The issue isn't about licensing rights to a third party to reproduce your work, it is about an IP holder's ability to copyright and force purchasers into a license agreement. Basically the issue of how much control Apple can exert on someone who buys a retail copy of OS X.
Technically not complete control (in the US); just control over reproducing the work. IIRC, Europe provides "moral rights" to copyrighted creative works which might form a basis for limiting what a purchaser can do with it.
I have never understood why Apple sell retail copies of OSX. If you have a Mac, you should be able to buy an upgrade. If not, then you don't need Mac OSX in a box.
Owning a Mac is like owning a piece of artwork, if you do not appreciate the artwork, dont buy it. Have you seen any other company so dedicated into designing their products? Will there be any other company as crazy as apple to mill out a notebook casing out of a single block of aluminum, nope I dont think so. Apple does crazy stuffs cause Jobs cares about art a lot!.
Ha ha ha ha,
Ha ha,
Ha ha ha ha ha,
Ha
Ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Ha
Ha ha ha ha
Ha ha ha ha ha
Ha ha
Ha ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Ha
H ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
And therein lies the problem with a lot of these companies. This has been argued over and over. When you "buy" Mac OS X, you are basically purchasing a usage license. This license has restricted terms of use. YOU DO NOT OWN OS X, and thus you do not have the right to do with it whatever you wish. If you choose to not abide by the agreement, then you are infringing on Apple's copyright. Get over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevielee
Well let me be the first one on this post to wholeheartedly disagree with all of the Apple Devotees who seem to think that it's fine and dandy fro Apple to control what I do with a product after I've paid for that product - like OSX, or an iPhone etc.
If I want to install OSX, or any other OS that I purchased on any, and I do mean any machine that I also purchased and own, then I will do so - and no company is going to tell me I can't - even with the treat of copyright infringement.
I have a jail-broken iPhone and I run OSX via Hackintosh on a custom built PC. I also have hacked my iPod away from the crappy iTunes 8 ATM machine - where you can't even turn off the blasted "Gapless" idiocy.
I will control the way in which I decide to use the technology I buy - not the Big Brother companies like Apple and AT&T. I'm tired of having to settle for limited hardware options ( like paying a premium for a 2 year old, discontinued Graphics card ) and pay 30-60% more for the very same internal equipment as PC's - just because their encased in Mr. Ives's aluminum fetished designs. I can, and WILL design and build my own MAC from here on, as long as they are on the Intel (PC) platform.
And for all of you who really thinks that Apple will be able to continue dictating how anyone uses their software or their hardware after purchasing it has not been paying attention to the growing demand for more consumer control over content and fair usage of software and hardware. I am not defending Pystar, or any other third party computer manufacturer -but even if they lose, someone else will come along and do exactly the same as they have done - and as have already begun over in the EU - where they do not recognize the unenforceable and anti-competitive EULA from Apple.
I haven't read one person here who seems to think Apple should be allowed to do whatever it wants with it's software after they buy it. You, however, have seemed to have failed to grasp the distinction between you doing what you want with Apple's software for personal use, and a company doing something with Apple's software for profit. Apple isn't suing people for installing OSX on a personal machine, it is suing a company trying to use OSX for profit.
Furthermore, OSX is essentially offered at an upgrade price when you compare it to Windows. If Apple had to offer it for sale to everybody. Clearly, the price would dramatically increase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevielee
Well let me be the first one on this post to wholeheartedly disagree with all of the Apple Devotees who seem to think that it's fine and dandy fro Apple to control what I do with a product after I've paid for that product - like OSX, or an iPhone etc.
If I want to install OSX, or any other OS that I purchased on any, and I do mean any machine that I also purchased and own, then I will do so - and no company is going to tell me I can't - even with the treat of copyright infringement.
I have a jail-broken iPhone and I run OSX via Hackintosh on a custom built PC. I also have hacked my iPod away from the crappy iTunes 8 ATM machine - where you can't even turn off the blasted "Gapless" idiocy.
I will control the way in which I decide to use the technology I buy - not the Big Brother companies like Apple and AT&T. I'm tired of having to settle for limited hardware options ( like paying a premium for a 2 year old, discontinued Graphics card ) and pay 30-60% more for the very same internal equipment as PC's - just because their encased in Mr. Ives's aluminum fetished designs. I can, and WILL design and build my own MAC from here on, as long as they are on the Intel (PC) platform.
And for all of you who really thinks that Apple will be able to continue dictating how anyone uses their software or their hardware after purchasing it has not been paying attention to the growing demand for more consumer control over content and fair usage of software and hardware. I am not defending Pystar, or any other third party computer manufacturer -but even if they lose, someone else will come along and do exactly the same as they have done - and as have already begun over in the EU - where they do not recognize the unenforceable and anti-competitive EULA from Apple.
I haven't read one person here who seems to think Apple should be allowed to do whatever it wants with it's software after they buy it. You, however, have seemed to have failed to grasp the distinction between you doing what you want with Apple's software for personal use, and a company doing something with Apple's software for profit.
It really has nothing to do with profit. The whole arguement revolves around the doctrine of right of first sale. Apple makes or should make it's profit on the sale of each upgrade disk it prints, what somebody does with it afterwards Apple can't control.
Just last year this concept was upheld again in the courts when a bunch of studios lost their bid to prevent radio stations from selling off promotional and other free disks that they get. Likewise this is just the same as your right to resell a book or computer, both can be made up of copyrighted materials. Any major city will actually have many businesses legally engaged in such activities, often selling used records, computers, books or whatever. Notably the record companies have tried to close down the used record businesses but have failed because it is a legal activity.
Quote:
Apple isn't suing people for installing OSX on a personal machine, it is suing a company trying to use OSX for profit.
You might want to reconsider that thought above as Apple goes after the iPhone Jailbreaking community. The problem is this; if Apple becomes successful with some of these tactics they could end up steam rolling over a lot of freedoms we have had for years. One of those is the freedom to tinker with the hardware you own.
Quote:
Furthermore, OSX is essentially offered at an upgrade price when you compare it to Windows.
More BS, what Apple charges for OS/X is it's problem. More importantly OS/X is very expensive compared to Windows considering that upgrades come about every year and are seldom free. Don't get me wrong I believe there is value in those upgrades but to say that OS/X is cheap is a bit mis leading. Apple gets a pretty health amount of revenue from OS/X upgrades.
As a side note one must also understand that a good portion of those upgrades that Apple charges people for are the efforts of the Open Source community. That is not a complaint by any measure as Apple has been realtively good to the Open Source community, just that people need to realize that much of OS/X is made up of free software.
Quote:
If Apple had to offer it for sale to everybody. Clearly, the price would dramatically increase.
It might increase but I'm not sure what you mean by your statement as OS/X is available to everyone right now. You can walk into any Apple store and buy a copy right now. You can do that legally as a person or corporation. Afterwards what control Apple can have over that legal copy is limited.
...clearly there is something here that I don't understand. Please help!
Apple, a hardware manufacturer, chooses to differentiate its products from its competitors by , inter alia, installing a different operating system and several other software components than the mainstream. Apple has chosen this business model despite the added effort required on its part to maintain this different operating system and software.
Apple's business model appears to be working compared to its competitors.
For a variety of reasons not the least of which is the quality of the hardware that Apple sells, that hardware remains useful for several software cycles, during which Apple has continued to develop and improve that operating system and software. Apple also chooses to maintain compatibility between the new versions of that operating system and software and selected older hardware models. For those of its customers wishing the new software versions but not yet needing or wishing similarly to upgrade their hardware, Apple chooses to sell the new versions separately. [Yes, I know it is only a licence to use the new versions, but I also think that this is not the point]
Others see the relative advantages of the Apple computing model over other competing models but for various reasons are not willing to buy into that model. Some of these others dig into the Apple model and believe that they can replicate Apple's hardware, usually at a reduced cost. They expect that the new versions of software Apple sells separately for its installed client base should not be able to differentiate between Apple produced hardware and their copies. When it does, a select few attempt to modify Apple's software to force it to work on their hardware anyway.
Apple does not seem to be concerned over what a few rebels choose to do for their own amusement but does become concerned when someone attempts to build their own business on such modification. Apple then employs various tactics to stop these new businesses, from strengthening the software against modification to legal process.
