Again, my question to everyone who uses Windows on their Mac: How would you feel if Microsoft updated their OS to NOT work on Macs? That is no different than how Apple has excluded OS X from running on certain hardware.
I only boot into my Windows partition to play a game now and then. And I rarely play games. That's what Windows is good for in my world. The odd (usually bad, like Fallout 3) game. It's a glorified gaming OS. That's about it.
I couldn't care less if MS pulled Windows from Macs. Windows on Macs is rather incidental anyway. It's just one feature in a long, long list of features. All the absence of Windows would mean is that I'd be saving around 20gb of space. Then I can finally get with the times and buy a console that I won't have to waste processor cycles on in order to maintain.
And there are very good reasons for Apple locking OS X to their own hardware, which I support wholeheartedly. Apple doing otherwise would mean the end of OS X as we know it today, in terms of stability, virus-free operation, and no driver issues. It would become a Windows clone. And we don't need that. This experiment (more or less) was attempted before in the mid 90's and it was a complete disaster.
What if you went out an built a game console using nearly the same components as an Xbox. Would you be able to force MS to give you their Xbox OS so that you can do a little modification and use it on your console?
Microsoft does not sell the XBox operating system in an off-the-shelf retail box so that's a different situation.
And before we descend into irrelevant side arguments, a EULA *CANNOT* dictate to the end user where they may or may not install the software. It also *CANNOT* stop users from hacking or altering said software once installed. If you have proof showing otherwise, please present a link to it when responding. The fact is that there is no legal precedent to support the idea that a software seller can control those things with a EULA. EULAs are only effective when they are used to combat piracy. In all other issues, they are meaningless and even their legality as a valid contract has been successfully challenged in some cases.
The thing is there are many chipmakers who produce for apple, like Samsung, and others, but all chips are labeled with apple sign, maybe Intel`s are not, don`t know. Of course producers can make even the same chips, but if they are not mark as apple`s you can`t find it in apple products.
I appreciate your explanation and indeed, it gets me much closer to understanding what they are trying to argue, but it still makes little sense IMO.
Microsoft sells an OS separate from hardware, so "fixing" it to run only on Dell hardware but not on a competitor is definitely wrong and represents some kind of sweetheart deal. Apple on the other hand, sells an OS only for specific machines that it makes, so to have a test for "foreign" machines at start up seems rather appropriate to me.
On further thought, I think this totally explains the silly argument they are making.
It occurs to me that almost all their arguments are predicated on the idea that the OS is separate from the hardware (as in Windows land), and they just don't see it any other way. If you assume that Apple's OS-X is exactly the same as any other OS in that regard then all these comparisons make sense. All it will take is one idiot judge who doesn't realise the difference and they might even win.
It`s like hack RIM`s e-mail client and put it on Palm or Motorola, it probably can work but...
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."!!! 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.
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. If true this is probably their strongest argument, if they have any. Because this is like Microsoft blocking Windows to run on BootCamp although BootCamp is capable.
To summarize, Psystar is claiming: Although Apple explicitly points out that OS X must run on Apple hardware, which is anti-competitive since other hardware with similar configuration is fully capable of running OS X, Apple did not go through the correct procedures in acquiring that Copyright.
To me, all this definitely points to a corporate conspiracy. The question is who? Ballmer?
The thing is there are many chipmakers who produce for apple, like Samsung, and others, but all chips are labeled with apple sign, maybe Intel`s are not, don`t know. Of course producers can make even the same chips, but if they are not mark as apple`s you can`t find it in apple products.
Microsoft does not sell the XBox operating system in an off-the-shelf retail box so that's a different situation.
And before we descend into irrelevant side arguments, a EULA *CANNOT* dictate to the end user where they may or may not install the software. It also *CANNOT* stop users from hacking or altering said software once installed. If you have proof showing otherwise, please present a link to it when responding. The fact is that there is no legal precedent to support the idea that a software seller can control those things with a EULA. EULAs are only effective when they are used to combat piracy. In all other issues, they are meaningless and even their legality as a valid contract has been successfully challenged in some cases.
Yes it can. Maybe not in all cases. And maybe not all parts of an EULA are enforcable. But all I need is just one case to disprove your "CANNOT" and "no legal precedant" assumptions.
