Apple has no agreement with Pystar, nor did Pystar attempt to obtain one. Apple either owns (by their own invention) or licenses every single aspect of OS X.
You aren't even close here the vast majority of OS/X is built upon open source code. Think about what lies at the core; BSD, BASH, GCC & friends, Python and a whole bunch of other stuff. Apple includes every single licensing statement with each Mac too. It is an extremely long document and as such I urge you to read it. In places it could be argued they aren't compliant with software licenses themselves. Mac OS/X is not a simple collection of Apple built software, rather it is a composite of many pieces of code.
You aren't even close here the vast majority of OS/X is built upon open source code.
And Psystar is well within their rights to use any of that open source code within the letter of the license. But Mac OS X is not open source. If Psystar want's to install Darwin there is nothing that would prevent them from doing so, but Darwin is not Mac OS X.
This is very very wrong, with every Pystar sale Apple is making a profit off the OS/X CD that gets sold with their machine. They get everything they deserve under the doctrine of right of first sale.
This assumes that the retail price of OS X pays off all of the expense of developing OS X and leaving some profit for Apple. This is very likely not the case.
If Apple were to actually attempt to make profit directly from OS X the same way as MS does from Windows, they would have to charge much much more.
Quote:
It however doesn't guarantee them infinite income from a product that has already been sold.
How does Apple make infinite income from a product that's already been sold? If you buy a new version of OS X, that's a new product.
Quote:
It is a very sound arguement and honestly if you don't get it and defend the concept you are going to get royally screwed in the future. What you aresuggesting is that consummers should give up all rights to the products they buy.
Exactly what consumer rights are you talking about? No one has a right to own any of Apple's products, you choose to own Apple's products.
Consumer rights essentially boil down to the consumer feeling satisfied that the product/service reasonably meets the expectations of what they agreed to pay for. Companies do not use false or deceptive practices. Companies do not unfairly limit the freedom of competition in its market. Outside of those, companies are largely free to sell their products how they feel are most effective.
One aspect that seems to be forgotten in this thread is that OS X is worth more than $129, in terms of the R&D Apple spent to develop it.
Edit: TenoBell just brought the same argument.
OS X doesn't cost 10x less than Windows to develop, yet it has less than 10% of the market share. While MS certainly has to spend more on R&D to make sure Windows work with all hardware variations, it certainly does not make it 10x more expensive to make.
To put it simply, the $129 price on OS X is subsidized by Mac hardware sales.
If Apple had no Mac hardware revenue, it would have to increase the price of the OS substantially to avoid losing money on their investment in R&D. OS X retail would have to be sold for something like $300-$400 (and that's not necessarily counting the loss of pure profit on Mac hardware)
Maybe Apple could sell OS X for $500 to anyone that wants it, including companies like Psystar, with a $371 rebate to those who can prove they own a Mac. I guess they should also do something similar with iLife, which also has a price subsidized by Mac sales. That would silence critics which mainly argue about the idea that Apple wants to dictate what people do with the OS they bought, even though the end result would be similar.
This assumes that the retail price of OS X pays off all of the expense of developing OS X and leaving some profit for Apple. This is very likely not the case.
Don't be suckered into debating a pure red herring argument. Apple could charge nothing or a million dollars for an OSX install disk -- the price has no bearing whatsoever on their intellectual property rights. In fact prior to 7.0, Apple gave away copies of the MacOS. Did that give anyone the right to install it on Mac clones and sell them? No, it did not.
So again, a fundamental logical mistake is being made, even by some of us who realize that what Psystar is doing isn't legal. It makes no difference how many parts which go into a Mac are generic, or what Apple charges us for any one of the parts. It's the sum-total of the parts that make the device. The alternative is like saying if you can buy steering wheels for Toyotas, that you're entitled to build Toyota cars. It's a nonsense argument from word go, and the only reason anyone makes it, is because of Microsoft. They think Apple should be in the same business as Microsoft, and even if Apple doesn't want to be in the same business, they should be forced into it.
You really need to wake up, Apple is doing what they are required to do to protect their business.
Sure they think that. I don't doubt that Apple wants to protect their business but they have a moral obligation to respect the law and not try to pervert it. Pystar has a right to do what they are doing until proven otherwise. Apple needs to prove they are on the right side of the law here based on clear and concise reasoning, going on fishing trips to destroy Psystar before they get to the meat of the law does not put them in very good light. This especially the case when it is pretty clear that Apple isn't on the right side of the law here.