Apple's motivation is not obvious but is perhaps multi-facetted. It is not likely that a start-up clone business would cause a significant drop in Apple-branded hardware sales, at least not at first, however Apple could well not wish to find out. OTOH, Apple may be concerned that modified system software will not function as desired which Apple believes will reflect negatively on it as the author rather than on those who modified the software. Apple has gone to extreme lengths to build and protect its "brand" and sees anything that would diminish that brand as a threat with which to be dealt.
Psystar appears to be arguing that Apple is somehow obligated to make its system software available for others' use. Presumably, were Apple to acquiesce, this obligation would then extend to supporting such use through future versions of that software, thereby enabling Psystar's business model at the expense of its own.
There will always be the likes of stevielee who will finds ways to use hardware and software in ways not intended by the manufacturer and developer. More power to him--efforts such as his may lead to innovation outside of the established R&D chain. However, Apple should be under no obligation to support his efforts and even less obligation to support those who would attempt to benefit separately from those efforts, especially when such support would ultimately hurt Apple (in Apple's opinion).
Finally, the arguments that Apple would indeed benefit from licencing its system software to other hardware manufacturers may not be without merit. However, Apple chooses to disagee and therefore not to pursue such licencing and should be under no obligation to do so.
Seriously folks; people need to wake up here and realize they are defending a really ugly practices on Apples part here. It is a practice that if upheld will undermine years of freedoms we as individuals have had with respect to copyright law.
Ask yourself some of these questions and then look at what Apple is trying to do.
1.
Do you want to live in a society where you don't have the legal right to resell items you have legally purchased?
2.
Do you want to give up the right to tinker with or configure an item to your liking?
3.
Do you want to give up the right to repair an item yourself or have a third party do so?
4.
Do you want to be exposed to the possibility that if a manufacture goes belly up your item of interest becomes unrepairable, servicesable or tradeable? ( as a side note this is a big question on many minds right now with respect to the auto industry)
5.
Do you want to live in a world where the only possible improvements to an item come from the manufacture?
6.
Do you think lock ins, like those that Apple has with AT&T are a good thing for consumers?
The list could go on but people need to realize just what Apples success here would pervert. It simply isn't rational to support Apple 100% here as it would have a vast over reaching impact on how an individual could conduct his life. Many want to make Pystar out to be the bad guy here but they really aren't doing anything that would be considered abnormal outside the computer industry.
Think about it; does the guy making and selling ball bearings get upset if they get resold in a machine that competes with another. Or get resold as spare parts by a machine manufacture. Do they have legal recourse? Not really as that bearing has made a profit for them on that first sale. Further more it is just a component just like an OS is a component that makes up a machine we call a PC.
Frankly, you can like Pystar or not, what is hard to dismiss here is that Apple is engaged in some very discusting practices. Hiding behind the copyright law just to prevent free trade in your product is just one issue. Oh yes Mac OS/X is a product and has been for a very long time.
Seriously folks; people need to wake up here and realize they are defending a really ugly practices on Apples part here. It is a practice that if upheld will undermine years of freedoms we as individuals have had with respect to copyright law.
Ask yourself some of these questions and then look at what Apple is trying to do.
1.
Do you want to live in a society where you don't have the legal right to resell items you have legally purchased?
2.
Do you want to give up the right to tinker with or configure an item to your liking?
3.
Do you want to give up the right to repair an item yourself or have a third party do so?
4.
Do you want to be exposed to the possibility that if a manufacture goes belly up your item of interest becomes unrepairable, servicesable or tradeable? ( as a side note this is a big question on many minds right now with respect to the auto industry)
5.
Do you want to live in a world where the only possible improvements to an item come from the manufacture?
6.
Do you think lock ins, like those that Apple has with AT&T are a good thing for consumers?
The list could go on but people need to realize just what Apples success here would pervert. It simply isn't rational to support Apple 100% here as it would have a vast over reaching impact on how an individual could conduct his life. Many want to make Pystar out to be the bad guy here but they really aren't doing anything that would be considered abnormal outside the computer industry.
Think about it; does the guy making and selling ball bearings get upset if they get resold in a machine that competes with another. Or get resold as spare parts by a machine manufacture. Do they have legal recourse? Not really as that bearing has made a profit for them on that first sale. Further more it is just a component just like an OS is a component that makes up a machine we call a PC.
Frankly, you can like Pystar or not, what is hard to dismiss here is that Apple is engaged in some very discusting practices. Hiding behind the copyright law just to prevent free trade in your product is just one issue. Oh yes Mac OS/X is a product and has been for a very long time.
Dave
1. No (but there are legally binding restrictions to some items)
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
But that's why you're allowed to do pretty anything you want with your device as long as you are not doing it in some type of commercial interest.
In your home, you're allowed to tinker with your device as much as you want...you can mod it, you can hack the software, you can repair it yourself, or do anything you want with it...
What you can't do is make a business out of modding devices when a manufacturer prohibits it. If something goes wrong with the modded devices you sell, it reflects poorly on the manufacturer...not you. This is what Apple is trying to avoid.
You have some serious rethinking to do, Dave, you don't seem to understand what's going on. Almost none of your rights you listed are being removed (except selling a modded device...which, frankly, was never a right to begin with.)
And therein lies the problem with a lot of these companies. This has been argued over and over. When you "buy" Mac OS X, you are basically purchasing a usage license. This license has restricted terms of use. YOU DO NOT OWN OS X, and thus you do not have the right to do with it whatever you wish. If you choose to not abide by the agreement, then you are infringing on Apple's copyright. Get over it.
That's certainly the claim that the software companies keep making, thankfully the courts are increasingly ruling against such nonsense.
When I buy a physical product at a store, I sign no lease or license agreement. I flat out purchased a physical product. It's mine to do what ever I want with it. Home depot can't tell me what I can or cannot build with the lumber I buy, Apple cannot tell me what computer I can install their OS onto. Home Depot cannot stop me from building something with that lumber and turning around and selling that new product for my own profit, Apple can't stop me from installing that OS onto a PC I build and turning around and selling that.
If I want to install OSX, or any other OS that I purchased on any, and I do mean any machine that I also purchased and own, then I will do so - and no company is going to tell me I can't - even with the t[h]reat of copyright infringement.
Whether or not that's technically legal, I don't have a problem with your doing that with your personal machines. (The down side, of course, is that you have no right to complain if that software doesn't run right on hardware for which it isn't designed.)
For me, crossing the line is deciding to enter into a for-profit business with such activities. That changes your status from iconoclast to competitor, and no company should be compelled to allow its own products to be used against it in that manner.
1. No (but there are legally binding restrictions to some items)
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
But that's why you're allowed to do pretty anything you want with your device as long as you are not doing it in some type of commercial interest.
In your home, you're allowed to tinker with your device as much as you want...you can mod it, you can hack the software, you can repair it yourself, or do anything you want with it...
What you can't do is make a business out of modding devices when a manufacturer prohibits it. If something goes wrong with the modded devices you sell, it reflects poorly on the manufacturer...not you. This is what Apple is trying to avoid.
You have some serious rethinking to do, Dave, you don't seem to understand what's going on. Almost none of your rights you listed are being removed (except selling a modded device...which, frankly, was never a right to begin with.)
Thanks for saving me from having to type these thoughts. I agree with you. Keeping someone from benefiting commercially is far different than restricting individual rights.
That's certainly the claim that the software companies keep making, thankfully the courts are increasingly ruling against such nonsense.
When I buy a physical product at a store, I sign no lease or license agreement. I flat out purchased a physical product. It's mine to do what ever I want with it. Home depot can't tell me what I can or cannot build with the lumber I buy, Apple cannot tell me what computer I can install their OS onto. Home Depot cannot stop me from building something with that lumber and turning around and selling that new product for my own profit, Apple can't stop me from installing that OS onto a PC I build and turning around and selling that.
When you install software, you agree to the terms of usage. So you have, in essence signed a lease/license agreement.
If you don't want to sign the contract, then you shouldn't install the software.
That's certainly the claim that the software companies keep making, thankfully the courts are increasingly ruling against such nonsense.