Microsoft does not sell the XBox operating system in an off-the-shelf retail box so that's a different situation.
It makes no difference whether the OS comes in a retail box, Xbox or installed in a computer box. You still only pay for a license to use that OS. And you can not use that OS in a manner that violates that license.
The only difference between the off the shelf OS retail disk, the game console OS eprom chip, and a computer OEM OS restore disk is the box it came it. The OS is still bound by the terms of the license.
Yes it can. Maybe not in all cases. And maybe not all parts of an EULA are enforcable. But all I need is just one case to disprove your "CANNOT" and "no legal precedant" assumptions.
Your last two links are broken, but the first is about reverse engineering a company's code to create a competing system. There are clear-cut copyright issues with that which do not apply to the Psystar-Apple situation. Psystar isn't reverse engineering OS X and creating a knock-off. They're selling a shrink-wrapped copy of OS X off-the-shelf and installing it on a PC. That does not parallel the World of Warcraft battle network knock-off cited above.
Your last two links are broken, but the first is about reverse engineering a company's code to create a competing system. There are clear-cut copyright issues with that which do not apply to the Psystar-Apple situation. Psystar isn't reverse engineering OS X and creating a knock-off. They're selling a shrink-wrapped copy of OS X off-the-shelf and installing it on a PC. That does not parallel the World of Warcraft battle network knock-off cited above.
I wasn't trying to prove Apple's case with the above links. I was disproving the comments you made on the previous post.
The copy of OSX that resides in the PC HD was hacked to get it to install. Or are you trying to tell me that if the HD crashes on their PC, all I need is that shrinked wrap copy of OSX (that came with it) to re-install OSX on to the HD of that PC?
And before we descend into irrelevant side arguments, a EULA *CANNOT* dictate to the end user where they may or may not install the software. It also *CANNOT* stop users from hacking or altering said software once installed. If you have proof showing otherwise, please present a link to it when responding. The fact is that there is no legal precedent to support the idea that a software seller can control those things with a EULA. EULAs are only effective when they are used to combat piracy. In all other issues, they are meaningless and even their legality as a valid contract has been successfully challenged in some cases.
The EULA can dictate how the end user use the software. Take MS Windows for example. Single license EULA dictate that the user can only install the OS on one computer and use serial number and special authorization codes to implement that. By law, the end user must follow these EULA restrictions even if there is away to circumvent the protection. Adobe, AutoDesk, and many other software developers have similar EULA that dictate what the end user can and cannot do (and some of these softwares single license cost more than what Mac Pro cost). The whole software industry depends on the EULA and if you take this out the system will collapse.
The EULA can dictate how the end user use the software. Take MS Windows for example. Single license EULA dictate that the user can only install the OS on one computer and use serial number and special authorization codes to implement that. By law, the end user must follow these EULA restrictions even if there is away to circumvent the protection. Adobe, AutoDesk, and many other software developers have similar EULA that dictate what the end user can and cannot do (and some of these softwares single license cost more than what Mac Pro cost). The whole software industry depends on the EULA and if you take this out the system will collapse.
I don't think that's true. From the parts of copyright law I've read, a user can't just take one copy and use it on multiple computers, they are only allowed one running installation per box copy, plus a backup, unless permitted more by the copyright older. The unenforceability of the EULA doesn't mean the copyright isn't enforceable.
I don't think that's true. From the parts of copyright law I've read, a user can't just take one copy and use it on multiple computers, they are only allowed one running installation per box copy, plus a backup, unless permitted more by the copyright older. The unenforceability of the EULA doesn't mean the copyright isn't enforceable.
From MS Windows EULA: "1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Software on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than one processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer."
Copyrights prohibits reproduction for commercial use not for personal use. Installing a software on two computers or more for personal use might be a violation of EULA if the owner prohibit or limit copying of his software . In general, the copyright law allows copying for personal use (without distribution) under the fair use doctrine unless the owner prohibits copying. This is kind of tricky with software since it can be argued that installing a software on another computer without activating is a backup. The copyright law is general and cannot meet the needs for everyone. This is why the EULA is important and was enforced in court many times.