If Apple ends this case without facing the legal arguements a good portion of their consummer base is not going to take that well at all.
Quote:
Psystar is OBVIOUSLY nothing more than a massive scam and you'd have to be pretty dense to be on their side in the first place.
I've stated before it is not a case of being on their side but rather see that right wins over wrong in this case. Frankly I do hope that Psystar is a front for a deep pockets company and that Apples approach to it's IP is dealt with harshly. The important thing is if this big fish fries it won't be long afterward that the cell phone companies will be dealt with.
It is actually interesting that Apple and the cell phone companies have gotten away with this crap they have for so long. I guess it is a case of deep pockets lubricating the wheels of government in their favor. This it is sad that this private effort is required to set Apple straight. Frankly anybody that stands up for the way corporate America and Apple specifically, treats the American consummer is the dense one. Continue on butdont come running to me when your freedoms end up on the auction block.
You aren't even close here the vast majority of OS/X is built upon open source code.
Hmm.. no. You're not an Apple developer aren't you? Do you have any idea how vast are the Cocoa and Carbon frameworks and APIs? Apple built a lot of stuff on top of the UNIX layer.
OS X is much more than UNIX with a pretty window manager.
I'm certain that the vast majority of the OS X code comes from Apple, and that's just for the APIs/frameworks/UI. I'm not even counting the Finder and other Apple apps that are bundled with the OS. The most used UNIX parts are mainly low-level stuff dealing with memory and the file system. The rest, such as Python and friends are mainly there to provide UNIX compatibility, to make it easier to port apps from the UNIX/Linux side, and the vast majority of Mac apps use the native OS X APIs.
... Apple needs to prove they are on the right side of the law here based on clear and concise reasoning ... it is pretty clear that Apple isn't on the right side of the law here ... it is not a case of being on their side but rather see that right wins over wrong in this case ... Frankly I do hope that ... Apples approach to it's IP is dealt with harshly.
I've read you making this argument lots of times now but it never makes any sense and you never seem to back it up with anything concrete or any evidence. Here you lay it out again, even though the two parts of this argument are wholly contradictory. You say that you just want the "right" party to win, but you also always say that it's so clear that Apple isn't that party. If you were judging the case yourself, you'd have to recuse yourself because of your obvious bias, but it doesn't occur to you that this same bias might be affecting your personal beliefs in the matter at hand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
... The important thing is if this big fish fries it won't be long afterward that the cell phone companies will be dealt with ... It is ... interesting that Apple and the cell phone companies have gotten away with this crap ... for so long. I guess it is a case of deep pockets lubricating the wheels of government in their favor. ...
You also always do this part wherein you link the evil anti-consumer Apple with the evil anti-consumer cell phone companies, but you again never really explain the linkage.
Given that almost no-one agrees with your point of view (even the anti-Apple folks on this forum generally just hate Apple for no specific reason), did it ever occur to you that maybe you are the one with the weird, biased point of view? Maybe you'd like to explain the giant conspiracy you've worked out in regards Apple and the cell phone companies instead of just throwing out that Apple's approach to their IP is "wrong" and should be dealt with harshly?
Is it just the (long since discredited), old idea that you should have the "right to do whatever you want" with hardware and software you bought? Or do you actually have a new idea on this that we haven't thought of?
What I find interesting is that (as I understand it) Psystar is not who is reverse engineering the Apple code to get it to work on generic PC's, it's the myriad of hackers out there who are creating software patches and boot disks. Psystar is basically packaging it up and profiting from the work of both parties.
Because of these facts, Apple is in for a bit of a wild goose chase...while the predictable cease and desist order will stop Psystar, it does not stop the hackers who spend their time reverse engineering the code and sharing it on torrent sites.
In all honesty though, I really believe that rather than spending millions of dollars on lawyers, Apple should consider packaging the OS for resale on PC's. No doubt they would at least earn *some* money and increase their OS market share.
Oh so now is revealed a whole anti-corporate slant to your argument. While there are indeed reasons to be angry with some companies and reasons to be angry with how our government regulates some types of industries. I feel that once you grow up and understand that the situation is pretty complex you put away the general feelings of being anit-corporate.