When I buy a physical product at a store, I sign no lease or license agreement. I flat out purchased a physical product. It's mine to do what ever I want with it. Home depot can't tell me what I can or cannot build with the lumber I buy, Apple cannot tell me what computer I can install their OS onto. Home Depot cannot stop me from building something with that lumber and turning around and selling that new product for my own profit, Apple can't stop me from installing that OS onto a PC I build and turning around and selling that.
You may choose to ignore Apple's claim that you are licenced to use the software under limitations. But do not expect Apple to make it easy for you to do as you wish. Do not complain should Apple include methods which inhibit installation or issue updates which undo modifications which you have made. Nor should you be surprised should Apple choose to argue legally its understanding of the sale, especially if Apple believes that your use of the software reflects negatively on its corporate brand.
And yes, Home Depot can stop you. They can choose to stop selling you lumber. Apple can similarly choose to stop selling licences to OS X without proof of ownership of Apple hardware.
Psystar bases its arguments on having purchased legal copies of OS X with which they (and you and others) claim to be able to do as they wish. Should Apple find a method to prevent sales of OS X [licences] to Psystar, would you argue that this is also wrong and that Psystar should therefore be allowed to make as many copies as it wishes?
Apple is a public company with a unique business model that seems to be working better than its competitors. You are under no obligation to buy their product nor are they under any obligation to sell that product in a manner which they do not condone.
...clearly there is something here that I don't understand. Please help!
I will try. However it looks like you have already been brained washed here.
Quote:
Apple, a hardware manufacturer, chooses to differentiate its products from its competitors by , inter alia, installing a different operating system and several other software components than the mainstream. Apple has chosen this business model despite the added effort required on its part to maintain this different operating system and software.
Apple business model means nothing here. Rather it is the right to compete against it.
Quote:
Apple's business model appears to be working compared to its competitors.
That is speculation. Further more Apples success seems to be more an issue of the competition screwing up rather than being real successful with hardware. Then we have to take a look at Apples actual portion of the total computing market.
Quote:
For a variety of reasons not the least of which is the quality of the hardware that Apple sells, that hardware remains useful for several software cycles, during which Apple has continued to develop and improve that operating system and software.
The above statement is a big stretch in my mind. There is nothing to indicate that Apple hardware is of substantially better quality than anybody elses. How could it be when the machines are built with the same hardware everyone else uses?
Quote:
Apple also chooses to maintain compatibility between the new versions of that operating system and software and selected older hardware models. For those of its customers wishing the new software versions but not yet needing or wishing similarly to upgrade their hardware, Apple chooses to sell the new versions separately. [Yes, I know it is only a licence to use the new versions, but I also think that this is not the point]
Actually the above points are extremely important to this discussion. In fact you wouldn't even have a discussion if it wasn't for the fact that Apple has a product it sells called OS/X. As to eula there is the very real question as to the legality of those agreements as they are not signed contracts agreed to by all parties involved. Even if found to be legal in part there is sill the question of the rights of a third party to resell something they legally purchased.
Quote:
Others see the relative advantages of the Apple computing model over other competing models but for various reasons are not willing to buy into that model. Some of these others dig into the Apple model and believe that they can replicate Apple's hardware, usually at a reduced cost. They expect that the new versions of software Apple sells separately for its installed client base should not be able to differentiate between Apple produced hardware and their copies. When it does, a select few attempt to modify Apple's software to force it to work on their hardware anyway.
That sums it up nicely. I will say though that cost is likely to not be a huge issue here as for the most part Apple doesn't sell the hardware that many want to run OS/X on. In otherwords it is hard to say that they are competeing with Apple products when Apple does not have like products on the market.
Quote:
Apple does not seem to be concerned over what a few rebels choose to do for their own amusement but does become concerned when someone attempts to build their own business on such modification. Apple then employs various tactics to stop these new businesses, from strengthening the software against modification to legal process.
If only that where true!!!!!
In the last couple of days Apple has made it very clear that they have rather broad goals here. Those goals would severly harm us as individuals if realized.
As to businesses competeing against Apple - cry me a river but there is nothing in the law that supports Apples position that they should be free of competition! Further more there is nothing that supports Apples position that a company can't us their components in other products. If I wanted to sell an Apple computer as part of an advance microscope could they be reasonable expected to srltop me from doing so if the system was legally purchased? Since Apple is selling OS/X as a product can they reasonably control how I use it?
Quote:
Apple's motivation is not obvious but is perhaps multi-facetted. It is not likely that a start-up clone business would cause a significant drop in Apple-branded hardware sales, at least not at first, however Apple could well not wish to find out.
Do clones impact Apple sales? That is a good question, and is not easy to answer right now. If there wasn't the question of legality I'm sure it would. On the otherhand current sales of "clone" systems don't compete directly with current Apple products.
Quote:
OTOH, Apple may be concerned that modified system software will not function as desired which Apple believes will reflect negatively on it as the author rather than on those who modified the software. Apple has gone to extreme lengths to build and protect its "brand" and sees anything that would diminish that brand as a threat with which to be dealt.
That is all well and good but there are legal ways to deal with this. One of those might simply be to take Mac OS/X off the market as a general product and revert to marketing the product with a legal contract in the state the OS is sold in. That means ditching the shrink wrapped legal agreement for 50 some odd contracts that the user would have to agree to.
The important thing here is that Apple does have a way to deal with this issue legally and without damaging themselves or our collective rights. In otherwirds Apples current problems with Pystar are of it's own making in relying on the highly questionable nature of it's current eula and a perversion of the copyright system.
Quote:
Psystar appears to be arguing that Apple is somehow obligated to make its system software available for others' use.
I'm not sure where that comes from as it doesn't jive with reality. The fact is that Apple already makes it's system software available, you can buy it legally in Apple stores and other places. The question in this case seems to revolve around the legality of buying that OS and then reselling it on different hardware. It is a question of the software being sold with other software to make it installable on other hardware.
Quote:
Presumably, were Apple to acquiesce, this obligation would then extend to supporting such use through future versions of that software, thereby enabling Psystar's business model at the expense of its own.
I'm not sure where you get this idea of an obligation on Apples part. Pystar is using an Apple component in their product they are the ones with the obligation to make sure that it is properly enginneered into that product.
Quote:
There will always be the likes of stevielee who will finds ways to use hardware and software in ways not intended by the manufacturer and developer. More power to him--efforts such as his may lead to innovation outside of the established R&D chain.
Innovation is important but to much in the way ofvaccess restrictions can have a very negative impact on what one can accomplish with a given piece of hardware. Songs PS3 is a good example here as has restrictions that negatively impact how it can be used to the point that some hardware isn't accessible unless you are blessed by Sony.
In Apples case what is objectionable is their quest to incrementally come out with more and more restricted access devices that force all modifications through Apples revenue mill. The iPhone is an example of a real product that shows just how far Apple is willing to go.
Now many will try to say that Mac OS/X will never end up like that. First; I have to say that iPhone is running a version of OS/X. Second; it won't happen overnight and Apple would need to have considerable success with their legal quest to pull it off.
Note as a developer I can see the good qualities that iPhone's app store offers up and can see that positive being extended to Mac OS/X. What I have trouble with though is the otherwise heavy restrictions on how the system can be used. Once Apple has the legal authority to tell you where their OS can be used it won't take them long to start telling you what can be used with it and where you can get it from.
Quote:
However, Apple should be under no obligation to support his efforts and even less obligation to support those who would attempt to benefit separately from those efforts, especially when such support would ultimately hurt Apple (in Apple's opinion).
I'm still not sure where you get this thought of obligation from.
Quote:
Finally, the arguments that Apple would indeed benefit from licencing its system software to other hardware manufacturers may not be without merit. However, Apple chooses to disagee and therefore not to pursue such licencing and should be under no obligation to do so.
Apple can do whatever they want but you have to realize that for the next four years we will be under the thumb of socialism. It wouldn't take much for someone in government to take a suit out against Apple for anti competitive practices. It is pretty clear that Apple has put artificial restrictions on where OS/X can run. That is pretty much the definition of anti competivenes.
The question is to they have the legal right to keep Pystar from competeing with them. The answer isn't at all clear else we wouldn't have this lawsuit. Frankly I think the legal opinion will come some place in the middle of the arguement and dismissing some of Apples extreme claims.
Quote:
Have I missed something here?