The EULA can dictate how the end user use the software. Take MS Windows for example. Single license EULA dictate that the user can only install the OS on one computer and use serial number and special authorization codes to implement that. By law, the end user must follow these EULA restrictions even if there is away to circumvent the protection. Adobe, AutoDesk, and many other software developers have similar EULA that dictate what the end user can and cannot do (and some of these softwares single license cost more than what Mac Pro cost). The whole software industry depends on the EULA and if you take this out the system will collapse.
Here's another example of how an EULA can place restriction on your software that seems to contradict some rights you have under Copyright laws.
(I don't have the time to look through the actual license agreements but I'm pretty sure this is how I remember it works. Some one correct me if I'm wrong.)
Say that I bought a "full" version of Photoshop 4 (for $600) and later buy an "upgrade" version (for $200). Once I install Photoshop 5, I can not take my copy of Photoshop 4 and use it on another computer. Both Photoshop 4 and Photoshop 5 must be on the same computer. (Or I'm only allow to run only one of them at a time.) If I had bought a "full" version of Photoshop 5, then I can take my Photoshop 4 and install it on another computer or sell it. But as long I'm using an "upgrade" version of Photoshop 5, I must keep Photoshop 4. And if I'm using Photoshop 5, I can't be using Photoshop 4 at the same time.
Copyright laws would seem to allow me to do as I please with my Photoshop 4 once I don't need it any more. But the license agreement for the "upgrade" version of Photoshop 5 states otherwise.
The fallacy that many here seem to fall into is that the word "upgrade" only means to upgrade the software. That's not quite it. It's the license to use the software that is also being "upgraded". When you buy an "upgrade" version, you are "upgrading" a previous license to use the newer software. But you still only have one license. Which entitles you to use one version or the other. Not both at the same time.
When you pay for another "full" version, you end up with two licenses. Which entitles you to install and use your older software on another computer or sell it. This is why an "upgrade" version is cheaper than a "full" version. Not because the "full" version contains more lines of software codes than the "upgrade" version.
The same goes for an OS. You can not install your older OS on another computer if you used it as proof of a previous license to buy a discounted "upgrade" version. The "upgrade" version didn't come with another license. It "upgraded" the license you already had.
Methinks the reasoning is pretty simple: after an initial flurry of interest, nobody paid any attention and maybe 100 people beyond reviewers placed orders for the clones. There's a lawyer in Florida with a case of "Sue'm Interuptus".
From MS Windows EULA: "1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Software on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than one processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer."
I don't know how that specifically addresses my comment.
Quote:
Copyrights prohibits reproduction for commercial use not for personal use. Installing a software on two computers or more for personal use might be a violation of EULA if the owner prohibit or limit copying of his software . In general, the copyright law allows copying for personal use (without distribution) under the fair use doctrine unless the owner prohibits copying. This is kind of tricky with software since it can be argued that installing a software on another computer without activating is a backup. The copyright law is general and cannot meet the needs for everyone. This is why the EULA is important and was enforced in court many times.
I don't think multiple copies for personal use w/o redistribution is really going to hurt the companies you named, except maybe Microsoft. Even then, it seems like most home users upgrade their OS by replacing their computer, which generally includes the new OS at a much lower profit per copy to MS than a retail box copy of the OS.
You still only pay for a license to use that OS. And you can not use that OS in a manner that violates that license.
Or course, that license can't restrict our personal freedoms and rights either. Suppose Apple said only white people can use OS X and blacks or Asians or other groups could not use it, that would be declared illegal. Or suppose Apple said you can't use their product for certain political activities on one party, but they encourage use by another political party. Obviously, Apple has many situations where their "license text" will be of no meaning whatever. We are actually free to use Apple's products in many, many ways even if Apple does not wish it so.
I am not saying it is a slam dunk that Psystar must be allowed. Psystar is more like an accessory maker. Do accessory makers need to be approved? Sort of. But not really. What if I decided to make ipod holders... I do have the freedom to do that. Can I also make a machine that runs OS X out of the box... the answer could well be yes.
Or course, that license can't restrict our personal freedoms and rights either. Suppose Apple said only white people can use OS X and blacks or Asians or other groups could not use it, that would be declared illegal. Or suppose Apple said you can't use their product for certain political activities on one party, but they encourage use by another political party. Obviously, Apple has many situations where their "license text" will be of no meaning whatever. We are actually free to use Apple's products in many, many ways even if Apple does not wish it so.