To simply state it, just because you don't like Apple's business practices does not make them against the law. Anyone who looks at the situation with an unbiased view can clearly see that Psystar is breaking the law.
I can agree that mobile phone carriers in the US have not at all had the good of the consumer at mind in their business practices, but again most of what they are doing is not against the law. In the end the natural flow of markets and competition will force them to change. As the mobile market matures they will be forced to compete for a smaller number of potential subscribers, that will swing the balance back in favor of the consumer. I think this process is already happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I've stated before it is not a case of being on their side but rather see that right wins over wrong in this case. Frankly I do hope that Psystar is a front for a deep pockets company and that Apples approach to it's IP is dealt with harshly. The important thing is if this big fish fries it won't be long afterward that the cell phone companies will be dealt with.
It is actually interesting that Apple and the cell phone companies have gotten away with this crap they have for so long. I guess it is a case of deep pockets lubricating the wheels of government in their favor. This it is sad that this private effort is required to set Apple straight. Frankly anybody that stands up for the way corporate America and Apple specifically, treats the American consummer is the dense one. Continue on butdont come running to me when your freedoms end up on the auction block.
Apple has never actively gone after the hackintosh community, who are the ones actively building software to boot OS X on generic PC's. As long as they are only doing this for personal use and not to make a business out of it, Apple has left them alone.
The hackintosh community isn't very happy with Psystar, because Psystar is using their work to profit from. Psystar is essentially using other people's efforts for their business and contributing nothing back to anyone.
Selling retail copies of OS X for any PC would pit Apple directly against Microsoft. Fighting Microsoft where it is most strong, that is a battle Apple cannot win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesGr
What I find interesting is that (as I understand it) Psystar is not who is reverse engineering the Apple code to get it to work on generic PC's, it's the myriad of hackers out there who are creating software patches and boot disks. Psystar is basically packaging it up and profiting from the work of both parties.
Because of these facts, Apple is in for a bit of a wild goose chase...while the predictable cease and desist order will stop Psystar, it does not stop the hackers who spend their time reverse engineering the code and sharing it on torrent sites.
In all honesty though, I really believe that rather than spending millions of dollars on lawyers, Apple should consider packaging the OS for resale on PC's. No doubt they would at least earn *some* money and increase their OS market share.
Apple has never actively gone after the hackintosh community, who are the ones actively building software to boot OS X on generic PC's. As long as they are only doing this for personal use and not to make a business out of it, Apple has left them alone.
Right, which should signal us that this is not a fight to preserve the integrity of the OSX EULA.
From a practical standpoint its impossible to police every situation that can violate the EULA. Microsoft cannot totally protect every copy of Windows or Office from being used on more than one computer.
In both cases Apple and Microsoft would have to defend the EULA if someone is bold enough to attempt to create a business from its flagrant violation. To not address such a violation renders the EULA effectively useless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Right, which should signal us that this is not a fight to preserve the integrity of the OSX EULA.
This is very very wrong, with every Pystar sale Apple is making a profit off the OS/X CD that gets sold with their machine. They get everything they deserve under the doctrine of right of first sale.
That only pertains to the first sale of the original. There's also the sale of the adaption copy of OSX that is in the computers Pystar sells. Pystar needs a license or permission to sell or transfer that copy.
It's like if you buy some one's painting and use an image of it in an advertisement. The painter don't get any more money from the original other than from the sale of that original. But he does deserve to get paid for the use of the image of it that you used in your advertisement. Unless there were terms drawn up that allowed you to use it in an advertisement when you purchased it.
Quote:
It however doesn't guarantee them infinite income from a product that has already been sold. It is no different than selling your chain saw sitting in the garage, you would not expect to split the proceeds withthe builder would you?
It's more like you buying a CD and then using one of it's song in a commercial to promote your product or a movie. The copyright holder deserves to get compenpensated for that usage. Even though you bought the CD. What the copyright holder don't get paid for again is if you sell that original copy of the CD.
Or if you bought a chain saw and used one of it's patented technology in a chain saw that you're developing. Buying the chain saw didn't give you the right to use the patents that goes into making it. The chain saw maker don't expect to make anymore money than from the original sale. But they do expect some form of compensation for using their IP in your chain saw. And that's only if they allow you to use it.