Well yeah I think you have as have many in this thread. One really needs to think hard about what they are supporting when they support Apple in this matter. Nothing good will come from Apple winning this lawsuit based on their perversion of the copyright laws. Apple needs to protect itself but they need to do so in ways that are legal and don't undermine currently accepted freedoms with respect to copyright.
Frankly this to me looks like backlash with respect to Apples arogance and lack of acceptable product development. Competition is exactly what is needed to get Apple to pull their collective heads out of their asses. The more Apple fails to address user hardware needs the more companies like Pystar will crop up. They might not have legal success in the US but the world is a big place. Apple really needs to wake up here.
When you install software, you agree to the terms of usage. So you have, in essence signed a lease/license agreement.
If you don't want to sign the contract, then you shouldn't install the software.
Except that they neglect to disclose the terms of the "license" until after purchase. Since I already bought and paid for the item, I simply don't recognize their right to ask me for agree to anything after the fact. I bought it, I own it, and I can sell it if I want to.
I've mentioned this before: I've only ever used or owned Apple computers going all the way back to my first Apple II. I have an aluminum iMac at home and I work on Mac Pros at work. I'm not necessarily going to buy or build a Mac clone. I just don't recognize them as having any right to preclude me from doing so if I choose, regardless of what they have written in their EULA. It not the copyright of their material I'm opposed to. I realize I can't sell counterfeit copies of OS X or anything like that, but once I buy a product that they put in the stores themselves, it's mine to do anything I want to with it, including reselling it as part of a value added product if I choose.
Seriously folks; people need to wake up here and realize they are defending a really ugly practices on Apples part here. It is a practice that if upheld will undermine years of freedoms we as individuals have had with respect to copyright law.
Ask yourself some of these questions and then look at what Apple is trying to do.
1.
Do you want to live in a society where you don't have the legal right to resell items you have legally purchased?
2.
Do you want to give up the right to tinker with or configure an item to your liking?
3.
Do you want to give up the right to repair an item yourself or have a third party do so?
4.
Do you want to be exposed to the possibility that if a manufacture goes belly up your item of interest becomes unrepairable, servicesable or tradeable? ( as a side note this is a big question on many minds right now with respect to the auto industry)
5.
Do you want to live in a world where the only possible improvements to an item come from the manufacture?
6.
Do you think lock ins, like those that Apple has with AT&T are a good thing for consumers?
The list could go on but people need to realize just what Apples success here would pervert. It simply isn't rational to support Apple 100% here as it would have a vast over reaching impact on how an individual could conduct his life. Many want to make Pystar out to be the bad guy here but they really aren't doing anything that would be considered abnormal outside the computer industry.
Think about it; does the guy making and selling ball bearings get upset if they get resold in a machine that competes with another. Or get resold as spare parts by a machine manufacture. Do they have legal recourse? Not really as that bearing has made a profit for them on that first sale. Further more it is just a component just like an OS is a component that makes up a machine we call a PC.
Frankly, you can like Pystar or not, what is hard to dismiss here is that Apple is engaged in some very discusting practices. Hiding behind the copyright law just to prevent free trade in your product is just one issue. Oh yes Mac OS/X is a product and has been for a very long time.
Dave
I would be worried about these issues if they were actually in question. Go check out the Modbook:
They have been modifying and reselling MacBooks for years and Apple has never said anything about them. They've even been at some of the Apple tradeshows. Why hasn't Apple gone after them? Because they are not violating the copyright of the software. They are modifying the hardware and selling the OS intact in agreement with the EULA. Psystar on the other hand is violating the copyright by modifying and selling a derivative of the work (OS X).
Have you ever read the EULA for a ball bearing? If they even exist, I am guessing that they are pretty unrestrictive, so that is an unrelated example.
1. Not in question here.
2. Not in question here.
3. Not in question here.
4. Why would it be unserviceable? Take it to any mechanic. Apple has not once implied that an individual cannot do what they want with their machine. As for warranties if a company goes belly up, that is a good question to ask, but very different than the issue at hand.
5. No, I don't. If Apple was
Do you want to live in a world where the only possible improvements to an item come from the manufacture?
6. No, I don't, which is why I generally hate all cell phone makers in the US. Every cell phone company has a lock in. So Apple make an agreement with AT&T to only sell their phone through them. It's debatable if that is good for consumers or not. They can offer more services than they could have otherwise, but there are certain restrictions. I don't like AT&T, so I haven't bought an iPhone yet. Is this clear before I buy the phone? Yes. Am I forced to buy it? No. They have offered me something and I don't want it, so I don't buy it. As a consumer, I have a choice. Just like I have a choice about what computer to buy. Do I want an Mac that happens to run OS X or do I want another hardware companies computer that runs Windows? I have choices.
Should Apple find a method to prevent sales of OS X [licences] to Psystar, would you argue that this is also wrong and that Psystar should therefore be allowed to make as many copies as it wishes?
See this I agree with. You don't want people to do whatever they want, don't sell retail copies. Upgrades through the Software Update app only.
Quote:
Apple is a public company with a unique business model that seems to be working better than its competitors. You are under no obligation to buy their product nor are they under any obligation to sell that product in a manner which they do not condone.
Nor am I under any obligation to comply with any restrictions they might want to impose on my usage of a retail product that I paid for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quevar
I would be worried about these issues if they were actually in question. Go check out the Modbook:
They have been modifying and reselling MacBooks for years and Apple has never said anything about them. They've even been at some of the Apple tradeshows. Why hasn't Apple gone after them? Because they are not violating the copyright of the software. They are modifying the hardware and selling the OS intact in agreement with the EULA. Psystar on the other hand is violating the copyright by modifying and selling a derivative of the work (OS X).
You don't think there is any software installation done to make the OS recognize that pressure sensitive screen as an input device, including using it in lieu of a keyboard? If anything, the Modbook is a perfect example for Psystar to use in their defense.
What if Axiotron decided to take Mac minis, and install the guts into a new mini-tower case with PCI slots and drive bays and sold THAT as a value added product? Would that be OK? How would it be different? It's OK to modify the hardware and resell it, but not the software? Again if that's the claim, if anything it strengthens Psystar's case.
1. No (but there are legally binding restrictions to some items)
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
But that's why you're allowed to do pretty anything you want with your device as long as you are not doing it in some type of commercial interest.
But that isn't what Apple is saying which they have made clear this week. Apples position seems to be that you have no rights what so ever and appear to be in motion to surpress any sort of public discourse about it. Lets face it what you can do with a device will be limited if you can't communicate about it, which would happen if Apple is successful in using copyright law against some of the hacking sites.
In any event Pystar is but a bug on a big dog here. What is scarry is where Apple intends to ride this dog.
Quote:
In your home, you're allowed to tinker with your device as much as you want...you can mod it, you can hack the software, you can repair it yourself, or do anything you want with it...
THIS IS NOT APPLES POINT OF VIEW AT ALL WHICH THEY MADE CLEAR THIS WEEK!!
Sorry about the yelling but I don't think people here have a clue where Apple could take us with their overbearing crusade against freedom on it's products. The thought that the DMCA should be used against the activities you descibe above ought to cause concern to anyone that buys Apple products.
The big problem is that it isn't clear that the good guys would win here.
Quote:
What you can't do is make a business out of modding devices when a manufacturer prohibits it. If something goes wrong with the modded devices you sell, it reflects poorly on the manufacturer...not you. This is what Apple is trying to avoid.
I have to ask why not? There are modding industries for every other substantial product out there be it automobiles, motorcycles, guns, tools or whatever. Why should Apple have special rights here? A Mac or IPhone isn't any different than any other consummer item when it comes to the desire to tailor it for personal needs.
I don't buy blaming Apple for a bad mod either. If you put tires on your truck that didn't come with it and then end up with no traction in snow do you blame Ford. Or doe you blame Ford when you blow the head gaskets after installing one to many turbo chargers? Why should Apple be any different?
Quote:
You have some serious rethinking to do, Dave, you don't seem to understand what's going on. Almost none of your rights you listed are being removed (except selling a modded device...which, frankly, was never a right to begin with.)
Frankly you really need to look in the mirror on this one. Apple has clearly demonstrated this week that they are indeed going after those rights outlined. They haven't been successful yet but it is pretty clear that they are putting the legal machinery in place to severly restrict ones ability to exercise those rights.