Everything is legal, until you get caught. Just because I can break the speed limit many times and not get caught didn't make it legal for me to speed. I can not use "Your Honor, I broke the speed limit many times before and never got a ticket. Therefore it must be OK to speed." as a defense when I do get caught.
Quote:
I am not saying it is a slam dunk that Psystar must be allowed. Psystar is more like an accessory maker. Do accessory makers need to be approved? Sort of. But not really. What if I decided to make ipod holders... I do have the freedom to do that.
Of course you do. That's because the iPod didn't come with a restriction that you can only use Apple licensed accessories on it. And there are no restrictions as to the accessories you can make for a Mac. So long as it conforms to the standards.
In fact, a Mac has no restriction on the OS that you can use on it. You can load Windows, Linux, Unix, DOS, etc.. If someone wanted to write a new OS for a Mac, I'm sure they can. And Apple will not (can not) stop them. Providing of course that they are not infringing on any of Apple's copyrighted IP.
Quote:
Can I also make a machine that runs OS X out of the box... the answer could well be yes.
Making a machine that runs OSX out of the box is not the problem. Using a retail copy of OSX on that box is. And it really becomes a problem when you try to sell boxes using a retail copy of OSX.
You see, the retail copy of OSX has restrictions. Restrictions that, so far, Apple can enforce in court. A retail copy of OSX is restricted for Mac users with a previous valid OS license from Apple. Obviously that box you built did not have a previous valid OS license from Apple. And therefore you were not entitle to the upgrade cost of the retail box of OSX. If you want to install OSX on that box, you have to seek a new license from Apple. You can not use the retail box of OSX. The retail box of OSX is for upgrading of a previous valid OS license from Apple.
Just because many hobbyist are able to hack OSX (I have yet heard of anyone building a box that will load OSX out of the box.) into their generic box doesn't make it legal for Psystar to sell such a box. Apple can choose to go after the worse offenders. Just like a cop can go after the person doing 90mph and not the person doing 70mph (in a 65mph zone). The speeder getting caught doing 90mph will just piss off the cop writing him the ticket if he starts pointing out (to the cop) all the other speeders whizzing by at 70mph.
Comments
Again, my question to everyone who uses Windows on their Mac: How would you feel if Microsoft updated their OS to NOT work on Macs? That is no different than how Apple has excluded OS X from running on certain hardware.
I only boot into my Windows partition to play a game now and then. And I rarely play games. That's what Windows is good for in my world. The odd (usually bad, like Fallout 3) game. It's a glorified gaming OS. That's about it.
I couldn't care less if MS pulled Windows from Macs. Windows on Macs is rather incidental anyway. It's just one feature in a long, long list of features. All the absence of Windows would mean is that I'd be saving around 20gb of space. Then I can finally get with the times and buy a console that I won't have to waste processor cycles on in order to maintain.
And there are very good reasons for Apple locking OS X to their own hardware, which I support wholeheartedly. Apple doing otherwise would mean the end of OS X as we know it today, in terms of stability, virus-free operation, and no driver issues. It would become a Windows clone. And we don't need that. This experiment (more or less) was attempted before in the mid 90's and it was a complete disaster.
What if you went out an built a game console using nearly the same components as an Xbox. Would you be able to force MS to give you their Xbox OS so that you can do a little modification and use it on your console?
Microsoft does not sell the XBox operating system in an off-the-shelf retail box so that's a different situation.
And before we descend into irrelevant side arguments, a EULA *CANNOT* dictate to the end user where they may or may not install the software. It also *CANNOT* stop users from hacking or altering said software once installed. If you have proof showing otherwise, please present a link to it when responding. The fact is that there is no legal precedent to support the idea that a software seller can control those things with a EULA. EULAs are only effective when they are used to combat piracy. In all other issues, they are meaningless and even their legality as a valid contract has been successfully challenged in some cases.
I appreciate your explanation and indeed, it gets me much closer to understanding what they are trying to argue, but it still makes little sense IMO.