Quote:
It is a very sound arguement and honestly if you don't get it and defend the concept you are going to get royally screwed in the future. What you aresuggesting is that consummers should give up all rights to the products they buy. Then by extension you want corporations to do the same. Frankly this is no different than buying a ball bearing to stick into the new widget you are about to sell.
You will always have the right to buy a Harry Potter book and use the pages to line your bird cage.
You will always have the right to buy OSX and use the DVD as a drink coaster or Frisbee.
You will always have the right to buy any product and throw it away or not ever use it.
You will always have the right to not buy a product because you don't like the terms.
You will always have the right to do anything you wish with the product you bought so long as it's not against the law and it doesn't infringe upon the IP owner rights to derive income from that product or devalues the product that he is selling.
You buying a ball bearing to use in your widget do not infringe upon the ball bearing maker right to make money selling his ball bearings. You buying some else's widget and then reselling as your own does. Or you making a widget and marketing it using some one's established brand name on it.
You have the right to buy a BMW fuel pump and install it on your Honda, if you think this makes it run better. Honda does not have the right to buy 100,000 BMW fuel pumps and install it on the Hondas they sell. And then claim their Hondas runs like a BMW.
Quote:
Frankly your desire to color the people generally against Apple here is also a mistake. I don't really care if Pystar survives or not what I want to see come to an end is this blatant abuse of power by Apple and other companies. What is really sad about this is that people like you dont seem to realize what you are giving up. If Apple wins here it will change the face of America and not for the better.
Dave
Well, it's evident from this quote that you will never have to worry about creating and owning any "Intellectual" Property.
From a practical standpoint its impossible to police every situation that can violate the EULA. Microsoft cannot totally protect every copy of Windows or Office from being used on more than one computer.
In both cases Apple and Microsoft would have to defend the EULA if someone is bold enough to attempt to create a business from its flagrant violation. To not address such a violation renders the EULA effectively useless.
My point is, the EULA is not really the critical issue here. A book doesn't come wrapped in a EULA, but the prohibitions against someone other than the rights holders using it for profit are enforceable just the same.
Since Apple does not OEM their OS, then you could construe that every purchaser is an end user, Psystar included - they might just float a EULA trial balloon. But yes, DMCA would be the large mallet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Psystar is not the end-user. Hence the EULA does not apply to them. As far as I can tell, the only problem area for Psystar in terms of "traditional" copyright law is derivative works, and as I've tried to point out, that's far from clear-cut.
The DMCA however, is a bigger problem for Psystar.
Comments
Apple has no agreement with Pystar, nor did Pystar attempt to obtain one. Apple either owns (by their own invention) or licenses every single aspect of OS X.
You aren't even close here the vast majority of OS/X is built upon open source code. Think about what lies at the core; BSD, BASH, GCC & friends, Python and a whole bunch of other stuff. Apple includes every single licensing statement with each Mac too. It is an extremely long document and as such I urge you to read it. In places it could be argued they aren't compliant with software licenses themselves. Mac OS/X is not a simple collection of Apple built software, rather it is a composite of many pieces of code.
Dave
You aren't even close here the vast majority of OS/X is built upon open source code.
And Psystar is well within their rights to use any of that open source code within the letter of the license. But Mac OS X is not open source. If Psystar want's to install Darwin there is nothing that would prevent them from doing so, but Darwin is not Mac OS X.
This is very very wrong, with every Pystar sale Apple is making a profit off the OS/X CD that gets sold with their machine. They get everything they deserve under the doctrine of right of first sale.
This assumes that the retail price of OS X pays off all of the expense of developing OS X and leaving some profit for Apple. This is very likely not the case.
If Apple were to actually attempt to make profit directly from OS X the same way as MS does from Windows, they would have to charge much much more.
It however doesn't guarantee them infinite income from a product that has already been sold.
How does Apple make infinite income from a product that's already been sold? If you buy a new version of OS X, that's a new product.
It is a very sound arguement and honestly if you don't get it and defend the concept you are going to get royally screwed in the future. What you aresuggesting is that consummers should give up all rights to the products they buy.
Exactly what consumer rights are you talking about? No one has a right to own any of Apple's products, you choose to own Apple's products.
Consumer rights essentially boil down to the consumer feeling satisfied that the product/service reasonably meets the expectations of what they agreed to pay for. Companies do not use false or deceptive practices. Companies do not unfairly limit the freedom of competition in its market. Outside of those, companies are largely free to sell their products how they feel are most effective.
