Again this does NOT make sense because to put it bluntly this is not how court cases work. A case gets "thrown out" when the plaintiff has no case and plaintiff in this case is Apple. All Psystar could hope for by looking like idiots would be a summary judgment and that would basically give Apple everything it wants.
Looking around regarding the DMCA (Apple filed a claim against Psystar on this December 4, 2008) I found this little gem under Title 17 § 1203. Civil remedies of copyright law: "at any time while an action is pending, may order the impounding, on such terms as it deems reasonable, of any device or product that is in the custody or control of the alleged violator and that the court has reasonable cause to believe was involved in a violation"
Even if my first line makes no sense in your interpretation, you followed it by validating the rest of my statement, more or less, with your explanation and case finding.
also what Psystar is editing is more like removing a region check / other drm stuff in the movie then editing the movie it self.
Would that not amount to pirating said software? if they are intentionally defeating the DRM/keylocks, in order to utilize it in a manner it was not meant to be used?
Would that not be an entirely different case? Possibly federal and criminal? Especially since they are seeking to profit from it?
If Sony created and developed the Blu-Ray disk format, would they not have also created the association and therefore also, in essence be paid to license the format?
Anyway, since the association is a group of consumer electronics organizations, the producers of the hardware are insulated from the cost of licensing, thus only the "Member Companies" (Mostly movie studios and software providers) are paying the $50K annual fee.
If Sony created and developed the Blu-Ray disk format, would they not have also created the association and therefore also, in essence be paid to license the format?
Anyway, since the association is a group of consumer electronics organizations, the producers of the hardware are insulated from the cost of licensing, thus only the "Member Companies" (Mostly movie studios and software providers) are paying the $50K annual fee.
I thought it was like they all chipped in, so they all get a piece. So Sony doesn't suck up all the money from licensing, it's shared. Being that they started everything though, I wouldn't doubt they get more money than anyone else.
Even if my first line makes no sense in your interpretation, you followed it by validating the rest of my statement, more or less, with your explanation and case finding.
You seemed to miss the point. A summery judgment would acknowledge that there are these unnamed John Does and as part of the settlement Psystar would have to cough their names up or be found in contempt.
I thought it was like they all chipped in, so they all get a piece. So Sony doesn't suck up all the money from licensing, it's shared. Being that they started everything though, I wouldn't doubt they get more money than anyone else.
To be honest, if I did all of the work and provided most or all of the funding, I would want the majority of the reward as well.....
But, sony did learn from Beta, and made a standard that was better and offered more storage capacity., so they do nearly deserve the lions share........
Just a quick reference for people who belive they OWN their copy of Mac OSX, not just pay for the license to USE it.
"What is a license?" A license is an agreement to use software issued by a publisher that allows an individuals to use that software in the ways described in the End User License Agreement. Example: OS X may only be used on Apple computers. (Duh, Pystar loses)
"Proprietary Licensing" The most significant effect of this form of licensing is that, if ownership of the software remains with the software publisher, then the end-user must accept the software license. In other words, without acceptance of the license, the end-user may not use the software at all. (Duh, Pystar loses again)
Most of the people who complain about not being able to do what they will with software honestly think they own it. Did you pay millions of dollars to Apple to buy OS X? No, you're merely paying for the license to use it.
You seemed to miss the point. A summery judgment would acknowledge that there are these unnamed John Does and as part of the settlement Psystar would have to cough their names up or be found in contempt.
I get what you were saying, in essence. It's just how it was opened and worded I was drawing attention to. Also, the last part of my statement, if not under correct procedure or terminology, said what you did: that some finding would force them to produce everything being withheld.
I think we just sort of but heads on direction (terminology), but we both meant to get to the same destination in the end.
This is a bad anaology because Psystar doesn't claim Mac OS as their property.
But they're installing it on non-Apple systems which is strictly against Apple's EULA. See my above post about licensing agreements. Pystar installs it and MUST click that they agree to the EULA to install it. Is Pystar at the legal level to decide that Apple's EULA and licensing agreements are valid? No. If they had a problem, they need to settle it in court - not by acting like imbeciles.
But they're installing it on non-Apple systems which is strictly against Apple's EULA. See my above post about licensing agreements. Pystar installs it and MUST click that they agree to the EULA to install it. Is Pystar at the legal level to decide that Apple's EULA and licensing agreements are valid? No. If they had a problem, they need to settle it in court - not by acting like imbeciles.
I feel like I'm being repetitive, probably because I'm repeating myself. The EULA isn't the critical issue. The critical issue is that Psystar has no right to profit from intellectual property which they don't own. They would lack this right whether Apple included a EULA with OSX or not. I keep repeating this point if only because probably 90% of this debate could be lopped off if it was understood.