As to modded hardware I'm not sure where you get the idea that it is illegal. You can't trade on somebody elses good name but modded and customized consummer goods have been around a long time. This has even been the case with Apple hardware with the ModBook being a current example.
ModBook actually brings up an interesting point as it demonstrates that there is a market for Mac OS/X on hardware supported by other vendors. Kinda blows one of Apples arguements out of the water.
Comments
The issue isn't about licensing rights to a third party to reproduce your work, it is about an IP holder's ability to copyright and force purchasers into a license agreement. Basically the issue of how much control Apple can exert on someone who buys a retail copy of OS X.
Technically not complete control (in the US); just control over reproducing the work. IIRC, Europe provides "moral rights" to copyrighted creative works which might form a basis for limiting what a purchaser can do with it.
I have never understood why Apple sell retail copies of OSX. If you have a Mac, you should be able to buy an upgrade. If not, then you don't need Mac OSX in a box.
Owning a Mac is like owning a piece of artwork, if you do not appreciate the artwork, dont buy it. Have you seen any other company so dedicated into designing their products? Will there be any other company as crazy as apple to mill out a notebook casing out of a single block of aluminum, nope I dont think so. Apple does crazy stuffs cause Jobs cares about art a lot!.
Ha ha ha ha,
Ha ha,
Ha ha ha ha ha,
Ha
Ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Ha
Ha ha ha ha
Ha ha ha ha ha
Ha ha
Ha ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Ha
H ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Ha ha
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
You're funny.
Well let me be the first one on this post to wholeheartedly disagree with all of the Apple Devotees who seem to think that it's fine and dandy fro Apple to control what I do with a product after I've paid for that product - like OSX, or an iPhone etc.
If I want to install OSX, or any other OS that I purchased on any, and I do mean any machine that I also purchased and own, then I will do so - and no company is going to tell me I can't - even with the treat of copyright infringement.
I have a jail-broken iPhone and I run OSX via Hackintosh on a custom built PC. I also have hacked my iPod away from the crappy iTunes 8 ATM machine - where you can't even turn off the blasted "Gapless" idiocy.
I will control the way in which I decide to use the technology I buy - not the Big Brother companies like Apple and AT&T. I'm tired of having to settle for limited hardware options ( like paying a premium for a 2 year old, discontinued Graphics card ) and pay 30-60% more for the very same internal equipment as PC's - just because their encased in Mr. Ives's aluminum fetished designs. I can, and WILL design and build my own MAC from here on, as long as they are on the Intel (PC) platform.
And for all of you who really thinks that Apple will be able to continue dictating how anyone uses their software or their hardware after purchasing it has not been paying attention to the growing demand for more consumer control over content and fair usage of software and hardware. I am not defending Pystar, or any other third party computer manufacturer -but even if they lose, someone else will come along and do exactly the same as they have done - and as have already begun over in the EU - where they do not recognize the unenforceable and anti-competitive EULA from Apple.
Furthermore, OSX is essentially offered at an upgrade price when you compare it to Windows. If Apple had to offer it for sale to everybody. Clearly, the price would dramatically increase.
Well let me be the first one on this post to wholeheartedly disagree with all of the Apple Devotees who seem to think that it's fine and dandy fro Apple to control what I do with a product after I've paid for that product - like OSX, or an iPhone etc.
If I want to install OSX, or any other OS that I purchased on any, and I do mean any machine that I also purchased and own, then I will do so - and no company is going to tell me I can't - even with the treat of copyright infringement.
I have a jail-broken iPhone and I run OSX via Hackintosh on a custom built PC. I also have hacked my iPod away from the crappy iTunes 8 ATM machine - where you can't even turn off the blasted "Gapless" idiocy.
I will control the way in which I decide to use the technology I buy - not the Big Brother companies like Apple and AT&T. I'm tired of having to settle for limited hardware options ( like paying a premium for a 2 year old, discontinued Graphics card ) and pay 30-60% more for the very same internal equipment as PC's - just because their encased in Mr. Ives's aluminum fetished designs. I can, and WILL design and build my own MAC from here on, as long as they are on the Intel (PC) platform.
And for all of you who really thinks that Apple will be able to continue dictating how anyone uses their software or their hardware after purchasing it has not been paying attention to the growing demand for more consumer control over content and fair usage of software and hardware. I am not defending Pystar, or any other third party computer manufacturer -but even if they lose, someone else will come along and do exactly the same as they have done - and as have already begun over in the EU - where they do not recognize the unenforceable and anti-competitive EULA from Apple.
Who is capable of doing the sleuthing to track down the money behind Psystar and their endless legal strategizing?
Apple Inc, you can bet they are on the trail, or, already know.
I haven't read one person here who seems to think Apple should be allowed to do whatever it wants with it's software after they buy it. You, however, have seemed to have failed to grasp the distinction between you doing what you want with Apple's software for personal use, and a company doing something with Apple's software for profit.
It really has nothing to do with profit. The whole arguement revolves around the doctrine of right of first sale. Apple makes or should make it's profit on the sale of each upgrade disk it prints, what somebody does with it afterwards Apple can't control.
Just last year this concept was upheld again in the courts when a bunch of studios lost their bid to prevent radio stations from selling off promotional and other free disks that they get. Likewise this is just the same as your right to resell a book or computer, both can be made up of copyrighted materials. Any major city will actually have many businesses legally engaged in such activities, often selling used records, computers, books or whatever. Notably the record companies have tried to close down the used record businesses but have failed because it is a legal activity.
Apple isn't suing people for installing OSX on a personal machine, it is suing a company trying to use OSX for profit.
You might want to reconsider that thought above as Apple goes after the iPhone Jailbreaking community. The problem is this; if Apple becomes successful with some of these tactics they could end up steam rolling over a lot of freedoms we have had for years. One of those is the freedom to tinker with the hardware you own.
Furthermore, OSX is essentially offered at an upgrade price when you compare it to Windows.
More BS, what Apple charges for OS/X is it's problem. More importantly OS/X is very expensive compared to Windows considering that upgrades come about every year and are seldom free. Don't get me wrong I believe there is value in those upgrades but to say that OS/X is cheap is a bit mis leading. Apple gets a pretty health amount of revenue from OS/X upgrades.
As a side note one must also understand that a good portion of those upgrades that Apple charges people for are the efforts of the Open Source community. That is not a complaint by any measure as Apple has been realtively good to the Open Source community, just that people need to realize that much of OS/X is made up of free software.
If Apple had to offer it for sale to everybody. Clearly, the price would dramatically increase.
It might increase but I'm not sure what you mean by your statement as OS/X is available to everyone right now. You can walk into any Apple store and buy a copy right now. You can do that legally as a person or corporation. Afterwards what control Apple can have over that legal copy is limited.
Dave
Apple, a hardware manufacturer, chooses to differentiate its products from its competitors by , inter alia, installing a different operating system and several other software components than the mainstream. Apple has chosen this business model despite the added effort required on its part to maintain this different operating system and software.
Apple's business model appears to be working compared to its competitors.
For a variety of reasons not the least of which is the quality of the hardware that Apple sells, that hardware remains useful for several software cycles, during which Apple has continued to develop and improve that operating system and software. Apple also chooses to maintain compatibility between the new versions of that operating system and software and selected older hardware models. For those of its customers wishing the new software versions but not yet needing or wishing similarly to upgrade their hardware, Apple chooses to sell the new versions separately. [Yes, I know it is only a licence to use the new versions, but I also think that this is not the point]
Others see the relative advantages of the Apple computing model over other competing models but for various reasons are not willing to buy into that model. Some of these others dig into the Apple model and believe that they can replicate Apple's hardware, usually at a reduced cost. They expect that the new versions of software Apple sells separately for its installed client base should not be able to differentiate between Apple produced hardware and their copies. When it does, a select few attempt to modify Apple's software to force it to work on their hardware anyway.
Apple does not seem to be concerned over what a few rebels choose to do for their own amusement but does become concerned when someone attempts to build their own business on such modification. Apple then employs various tactics to stop these new businesses, from strengthening the software against modification to legal process.
