All of Psystar's claims *sound* good when you first hear them in the language Psystar expresses them with but they are all razor-thin technical arguments. I find it curious as this is the kind of arguments you would expect some of the best lawyers with deep knowledge of the field could make (inventive, unknown, technical etc.), yet their filings are a joke of bad grammar and poor phrasing in many respects also. It will be interesting to find out what's behind it all when it's over.
One argument though makes no sense to me and I wish someone could explain it. someone please explain to me how the "start-up check" they keep talking about is:
- unexpected
- nefarious
- bad
- "secret"
- a violation of copyright
- "underhanded"
- "stealth"
- any of the above
Psystar and their supporters have made all these claims. Psystar talks about this check as if proving that it just checks for particular intel chips as they say it does, will win them the case.
It seems to me that if Apple is tuning the OS to work on a certain set of chips that are used in their hardware (which is after all what the OS is designed for), then such a check is just the most obvious way to go about it. What's nefarious about that?
The group think of the anti-DRM crowd (of which I ascribe) is that DRM and copyright should be mutually exclusive, as there is no means for the DRM to "time out" at copyright expiration. A start-up check would count as DRM. An author/publisher/creator should be entitled to either copyright protection or DRM but not both.
So, by Pystar's logic, they are providing a compatibility layer to allow software to be run on their systems. It is a very weak stretch, but there is a small bit of logic there.
Again, this is incorrect. It is not called an upgrade version, but it specifically states that it can only be installed on Apple-branded hardware - which means that it is an upgrade by definition.
It's not like the non-Apple PC world where it's easy to get a computer without an OS so it makes sense to sell full and upgrade versions separately. In the Apple world, every computer ships with OS X, so there's no need to explicitly state that it's an upgrade.
If you're going to use a technicality to turn it into an upgrade, how about a technicality that might turn it back into a full version:
A man owns a business buying and repairing old Macs. Most come in with failed hard drives and no OS X install CD. He buys a copy of OS X to test to make sure the repaired system functions. When he goes to sell the repaired Mac, what must the business owner do to make sure a legal purchase of OS X is installed?
1) Burn a copy of his OS X install CD?
2) Purchase another copy of OS X to include with the computer?
If every Mac comes with an implicit license for OS X, #1 should be fine, right? The license was purchased with the hardware and since they are tied to each, that license still exists.
If you think #2 is the correct legal action, then you are saying that the software is separate from the hardware and that purchase is now a Full Version, not an upgrade. It is a completely separate license for a completely separate copy of OS X.
If you're going to use a technicality to turn it into an upgrade, how about a technicality that might turn it back into a full version:
A man owns a business buying and repairing old Macs. Most come in with failed hard drives and no OS X install CD. He buys a copy of OS X to test to make sure the repaired system functions. When he goes to sell the repaired Mac, what must the business owner do to make sure a legal purchase of OS X is installed?
1) Burn a copy of his OS X install CD?
2) Purchase another copy of OS X to include with the computer?
If every Mac comes with an implicit license for OS X, #1 should be fine, right? The license was purchased with the hardware and since they are tied to each, that license still exists.
If you think #2 is the correct legal action, then you are saying that the software is separate from the hardware and that purchase is now a Full Version, not an upgrade. It is a completely separate license for a completely separate copy of OS X.
Option 2 is correct, obviously he cannot use his own. I do wonder if to resell the OS he needs to be authorized by Apple?
However, I disagree with your statement that this is not an upgrade. It is still an upgrade in my view. Just because you wipe a drive and install doesn't mean you are not upgrading. There is no requirement to literally 'upgrade' a system already installed. Apple make it possible to initialize and install as well as upgraded existing system when 'upgrading'.
One argument though makes no sense to me and I wish someone could explain it. someone please explain to me how the "start-up check"
is anything to do with copyright. I love how Psystar is trying to link the two.
the start up check is for the EULA, not for copyright. and it's probably one of the things that Psystar had to hack to get the software to work on their set ups. which is why they know about it to make an attempt to make it an issue in the first place.
but someone please explain to me how having a start up check means you know you don't have copyright protection (skip the issue that Berne copyrights things the second you make them)
Psystar is not claiming that Apple does not have a Copyright, they're claiming that "Apple didn't use proper procedures to register the copyright for Mac OS X."!!!
actually the claim is that they didn't use proper procedure and therefore have no copyright. which is false in so many ways. the Berne Convention gives them protection without any registration required. US law makes you register to be able to sue for statutory damages. and you have to register all trademarks and patents for any protection (but those aren't in this case).