Most of the people who complain about not being able to do what they will with software honestly think they own it. Did you pay millions of dollars to Apple to buy OS X? No, you're merely paying for the license to use it.
Yeah, just like how when Apple decides for people what is objectionable and rejects an app from the app store, and then these idiots have the nerve to turn around and get mad that Apple decided that for them for a device they "own." Like, duh, DUH, just because you paid money for it doesn't mean it's yours to do whatever with it! Such morons for thinking when you buy something you actually own it. Jeez those people are dumb.
I feel like I'm being repetitive, probably because I'm repeating myself. The EULA isn't the critical issue. The critical issue is that Psystar has no right to profit from intellectual property which they don't own. They would lack this right whether Apple included a EULA with OSX or not. I keep repeating this point if only because probably 90% of this debate could be lopped off if it was understood.
Even if they did pay Apple for each copy of OSX, since there isn't a price tag it would be completely opinionated.
Bottom line, Psystar is stealing from Apple and they are wrong here. There's no debate about that.
Even if they did pay Apple for each copy of OSX, since there isn't a price tag it would be completely opinionated.
I suppose, but that's not my point. You can go to your local car dealership (if you still have one) and they will be happy to sell you all kinds of proprietary car parts. But that does not give you the right to assemble and sell their cars.
Quote:
Bottom line, Psystar is stealing from Apple and they are wrong here. There's no debate about that.
I don't know if I'd call it stealing per se, since they do (I will assume for purposes of discussion) pay for their copies of OSX. I'd call it more like poaching. Possibly not an important distinction.
The problem that created the need for the EULA is the fact that software does not really exist in a physical form. Since it ca be easily manipulated, hashing out the rights of the author and the rights of the user has been an on going battle. In real practice copywirte and patents have not really been as cut and dry when it comes to software.
Their have been several court battles where software was used in a way not intended by the author. The user argued that they saw no particular rule stipulating that the software could not be used in that particular way. The user has won several of these court battles over the author. Much of that is the reason you are forced to agree to terms before you are allowed to the use of most software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Possibly, but what I'm saying is that EULA or no EULA, nobody has the right to profit by the copyrighted or patented works of others without their express permission. The software industry may be peculiar in the sense that they make an effort to spell out use rights in detail on every copy sold, but whether they've done that or not, the basic principles of intellectual property protection don't change.
Do you really think that adding facts, logic and informed thinking is going to change the level of debate in a Psystar thread?
Begging your forgiveness most humbly...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The problem that created the need for the EULA is the fact that software does not really exist in a physical form. Since it ca be easily manipulated, hashing out the rights of the author and the rights of the user has been an on going battle. In real practice copywirte and patents have not really been as cut and dry when it comes to software.
Their have been several court battles where software was used in a way not intended by the author. The user argued that they saw no particular rule stipulating that the software could not be used in that particular way. The user has won several of these court battles over the author. Much of that is the reason you are forced to agree to terms before you are allowed to the use of most software.
I know that the software industry feels a need to protect their copyrights in this additional manner, for reasons which are somewhat unique to the industry. But the fact remains that intellectual property right are in force no matter how easy it may be to violate them.
I persist in making this point because it seems to be one of the keys to this entire debate. Some argue that the ability to violate is tantamount to permission to violate. Leaving your front door unlocked does not make it legal for someone to steal your TV. If someone breaks the lock on your front door to steal your TV, they've now violated two laws -- but stealing the TV is no more or less illegal. That's how I view the EULA -- as the lock on the door.
I don't know if I'd call it stealing per se, since they do (I will assume for purposes of discussion) pay for their copies of OSX. I'd call it more like poaching. Possibly not an important distinction.
How are they paying for it if Apple doesn't sell it alone?
How are they paying for it if Apple doesn't sell it alone?
I suppose they could walk into an Apple Store and buy copies right off the shelf, or order it from Amazon, which would be less expensive. Or did I misunderstand your question?
?If the motherboard is replaced because it is defective, you do NOT need to acquire a new operating system license for the PC. The replacement motherboard must be the same make/model or the same manufacturer's replacement/equivalent, as defined by that manufacturer's warranty.?
Comments
Again this does NOT make sense because to put it bluntly this is not how court cases work. A case gets "thrown out" when the plaintiff has no case and plaintiff in this case is Apple. All Psystar could hope for by looking like idiots would be a summary judgment and that would basically give Apple everything it wants.
