.
I don't give two shits about Apple's business model. I want to load OS X on what I want. It's a monopoly and they should be stopped.
You can try and go the Hackintosh route, what you do with whatever you buy in your own home is of no one's business. However, be prepare for Apple to plug it in Snow Leopard although, I don't think it will last too long.
Actually, there is some history on Psystar's side, but it's quite old, so newer rulings may override them.
In the '70s IBM was forced to allow their operating system, MVS, to run on other manufacturer's hardware. This allowed mainframes from Amdahl and Hitachi as well as IBM to run MVS. In fact, IBM was forced to publish a book (still available today) called "principles of operation, that detailed the requirements from a computer that runs MVS.
That same IBM decided to add file permissions to MVS so that not every user would be able to read or modify every file. Sounds basic enough. Should be in every operating system, right? Wrong, said other software vendors. IBM was forced to modularize the permission subsystem, so that other vendors could compete with IBM. Still today, IBM mainframes (or rather, their administrators) can choose from at least three security packages, only one of which is from IBM.
That last case was the precedent that people thought would lead a court to force Microsoft to unbundle Internet Explorer. If file permissions are not part of an OS, a browser definitely isn't.
Still, the Microsoft ruling is more recent, so I'm not sure that Psystar has a case. OTOH saying that Apple has the right to force people who want to buy the OS to also buy a piece of hardware, may be right, but also may not be right. That's for a court to decide.
IMO a legal system that takes so long to start trial is seriously flawed. But that's all legal system all over the world.
Then I guess the courts should also decide on whether if I want blackberries OS whether I should buy a blackberry, if I want PS3 OS whether I should have to buy a PS3, if I want an Xbox OS whether...
Under the US Constitution, Apple has an exclusive right to it's work. So, for instance, it can decide who to distribute it's software.
Not quite. Apple cannot decide that it doesn't allow black people to use its software. Similarly, it can't decide that Jews are prohibited from installing Mac OS X.
If Apple had decided that Mac OS X is only to be used inside the company, that's their right. But they have decided to sell it. The fact that they sell it bundled with hardware, and the price is "included" in the bundle does not mean that they're not selling it. by deciding to sell a license to everyone, Apple has given up some control, and they may not refuse to sell to anyone without a very good reason. Not having bought a Mac may not be such a good reason.
You might want to look up the term Tying in wikipedia. It's not always legal.
Why can't everybody just "assume the position" and take what they have coming to them? Apple was put on this earth for a reason, and no federal judge is going to mess with Steven. He may not have "his guns" anymore but he still has laser wit. Although there is extensive case law some of which written by Thomas Penfield Jackson in the late 90s - early 2000s, again resistance is futile. Bundling for monopoly purposes isn't just illegal because some federal judge says so. So some guy in a silly black robe already ruled on this issue, big deal. AAPL didn't need to go to law school. Nobody can tell AAPL what to do, it is a creative company of important visionaries. Now get out of their way and shut the hell up about case law, freedom of commerce etc. Everybody knows we need a clean environment so the master council can design our computing experience and so we can obey their commands. When people tell you they have the freedom to innovate under established fair access to platforms, you should plug your ears and seek the truth, at apple.com. Also, here is some medicine to help you stay calm, and your dose of anti-fertility pills too.
This seems really odd. Wouldn't apple want to pursue some sort of action to stop sales until this thing is settled?
This seems like they're giving them a whole year of violating their IP.
Can anyone knowledgeable about the law explain?
That may not work, and since Apple is the big company here (read: evil) it would make them look bad. And since the sales of Psystar aren't large enough to affect Apple's bottom line in the short term, it doesn't seem to make sense for Apple to pursue this. This trial is costing Apple a lot more than any profit Psystar's basement business could ever take from Apple.
(Note: I have no knowledge of law, I'm just speculating)
Not quite. Apple cannot decide that it doesn't allow black people to use its software. Similarly, it can't decide that Jews are prohibited from installing Mac OS X.
If Apple had decided that Mac OS X is only to be used inside the company, that's their right. But they have decided to sell it. The fact that they sell it bundled with hardware, and the price is "included" in the bundle does not mean that they're not selling it. by deciding to sell a license to everyone, Apple has given up some control, and they may not refuse to sell to anyone without a very good reason. Not having bought a Mac may not be such a good reason.