Microsoft sells an OS separate from hardware, so "fixing" it to run only on Dell hardware but not on a competitor is definitely wrong and represents some kind of sweetheart deal. Apple on the other hand, sells an OS only for specific machines that it makes, so to have a test for "foreign" machines at start up seems rather appropriate to me.
On further thought, I think this totally explains the silly argument they are making.
It occurs to me that almost all their arguments are predicated on the idea that the OS is separate from the hardware (as in Windows land), and they just don't see it any other way. If you assume that Apple's OS-X is exactly the same as any other OS in that regard then all these comparisons make sense. All it will take is one idiot judge who doesn't realise the difference and they might even win.
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."!!! 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.
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. If true this is probably their strongest argument, if they have any. Because this is like Microsoft blocking Windows to run on BootCamp although BootCamp is capable.
To summarize, Psystar is claiming: Although Apple explicitly points out that OS X must run on Apple hardware, which is anti-competitive since other hardware with similar configuration is fully capable of running OS X, Apple did not go through the correct procedures in acquiring that Copyright.
To me, all this definitely points to a corporate conspiracy. The question is who? Ballmer?
Microsoft does not sell the XBox operating system in an off-the-shelf retail box so that's a different situation.
And before we descend into irrelevant side arguments, a EULA *CANNOT* dictate to the end user where they may or may not install the software. It also *CANNOT* stop users from hacking or altering said software once installed. If you have proof showing otherwise, please present a link to it when responding. The fact is that there is no legal precedent to support the idea that a software seller can control those things with a EULA. EULAs are only effective when they are used to combat piracy. In all other issues, they are meaningless and even their legality as a valid contract has been successfully challenged in some cases.
Yes it can. Maybe not in all cases. And maybe not all parts of an EULA are enforcable. But all I need is just one case to disprove your "CANNOT" and "no legal precedant" assumptions.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050902-5270.html
http://www.yougamers.com/news/19640_...tting_lawsuit/
http://www.curse.com/articles/blizza...ws/282748.aspx
Microsoft does not sell the XBox operating system in an off-the-shelf retail box so that's a different situation.
It makes no difference whether the OS comes in a retail box, Xbox or installed in a computer box. You still only pay for a license to use that OS. And you can not use that OS in a manner that violates that license.
The only difference between the off the shelf OS retail disk, the game console OS eprom chip, and a computer OEM OS restore disk is the box it came it. The OS is still bound by the terms of the license.
Yes it can. Maybe not in all cases. And maybe not all parts of an EULA are enforcable. But all I need is just one case to disprove your "CANNOT" and "no legal precedant" assumptions.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050902-5270.html
http://www.yougamers.com/news/19640_...tting_lawsuit/
http://www.curse.com/articles/blizza...ws/282748.aspx
Your last two links are broken, but the first is about reverse engineering a company's code to create a competing system. There are clear-cut copyright issues with that which do not apply to the Psystar-Apple situation. Psystar isn't reverse engineering OS X and creating a knock-off. They're selling a shrink-wrapped copy of OS X off-the-shelf and installing it on a PC. That does not parallel the World of Warcraft battle network knock-off cited above.
Your Honor, Just one more thing...
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.
That is why we have "RICO" and others criminal lows, but APPLE can`t jump on that if they sold a upgrade disc.
Your last two links are broken, but the first is about reverse engineering a company's code to create a competing system. There are clear-cut copyright issues with that which do not apply to the Psystar-Apple situation. Psystar isn't reverse engineering OS X and creating a knock-off. They're selling a shrink-wrapped copy of OS X off-the-shelf and installing it on a PC. That does not parallel the World of Warcraft battle network knock-off cited above.
Let's try it again.
http://www.yougamers.com/news/19640_...tting_lawsuit/
http://www.curse.com/articles/blizza...ws/282748.aspx
I wasn't trying to prove Apple's case with the above links. I was disproving the comments you made on the previous post.
The copy of OSX that resides in the PC HD was hacked to get it to install. Or are you trying to tell me that if the HD crashes on their PC, all I need is that shrinked wrap copy of OSX (that came with it) to re-install OSX on to the HD of that PC?