Apple's motivation is not obvious but is perhaps multi-facetted. It is not likely that a start-up clone business would cause a significant drop in Apple-branded hardware sales, at least not at first, however Apple could well not wish to find out. OTOH, Apple may be concerned that modified system software will not function as desired which Apple believes will reflect negatively on it as the author rather than on those who modified the software. Apple has gone to extreme lengths to build and protect its "brand" and sees anything that would diminish that brand as a threat with which to be dealt.
Psystar appears to be arguing that Apple is somehow obligated to make its system software available for others' use. Presumably, were Apple to acquiesce, this obligation would then extend to supporting such use through future versions of that software, thereby enabling Psystar's business model at the expense of its own.
There will always be the likes of stevielee who will finds ways to use hardware and software in ways not intended by the manufacturer and developer. More power to him--efforts such as his may lead to innovation outside of the established R&D chain. However, Apple should be under no obligation to support his efforts and even less obligation to support those who would attempt to benefit separately from those efforts, especially when such support would ultimately hurt Apple (in Apple's opinion).
Finally, the arguments that Apple would indeed benefit from licencing its system software to other hardware manufacturers may not be without merit. However, Apple chooses to disagee and therefore not to pursue such licencing and should be under no obligation to do so.
Have I missed something here?
Ask yourself some of these questions and then look at what Apple is trying to do.
1.
Do you want to live in a society where you don't have the legal right to resell items you have legally purchased?
2.
Do you want to give up the right to tinker with or configure an item to your liking?
3.
Do you want to give up the right to repair an item yourself or have a third party do so?
4.
Do you want to be exposed to the possibility that if a manufacture goes belly up your item of interest becomes unrepairable, servicesable or tradeable? ( as a side note this is a big question on many minds right now with respect to the auto industry)
5.
Do you want to live in a world where the only possible improvements to an item come from the manufacture?
6.
Do you think lock ins, like those that Apple has with AT&T are a good thing for consumers?
The list could go on but people need to realize just what Apples success here would pervert. It simply isn't rational to support Apple 100% here as it would have a vast over reaching impact on how an individual could conduct his life. Many want to make Pystar out to be the bad guy here but they really aren't doing anything that would be considered abnormal outside the computer industry.
Think about it; does the guy making and selling ball bearings get upset if they get resold in a machine that competes with another. Or get resold as spare parts by a machine manufacture. Do they have legal recourse? Not really as that bearing has made a profit for them on that first sale. Further more it is just a component just like an OS is a component that makes up a machine we call a PC.
Frankly, you can like Pystar or not, what is hard to dismiss here is that Apple is engaged in some very discusting practices. Hiding behind the copyright law just to prevent free trade in your product is just one issue. Oh yes Mac OS/X is a product and has been for a very long time.
Dave
Who is capable of doing the sleuthing to track down the money behind Psystar and their endless legal strategizing?
Ace Ventura where are you?
Seriously folks; people need to wake up here and realize they are defending a really ugly practices on Apples part here. It is a practice that if upheld will undermine years of freedoms we as individuals have had with respect to copyright law.
Ask yourself some of these questions and then look at what Apple is trying to do.
1.
Do you want to live in a society where you don't have the legal right to resell items you have legally purchased?
2.
Do you want to give up the right to tinker with or configure an item to your liking?
3.
Do you want to give up the right to repair an item yourself or have a third party do so?
4.
Do you want to be exposed to the possibility that if a manufacture goes belly up your item of interest becomes unrepairable, servicesable or tradeable? ( as a side note this is a big question on many minds right now with respect to the auto industry)
5.
Do you want to live in a world where the only possible improvements to an item come from the manufacture?
6.
Do you think lock ins, like those that Apple has with AT&T are a good thing for consumers?
The list could go on but people need to realize just what Apples success here would pervert. It simply isn't rational to support Apple 100% here as it would have a vast over reaching impact on how an individual could conduct his life. Many want to make Pystar out to be the bad guy here but they really aren't doing anything that would be considered abnormal outside the computer industry.
Think about it; does the guy making and selling ball bearings get upset if they get resold in a machine that competes with another. Or get resold as spare parts by a machine manufacture. Do they have legal recourse? Not really as that bearing has made a profit for them on that first sale. Further more it is just a component just like an OS is a component that makes up a machine we call a PC.
Frankly, you can like Pystar or not, what is hard to dismiss here is that Apple is engaged in some very discusting practices. Hiding behind the copyright law just to prevent free trade in your product is just one issue. Oh yes Mac OS/X is a product and has been for a very long time.
Dave
1. No (but there are legally binding restrictions to some items)
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
But that's why you're allowed to do pretty anything you want with your device as long as you are not doing it in some type of commercial interest.
In your home, you're allowed to tinker with your device as much as you want...you can mod it, you can hack the software, you can repair it yourself, or do anything you want with it...
What you can't do is make a business out of modding devices when a manufacturer prohibits it. If something goes wrong with the modded devices you sell, it reflects poorly on the manufacturer...not you. This is what Apple is trying to avoid.
You have some serious rethinking to do, Dave, you don't seem to understand what's going on. Almost none of your rights you listed are being removed (except selling a modded device...which, frankly, was never a right to begin with.)
And therein lies the problem with a lot of these companies. This has been argued over and over. When you "buy" Mac OS X, you are basically purchasing a usage license. This license has restricted terms of use. YOU DO NOT OWN OS X, and thus you do not have the right to do with it whatever you wish. If you choose to not abide by the agreement, then you are infringing on Apple's copyright. Get over it.
That's certainly the claim that the software companies keep making, thankfully the courts are increasingly ruling against such nonsense.
When I buy a physical product at a store, I sign no lease or license agreement. I flat out purchased a physical product. It's mine to do what ever I want with it. Home depot can't tell me what I can or cannot build with the lumber I buy, Apple cannot tell me what computer I can install their OS onto. Home Depot cannot stop me from building something with that lumber and turning around and selling that new product for my own profit, Apple can't stop me from installing that OS onto a PC I build and turning around and selling that.
If I want to install OSX, or any other OS that I purchased on any, and I do mean any machine that I also purchased and own, then I will do so - and no company is going to tell me I can't - even with the t[h]reat of copyright infringement.
Whether or not that's technically legal, I don't have a problem with your doing that with your personal machines. (The down side, of course, is that you have no right to complain if that software doesn't run right on hardware for which it isn't designed.)
For me, crossing the line is deciding to enter into a for-profit business with such activities. That changes your status from iconoclast to competitor, and no company should be compelled to allow its own products to be used against it in that manner.
1. No (but there are legally binding restrictions to some items)
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
But that's why you're allowed to do pretty anything you want with your device as long as you are not doing it in some type of commercial interest.
In your home, you're allowed to tinker with your device as much as you want...you can mod it, you can hack the software, you can repair it yourself, or do anything you want with it...
What you can't do is make a business out of modding devices when a manufacturer prohibits it. If something goes wrong with the modded devices you sell, it reflects poorly on the manufacturer...not you. This is what Apple is trying to avoid.
You have some serious rethinking to do, Dave, you don't seem to understand what's going on. Almost none of your rights you listed are being removed (except selling a modded device...which, frankly, was never a right to begin with.)
Thanks for saving me from having to type these thoughts. I agree with you. Keeping someone from benefiting commercially is far different than restricting individual rights.
That's certainly the claim that the software companies keep making, thankfully the courts are increasingly ruling against such nonsense.
When I buy a physical product at a store, I sign no lease or license agreement. I flat out purchased a physical product. It's mine to do what ever I want with it. Home depot can't tell me what I can or cannot build with the lumber I buy, Apple cannot tell me what computer I can install their OS onto. Home Depot cannot stop me from building something with that lumber and turning around and selling that new product for my own profit, Apple can't stop me from installing that OS onto a PC I build and turning around and selling that.
When you install software, you agree to the terms of usage. So you have, in essence signed a lease/license agreement.
If you don't want to sign the contract, then you shouldn't install the software.
That's certainly the claim that the software companies keep making, thankfully the courts are increasingly ruling against such nonsense.
When I buy a physical product at a store, I sign no lease or license agreement. I flat out purchased a physical product. It's mine to do what ever I want with it. Home depot can't tell me what I can or cannot build with the lumber I buy, Apple cannot tell me what computer I can install their OS onto. Home Depot cannot stop me from building something with that lumber and turning around and selling that new product for my own profit, Apple can't stop me from installing that OS onto a PC I build and turning around and selling that.