You might want to look up the term Tying in wikipedia. It's not always legal.
Com'on! Apple can decide not to sell to Best Buy, or any retailer, at will. Your arguments are ridiculous, nobody is trying to make this a racial or ethnic issue.
Then I guess the courts should also decide on whether if I want blackberries OS whether I should buy a blackberry, if I want PS3 OS whether I should have to buy a PS3, if I want an Xbox OS whether...
Well, it is up to a court to decide whether the OS and hardware are components of a single product (like the blackberry and PS3 and Xbox) or two separate items that are only sold together to gain an unfair advantage for the vendor.
The case for Mac OS and Macs is far weaker than MVS and file permissions. Mac OS runs perfectly well on hackintoshes, and Windows runs very well on Macs. Their marriage is not technical necessity, but still, it's for a court to decide.
Not quite. Apple cannot decide that it doesn't allow black people to use its software. Similarly, it can't decide that Jews are prohibited from installing Mac OS X.
No one is arguing anything like this.
Quote:
If Apple had decided that Mac OS X is only to be used inside the company, that's their right. But they have decided to sell it. The fact that they sell it bundled with hardware, and the price is "included" in the bundle does not mean that they're not selling it. by deciding to sell a license to everyone, Apple has given up some control, and they may not refuse to sell to anyone without a very good reason. Not having bought a Mac may not be such a good reason.
The retail copies of OS X are a license for an upgrade of Mac purchased from Apple not a new license for a generic computer that was not purchased from Apple.
That may not work, and since Apple is the big company here (read: evil) it would make them look bad. And since the sales of Psystar aren't large enough to affect Apple's bottom line in the short term, it doesn't seem to make sense for Apple to pursue this. This trial is costing Apple a lot more than any profit Psystar's basement business could ever take from Apple.
(Note: I have no knowledge of law, I'm just speculating)
The bottom line here is that when it's all over Pystar will not be able to afford the cost of losing. It will put them out of business, leaving their customers holding the bag.
Well, it is up to a court to decide whether the OS and hardware are components of a single product (like the blackberry and PS3 and Xbox) or two separate items that are only sold together to gain an unfair advantage for the vendor.
The case for Mac OS and Macs is far weaker than MVS and file permissions. Mac OS runs perfectly well on hackintoshes, and Windows runs very well on Macs. Their marriage is not technical necessity, but still, it's for a court to decide.
You seem to miss the fact that Apple put up its own capital and resources to produce and maintain OS X. How do you force a company to share a product that they used their own resources to produce? How is it an unfair advantage if said company refuses to share its products with a competitor?
Psystar is perfectly free to develop their own OS and compete against Apple.
Mac OS runs perfectly well on hackintoshes, and Windows runs very well on Macs. Their marriage is not technical necessity, but still, it's for a court to decide.
No, it doesn't. I've been running OSx86 machines for years now. They have many, many little issues.
Apple shouldn't be forced by to socialize its IP and support power optimized systems because people who have gotten so used to steal software on the internets want to run on their PC HW but are too lazy or techtarded to build their own systems.
This is a capitalist natiom, which gives Apple the right to license the sale of its IP to anyone it wishes. If Apple doesn't wish to allow clones then it doesn't have to.
You seem to miss the fact that Apple put up its own capital to produce and maintain OS X. How do you force a company to share a product that they used their own resources to produce? How is it an unfair advantage if said company refuses to share its products with a competitor?
Psystar is perfectly free to develop their own OS and compete against Apple.
On top of that, Industrial Espionage is a crime. Those that steal from Apple are guilty of it.
Comments
You almost have this right. Sure, there is a license between Apple and myself. However, the license is only legally enforceable to the extend Apple's conditions are legal. Copyright allows the fair use of copyrightable software even if the use is prohibited under the license. Fair use generally protects personal use, not commercial use. If I were to take OSX and install it on a hackintosh, Apple would likely have no legal argument against me.
Where Psystar falls into trouble is that it's use is commercial in nature. It is intending to compete with Apple. That is not fair use and under a strict copyright argument Pystar would lose.