And before we descend into irrelevant side arguments, a EULA *CANNOT* dictate to the end user where they may or may not install the software. It also *CANNOT* stop users from hacking or altering said software once installed. If you have proof showing otherwise, please present a link to it when responding. The fact is that there is no legal precedent to support the idea that a software seller can control those things with a EULA. EULAs are only effective when they are used to combat piracy. In all other issues, they are meaningless and even their legality as a valid contract has been successfully challenged in some cases.
The EULA can dictate how the end user use the software. Take MS Windows for example. Single license EULA dictate that the user can only install the OS on one computer and use serial number and special authorization codes to implement that. By law, the end user must follow these EULA restrictions even if there is away to circumvent the protection. Adobe, AutoDesk, and many other software developers have similar EULA that dictate what the end user can and cannot do (and some of these softwares single license cost more than what Mac Pro cost). The whole software industry depends on the EULA and if you take this out the system will collapse.
The EULA can dictate how the end user use the software. Take MS Windows for example. Single license EULA dictate that the user can only install the OS on one computer and use serial number and special authorization codes to implement that. By law, the end user must follow these EULA restrictions even if there is away to circumvent the protection. Adobe, AutoDesk, and many other software developers have similar EULA that dictate what the end user can and cannot do (and some of these softwares single license cost more than what Mac Pro cost). The whole software industry depends on the EULA and if you take this out the system will collapse.
I don't think that's true. From the parts of copyright law I've read, a user can't just take one copy and use it on multiple computers, they are only allowed one running installation per box copy, plus a backup, unless permitted more by the copyright older. The unenforceability of the EULA doesn't mean the copyright isn't enforceable.
I don't think that's true. From the parts of copyright law I've read, a user can't just take one copy and use it on multiple computers, they are only allowed one running installation per box copy, plus a backup, unless permitted more by the copyright older. The unenforceability of the EULA doesn't mean the copyright isn't enforceable.
From MS Windows EULA: "1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Software on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than one processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer."
Copyrights prohibits reproduction for commercial use not for personal use. Installing a software on two computers or more for personal use might be a violation of EULA if the owner prohibit or limit copying of his software . In general, the copyright law allows copying for personal use (without distribution) under the fair use doctrine unless the owner prohibits copying. This is kind of tricky with software since it can be argued that installing a software on another computer without activating is a backup. The copyright law is general and cannot meet the needs for everyone. This is why the EULA is important and was enforced in court many times.
The EULA can dictate how the end user use the software. Take MS Windows for example. Single license EULA dictate that the user can only install the OS on one computer and use serial number and special authorization codes to implement that. By law, the end user must follow these EULA restrictions even if there is away to circumvent the protection. Adobe, AutoDesk, and many other software developers have similar EULA that dictate what the end user can and cannot do (and some of these softwares single license cost more than what Mac Pro cost). The whole software industry depends on the EULA and if you take this out the system will collapse.
Here's another example of how an EULA can place restriction on your software that seems to contradict some rights you have under Copyright laws.
(I don't have the time to look through the actual license agreements but I'm pretty sure this is how I remember it works. Some one correct me if I'm wrong.)
Say that I bought a "full" version of Photoshop 4 (for $600) and later buy an "upgrade" version (for $200). Once I install Photoshop 5, I can not take my copy of Photoshop 4 and use it on another computer. Both Photoshop 4 and Photoshop 5 must be on the same computer. (Or I'm only allow to run only one of them at a time.) If I had bought a "full" version of Photoshop 5, then I can take my Photoshop 4 and install it on another computer or sell it. But as long I'm using an "upgrade" version of Photoshop 5, I must keep Photoshop 4. And if I'm using Photoshop 5, I can't be using Photoshop 4 at the same time.
Copyright laws would seem to allow me to do as I please with my Photoshop 4 once I don't need it any more. But the license agreement for the "upgrade" version of Photoshop 5 states otherwise.
The fallacy that many here seem to fall into is that the word "upgrade" only means to upgrade the software. That's not quite it. It's the license to use the software that is also being "upgraded". When you buy an "upgrade" version, you are "upgrading" a previous license to use the newer software. But you still only have one license. Which entitles you to use one version or the other. Not both at the same time.
When you pay for another "full" version, you end up with two licenses. Which entitles you to install and use your older software on another computer or sell it. This is why an "upgrade" version is cheaper than a "full" version. Not because the "full" version contains more lines of software codes than the "upgrade" version.
