Apple isn't dictating what you do AFTER you make a purchase. Apple is trying to dictate to Psystar what it can do BEFORE you make a purchase.
Take note that Apple isn't suing some lone consumer who went out an installed OSX on a PC. It is suing a corporation who is using Apple's intellectual property to sell a product at Apple's expense.
There is a difference between what a consumer does with copyrighted material after it is bought, and what a corporation does with copyrighted material after it is bought. If a regular consumer installed OSX for himself, this would be fair-use under the copyright laws. Psystar cannot do the same thing because it is trying to make a profit.
The consumer qualifies for an exception to the general monopoly Apple is granted in it's copyright because it is for non commercial use and is not significantly interfering with Apple's business model. Psystar does not qualify because it's use is for profit. .
Quote:
Originally Posted by cylack
Big corporations should not be allowed to dictate what we can do once we make a purchase.
It also governs its unlicensed disribution (of the modified product) at a profit, especially if there is a business behind it.
You missed that part.
You're comparing Psystar to an individual doing something for their own personal use/enjoyment.
Not the same thing at all.
I buy a book. I tear out 5 pages. I sell it to someone else.
That's legal.
I buy a book. I tear out 5 pages. I scan it into my computer and print out a copy. I sell it to someone else.
That's illegal.
A company buys 5000 books. The company tears out 5 pages from each book. They sell the books to customers.
That's legal.
A company buys 1 book. The company tears out 5 pages from that book. The company scans it into my computer and print out 5000 copies. They sell the copies to customers.
Case in point, I've built several Hackintoshs using the very handy HCLs, walkthroughs and code supplied through InsanelyMac and other sources. I have no problem with and see nothing illegal about altering IP that you use on a personal level. But what Psystar is doing is illegal on many levels. Worse than that, it's against a free market system and they are doomed even if they could win this case. Still waiting for g3pro to respond to my question on that.
Can you please repeat your bullshit question for everyone?
Apple isn't dictating what you do AFTER you make a purchase. Apple is trying to dictate to Psystar what it can do BEFORE you make a purchase. .
Psystar was the one who purchased the original copies of the operating system, not the purchaser of the computer. The word you are looking for is "end-user".
They state that they are and theur whole business model is built around selling a retail copy of Mac OS X on a DVD even if the installed version is not from that DVD.
When you purchase an Open Computer or OpenPro you understand that you are not purchasing a computer made by Apple Computers, Inc. You understand that Apple Computers does not support the Open Computer or OpenPro in any capacity and that they may not approve of your usage of the Open Computer. In the same token Psystar does not guarantee that each and every program and feature will operate correctly as the Open Computer and/or OpenPro is not supported by Apple Computers. Psystar does not develop the OS X operating system. All copies of OS X sold by Psystar are legitimately licensed and purchased from Apple Computers and are not pirated in any way. Psystar does not guarantee that any of your peripherals, Apple-related or not, will function correctly. Psystar will not be responsible for your usage of the Open Computer and/or OpenPro in any way. Psystar is not responsible for any legal repercussions brought upon you due to your use or involvement with the Open Computer and/or OpenPro
Unfortunately what the say and what they do aren't necessarily the same thing which I I wouldn't be confident at all that they are purchasing copies. I wouldn't expect them to state in their documentation that
All copies of OS X sold by Psystar are pirated from Apple Computers.
You can also buy an OEM copy of Windows if you are "building" a computer, which comes down to licence of the person you are buying the parts from, of course this is covered by Microsoft's EULA which is different to Apple's EULA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
No it isn't. OEM licensed copies of Windows are cheaper. Dell buys OEM copies of Windows, and it is only allowed to do so in order to re-sell said copies. If you purchase an OEM copy and use it as an end-user, you are breaking the license agreement.
It's a pretty stupid agreement if you ask me. It just comes down to semantics. Why should the consumer effectively pay Microsoft two different prices for the same thing depending on the channel through which he buys it? (i.e. buy at retail and you pay $199 for Windows, but buy a new computer from Dell and you're effectively paying $99 for Windows.) Of course, if you as an end-user buy an OEM copy and install it on your own machine for your own use, and later get caught you could say that you bought the OEM copy, installed it on the machine, sold the machine to your mother (legitimising the OEM copy) and then she sold it back to you.
Unfortunately what the say and what they do aren't necessarily the same thing which I I wouldn't be confident at all that they are purchasing copies.
