Apple says Psystar holding back info in Mac clone legal case

123457

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 157
    stevieleestevielee Posts: 50member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    I've admitted wrong on these boards in the past. There's no reason I shouldn't be willing to do it again.







    The reseller's license is the only thing of which I won't argue on Psystar's behalf. They don't have one. Does it matter? I'm not sure. There are hundreds of career power-sellers on eBay who get by without them, despite frequently reselling copyrighted work. I also don't understand this either. Regardless, I think it's the least important of the issues at stake here, so let's move on to something more substantial.



    I can't speak for Psystar's method, but I know there exist install methods that require no "hacking" of OS X code. With the proper bootloader, OS X install disks will run natively on certain third-party hardware.



    Regarding the copying of their software, that is the purpose of the install DVD. The DVD itself is not the copyrighted work, the OS is. When one buys that DVD, they are buying the right to install and use that code. The terms of the EULA attempt to bind that use to "Apple-labeled" hardware. This link is what is contested, as it's akin to saying that you can buy this $15 reproduction Monet painting, but you can only display it in a $150 "Monet-brand" frame.



    Psystar is purchasing reproductions, putting them in their own frame and reselling the bundle. The copyrighted work is still intact (depending on the install method), the copyright-holder is getting paid for every reproduction purchased. The only thing that's different is the frame, which isn't copyrighted anyway, so that shouldn't matter, should it?



    So what is this dispute really about? Installing one legally-purchased software DVD on one computer? No, it's Apple's overreaching EULA, which attempts to force end-users into buying a frame from Apple even though the reproduction is a legally-purchased, self-standing work.



    This is not about Apple protecting its IP at all... It's about protecting its extra dollar.



    -Clive



    Oh no... Now you've gone and done it. The Apple Firster's are going to come after you with all of their Apple Inc. retreaded, prior restrained, hell hath no copyrighted infringed fury that they can muster. They can never, ever allow, or entertain the idea of OSX being used in any way, by any one, "independent" of Apple branded and sanctioned hardware. Everyone that advocated otherwise - is certainly guilty of the lowest form of IP thuggery and theft that ever was. To them, the sacredness of highly restrictive EULA's is beyond question, and eternal.



    That is of course, until more and more independent minded binary hooligans quickly figured out that OSX performs flawlessly on almost any modern computer made (non-Apple branded) - with very minimal, or no (EFiX) code modifications - thus liberating the OS to the larger world of equipment options and competitive prices.



    Even if Psystar didn't install, bundle, offer, or include a retail copy of OSX, but just sold the base hardware - and then provided post purchase instructionals of how to get OSX up and running smoothly on that hardware (which to me, is a much better and legally safer tact to take), Apple, and all of the rest of the OSX closed loop crowd would still be up in arms because in at the end of the day, this is, and always has been about locking OSX permanently onto Apple's own machines - from which it can never, ever be separated - till hardware death do them part.
  • Reply 122 of 157
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by piot View Post


    Of course it's about dollars. What is the point of running a business and owning your own intellectual property if you can't make money from it?



    No one is taking Apple's IP... Apple is using an EULA to make its IP worth more than it actually is.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by piot View Post


    Why are you guys so pissed at Apple's requirement to only install on a Mac... but you have no problem with the requirement to only install on ONLY ONE computer?



    I may not be in the majority but one computer per license makes sense to me. If you replace your computer, most companies allow you to delicense the old one and reinstall on the new one (unless the company is EA and the software is SPORE, that is). If you own multiple computers, something like an OS should really have a license for each setup.



    Being forced to install the software on a certain set of hardware that is functionally equivalent to most 3rd party hardware is unjustified. Either Apple should allow everyone to purchase and install OS X, regardless of the configuration -or- not sell OS X as a stand-alone product at all.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stevielee View Post


    Oh no...



    hahaha! Substanceless, yet still hilarious!



    -Clive
  • Reply 123 of 157
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    No one is taking Apple's IP... Apple is using an EULA to make its IP worth more than it actually is.



    Being forced to install the software on a certain set of hardware that is functionally equivalent to most 3rd party hardware is unjustified. Either Apple should allow everyone to purchase and install OS X, regardless of the configuration -or- not sell OS X as a stand-alone product at all.




    Ok, let me try it this way. It is not a matter of their software over-reaching in any way at all. Apple is both a hardware and software company. While you are accurate to say that their parts for their computers are mainly off-the-shelf parts, that is their hardware.



    Here is the rub though. Their hardware can run OS X, Windows, Linux, Solaris, etc. However Windows doesn't care what kind of hardware you have, it says so in their agreement. Same thing for Linux, Solaris, CentOS, et. al. (BTW, while those may all be Open Source, you are still agreeing to use it with their agreement, even if the agreement is nothing more than "have fun with this software").



    Apple has decide that they only want their Operating System to be ran on Apple Hardware. They put it in their EULA. Does that mean that the end-user is going to do that; no. It also states quite plainly that it cannot be resold without a valid reseller's agreement. Resellers are a company that have access to shrink-wrapped boxes that they can buy in bulk and sell at an agreed amount of price (the MSRP, and yes, it is a suggestion).