Quote:
Whatever that means! This statement reminds me of the OJ Simpson's defense when they argued that the DNA evidence could not be used as evidence since it was not collected using the correct procedure.
except that in the case of DNA if you don't follow the procedures there's a change you f'd up the evidence and it's a false hit. which is why OJ jumped on that detail.
Quote:
Psystar's argument here is that Mac OS X's boot process discriminates based on the hardware's manufacturer rather than the actual hardware configuration.
that ties into the EULA, not copyright. but Psystar is trying to make it the same issue.
however, the courts currently side that Apple has all rights to control the hardware used, that the tying of the OS and the setup is not illegal at this point in time. it is not antitrust etc.
Quote:
To summarize, Psystar is claiming: Although Apple explicitly points out that OS X must run on Apple hardware, which is anti-competitive
their arguments don't bring up the whole anti-comp issue because by current law, it is not. Apple currently has every right to tie hardware and software because the market is NOT Macintosh computers but rather personal computers. Psystar can't bring up that issue. they instead are trying to link the check to Apple knowing they don't have copyright on the software, which is idiotic because anyone can tell that the two are totally different issues at play.
What are you trying to say here? That makes absolutely no sense.
A magazine pays the photographer for the rights to use an image in the magazine, no they do not own the photo, duh, but they did pay a royalty to use the photo. The photographer only owns the photo and nothing else that isnt theirs in the magazine. Only in specific circumstances, defined by contract, does the publication own the photographer's work, but all parties involved are aware of this agreement, yet the photographer is still required to receive credit for the photos.
that sounds like a good parallel to software licensing.
add it to that sometimes photographers will 'public domain' their photos to be used by anyone that wants them at no cost (aka freeware) and you are really working a parallel notion.
and that notion is part of the arguments in this court case. Some would say that once you buy a piece of software you can do as you please. Others say that that the creator can limit exactly how you use it. What types of machines, how many etc. Guess which side is Psystar and which is Apple and current law.
What would your reaction be if the next Windows security update brought along a bit of code that checked for the chip(s) that Apple uses to lock OS X to their hardware? If the chip was found, Windows would immediately crash to the "blue screen of death." I know there are many people on here who use Windows either through Bootcamp or a virtual machine. How many of them would suddenly cry foul of such an action, despite the fact that there is NO DIFFERENCE between that and what Apple has done.
Vista Home was locked out from VMs for a while. That meant no Parallels. Bootcamp probably worked fine.
In any case, it was both legal and ethical for Microsoft to make that limitation even if they elected to recind the decision later.
But as we know Apple, being part of the United States, is not bound by any international laws.
actually in this case, that is not true. the US is a signatory to the Berne Convention so the BC is in effect US law.
which is why the Convention's statement that copyright exists the moment a work is in physical form is important. the Convention doesn't require any form of documentation etc. and it covers all upgrades and such.
US law requires registration for lawsuits and that's all.
so Psystar is wrong again and this will likely be tossed. All they can do when they lose is say, if they were correct on the matter, that Apple didn't properly register their copyright and thus gave up the right to anything more than actual damages. Which would keep their great grandkids grandkids from being bankrupted by the damages awarded to Apple
the start up check is a totally different issue and is tied to the already legally validated EULA under Apple's right to tie hardware and software. Since the market is all personal computers (evidenced by Microsoft feeling the need to advertise themselves as better than Apple among other issues), it's not anti-trust blah blah.
If you're going to use a technicality to turn it into an upgrade, how about a technicality that might turn it back into a full version:
A man owns a business buying and repairing old Macs. Most come in with failed hard drives and no OS X install CD. He buys a copy of OS X to test to make sure the repaired system functions. When he goes to sell the repaired Mac, what must the business owner do to make sure a legal purchase of OS X is installed?
1) Burn a copy of his OS X install CD?
2) Purchase another copy of OS X to include with the computer?
If every Mac comes with an implicit license for OS X, #1 should be fine, right? The license was purchased with the hardware and since they are tied to each, that license still exists.
If you think #2 is the correct legal action, then you are saying that the software is separate from the hardware and that purchase is now a Full Version, not an upgrade. It is a completely separate license for a completely separate copy of OS X.