I'm certain that they are. Besides their whole BS business model being built around the fallacy that shipping a retail copy of Mac OS X means we hack and and duplicate it, there is anecdotal evidence of popular tech site blogging about their Psystar experience to see exactly what they get with the purchase. The images always show a retail copy of Mac OS X Leopard. Of course, that copy could have fallen off the back of a truck.
MS' OEM partner licensing strictly forbids them from reselling OEM discs without the accompanying HW, yet I've heard of people being able to do so.
Sure. But Microsoft also sells OEM licensed copies to resellers for smaller assembly outfits that don't deal directly with Microsoft.
For example, there's a reseller in the UK called dabs.com. They sell both the retail version of Vista, and the OEM version. Dabs.com is one of the biggest and most succesful online retailers for computer-related items in the UK, they've been selling OEM copies of Windows for years and years so I'm sure if Microsoft didn't want them to, they wouldn't be doing it.
The retail version has better packaging and costs £112.98, the OEM version is functionally exactly the same and costs £71.28.
According to the OEM license (the XP version of which I have read, BTW), I am allowed to purchase the OEM version for installation onto a machine for subsequent reselling. So, as I said, if I buy a Mac, and the OEM version of Windows, install Windows on the Mac with bootcamp, and then sell that Mac to my mother, she has a legitimately licensed copy of Windows and I haven't broken the OEM licence agreement.
How come my mum gets to pay only £71.28 for Windows, but I've got to pay £112.98? Like I said, it's OK because my mum can sell me back the Mac and strictly speaking no-one's broken the OEM license.
You are clearly somebody who doesn't have a understanding of copyright law. A copyright is a monopoly granted under the Constitution of the United States. The end user license is essentially a contract under which the copyright holder grants another party the right to use it's copyrighted work.
For instance, if McDonald's wants to use Gene Roddenberry's Captain Kirk character in a commercial to sell it's Big Macs it has to get Roddenberry's permission. Roddenberry can dictate the exact terms under which McDonald's can use the character. So, if Roddenberry says McDonald's can use the character for one month in it's commercials, no court in the US would allow McDonald's to use it for two months even though MacDonald's paid for one. Further, if McDonald's bought a James T. Kirk doll at Toys R' Us, it couldn't legally use that doll in a commercial to sell Big Macs without Roddenberry's permission both because of copyright and trademark issues.
Apple simply hasn't given Psystar permission to use OSX at all. Unlike use regular folks, Psystar doesn't have permission to buy the OS at all, much less install it.
Copyright law recognizes some exceptions that prevent a copyright holder from exercising a total monopoly over a copyrighted work. One would be allowing a consumer to use a copyrighted work as he or she sees fit after the purchase provided the use is both non commercial and doesn't interfere with the copyright holder's business.
Psystar, however, is trying to use Apple's copyrighted work to make a profit at Apple's expense. The court's have never allowed that.
Furthermore, prosecution is what a government does when somebody does something illegal. Companies can't prosecute. They can certainly persecute and sue in civil court. In addition, it likely would be illegal for a consumer to buy a car, modify it's computer, and re-sell it without the manufacturer's permission if the consumer made a business out of doing so. This is because of both copyright and trademark law. Microsoft and Sony threaten to sue people all the time for doing just what you suggest with X-Boxes and and Playstations. Mod chips are illegal because they alter the copyright holders copyright for commercial gain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro
Apple might have a problem with it, and it looks like it does, but since Psystar's copies of OS X are are all legal, purchased copies of Mac OS X, Apple does not really have a foot to stand on legally other than their EULA.
Buying something, modifying it, and then selling it IS LEGAL as long as copyright was not violated. The only thing it violates is whatever crap Apple has in its EULA.
It is like saying that someone buys a car, modifies its internal computer, and sells it again is committing an illegal act and can be prosecuted by the car manufacturer, which is simply bogus.
How come my Mum gets to pay only £71.28 for Windows, but I've got to pay £112.98? Like I said, it's OK because my Mum can sell me back the Mac and strictly speaking no-one's broken the OEM license.
At first glance it looks like the OEM version is wholesale pricing with only a mark up from the wholesale reseller. That is common enough, but the OEM version also takes any support or warranty off MS' shoulders. I've been going through MS' OEM partner site and it's confusing, to say the least. Their URL hierarchy is bullocks. That sounds like a reasonable rate difference and allows those who, say, purchased an HP with Vista last year and who upgrade to a retail version of Windows 7 to get support from MS as HP will not support that. You and I don't need that insurance, but I can see who would need that support.