    Psystar's arguement of since it can run on any hardware, it should be allowed to do so does not hold any water. The perfect instance is a cell phone. Just because the G1 can operate outside the T-Mobile network, the agreement they have says that it won't. Same thing for the iPhone. Unless they have an agreement to work with each other, they won't work. It is the same thing here. Psystar is basically trying to force Apple to allow them to sell computers with their OS (or to run on their network, as with the phone analogy). Apple is saying no, which is well within their rights, as they OWN the IP to their Operating System.
  • Reply 124 of 157
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    Either Apple should allow everyone to purchase and install OS X, regardless of the configuration -or- not sell OS X as a stand-alone product at all.



    Do you not see the stupidity of that statement?



    You are complaining that Apple won't allow you to install OS X on a PC

    and then in the next breath you say that it would be better if they didn't allow you to install it on the PC and on a Mac.



    Which option do you think is more anti consumer Clive?
  • Reply 125 of 157
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Perhaps Psystar doesn't want to produce any financial statements because they haven't got any. I wouldn't be surprised -- this seems like a real shoestring operation.



    Or they're getting their funding from some Jerk-off like Steve Ballmer
  • Reply 126 of 157
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by piot View Post


    Of course it's about dollars. What is the point of running a business and owning your own intellectual property if you can't make money from it?







    Why are you guys so pissed at Apple's requirement to only install on a Mac... but you have no problem with the requirement to only install on ONLY ONE computer?



    I couldn't agree with you more...... there are some real freakin communists on this site.



    Z
  • Reply 127 of 157
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zaphodsplanet View Post


    Or they're getting their funding from some Jerk-off like Steve Ballmer



    MS funding Psystar hurts MS no matter how you slice.
  • Reply 128 of 157
    [ed: How about NO]
  • Reply 129 of 157
    [ed: let's not, please]
  • Reply 130 of 157
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zaphodsplanet View Post


    I don't know if I'd agree with you on that. You see if Pystar....were actually successful in the crime they are committing... well.... then you start to drain the funds out of Apple eventually, thereby stifling the great innovation that comes out of there.



    Despite what they are doing being illegal, people mostly buy notebooks, which Psystar can't compete with. They also sell budget machines using cheap components, regardless of a GPU or CPU here or there in some of their machines that are powerful, the rest if of poor quality so they aren't hitting Apple's core business. What they are doing is taking away a Windows sale from a PC vendor. They may also be taking a retail copy of Windows away from DIYers but many of them probably just DL Windows anyway and could just build their OSx86 machine if they wanted without Psystar's added fees.



    So the only ones who are hurt by them is Microsoft. If Psystar were to win the case and Mac OS X was required to be licensed to other PC vendors then MS would be very damaged because the big PC vendors have been looking for ways to get from under MS' thumb for years. This would finally give them the opportunity. Of course, this is hypothetical scenario where Mac OS X becomes the only socialized OS in existence could never happen. Apple has a right to license their OS to whom ever and Psystar can't possibly win this case.. but you know that.
  • Reply 131 of 157
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zaphodsplanet View Post


    Capeche?



    Yes I do. But I don't agree. Suggest you tone down the insults.
  • Reply 132 of 157
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    We really don't need a repeat, continuance or escalation of the "If you don't agree with me, you're an idiot" kind of argument. If you don't understand that reasonable people can disagree reasonably on something and avoid seeing the other side as just being stupid or ignorant, maybe you don't belong here.
  • Reply 133 of 157
    stevieleestevielee Posts: 50member
    [ed: let's not, please]
  • Reply 134 of 157
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by piot View Post


    Do you not see the stupidity of that statement?



    You are complaining that Apple won't allow you to install OS X on a PC

    and then in the next breath you say that it would be better if they didn't allow you to install it on the PC and on a Mac.



    Which option do you think is more anti consumer Clive?



    When did I ever saying anything about "anti-consumer" or "pro-consumer"? This is about Apple selling an OS independently then trying to control its use after the point of sale. That is what is unjustified.



    And also, just because one might not be able to buy OS X as a stand-alone product doesn't mean they can't upgrade... Paid software updates, for example.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zaphodsplanet View Post


    Piot.... you have to realize something.... besides the fact that I completely agree with you.... Clive at Five probably smokes 5 joints a day so arguing with him is most likely not going to get you anywhere. Because quite frankly, I don't think his brain is all there. Cooked his noodle a little too much and he's not capable of understanding your completely logical and intelligent point of view. For him it's about getting everything for free. For him it's about taking and not giving. For him it's only about having his most selfish and immediate emotional needs met. He wants the new version of OS X and he's ticked because he's supposed to actually pay for it.



    Oh, that's a funny one, and totally relevant to the argument. I suggest Libertarianism in my signature and that means I'm a pot-smoking hippie, right? So if I told you I've never smoked dope once, it wouldn't matter because you have your mind made up about me already. Har har, a Libertarian, he must like weed. Har har.



    And what the hell is this about me being a communist? I want MORE free-market competition! When copyright and IP laws become too powerful, they have the opposite effect of actually shielding companies against competition, decreasing the incentive to continue innovating. We need a careful balance of these laws and it is my opinion that we've crossed the line in allowing companies to control a product's use past the point of sale.