Looking around regarding the DMCA (Apple filed a claim against Psystar on this December 4, 2008) I found this little gem under Title 17 § 1203. Civil remedies of copyright law: "at any time while an action is pending, may order the impounding, on such terms as it deems reasonable, of any device or product that is in the custody or control of the alleged violator and that the court has reasonable cause to believe was involved in a violation"
Even if my first line makes no sense in your interpretation, you followed it by validating the rest of my statement, more or less, with your explanation and case finding.
also what Psystar is editing is more like removing a region check / other drm stuff in the movie then editing the movie it self.
Would that not amount to pirating said software? if they are intentionally defeating the DRM/keylocks, in order to utilize it in a manner it was not meant to be used?
Would that not be an entirely different case? Possibly federal and criminal? Especially since they are seeking to profit from it?
No he didn't, you would pay the BDA to licence Blu-Ray, not Sony
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc
If Sony created and developed the Blu-Ray disk format, would they not have also created the association and therefore also, in essence be paid to license the format?
Anyway, since the association is a group of consumer electronics organizations, the producers of the hardware are insulated from the cost of licensing, thus only the "Member Companies" (Mostly movie studios and software providers) are paying the $50K annual fee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc
If Sony created and developed the Blu-Ray disk format, would they not have also created the association and therefore also, in essence be paid to license the format?
Anyway, since the association is a group of consumer electronics organizations, the producers of the hardware are insulated from the cost of licensing, thus only the "Member Companies" (Mostly movie studios and software providers) are paying the $50K annual fee.
I thought it was like they all chipped in, so they all get a piece. So Sony doesn't suck up all the money from licensing, it's shared. Being that they started everything though, I wouldn't doubt they get more money than anyone else.
Even if my first line makes no sense in your interpretation, you followed it by validating the rest of my statement, more or less, with your explanation and case finding.
You seemed to miss the point. A summery judgment would acknowledge that there are these unnamed John Does and as part of the settlement Psystar would have to cough their names up or be found in contempt.
I thought it was like they all chipped in, so they all get a piece. So Sony doesn't suck up all the money from licensing, it's shared. Being that they started everything though, I wouldn't doubt they get more money than anyone else.
To be honest, if I did all of the work and provided most or all of the funding, I would want the majority of the reward as well.....
But, sony did learn from Beta, and made a standard that was better and offered more storage capacity., so they do nearly deserve the lions share........
"What is a license?" A license is an agreement to use software issued by a publisher that allows an individuals to use that software in the ways described in the End User License Agreement. Example: OS X may only be used on Apple computers. (Duh, Pystar loses)
"Proprietary Licensing" The most significant effect of this form of licensing is that, if ownership of the software remains with the software publisher, then the end-user must accept the software license. In other words, without acceptance of the license, the end-user may not use the software at all. (Duh, Pystar loses again)
Most of the people who complain about not being able to do what they will with software honestly think they own it. Did you pay millions of dollars to Apple to buy OS X? No, you're merely paying for the license to use it.
You seemed to miss the point. A summery judgment would acknowledge that there are these unnamed John Does and as part of the settlement Psystar would have to cough their names up or be found in contempt.
I get what you were saying, in essence. It's just how it was opened and worded I was drawing attention to. Also, the last part of my statement, if not under correct procedure or terminology, said what you did: that some finding would force them to produce everything being withheld.
I think we just sort of but heads on direction (terminology), but we both meant to get to the same destination in the end.
This is a bad anaology because Psystar doesn't claim Mac OS as their property.
But they're installing it on non-Apple systems which is strictly against Apple's EULA. See my above post about licensing agreements. Pystar installs it and MUST click that they agree to the EULA to install it. Is Pystar at the legal level to decide that Apple's EULA and licensing agreements are valid? No. If they had a problem, they need to settle it in court - not by acting like imbeciles.
But they're installing it on non-Apple systems which is strictly against Apple's EULA. See my above post about licensing agreements. Pystar installs it and MUST click that they agree to the EULA to install it. Is Pystar at the legal level to decide that Apple's EULA and licensing agreements are valid? No. If they had a problem, they need to settle it in court - not by acting like imbeciles.
I feel like I'm being repetitive, probably because I'm repeating myself. The EULA isn't the critical issue. The critical issue is that Psystar has no right to profit from intellectual property which they don't own. They would lack this right whether Apple included a EULA with OSX or not. I keep repeating this point if only because probably 90% of this debate could be lopped off if it was understood.
Most of the people who complain about not being able to do what they will with software honestly think they own it. Did you pay millions of dollars to Apple to buy OS X? No, you're merely paying for the license to use it.