If you build and sell new PCs or servers, you are a system builder. Whether you build one system a month or more than a hundred systems, Microsoft offers operating systems software and application software, acquired from Authorized Microsoft OEM Distributors, specifically for you to preinstall on the systems you build.
7.\t End User Support. You must provide end user support for the Software or Hardware. You will provide support under terms\tat\tleast\tas\tfavorable\tto\tthe\tend\tuse r\tas\tthe\tterms\tthat\tyou\tprovide\tto\tsupport \tany\tCustomer\tSystem.\tAt\ta\t
Apple simply hasn't given Psystar permission to use OSX at all. Unlike use regular folks, Psystar doesn't have permission to buy the OS at all, much less install it.
Psystar doesn't have PERMISSION to buy the OS? Are you bonkers?
Quote:
Psystar, however, is trying to use Apple's copyrighted work to make a profit at Apple's expense. The court's have never allowed that.
The courts have never allowed resale? Are you insane?
And you say "at Apple's expense". Do you even know what you are saying? Apple gets paid IN FULL for each copy of Mac OS X it sells to Psystar.
At first glance it looks like the OEM version is wholesale pricing with only a mark up from the wholesale reseller. That is common enough, but the OEM version also takes any support or warranty off MS' shoulders. I've been going through MS' OEM partner site and it's confusing, to say the least. Their URL hierarchy is bullocks. That sounds like a reasonable rate difference and allows those who, say, purchased an HP with Vista last year and who upgrade to a retail version of Windows 7 to get support from MS as HP will not support that. You and I don't need that insurance, but I can see who would need that support.
If you build and sell new PCs or servers, you are a system builder. Whether you build one system a month or more than a hundred systems, Microsoft offers operating systems software and application software, acquired from Authorized Microsoft OEM Distributors, specifically for you to preinstall on the systems you build.
7.\t End User Support. You must provide end user support for the Software or Hardware. You will provide support under terms\tat\tleast\tas\tfavorable\tto\tthe\tend\tuse r\tas\tthe\tterms\tthat\tyou\tprovide\tto\tsupport \tany\tCustomer\tSystem.\tAt\ta\t
PS: I could have been wakeboarding and kiteboarding today but instead I'm reading legal mumbo jumbo that are making my eyes tired and brain hurt.
Ah yes, it's a support thing. Why call it an OEM version? Why the clause about re-selling? Why not an "OEM/reduced support" version - the OEM version as it stands is identifiable to Microsoft as an OEM version through its license key so they can deny support to anyone using an OEM version as an end-user.
You do know that Joe Blow can buy copies of Microsft Windows XP legally, install them on computers he builds himself, and sell those computers legally without being a "licensed OEM partner" or whatever bullshit you come up with, right?
...how to make a million dollars loading full retail copies of Windows onto hand-built PCs?
The courts have never allowed resale? Are you insane?
You're not allowed to modify and re-sell at a profit. Would Psystar be able to sell its machines if they weren't running OS X? OS X is the only remarkable thing about them - without it Psystar is just another box maker and you may as well save some money by getting the same specs for less from DELL.
So Psystar is modifying Apple's IP in order to make a profit; I'm pretty sure that's illegal.
Even if you don't know anything about law, it's been obvious for a long time now that Psystar is a joke. Just look at the crap they've been coming out with. Read the story that this thread is supposedly about. You cannot be serious if you think these guys have a snowball's chance in hell of winning any legal battle, even if they were right!
Psystar doesn't have PERMISSION to buy the OS? Are you bonkers?
And you say "at Apple's expense". Do you even know what you are saying? Apple gets paid IN FULL for each copy of Mac OS X it sells to Psystar.
The EULA says what can be done and what cannot be done by agreement. Psystar is in dutch not because they are buying it, but because Apple believes they are in violation of that EULA via the use of the OS. Apple's challenge is in place regardless of how many uninvolved end-users think they like the terms of the EULA or not.
As for Apple's expense, unlike MS and pick-your-nix, also profit from the sale of the Apple computers tied to the OS. In the realm of new computers, yes, Apple additionally profits from the sale of the "whole shebang" NIB units, and originally made money on the Apple branded computer that subsequent OS versions get installed on. Separately, Apple's expenses might also be involved if people with an Apple OS on their machine start marching into Apple's service universe kvetching and demanding satisfaction.