    Is that too much "pot" for you to handle?



    -Clive
  • Reply 135 of 157
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fourthletter View Post


    Yes Hiro thats a lease do you understand the difference between a software licence and lease ?



    I do, but apparently in your haste you don't.



    Quote:

    every 3 years a leased item gets upgraded for free,



    They do? Sign me up for that free new Porsche upgrade!



    Now the truth is you don't get a free upgrade, at the end of three years (or whatever the lease period is) your widget gets taken away and your desk is empty. Normally just before that you are given the option to lease another widget which may be an upgrade for a higher price. Nobody comes to take away your OS X software, you leased it on a semi-perpetual basis.



    Quote:

    leased items break and they go back for repair, if I buy software then I own it, I do what I want with it,



    QFT!



    Leased/licensed software is repaired too. Have you ever heard of patches or software updates? And tell me, logically what does doing what you want with something have to do with whether or not something gets repaired as part of a lease? Oh wait, you can't because it doesn't. You just forgot to actually think straight before you wrote that sentence.



    Quote:

    Why are you defending corporations trying to get away with this shit, you'll be buying air to breath next, nope just leasing it really......iDiot



    Nice ad hom there. That all you got, 'cause your logic and knowledge were truly pathetic.
  • Reply 136 of 157
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    When did I ever saying anything about "anti-consumer" or "pro-consumer"?This is about Apple selling an OS independently then trying to control its use after the point of sale. That is what is unjustified.



    Well maybe I jumped to a conclusion but the whole 'after the point of sale' thing implies that the consumer is experiencing the problem that you are upset about.



    Quote:

    And also, just because one might not be able to buy OS X as a stand-alone product doesn't mean they can't upgrade... Paid software updates, for example.



    Clive, serious questions 'cos I'm getting confused.



    You have no problem with a PC hardware company creating it's own exclusive OS?

    You have no problem with the company selling new versions of their exclusive OS?

    You do have a problem if that OS is made available on a piece of plastic, over the counter?
  • Reply 137 of 157
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,205member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mike Eggleston View Post


    1) This case is a major thorn in Apple's side. Apple does not want to lose its tight integration of hardware and software,





    more to the point, the courts have already said that there is no such thing as a Macintosh market so Apple isn't in violation of anti-trust and they are within their legal rights to restrict the hardware, etc.



    Plus Psystar is on shaky ground with the copyright claim since they had to alter the software to make it work, thus in essence creating a Psystar Mac OS that is probably 95% copied from Apple.



    Add these games and the court might just make a summary judgment against Psystar to be done with them/him



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsenka View Post


    Apple can develop and market any product they want. What they should not be able to do, is tell people what they can do with those Apple products after purchase. You want to jailbreak your iPhone? That is none of Apple's business.



    you want to jailbreak your phone? go for it. but Apple doesn't have to support it/fix it when you screw it up.



    Quote:

    You buy OS X, but want to try to install it on a Super Nintendo? Dumb thing to try, but still your own right as a consumer who paid for the product to do so.



    again go for it.



    what you do for yourself is one thing. no one is likely going to know you did it anyway. it's when you go on the web and offer to jailbreak phones for a profit or to use that hack of the OS to make a profit that you are going way past the whole "I bought it so I should be able to do anything" game
  • Reply 138 of 157
    Wow nice one..
  • Reply 139 of 157
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by piot View Post


    Well maybe I jumped to a conclusion but the whole 'after the point of sale' thing implies that the consumer is experiencing the problem that you are upset about.



    I wouldn't be so black and white as to call it "pro" or "anti"-consumer. It, to me, reflects an inappropriate "privilege" as a vendor.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by piot View Post


    Clive, serious questions 'cos I'm getting confused.



    You have no problem with a PC hardware company creating it's own exclusive OS?

    You have no problem with the company selling new versions of their exclusive OS?

    You do have a problem if that OS is made available on a piece of plastic, over the counter?



    No, I don't have a problem with it being stamped on a piece of plastic and sold over the counter, but if Apple sells it like any other piece of software, they can't expect to be able to control its use after it leaves the store.



    That's why I say that they can either continue selling it as they do and shut up about Hackintoshes and Clones, or pull it and only make it available through closed channels, i.e. a paid Software Update.



    -Clive
  • Reply 140 of 157
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    IThat's why I say that they can either continue selling it as they do and shut up about Hackintoshes and Clones, or pull it and only make it available through closed channels, i.e. a paid Software Update.



    I love how your solution is to throw copyright and distribution law out the window (but only when it pertains to Apple) while inconveniencing the consumer at the same time.



    Apple has never gone after the OSx86 Project as they are not acting as a distributer. If Psystar bought OS X and used OS X to install on their personal machines, then fine Apple woudn't have bothered them, but they are selling their machines with a copied version of Mac OS X on the machines without getting permission to be a distributer. PSYSTAR IS NOT A CONSUMER! Ask your teacher about it when you finally get into your high school economics class.
Sign In or Register to comment.