Psystar is free to use UNIX, the hard part making the user interface. Its easier to cheat off of someone else's work.
You aren't even close here the vast majority of OS/X is built upon open source code.
Edit: TenoBell just brought the same argument.
OS X doesn't cost 10x less than Windows to develop, yet it has less than 10% of the market share. While MS certainly has to spend more on R&D to make sure Windows work with all hardware variations, it certainly does not make it 10x more expensive to make.
To put it simply, the $129 price on OS X is subsidized by Mac hardware sales.
If Apple had no Mac hardware revenue, it would have to increase the price of the OS substantially to avoid losing money on their investment in R&D. OS X retail would have to be sold for something like $300-$400 (and that's not necessarily counting the loss of pure profit on Mac hardware)
Maybe Apple could sell OS X for $500 to anyone that wants it, including companies like Psystar, with a $371 rebate to those who can prove they own a Mac. I guess they should also do something similar with iLife, which also has a price subsidized by Mac sales. That would silence critics which mainly argue about the idea that Apple wants to dictate what people do with the OS they bought, even though the end result would be similar.
This assumes that the retail price of OS X pays off all of the expense of developing OS X and leaving some profit for Apple. This is very likely not the case.
Don't be suckered into debating a pure red herring argument. Apple could charge nothing or a million dollars for an OSX install disk -- the price has no bearing whatsoever on their intellectual property rights. In fact prior to 7.0, Apple gave away copies of the MacOS. Did that give anyone the right to install it on Mac clones and sell them? No, it did not.
So again, a fundamental logical mistake is being made, even by some of us who realize that what Psystar is doing isn't legal. It makes no difference how many parts which go into a Mac are generic, or what Apple charges us for any one of the parts. It's the sum-total of the parts that make the device. The alternative is like saying if you can buy steering wheels for Toyotas, that you're entitled to build Toyota cars. It's a nonsense argument from word go, and the only reason anyone makes it, is because of Microsoft. They think Apple should be in the same business as Microsoft, and even if Apple doesn't want to be in the same business, they should be forced into it.
You really need to wake up, Apple is doing what they are required to do to protect their business.
Sure they think that. I don't doubt that Apple wants to protect their business but they have a moral obligation to respect the law and not try to pervert it. Pystar has a right to do what they are doing until proven otherwise. Apple needs to prove they are on the right side of the law here based on clear and concise reasoning, going on fishing trips to destroy Psystar before they get to the meat of the law does not put them in very good light. This especially the case when it is pretty clear that Apple isn't on the right side of the law here.
If Apple ends this case without facing the legal arguements a good portion of their consummer base is not going to take that well at all.
Psystar is OBVIOUSLY nothing more than a massive scam and you'd have to be pretty dense to be on their side in the first place.
I've stated before it is not a case of being on their side but rather see that right wins over wrong in this case. Frankly I do hope that Psystar is a front for a deep pockets company and that Apples approach to it's IP is dealt with harshly. The important thing is if this big fish fries it won't be long afterward that the cell phone companies will be dealt with.
It is actually interesting that Apple and the cell phone companies have gotten away with this crap they have for so long. I guess it is a case of deep pockets lubricating the wheels of government in their favor. This it is sad that this private effort is required to set Apple straight. Frankly anybody that stands up for the way corporate America and Apple specifically, treats the American consummer is the dense one. Continue on butdont come running to me when your freedoms end up on the auction block.
Dave
You aren't even close here the vast majority of OS/X is built upon open source code.
Hmm.. no. You're not an Apple developer aren't you? Do you have any idea how vast are the Cocoa and Carbon frameworks and APIs? Apple built a lot of stuff on top of the UNIX layer.
OS X is much more than UNIX with a pretty window manager.
I'm certain that the vast majority of the OS X code comes from Apple, and that's just for the APIs/frameworks/UI. I'm not even counting the Finder and other Apple apps that are bundled with the OS. The most used UNIX parts are mainly low-level stuff dealing with memory and the file system. The rest, such as Python and friends are mainly there to provide UNIX compatibility, to make it easier to port apps from the UNIX/Linux side, and the vast majority of Mac apps use the native OS X APIs.