Yeah, just like how when Apple decides for people what is objectionable and rejects an app from the app store, and then these idiots have the nerve to turn around and get mad that Apple decided that for them for a device they "own." Like, duh, DUH, just because you paid money for it doesn't mean it's yours to do whatever with it! Such morons for thinking when you buy something you actually own it. Jeez those people are dumb.
I feel like I'm being repetitive, probably because I'm repeating myself. The EULA isn't the critical issue. The critical issue is that Psystar has no right to profit from intellectual property which they don't own. They would lack this right whether Apple included a EULA with OSX or not. I keep repeating this point if only because probably 90% of this debate could be lopped off if it was understood.
Even if they did pay Apple for each copy of OSX, since there isn't a price tag it would be completely opinionated.
Bottom line, Psystar is stealing from Apple and they are wrong here. There's no debate about that.
Even if they did pay Apple for each copy of OSX, since there isn't a price tag it would be completely opinionated.
I suppose, but that's not my point. You can go to your local car dealership (if you still have one) and they will be happy to sell you all kinds of proprietary car parts. But that does not give you the right to assemble and sell their cars.
Bottom line, Psystar is stealing from Apple and they are wrong here. There's no debate about that.
I don't know if I'd call it stealing per se, since they do (I will assume for purposes of discussion) pay for their copies of OSX. I'd call it more like poaching. Possibly not an important distinction.
also what Psystar is editing is more like removing a region check / other drm stuff in the movie then editing the movie it self.
Which is likely why Apple added DMCA to their list of charges against Psystar on Dec 2, 2008. More reason that delaying this case makes no sense.
I keep repeating this point if only because probably 90% of this debate could be lopped off if it was understood.
Do you really think that adding facts, logic and informed thinking is going to change the level of debate in a Psystar thread?
Personally I think some of the posters here have already had a little too much 'lopped off '
Their have been several court battles where software was used in a way not intended by the author. The user argued that they saw no particular rule stipulating that the software could not be used in that particular way. The user has won several of these court battles over the author. Much of that is the reason you are forced to agree to terms before you are allowed to the use of most software.
Possibly, but what I'm saying is that EULA or no EULA, nobody has the right to profit by the copyrighted or patented works of others without their express permission. The software industry may be peculiar in the sense that they make an effort to spell out use rights in detail on every copy sold, but whether they've done that or not, the basic principles of intellectual property protection don't change.
Do you really think that adding facts, logic and informed thinking is going to change the level of debate in a Psystar thread?
Begging your forgiveness most humbly...
The problem that created the need for the EULA is the fact that software does not really exist in a physical form. Since it ca be easily manipulated, hashing out the rights of the author and the rights of the user has been an on going battle. In real practice copywirte and patents have not really been as cut and dry when it comes to software.
Their have been several court battles where software was used in a way not intended by the author. The user argued that they saw no particular rule stipulating that the software could not be used in that particular way. The user has won several of these court battles over the author. Much of that is the reason you are forced to agree to terms before you are allowed to the use of most software.
I know that the software industry feels a need to protect their copyrights in this additional manner, for reasons which are somewhat unique to the industry. But the fact remains that intellectual property right are in force no matter how easy it may be to violate them.
I persist in making this point because it seems to be one of the keys to this entire debate. Some argue that the ability to violate is tantamount to permission to violate. Leaving your front door unlocked does not make it legal for someone to steal your TV. If someone breaks the lock on your front door to steal your TV, they've now violated two laws -- but stealing the TV is no more or less illegal. That's how I view the EULA -- as the lock on the door.
I don't know if I'd call it stealing per se, since they do (I will assume for purposes of discussion) pay for their copies of OSX. I'd call it more like poaching. Possibly not an important distinction.
How are they paying for it if Apple doesn't sell it alone?
How are they paying for it if Apple doesn't sell it alone?
I suppose they could walk into an Apple Store and buy copies right off the shelf, or order it from Amazon, which would be less expensive. Or did I misunderstand your question?
BZZZ WRONG. ALL Joe_the_dragon said was "not if your are replacing a dead / not working one." He did not say state due to defect.
If the motherboard is dead/not working, it is defective.
How it got defective is another matter.
Here's a better article (from Eric Ligman - Microsoft US Senior Manager)
http://blogs.msdn.com/mssmallbiz/arc...2/5424427.aspx
?If the motherboard is replaced because it is defective, you do NOT need to acquire a new operating system license for the PC. The replacement motherboard must be the same make/model or the same manufacturer's replacement/equivalent, as defined by that manufacturer's warranty.?
Here's more ->http://blogs.msdn.com/mssmallbiz/arc...6/8603850.aspx
Deal with it.