Psystar also falls into trouble with Apple's trademark. This is because when people buy a Psystar machine that is unsupported by APple and it has a problem that Psystar doesn't fix, who do you think they are going to get pissed at? Hint it will not be Psystar. This diminishes the good will Apple has built up in it's Trademark.
I don't give two shits about Apple's business model. I want to load OS X on what I want. It's a monopoly and they should be stopped.
You can try and go the Hackintosh route, what you do with whatever you buy in your own home is of no one's business. However, be prepare for Apple to plug it in Snow Leopard although, I don't think it will last too long.
Actually, there is some history on Psystar's side, but it's quite old, so newer rulings may override them.
In the '70s IBM was forced to allow their operating system, MVS, to run on other manufacturer's hardware. This allowed mainframes from Amdahl and Hitachi as well as IBM to run MVS. In fact, IBM was forced to publish a book (still available today) called "principles of operation, that detailed the requirements from a computer that runs MVS.
That same IBM decided to add file permissions to MVS so that not every user would be able to read or modify every file. Sounds basic enough. Should be in every operating system, right? Wrong, said other software vendors. IBM was forced to modularize the permission subsystem, so that other vendors could compete with IBM. Still today, IBM mainframes (or rather, their administrators) can choose from at least three security packages, only one of which is from IBM.
That last case was the precedent that people thought would lead a court to force Microsoft to unbundle Internet Explorer. If file permissions are not part of an OS, a browser definitely isn't.
Still, the Microsoft ruling is more recent, so I'm not sure that Psystar has a case. OTOH saying that Apple has the right to force people who want to buy the OS to also buy a piece of hardware, may be right, but also may not be right. That's for a court to decide.
IMO a legal system that takes so long to start trial is seriously flawed. But that's all legal system all over the world.
Then I guess the courts should also decide on whether if I want blackberries OS whether I should buy a blackberry, if I want PS3 OS whether I should have to buy a PS3, if I want an Xbox OS whether...
I'm still trying to picture a Pystar customer. Not easy, ya know!
This seems like they're giving them a whole year of violating their IP.
Can anyone knowledgeable about the law explain?
Outside of a historian's intrigue, can you give some examples, some names, past or present, fans of Hitler?
Just curious...
Here's a whole fora: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/
This seems really odd. Wouldn't apple want to pursue some sort of action to stop sales until this thing is settled?
This seems like they're giving them a whole year of violating their IP.
Can anyone knowledgeable about the law explain?
If people, customers in this case, want to be foolish, that's their right. Two words govern this situation. caveat emptor!
... the fact is, the people that really want OSX on their PC have already done it, it's as simple as that.
Whatever the result, you probably have what Psystar are selling in your house right now anyway, a generic PC.
Under the US Constitution, Apple has an exclusive right to it's work. So, for instance, it can decide who to distribute it's software.
Not quite. Apple cannot decide that it doesn't allow black people to use its software. Similarly, it can't decide that Jews are prohibited from installing Mac OS X.
If Apple had decided that Mac OS X is only to be used inside the company, that's their right. But they have decided to sell it. The fact that they sell it bundled with hardware, and the price is "included" in the bundle does not mean that they're not selling it. by deciding to sell a license to everyone, Apple has given up some control, and they may not refuse to sell to anyone without a very good reason. Not having bought a Mac may not be such a good reason.
You might want to look up the term Tying in wikipedia. It's not always legal.
It's a monopoly and they should be stopped.
For the twelve billionth time, IT'S NOT A MONOPOLY.
I'm annoyed that this case is dragging on so long - I want it to be over so it puts an end to the posts from idiots whining that Apple is a monopoly.
This seems really odd. Wouldn't apple want to pursue some sort of action to stop sales until this thing is settled?
This seems like they're giving them a whole year of violating their IP.
Can anyone knowledgeable about the law explain?
That may not work, and since Apple is the big company here (read: evil) it would make them look bad. And since the sales of Psystar aren't large enough to affect Apple's bottom line in the short term, it doesn't seem to make sense for Apple to pursue this. This trial is costing Apple a lot more than any profit Psystar's basement business could ever take from Apple.
(Note: I have no knowledge of law, I'm just speculating)
Not quite. Apple cannot decide that it doesn't allow black people to use its software. Similarly, it can't decide that Jews are prohibited from installing Mac OS X.