You may choose to ignore Apple's claim that you are licenced to use the software under limitations. But do not expect Apple to make it easy for you to do as you wish. Do not complain should Apple include methods which inhibit installation or issue updates which undo modifications which you have made. Nor should you be surprised should Apple choose to argue legally its understanding of the sale, especially if Apple believes that your use of the software reflects negatively on its corporate brand.
And yes, Home Depot can stop you. They can choose to stop selling you lumber. Apple can similarly choose to stop selling licences to OS X without proof of ownership of Apple hardware.
Psystar bases its arguments on having purchased legal copies of OS X with which they (and you and others) claim to be able to do as they wish. Should Apple find a method to prevent sales of OS X [licences] to Psystar, would you argue that this is also wrong and that Psystar should therefore be allowed to make as many copies as it wishes?
Apple is a public company with a unique business model that seems to be working better than its competitors. You are under no obligation to buy their product nor are they under any obligation to sell that product in a manner which they do not condone.
...clearly there is something here that I don't understand. Please help!
I will try. However it looks like you have already been brained washed here.
Apple, a hardware manufacturer, chooses to differentiate its products from its competitors by , inter alia, installing a different operating system and several other software components than the mainstream. Apple has chosen this business model despite the added effort required on its part to maintain this different operating system and software.
Apple business model means nothing here. Rather it is the right to compete against it.
Apple's business model appears to be working compared to its competitors.
That is speculation. Further more Apples success seems to be more an issue of the competition screwing up rather than being real successful with hardware. Then we have to take a look at Apples actual portion of the total computing market.
For a variety of reasons not the least of which is the quality of the hardware that Apple sells, that hardware remains useful for several software cycles, during which Apple has continued to develop and improve that operating system and software.
The above statement is a big stretch in my mind. There is nothing to indicate that Apple hardware is of substantially better quality than anybody elses. How could it be when the machines are built with the same hardware everyone else uses?
Apple also chooses to maintain compatibility between the new versions of that operating system and software and selected older hardware models. For those of its customers wishing the new software versions but not yet needing or wishing similarly to upgrade their hardware, Apple chooses to sell the new versions separately. [Yes, I know it is only a licence to use the new versions, but I also think that this is not the point]
Actually the above points are extremely important to this discussion. In fact you wouldn't even have a discussion if it wasn't for the fact that Apple has a product it sells called OS/X. As to eula there is the very real question as to the legality of those agreements as they are not signed contracts agreed to by all parties involved. Even if found to be legal in part there is sill the question of the rights of a third party to resell something they legally purchased.
Others see the relative advantages of the Apple computing model over other competing models but for various reasons are not willing to buy into that model. Some of these others dig into the Apple model and believe that they can replicate Apple's hardware, usually at a reduced cost. They expect that the new versions of software Apple sells separately for its installed client base should not be able to differentiate between Apple produced hardware and their copies. When it does, a select few attempt to modify Apple's software to force it to work on their hardware anyway.
That sums it up nicely. I will say though that cost is likely to not be a huge issue here as for the most part Apple doesn't sell the hardware that many want to run OS/X on. In otherwords it is hard to say that they are competeing with Apple products when Apple does not have like products on the market.
Apple does not seem to be concerned over what a few rebels choose to do for their own amusement but does become concerned when someone attempts to build their own business on such modification. Apple then employs various tactics to stop these new businesses, from strengthening the software against modification to legal process.
If only that where true!!!!!
In the last couple of days Apple has made it very clear that they have rather broad goals here. Those goals would severly harm us as individuals if realized.
As to businesses competeing against Apple - cry me a river but there is nothing in the law that supports Apples position that they should be free of competition! Further more there is nothing that supports Apples position that a company can't us their components in other products. If I wanted to sell an Apple computer as part of an advance microscope could they be reasonable expected to srltop me from doing so if the system was legally purchased? Since Apple is selling OS/X as a product can they reasonably control how I use it?
Apple's motivation is not obvious but is perhaps multi-facetted. It is not likely that a start-up clone business would cause a significant drop in Apple-branded hardware sales, at least not at first, however Apple could well not wish to find out.
Do clones impact Apple sales? That is a good question, and is not easy to answer right now. If there wasn't the question of legality I'm sure it would. On the otherhand current sales of "clone" systems don't compete directly with current Apple products.
OTOH, Apple may be concerned that modified system software will not function as desired which Apple believes will reflect negatively on it as the author rather than on those who modified the software. Apple has gone to extreme lengths to build and protect its "brand" and sees anything that would diminish that brand as a threat with which to be dealt.
That is all well and good but there are legal ways to deal with this. One of those might simply be to take Mac OS/X off the market as a general product and revert to marketing the product with a legal contract in the state the OS is sold in. That means ditching the shrink wrapped legal agreement for 50 some odd contracts that the user would have to agree to.
The important thing here is that Apple does have a way to deal with this issue legally and without damaging themselves or our collective rights. In otherwirds Apples current problems with Pystar are of it's own making in relying on the highly questionable nature of it's current eula and a perversion of the copyright system.
Psystar appears to be arguing that Apple is somehow obligated to make its system software available for others' use.
I'm not sure where that comes from as it doesn't jive with reality. The fact is that Apple already makes it's system software available, you can buy it legally in Apple stores and other places. The question in this case seems to revolve around the legality of buying that OS and then reselling it on different hardware. It is a question of the software being sold with other software to make it installable on other hardware.
Presumably, were Apple to acquiesce, this obligation would then extend to supporting such use through future versions of that software, thereby enabling Psystar's business model at the expense of its own.
I'm not sure where you get this idea of an obligation on Apples part. Pystar is using an Apple component in their product they are the ones with the obligation to make sure that it is properly enginneered into that product.
There will always be the likes of stevielee who will finds ways to use hardware and software in ways not intended by the manufacturer and developer. More power to him--efforts such as his may lead to innovation outside of the established R&D chain.
Innovation is important but to much in the way ofvaccess restrictions can have a very negative impact on what one can accomplish with a given piece of hardware. Songs PS3 is a good example here as has restrictions that negatively impact how it can be used to the point that some hardware isn't accessible unless you are blessed by Sony.
In Apples case what is objectionable is their quest to incrementally come out with more and more restricted access devices that force all modifications through Apples revenue mill. The iPhone is an example of a real product that shows just how far Apple is willing to go.
Now many will try to say that Mac OS/X will never end up like that. First; I have to say that iPhone is running a version of OS/X. Second; it won't happen overnight and Apple would need to have considerable success with their legal quest to pull it off.
Note as a developer I can see the good qualities that iPhone's app store offers up and can see that positive being extended to Mac OS/X. What I have trouble with though is the otherwise heavy restrictions on how the system can be used. Once Apple has the legal authority to tell you where their OS can be used it won't take them long to start telling you what can be used with it and where you can get it from.
However, Apple should be under no obligation to support his efforts and even less obligation to support those who would attempt to benefit separately from those efforts, especially when such support would ultimately hurt Apple (in Apple's opinion).
I'm still not sure where you get this thought of obligation from.
Finally, the arguments that Apple would indeed benefit from licencing its system software to other hardware manufacturers may not be without merit. However, Apple chooses to disagee and therefore not to pursue such licencing and should be under no obligation to do so.
Apple can do whatever they want but you have to realize that for the next four years we will be under the thumb of socialism. It wouldn't take much for someone in government to take a suit out against Apple for anti competitive practices. It is pretty clear that Apple has put artificial restrictions on where OS/X can run. That is pretty much the definition of anti competivenes.
The question is to they have the legal right to keep Pystar from competeing with them. The answer isn't at all clear else we wouldn't have this lawsuit. Frankly I think the legal opinion will come some place in the middle of the arguement and dismissing some of Apples extreme claims.
Have I missed something here?
Well yeah I think you have as have many in this thread. One really needs to think hard about what they are supporting when they support Apple in this matter. Nothing good will come from Apple winning this lawsuit based on their perversion of the copyright laws. Apple needs to protect itself but they need to do so in ways that are legal and don't undermine currently accepted freedoms with respect to copyright.
Frankly this to me looks like backlash with respect to Apples arogance and lack of acceptable product development. Competition is exactly what is needed to get Apple to pull their collective heads out of their asses. The more Apple fails to address user hardware needs the more companies like Pystar will crop up. They might not have legal success in the US but the world is a big place. Apple really needs to wake up here.