The same goes for an OS. You can not install your older OS on another computer if you used it as proof of a previous license to buy a discounted "upgrade" version. The "upgrade" version didn't come with another license. It "upgraded" the license you already had.
Time for Plan B.
From MS Windows EULA: "1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Software on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than one processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer."
I don't know how that specifically addresses my comment.
Copyrights prohibits reproduction for commercial use not for personal use. Installing a software on two computers or more for personal use might be a violation of EULA if the owner prohibit or limit copying of his software . In general, the copyright law allows copying for personal use (without distribution) under the fair use doctrine unless the owner prohibits copying. This is kind of tricky with software since it can be argued that installing a software on another computer without activating is a backup. The copyright law is general and cannot meet the needs for everyone. This is why the EULA is important and was enforced in court many times.
I don't think multiple copies for personal use w/o redistribution is really going to hurt the companies you named, except maybe Microsoft. Even then, it seems like most home users upgrade their OS by replacing their computer, which generally includes the new OS at a much lower profit per copy to MS than a retail box copy of the OS.
You still only pay for a license to use that OS. And you can not use that OS in a manner that violates that license.
Or course, that license can't restrict our personal freedoms and rights either. Suppose Apple said only white people can use OS X and blacks or Asians or other groups could not use it, that would be declared illegal. Or suppose Apple said you can't use their product for certain political activities on one party, but they encourage use by another political party. Obviously, Apple has many situations where their "license text" will be of no meaning whatever. We are actually free to use Apple's products in many, many ways even if Apple does not wish it so.
I am not saying it is a slam dunk that Psystar must be allowed. Psystar is more like an accessory maker. Do accessory makers need to be approved? Sort of. But not really. What if I decided to make ipod holders... I do have the freedom to do that. Can I also make a machine that runs OS X out of the box... the answer could well be yes.
Or course, that license can't restrict our personal freedoms and rights either. Suppose Apple said only white people can use OS X and blacks or Asians or other groups could not use it, that would be declared illegal. Or suppose Apple said you can't use their product for certain political activities on one party, but they encourage use by another political party. Obviously, Apple has many situations where their "license text" will be of no meaning whatever. We are actually free to use Apple's products in many, many ways even if Apple does not wish it so.
Everything is legal, until you get caught.
I am not saying it is a slam dunk that Psystar must be allowed. Psystar is more like an accessory maker. Do accessory makers need to be approved? Sort of. But not really. What if I decided to make ipod holders... I do have the freedom to do that.
Of course you do. That's because the iPod didn't come with a restriction that you can only use Apple licensed accessories on it. And there are no restrictions as to the accessories you can make for a Mac. So long as it conforms to the standards.
In fact, a Mac has no restriction on the OS that you can use on it. You can load Windows, Linux, Unix, DOS, etc.. If someone wanted to write a new OS for a Mac, I'm sure they can. And Apple will not (can not) stop them. Providing of course that they are not infringing on any of Apple's copyrighted IP.
Can I also make a machine that runs OS X out of the box... the answer could well be yes.
Making a machine that runs OSX out of the box is not the problem. Using a retail copy of OSX on that box is. And it really becomes a problem when you try to sell boxes using a retail copy of OSX.
You see, the retail copy of OSX has restrictions. Restrictions that, so far, Apple can enforce in court. A retail copy of OSX is restricted for Mac users with a previous valid OS license from Apple. Obviously that box you built did not have a previous valid OS license from Apple. And therefore you were not entitle to the upgrade cost of the retail box of OSX. If you want to install OSX on that box, you have to seek a new license from Apple. You can not use the retail box of OSX. The retail box of OSX is for upgrading of a previous valid OS license from Apple.
Just because many hobbyist are able to hack OSX (I have yet heard of anyone building a box that will load OSX out of the box.) into their generic box doesn't make it legal for Psystar to sell such a box. Apple can choose to go after the worse offenders. Just like a cop can go after the person doing 90mph and not the person doing 70mph (in a 65mph zone). The speeder getting caught doing 90mph will just piss off the cop writing him the ticket if he starts pointing out (to the cop) all the other speeders whizzing by at 70mph.
I can't wait until this is over and these guys get their asses handed to them.