If Apple had decided that Mac OS X is only to be used inside the company, that's their right. But they have decided to sell it. The fact that they sell it bundled with hardware, and the price is "included" in the bundle does not mean that they're not selling it. by deciding to sell a license to everyone, Apple has given up some control, and they may not refuse to sell to anyone without a very good reason. Not having bought a Mac may not be such a good reason.
You might want to look up the term Tying in wikipedia. It's not always legal.
Com'on! Apple can decide not to sell to Best Buy, or any retailer, at will. Your arguments are ridiculous, nobody is trying to make this a racial or ethnic issue.
Then I guess the courts should also decide on whether if I want blackberries OS whether I should buy a blackberry, if I want PS3 OS whether I should have to buy a PS3, if I want an Xbox OS whether...
Well, it is up to a court to decide whether the OS and hardware are components of a single product (like the blackberry and PS3 and Xbox) or two separate items that are only sold together to gain an unfair advantage for the vendor.
The case for Mac OS and Macs is far weaker than MVS and file permissions. Mac OS runs perfectly well on hackintoshes, and Windows runs very well on Macs. Their marriage is not technical necessity, but still, it's for a court to decide.
Not quite. Apple cannot decide that it doesn't allow black people to use its software. Similarly, it can't decide that Jews are prohibited from installing Mac OS X.
No one is arguing anything like this.
If Apple had decided that Mac OS X is only to be used inside the company, that's their right. But they have decided to sell it. The fact that they sell it bundled with hardware, and the price is "included" in the bundle does not mean that they're not selling it. by deciding to sell a license to everyone, Apple has given up some control, and they may not refuse to sell to anyone without a very good reason. Not having bought a Mac may not be such a good reason.
The retail copies of OS X are a license for an upgrade of Mac purchased from Apple not a new license for a generic computer that was not purchased from Apple.
That may not work, and since Apple is the big company here (read: evil) it would make them look bad. And since the sales of Psystar aren't large enough to affect Apple's bottom line in the short term, it doesn't seem to make sense for Apple to pursue this. This trial is costing Apple a lot more than any profit Psystar's basement business could ever take from Apple.
(Note: I have no knowledge of law, I'm just speculating)
The bottom line here is that when it's all over Pystar will not be able to afford the cost of losing. It will put them out of business, leaving their customers holding the bag.
Well, it is up to a court to decide whether the OS and hardware are components of a single product (like the blackberry and PS3 and Xbox) or two separate items that are only sold together to gain an unfair advantage for the vendor.
The case for Mac OS and Macs is far weaker than MVS and file permissions. Mac OS runs perfectly well on hackintoshes, and Windows runs very well on Macs. Their marriage is not technical necessity, but still, it's for a court to decide.
You seem to miss the fact that Apple put up its own capital and resources to produce and maintain OS X. How do you force a company to share a product that they used their own resources to produce? How is it an unfair advantage if said company refuses to share its products with a competitor?
Psystar is perfectly free to develop their own OS and compete against Apple.
Mac OS runs perfectly well on hackintoshes, and Windows runs very well on Macs. Their marriage is not technical necessity, but still, it's for a court to decide.
No, it doesn't. I've been running OSx86 machines for years now. They have many, many little issues.
Apple shouldn't be forced by to socialize its IP and support power optimized systems because people who have gotten so used to steal software on the internets want to run on their PC HW but are too lazy or techtarded to build their own systems.
This is a capitalist natiom, which gives Apple the right to license the sale of its IP to anyone it wishes. If Apple doesn't wish to allow clones then it doesn't have to.
You seem to miss the fact that Apple put up its own capital to produce and maintain OS X. How do you force a company to share a product that they used their own resources to produce? How is it an unfair advantage if said company refuses to share its products with a competitor?
Psystar is perfectly free to develop their own OS and compete against Apple.
On top of that, Industrial Espionage is a crime. Those that steal from Apple are guilty of it.
Whether or not he was a Nazi, had no bearing on my comment.
It sure has something to do with "Nobody said anything about Nazi's.".
If you don't want to talk about Nazis, don't mention one.
You'll say anything except that your Nazi reference was off the wall, as nobody was talking about Nazis.
You mentioned Hitler, who was a Nazi. And I do agree, such a reference IS off the wall in this thread.