... Apple needs to prove they are on the right side of the law here based on clear and concise reasoning ... it is pretty clear that Apple isn't on the right side of the law here ... it is not a case of being on their side but rather see that right wins over wrong in this case ... Frankly I do hope that ... Apples approach to it's IP is dealt with harshly.
I've read you making this argument lots of times now but it never makes any sense and you never seem to back it up with anything concrete or any evidence. Here you lay it out again, even though the two parts of this argument are wholly contradictory. You say that you just want the "right" party to win, but you also always say that it's so clear that Apple isn't that party. If you were judging the case yourself, you'd have to recuse yourself because of your obvious bias, but it doesn't occur to you that this same bias might be affecting your personal beliefs in the matter at hand?
... The important thing is if this big fish fries it won't be long afterward that the cell phone companies will be dealt with ... It is ... interesting that Apple and the cell phone companies have gotten away with this crap ... for so long. I guess it is a case of deep pockets lubricating the wheels of government in their favor. ...
You also always do this part wherein you link the evil anti-consumer Apple with the evil anti-consumer cell phone companies, but you again never really explain the linkage.
Given that almost no-one agrees with your point of view (even the anti-Apple folks on this forum generally just hate Apple for no specific reason), did it ever occur to you that maybe you are the one with the weird, biased point of view? Maybe you'd like to explain the giant conspiracy you've worked out in regards Apple and the cell phone companies instead of just throwing out that Apple's approach to their IP is "wrong" and should be dealt with harshly?
Is it just the (long since discredited), old idea that you should have the "right to do whatever you want" with hardware and software you bought? Or do you actually have a new idea on this that we haven't thought of?
Because of these facts, Apple is in for a bit of a wild goose chase...while the predictable cease and desist order will stop Psystar, it does not stop the hackers who spend their time reverse engineering the code and sharing it on torrent sites.
In all honesty though, I really believe that rather than spending millions of dollars on lawyers, Apple should consider packaging the OS for resale on PC's. No doubt they would at least earn *some* money and increase their OS market share.
To simply state it, just because you don't like Apple's business practices does not make them against the law. Anyone who looks at the situation with an unbiased view can clearly see that Psystar is breaking the law.
I can agree that mobile phone carriers in the US have not at all had the good of the consumer at mind in their business practices, but again most of what they are doing is not against the law. In the end the natural flow of markets and competition will force them to change. As the mobile market matures they will be forced to compete for a smaller number of potential subscribers, that will swing the balance back in favor of the consumer. I think this process is already happening.
I've stated before it is not a case of being on their side but rather see that right wins over wrong in this case. Frankly I do hope that Psystar is a front for a deep pockets company and that Apples approach to it's IP is dealt with harshly. The important thing is if this big fish fries it won't be long afterward that the cell phone companies will be dealt with.
It is actually interesting that Apple and the cell phone companies have gotten away with this crap they have for so long. I guess it is a case of deep pockets lubricating the wheels of government in their favor. This it is sad that this private effort is required to set Apple straight. Frankly anybody that stands up for the way corporate America and Apple specifically, treats the American consummer is the dense one. Continue on butdont come running to me when your freedoms end up on the auction block.
The hackintosh community isn't very happy with Psystar, because Psystar is using their work to profit from. Psystar is essentially using other people's efforts for their business and contributing nothing back to anyone.
Selling retail copies of OS X for any PC would pit Apple directly against Microsoft. Fighting Microsoft where it is most strong, that is a battle Apple cannot win.
What I find interesting is that (as I understand it) Psystar is not who is reverse engineering the Apple code to get it to work on generic PC's, it's the myriad of hackers out there who are creating software patches and boot disks. Psystar is basically packaging it up and profiting from the work of both parties.
Because of these facts, Apple is in for a bit of a wild goose chase...while the predictable cease and desist order will stop Psystar, it does not stop the hackers who spend their time reverse engineering the code and sharing it on torrent sites.
In all honesty though, I really believe that rather than spending millions of dollars on lawyers, Apple should consider packaging the OS for resale on PC's. No doubt they would at least earn *some* money and increase their OS market share.
That should be "Rush"...but it's probably for the best that the link's wrong anyway
Ah yes. Classic case of happy fingers while typing.
I corrected it anyway, with hopes that they will go there - and STAY there!