Dave
When you install software, you agree to the terms of usage. So you have, in essence signed a lease/license agreement.
If you don't want to sign the contract, then you shouldn't install the software.
Except that they neglect to disclose the terms of the "license" until after purchase. Since I already bought and paid for the item, I simply don't recognize their right to ask me for agree to anything after the fact. I bought it, I own it, and I can sell it if I want to.
I've mentioned this before: I've only ever used or owned Apple computers going all the way back to my first Apple II. I have an aluminum iMac at home and I work on Mac Pros at work. I'm not necessarily going to buy or build a Mac clone. I just don't recognize them as having any right to preclude me from doing so if I choose, regardless of what they have written in their EULA. It not the copyright of their material I'm opposed to. I realize I can't sell counterfeit copies of OS X or anything like that, but once I buy a product that they put in the stores themselves, it's mine to do anything I want to with it, including reselling it as part of a value added product if I choose.
Seriously folks; people need to wake up here and realize they are defending a really ugly practices on Apples part here. It is a practice that if upheld will undermine years of freedoms we as individuals have had with respect to copyright law.
Ask yourself some of these questions and then look at what Apple is trying to do.
1.
Do you want to live in a society where you don't have the legal right to resell items you have legally purchased?
2.
Do you want to give up the right to tinker with or configure an item to your liking?
3.
Do you want to give up the right to repair an item yourself or have a third party do so?
4.
Do you want to be exposed to the possibility that if a manufacture goes belly up your item of interest becomes unrepairable, servicesable or tradeable? ( as a side note this is a big question on many minds right now with respect to the auto industry)
5.
Do you want to live in a world where the only possible improvements to an item come from the manufacture?
6.
Do you think lock ins, like those that Apple has with AT&T are a good thing for consumers?
The list could go on but people need to realize just what Apples success here would pervert. It simply isn't rational to support Apple 100% here as it would have a vast over reaching impact on how an individual could conduct his life. Many want to make Pystar out to be the bad guy here but they really aren't doing anything that would be considered abnormal outside the computer industry.
Think about it; does the guy making and selling ball bearings get upset if they get resold in a machine that competes with another. Or get resold as spare parts by a machine manufacture. Do they have legal recourse? Not really as that bearing has made a profit for them on that first sale. Further more it is just a component just like an OS is a component that makes up a machine we call a PC.
Frankly, you can like Pystar or not, what is hard to dismiss here is that Apple is engaged in some very discusting practices. Hiding behind the copyright law just to prevent free trade in your product is just one issue. Oh yes Mac OS/X is a product and has been for a very long time.
Dave
I would be worried about these issues if they were actually in question. Go check out the Modbook:
http://www.axiotron.com/index.php?id=modbook
They have been modifying and reselling MacBooks for years and Apple has never said anything about them. They've even been at some of the Apple tradeshows. Why hasn't Apple gone after them? Because they are not violating the copyright of the software. They are modifying the hardware and selling the OS intact in agreement with the EULA. Psystar on the other hand is violating the copyright by modifying and selling a derivative of the work (OS X).
Have you ever read the EULA for a ball bearing? If they even exist, I am guessing that they are pretty unrestrictive, so that is an unrelated example.
1. Not in question here.
2. Not in question here.
3. Not in question here.
4. Why would it be unserviceable? Take it to any mechanic. Apple has not once implied that an individual cannot do what they want with their machine. As for warranties if a company goes belly up, that is a good question to ask, but very different than the issue at hand.
5. No, I don't. If Apple was
Do you want to live in a world where the only possible improvements to an item come from the manufacture?
6. No, I don't, which is why I generally hate all cell phone makers in the US. Every cell phone company has a lock in. So Apple make an agreement with AT&T to only sell their phone through them. It's debatable if that is good for consumers or not. They can offer more services than they could have otherwise, but there are certain restrictions. I don't like AT&T, so I haven't bought an iPhone yet. Is this clear before I buy the phone? Yes. Am I forced to buy it? No. They have offered me something and I don't want it, so I don't buy it. As a consumer, I have a choice. Just like I have a choice about what computer to buy. Do I want an Mac that happens to run OS X or do I want another hardware companies computer that runs Windows? I have choices.
Should Apple find a method to prevent sales of OS X [licences] to Psystar, would you argue that this is also wrong and that Psystar should therefore be allowed to make as many copies as it wishes?
See this I agree with. You don't want people to do whatever they want, don't sell retail copies. Upgrades through the Software Update app only.
Apple is a public company with a unique business model that seems to be working better than its competitors. You are under no obligation to buy their product nor are they under any obligation to sell that product in a manner which they do not condone.
Nor am I under any obligation to comply with any restrictions they might want to impose on my usage of a retail product that I paid for.
I would be worried about these issues if they were actually in question. Go check out the Modbook:
http://www.axiotron.com/index.php?id=modbook
They have been modifying and reselling MacBooks for years and Apple has never said anything about them. They've even been at some of the Apple tradeshows. Why hasn't Apple gone after them? Because they are not violating the copyright of the software. They are modifying the hardware and selling the OS intact in agreement with the EULA. Psystar on the other hand is violating the copyright by modifying and selling a derivative of the work (OS X).
You don't think there is any software installation done to make the OS recognize that pressure sensitive screen as an input device, including using it in lieu of a keyboard? If anything, the Modbook is a perfect example for Psystar to use in their defense.
What if Axiotron decided to take Mac minis, and install the guts into a new mini-tower case with PCI slots and drive bays and sold THAT as a value added product? Would that be OK? How would it be different? It's OK to modify the hardware and resell it, but not the software? Again if that's the claim, if anything it strengthens Psystar's case.
1. No (but there are legally binding restrictions to some items)
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
But that's why you're allowed to do pretty anything you want with your device as long as you are not doing it in some type of commercial interest.
But that isn't what Apple is saying which they have made clear this week. Apples position seems to be that you have no rights what so ever and appear to be in motion to surpress any sort of public discourse about it. Lets face it what you can do with a device will be limited if you can't communicate about it, which would happen if Apple is successful in using copyright law against some of the hacking sites.
In any event Pystar is but a bug on a big dog here. What is scarry is where Apple intends to ride this dog.
In your home, you're allowed to tinker with your device as much as you want...you can mod it, you can hack the software, you can repair it yourself, or do anything you want with it...
THIS IS NOT APPLES POINT OF VIEW AT ALL WHICH THEY MADE CLEAR THIS WEEK!!
Sorry about the yelling but I don't think people here have a clue where Apple could take us with their overbearing crusade against freedom on it's products. The thought that the DMCA should be used against the activities you descibe above ought to cause concern to anyone that buys Apple products.
The big problem is that it isn't clear that the good guys would win here.
What you can't do is make a business out of modding devices when a manufacturer prohibits it. If something goes wrong with the modded devices you sell, it reflects poorly on the manufacturer...not you. This is what Apple is trying to avoid.
I have to ask why not? There are modding industries for every other substantial product out there be it automobiles, motorcycles, guns, tools or whatever. Why should Apple have special rights here? A Mac or IPhone isn't any different than any other consummer item when it comes to the desire to tailor it for personal needs.
I don't buy blaming Apple for a bad mod either. If you put tires on your truck that didn't come with it and then end up with no traction in snow do you blame Ford. Or doe you blame Ford when you blow the head gaskets after installing one to many turbo chargers? Why should Apple be any different?
You have some serious rethinking to do, Dave, you don't seem to understand what's going on. Almost none of your rights you listed are being removed (except selling a modded device...which, frankly, was never a right to begin with.)
Frankly you really need to look in the mirror on this one. Apple has clearly demonstrated this week that they are indeed going after those rights outlined. They haven't been successful yet but it is pretty clear that they are putting the legal machinery in place to severly restrict ones ability to exercise those rights.
As to modded hardware I'm not sure where you get the idea that it is illegal. You can't trade on somebody elses good name but modded and customized consummer goods have been around a long time. This has even been the case with Apple hardware with the ModBook being a current example.
ModBook actually brings up an interesting point as it demonstrates that there is a market for Mac OS/X on hardware supported by other vendors. Kinda blows one of Apples arguements out of the water.
Dave