2. If you lose your install disc, you've lost your install disc and need to buy a new one. The business is not authorized to make new copies of discs. This is no different from losing a book. You own a copy, not the rights to make new copies. The loss of the OS is no different from the loss of a hard drive or other component due to failure. It'd dead Jim, buy a new one.
OSX is not listed as an upgrade but given that all Macs come with OSX and it is the ONLY platform licensed to run OSX then all copies of OSX are upgrades. This is not a "technicality" but a fact.
This is also to our benefit since the upgrade cost is lower. Plus Apple doesn't appear to really care about hackintoshes or there would have been a hardware dongle on the intel motherboards on Day 1.
Actually the RIAA has every right to what they are demanding. There was music being pirated left and right.
the trouble was that the RIAA went the total jerk route in defending their rights.
had they been more willing to work with people to come up with legal ways to download at a reasonable amount of money, they could have cut things down a lot quicker than they have.
cause as the record labels have shown, many of them have no issue with rights free music and single track downloads etc. and the illegal copying has come down somewhat already.
Option 2 is correct, obviously he cannot use his own. I do wonder if to resell the OS he needs to be authorized by Apple?
However, I disagree with your statement that this is not an upgrade. It is still an upgrade in my view. Just because you wipe a drive and install doesn't mean you are not upgrading. There is no requirement to literally 'upgrade' a system already installed. Apple make it possible to initialize and install as well as upgraded existing system when 'upgrading'.
Your logic seems to be fighting against itself to justify that Apple only sells OS upgrades.
You basically seem to be agreeing that every Apple computer comes with an implicit license for OS X (it's the only way you can justify that installing the OS on the repaired system is still an upgrade). Just to keep it simple, let's say that he only repairs computers that would have come with 10.5. If every Mac comes with an implicit OS license, why then would you have an issue with him burning a copy of OS X for each computer since they already have a license for that software? If you have a license, it shouldn't be able to be considered theft at that point.
A quick google search brings up an interesting artical. Makes the company sound even more fishy to me.
I think it's Billy Gates.
hardly.
more like some slub living in Mommy's basement that moved because he was fronting to be a real company and didn't want anyone to figure out he's not by where the office was located. so he got a rental unit somewhere in or near an office park to look better.
Your logic seems to be fighting against itself to justify that Apple only sells OS upgrades.
You basically seem to be agreeing that every Apple computer comes with an implicit license for OS X (it's the only way you can justify that installing the OS on the repaired system is still an upgrade). Just to keep it simple, let's say that he only repairs computers that would have come with 10.5. If every Mac comes with an implicit OS license, why then would you have an issue with him burning a copy of OS X for each computer since they already have a license for that software? If you have a license, it shouldn't be able to be considered theft at that point.
Retail Mac OS installation disks are only licenced to be used on Apple Mac computers so automatically all those retail disks are upgrade disks since every single Apple Mac computer already comes with a licence to run the Mac OS version that originally came with the machine.
In your case your options are:
1. Sell the machine with a Mac OS installation made using the original Mac OS install disks that came with that particular computer model. If you also want to include the original Mac OS install disks you will have to get from Apple a new set of installation disks.
2. Sell the machine with an upgraded Mac OS for which you have to include a retail Mac OS installation disk
One of the easiest ways to do this, is to immediately print out your work and mail it to yourself. As long as you don't open that envelope, you have a sealed packet containing your work (that is dated). If push comes to shove you can present it in a court of law.
sorry but no. that trick doesn't hold up in court.
especially in terms of getting anything out of the person that stole from you.
why not. cause folks are too good at steaming envelopes. i mean you can find 100 sites that will show you how.
so there's no proof that that is what you mailed the first time.
if you have something worth the trouble, don't be a cheap ass. register it.
Apple does sell the OS separate from the hardware. The boxed version of OS X is NOT an upgrade version; it is a full version of the software. No where on Apple's site is a previous version of OS X stated as being required.
that is true.
I can take my old Mac, which is currently OS less cause I just wiped it to resell it, boot it from the install disc and go at it.
but the issue of full version v upgrade doesn't matter because Berne covers all upgrades. so Apple still has potential copyright even without registration. they just can't get any damages.
I think Psystar is very smart. Here is what they are doing:
#1) They noticed that Leopard is on a DVD. The copyright mentions CDs not DVDs. If a Judge wants to be over technical... wham Apple looses.
then the judge is an idiot. because the physical format only matters in that Apple had to put it in some physical form to have copyright., that the LOC put down CD and not DVD is moot.