Apple has never actively gone after the hackintosh community, who are the ones actively building software to boot OS X on generic PC's. As long as they are only doing this for personal use and not to make a business out of it, Apple has left them alone.
Right, which should signal us that this is not a fight to preserve the integrity of the OSX EULA.
In both cases Apple and Microsoft would have to defend the EULA if someone is bold enough to attempt to create a business from its flagrant violation. To not address such a violation renders the EULA effectively useless.
Right, which should signal us that this is not a fight to preserve the integrity of the OSX EULA.
This is very very wrong, with every Pystar sale Apple is making a profit off the OS/X CD that gets sold with their machine. They get everything they deserve under the doctrine of right of first sale.
That only pertains to the first sale of the original. There's also the sale of the adaption copy of OSX that is in the computers Pystar sells. Pystar needs a license or permission to sell or transfer that copy.
It's like if you buy some one's painting and use an image of it in an advertisement. The painter don't get any more money from the original other than from the sale of that original. But he does deserve to get paid for the use of the image of it that you used in your advertisement. Unless there were terms drawn up that allowed you to use it in an advertisement when you purchased it.
It however doesn't guarantee them infinite income from a product that has already been sold. It is no different than selling your chain saw sitting in the garage, you would not expect to split the proceeds withthe builder would you?
It's more like you buying a CD and then using one of it's song in a commercial to promote your product or a movie. The copyright holder deserves to get compenpensated for that usage. Even though you bought the CD. What the copyright holder don't get paid for again is if you sell that original copy of the CD.
Or if you bought a chain saw and used one of it's patented technology in a chain saw that you're developing. Buying the chain saw didn't give you the right to use the patents that goes into making it. The chain saw maker don't expect to make anymore money than from the original sale. But they do expect some form of compensation for using their IP in your chain saw. And that's only if they allow you to use it.
It is a very sound arguement and honestly if you don't get it and defend the concept you are going to get royally screwed in the future. What you aresuggesting is that consummers should give up all rights to the products they buy. Then by extension you want corporations to do the same. Frankly this is no different than buying a ball bearing to stick into the new widget you are about to sell.
You will always have the right to buy a Harry Potter book and use the pages to line your bird cage.
You will always have the right to buy OSX and use the DVD as a drink coaster or Frisbee.
You will always have the right to buy any product and throw it away or not ever use it.
You will always have the right to not buy a product because you don't like the terms.
You will always have the right to do anything you wish with the product you bought so long as it's not against the law and it doesn't infringe upon the IP owner rights to derive income from that product or devalues the product that he is selling.
You buying a ball bearing to use in your widget do not infringe upon the ball bearing maker right to make money selling his ball bearings. You buying some else's widget and then reselling as your own does. Or you making a widget and marketing it using some one's established brand name on it.
You have the right to buy a BMW fuel pump and install it on your Honda, if you think this makes it run better. Honda does not have the right to buy 100,000 BMW fuel pumps and install it on the Hondas they sell. And then claim their Hondas runs like a BMW.
Frankly your desire to color the people generally against Apple here is also a mistake. I don't really care if Pystar survives or not what I want to see come to an end is this blatant abuse of power by Apple and other companies. What is really sad about this is that people like you dont seem to realize what you are giving up. If Apple wins here it will change the face of America and not for the better.
Dave
Well, it's evident from this quote that you will never have to worry about creating and owning any "Intellectual" Property.
From a practical standpoint its impossible to police every situation that can violate the EULA. Microsoft cannot totally protect every copy of Windows or Office from being used on more than one computer.
In both cases Apple and Microsoft would have to defend the EULA if someone is bold enough to attempt to create a business from its flagrant violation. To not address such a violation renders the EULA effectively useless.
My point is, the EULA is not really the critical issue here. A book doesn't come wrapped in a EULA, but the prohibitions against someone other than the rights holders using it for profit are enforceable just the same.
If Psystar wins here how does that benefit the consumer in any way?
Heh heh. You were expecting a serious answer to this excellent question?
I hate to say this, but it is wasted in a largely wasted part of the thread.
Psystar is not the end-user. Hence the EULA does not apply to them. As far as I can tell, the only problem area for Psystar in terms of "traditional" copyright law is derivative works, and as I've tried to point out, that's far from clear-cut.
The DMCA however, is a bigger problem for Psystar.