Quote:
#2) What they are really going after is the Open Source and especially Darwin components.
no they aren't. Psystar is going after the totality of the Mac OS software, which is what they copied and hacked, in totality. And some of that is Apple copyrighted. which is why Psystar erroneously tried to claim they didn't do properly (although they did) and thus there's no copyright (which isn't true)
Quote:
This also makes the EULA very tricky, as it claims I only have CERTAIN RIGHTS when in fact, I have every right to take Darwin or other open source components and copy or edit those if I choose.
if the software in question was all open source that would be true. but in the case of MacOSX it is not so it's moot.
and the lawyers are trying to say that Apple didn't fill out all the right forms with the copyright office so the software is now public domain and Psystar can do whatever they want with it. which is not true because Apple still has a copyright on the parts they created.
what Psystar can do is take the open source and write the other bits for themselves from scratch. but they don't want to do that. they want all of Mac OS X ready made and tested, even the stuff they legally can't have
What are you trying to say here? That makes absolutely no sense.
A magazine pays the photographer for the rights to use an image in the magazine, no they do not own the photo, duh, but they did pay a royalty to use the photo. The photographer only owns the photo and nothing else that isnt theirs in the magazine. Only in specific circumstances, defined by contract, does the publication own the photographer's work, but all parties involved are aware of this agreement, yet the photographer is still required to receive credit for the photos.
Indeed. Ask Wylie Gustafson, the famous "Yahoooooo!" voice. He was paid $590 by Yahoo! for a one time commercial to be played only regionally. After he heard it again during the Superbowl, Yahoo! fessed up another $590 but kept running the commercials. After he sued for $5 million (and settled for an undisclosed amount), he now gets bank everytime you hear it.
Comments
All of Psystar's claims *sound* good when you first hear them in the language Psystar expresses them with but they are all razor-thin technical arguments. I find it curious as this is the kind of arguments you would expect some of the best lawyers with deep knowledge of the field could make (inventive, unknown, technical etc.), yet their filings are a joke of bad grammar and poor phrasing in many respects also. It will be interesting to find out what's behind it all when it's over.
One argument though makes no sense to me and I wish someone could explain it. someone please explain to me how the "start-up check" they keep talking about is:
- unexpected
- nefarious
- bad
- "secret"
- a violation of copyright
- "underhanded"
- "stealth"
- any of the above
Psystar and their supporters have made all these claims. Psystar talks about this check as if proving that it just checks for particular intel chips as they say it does, will win them the case.
It seems to me that if Apple is tuning the OS to work on a certain set of chips that are used in their hardware (which is after all what the OS is designed for), then such a check is just the most obvious way to go about it. What's nefarious about that?
The group think of the anti-DRM crowd (of which I ascribe) is that DRM and copyright should be mutually exclusive, as there is no means for the DRM to "time out" at copyright expiration. A start-up check would count as DRM. An author/publisher/creator should be entitled to either copyright protection or DRM but not both.
So, by Pystar's logic, they are providing a compatibility layer to allow software to be run on their systems. It is a very weak stretch, but there is a small bit of logic there.
Again, this is incorrect. It is not called an upgrade version, but it specifically states that it can only be installed on Apple-branded hardware - which means that it is an upgrade by definition.
It's not like the non-Apple PC world where it's easy to get a computer without an OS so it makes sense to sell full and upgrade versions separately. In the Apple world, every computer ships with OS X, so there's no need to explicitly state that it's an upgrade.
If you're going to use a technicality to turn it into an upgrade, how about a technicality that might turn it back into a full version:
A man owns a business buying and repairing old Macs. Most come in with failed hard drives and no OS X install CD. He buys a copy of OS X to test to make sure the repaired system functions. When he goes to sell the repaired Mac, what must the business owner do to make sure a legal purchase of OS X is installed?
1) Burn a copy of his OS X install CD?
2) Purchase another copy of OS X to include with the computer?
If every Mac comes with an implicit license for OS X, #1 should be fine, right? The license was purchased with the hardware and since they are tied to each, that license still exists.
If you think #2 is the correct legal action, then you are saying that the software is separate from the hardware and that purchase is now a Full Version, not an upgrade. It is a completely separate license for a completely separate copy of OS X.
To me, all this definitely points to a corporate conspiracy. The question is who? Ballmer?
If that were true, and were ever to be proven, I wonder what the fall out would be?
If you're going to use a technicality to turn it into an upgrade, how about a technicality that might turn it back into a full version:
A man owns a business buying and repairing old Macs. Most come in with failed hard drives and no OS X install CD. He buys a copy of OS X to test to make sure the repaired system functions. When he goes to sell the repaired Mac, what must the business owner do to make sure a legal purchase of OS X is installed?
1) Burn a copy of his OS X install CD?
2) Purchase another copy of OS X to include with the computer?
If every Mac comes with an implicit license for OS X, #1 should be fine, right? The license was purchased with the hardware and since they are tied to each, that license still exists.
If you think #2 is the correct legal action, then you are saying that the software is separate from the hardware and that purchase is now a Full Version, not an upgrade. It is a completely separate license for a completely separate copy of OS X.
Option 2 is correct, obviously he cannot use his own. I do wonder if to resell the OS he needs to be authorized by Apple?
However, I disagree with your statement that this is not an upgrade. It is still an upgrade in my view. Just because you wipe a drive and install doesn't mean you are not upgrading. There is no requirement to literally 'upgrade' a system already installed. Apple make it possible to initialize and install as well as upgraded existing system when 'upgrading'.
One argument though makes no sense to me and I wish someone could explain it. someone please explain to me how the "start-up check"
is anything to do with copyright. I love how Psystar is trying to link the two.
the start up check is for the EULA, not for copyright. and it's probably one of the things that Psystar had to hack to get the software to work on their set ups. which is why they know about it to make an attempt to make it an issue in the first place.
but someone please explain to me how having a start up check means you know you don't have copyright protection (skip the issue that Berne copyrights things the second you make them)
Please stop trolling Apple boards for advice on how to win your client's case. It's embarrassing.
He is trolling the forums to correct all the idiots who say something about IP Law with out actually knowing anything about IP Law.
Psystar is not claiming that Apple does not have a Copyright, they're claiming that "Apple didn't use proper procedures to register the copyright for Mac OS X."!!!
actually the claim is that they didn't use proper procedure and therefore have no copyright. which is false in so many ways. the Berne Convention gives them protection without any registration required. US law makes you register to be able to sue for statutory damages. and you have to register all trademarks and patents for any protection (but those aren't in this case).
Whatever that means! This statement reminds me of the OJ Simpson's defense when they argued that the DNA evidence could not be used as evidence since it was not collected using the correct procedure.
except that in the case of DNA if you don't follow the procedures there's a change you f'd up the evidence and it's a false hit. which is why OJ jumped on that detail.
Psystar's argument here is that Mac OS X's boot process discriminates based on the hardware's manufacturer rather than the actual hardware configuration.
that ties into the EULA, not copyright. but Psystar is trying to make it the same issue.
however, the courts currently side that Apple has all rights to control the hardware used, that the tying of the OS and the setup is not illegal at this point in time. it is not antitrust etc.
To summarize, Psystar is claiming: Although Apple explicitly points out that OS X must run on Apple hardware, which is anti-competitive
their arguments don't bring up the whole anti-comp issue because by current law, it is not. Apple currently has every right to tie hardware and software because the market is NOT Macintosh computers but rather personal computers. Psystar can't bring up that issue. they instead are trying to link the check to Apple knowing they don't have copyright on the software, which is idiotic because anyone can tell that the two are totally different issues at play.
What are you trying to say here? That makes absolutely no sense.
A magazine pays the photographer for the rights to use an image in the magazine, no they do not own the photo, duh, but they did pay a royalty to use the photo. The photographer only owns the photo and nothing else that isnt theirs in the magazine. Only in specific circumstances, defined by contract, does the publication own the photographer's work, but all parties involved are aware of this agreement, yet the photographer is still required to receive credit for the photos.
that sounds like a good parallel to software licensing.
add it to that sometimes photographers will 'public domain' their photos to be used by anyone that wants them at no cost (aka freeware) and you are really working a parallel notion.
and that notion is part of the arguments in this court case. Some would say that once you buy a piece of software you can do as you please. Others say that that the creator can limit exactly how you use it. What types of machines, how many etc. Guess which side is Psystar and which is Apple and current law.
What would your reaction be if the next Windows security update brought along a bit of code that checked for the chip(s) that Apple uses to lock OS X to their hardware? If the chip was found, Windows would immediately crash to the "blue screen of death." I know there are many people on here who use Windows either through Bootcamp or a virtual machine. How many of them would suddenly cry foul of such an action, despite the fact that there is NO DIFFERENCE between that and what Apple has done.
Vista Home was locked out from VMs for a while. That meant no Parallels. Bootcamp probably worked fine.
In any case, it was both legal and ethical for Microsoft to make that limitation even if they elected to recind the decision later.
Folks cry foul for almost any reason.
But as we know Apple, being part of the United States, is not bound by any international laws.
actually in this case, that is not true. the US is a signatory to the Berne Convention so the BC is in effect US law.
which is why the Convention's statement that copyright exists the moment a work is in physical form is important. the Convention doesn't require any form of documentation etc. and it covers all upgrades and such.
US law requires registration for lawsuits and that's all.
so Psystar is wrong again and this will likely be tossed. All they can do when they lose is say, if they were correct on the matter, that Apple didn't properly register their copyright and thus gave up the right to anything more than actual damages. Which would keep their great grandkids grandkids from being bankrupted by the damages awarded to Apple
the start up check is a totally different issue and is tied to the already legally validated EULA under Apple's right to tie hardware and software. Since the market is all personal computers (evidenced by Microsoft feeling the need to advertise themselves as better than Apple among other issues), it's not anti-trust blah blah.
If you're going to use a technicality to turn it into an upgrade, how about a technicality that might turn it back into a full version:
A man owns a business buying and repairing old Macs. Most come in with failed hard drives and no OS X install CD. He buys a copy of OS X to test to make sure the repaired system functions. When he goes to sell the repaired Mac, what must the business owner do to make sure a legal purchase of OS X is installed?
1) Burn a copy of his OS X install CD?
2) Purchase another copy of OS X to include with the computer?
If every Mac comes with an implicit license for OS X, #1 should be fine, right? The license was purchased with the hardware and since they are tied to each, that license still exists.
If you think #2 is the correct legal action, then you are saying that the software is separate from the hardware and that purchase is now a Full Version, not an upgrade. It is a completely separate license for a completely separate copy of OS X.
2. If you lose your install disc, you've lost your install disc and need to buy a new one. The business is not authorized to make new copies of discs. This is no different from losing a book. You own a copy, not the rights to make new copies. The loss of the OS is no different from the loss of a hard drive or other component due to failure. It'd dead Jim, buy a new one.
OSX is not listed as an upgrade but given that all Macs come with OSX and it is the ONLY platform licensed to run OSX then all copies of OSX are upgrades. This is not a "technicality" but a fact.
This is also to our benefit since the upgrade cost is lower. Plus Apple doesn't appear to really care about hackintoshes or there would have been a hardware dongle on the intel motherboards on Day 1.
RIAA?
- Jasen.
Actually the RIAA has every right to what they are demanding. There was music being pirated left and right.
the trouble was that the RIAA went the total jerk route in defending their rights.
had they been more willing to work with people to come up with legal ways to download at a reasonable amount of money, they could have cut things down a lot quicker than they have.
cause as the record labels have shown, many of them have no issue with rights free music and single track downloads etc. and the illegal copying has come down somewhat already.
Option 2 is correct, obviously he cannot use his own. I do wonder if to resell the OS he needs to be authorized by Apple?
However, I disagree with your statement that this is not an upgrade. It is still an upgrade in my view. Just because you wipe a drive and install doesn't mean you are not upgrading. There is no requirement to literally 'upgrade' a system already installed. Apple make it possible to initialize and install as well as upgraded existing system when 'upgrading'.
Your logic seems to be fighting against itself to justify that Apple only sells OS upgrades.
You basically seem to be agreeing that every Apple computer comes with an implicit license for OS X (it's the only way you can justify that installing the OS on the repaired system is still an upgrade). Just to keep it simple, let's say that he only repairs computers that would have come with 10.5. If every Mac comes with an implicit OS license, why then would you have an issue with him burning a copy of OS X for each computer since they already have a license for that software? If you have a license, it shouldn't be able to be considered theft at that point.
If there is any unlicensed software in those layers, it will be insignificant - surely not enough to justify throwing out the copyright entirely.
the possibility of unlicensed software doesn't change that Apple wrote at least some of the code and therefore has a copyright on those bits.
so Psystar couldn't use that as a defense. but the other party could sue Apple for failure to license their code, and thus violating their copyright.
A quick google search brings up an interesting artical. Makes the company sound even more fishy to me.
I think it's Billy Gates.
hardly.
more like some slub living in Mommy's basement that moved because he was fronting to be a real company and didn't want anyone to figure out he's not by where the office was located. so he got a rental unit somewhere in or near an office park to look better.
Your logic seems to be fighting against itself to justify that Apple only sells OS upgrades.
You basically seem to be agreeing that every Apple computer comes with an implicit license for OS X (it's the only way you can justify that installing the OS on the repaired system is still an upgrade). Just to keep it simple, let's say that he only repairs computers that would have come with 10.5. If every Mac comes with an implicit OS license, why then would you have an issue with him burning a copy of OS X for each computer since they already have a license for that software? If you have a license, it shouldn't be able to be considered theft at that point.
Retail Mac OS installation disks are only licenced to be used on Apple Mac computers so automatically all those retail disks are upgrade disks since every single Apple Mac computer already comes with a licence to run the Mac OS version that originally came with the machine.
In your case your options are:
1. Sell the machine with a Mac OS installation made using the original Mac OS install disks that came with that particular computer model. If you also want to include the original Mac OS install disks you will have to get from Apple a new set of installation disks.
2. Sell the machine with an upgraded Mac OS for which you have to include a retail Mac OS installation disk
One of the easiest ways to do this, is to immediately print out your work and mail it to yourself. As long as you don't open that envelope, you have a sealed packet containing your work (that is dated). If push comes to shove you can present it in a court of law.
sorry but no. that trick doesn't hold up in court.
especially in terms of getting anything out of the person that stole from you.
why not. cause folks are too good at steaming envelopes. i mean you can find 100 sites that will show you how.
so there's no proof that that is what you mailed the first time.
if you have something worth the trouble, don't be a cheap ass. register it.
Apple does sell the OS separate from the hardware. The boxed version of OS X is NOT an upgrade version; it is a full version of the software. No where on Apple's site is a previous version of OS X stated as being required.
that is true.
I can take my old Mac, which is currently OS less cause I just wiped it to resell it, boot it from the install disc and go at it.
but the issue of full version v upgrade doesn't matter because Berne covers all upgrades. so Apple still has potential copyright even without registration. they just can't get any damages.
I think Psystar is very smart. Here is what they are doing:
#1) They noticed that Leopard is on a DVD. The copyright mentions CDs not DVDs. If a Judge wants to be over technical... wham Apple looses.
then the judge is an idiot. because the physical format only matters in that Apple had to put it in some physical form to have copyright., that the LOC put down CD and not DVD is moot.
#2) What they are really going after is the Open Source and especially Darwin components.
no they aren't. Psystar is going after the totality of the Mac OS software, which is what they copied and hacked, in totality. And some of that is Apple copyrighted. which is why Psystar erroneously tried to claim they didn't do properly (although they did) and thus there's no copyright (which isn't true)
This also makes the EULA very tricky, as it claims I only have CERTAIN RIGHTS when in fact, I have every right to take Darwin or other open source components and copy or edit those if I choose.
if the software in question was all open source that would be true. but in the case of MacOSX it is not so it's moot.
and the lawyers are trying to say that Apple didn't fill out all the right forms with the copyright office so the software is now public domain and Psystar can do whatever they want with it. which is not true because Apple still has a copyright on the parts they created.
what Psystar can do is take the open source and write the other bits for themselves from scratch. but they don't want to do that. they want all of Mac OS X ready made and tested, even the stuff they legally can't have
What are you trying to say here? That makes absolutely no sense.
A magazine pays the photographer for the rights to use an image in the magazine, no they do not own the photo, duh, but they did pay a royalty to use the photo. The photographer only owns the photo and nothing else that isnt theirs in the magazine. Only in specific circumstances, defined by contract, does the publication own the photographer's work, but all parties involved are aware of this agreement, yet the photographer is still required to receive credit for the photos.
Indeed. Ask Wylie Gustafson, the famous "Yahoooooo!" voice. He was paid $590 by Yahoo! for a one time commercial to be played only regionally. After he heard it again during the Superbowl, Yahoo! fessed up another $590 but kept running the commercials. After he sued for $5 million (and settled for an undisclosed amount), he now gets bank everytime you hear it.