Apple has a user experience reputation to maintain (#1 in laptops & smartphone customer satisfaction), and things like this are seen as a treat. So they respond.
Comments
Take note that Apple isn't suing some lone consumer who went out an installed OSX on a PC. It is suing a corporation who is using Apple's intellectual property to sell a product at Apple's expense.
There is a difference between what a consumer does with copyrighted material after it is bought, and what a corporation does with copyrighted material after it is bought. If a regular consumer installed OSX for himself, this would be fair-use under the copyright laws. Psystar cannot do the same thing because it is trying to make a profit.
The consumer qualifies for an exception to the general monopoly Apple is granted in it's copyright because it is for non commercial use and is not significantly interfering with Apple's business model. Psystar does not qualify because it's use is for profit. .
Big corporations should not be allowed to dictate what we can do once we make a purchase.
It also governs its unlicensed disribution (of the modified product) at a profit, especially if there is a business behind it.
You missed that part.
You're comparing Psystar to an individual doing something for their own personal use/enjoyment.
Not the same thing at all.
I buy a book. I tear out 5 pages. I sell it to someone else.
That's legal.
I buy a book. I tear out 5 pages. I scan it into my computer and print out a copy. I sell it to someone else.
That's illegal.
A company buys 5000 books. The company tears out 5 pages from each book. They sell the books to customers.
That's legal.
A company buys 1 book. The company tears out 5 pages from that book. The company scans it into my computer and print out 5000 copies. They sell the copies to customers.
That's illegal.
And that's intellectual property law.
Case in point, I've built several Hackintoshs using the very handy HCLs, walkthroughs and code supplied through InsanelyMac and other sources. I have no problem with and see nothing illegal about altering IP that you use on a personal level. But what Psystar is doing is illegal on many levels. Worse than that, it's against a free market system and they are doomed even if they could win this case. Still waiting for g3pro to respond to my question on that.
Can you please repeat your bullshit question for everyone?
Apple isn't dictating what you do AFTER you make a purchase. Apple is trying to dictate to Psystar what it can do BEFORE you make a purchase. .
Psystar was the one who purchased the original copies of the operating system, not the purchaser of the computer. The word you are looking for is "end-user".
They state that they are and theur whole business model is built around selling a retail copy of Mac OS X on a DVD even if the installed version is not from that DVD.
Unfortunately what the say and what they do aren't necessarily the same thing which I I wouldn't be confident at all that they are purchasing copies. I wouldn't expect them to state in their documentation that
No it isn't. OEM licensed copies of Windows are cheaper. Dell buys OEM copies of Windows, and it is only allowed to do so in order to re-sell said copies. If you purchase an OEM copy and use it as an end-user, you are breaking the license agreement.
It's a pretty stupid agreement if you ask me. It just comes down to semantics. Why should the consumer effectively pay Microsoft two different prices for the same thing depending on the channel through which he buys it? (i.e. buy at retail and you pay $199 for Windows, but buy a new computer from Dell and you're effectively paying $99 for Windows.) Of course, if you as an end-user buy an OEM copy and install it on your own machine for your own use, and later get caught you could say that you bought the OEM copy, installed it on the machine, sold the machine to your mother (legitimising the OEM copy) and then she sold it back to you.
Unfortunately what the say and what they do aren't necessarily the same thing which I I wouldn't be confident at all that they are purchasing copies.
I'm certain that they are. Besides their whole BS business model being built around the fallacy that shipping a retail copy of Mac OS X means we hack and and duplicate it, there is anecdotal evidence of popular tech site blogging about their Psystar experience to see exactly what they get with the purchase. The images always show a retail copy of Mac OS X Leopard. Of course, that copy could have fallen off the back of a truck.
MS' OEM partner licensing strictly forbids them from reselling OEM discs without the accompanying HW, yet I've heard of people being able to do so.
Sure. But Microsoft also sells OEM licensed copies to resellers for smaller assembly outfits that don't deal directly with Microsoft.
For example, there's a reseller in the UK called dabs.com. They sell both the retail version of Vista, and the OEM version. Dabs.com is one of the biggest and most succesful online retailers for computer-related items in the UK, they've been selling OEM copies of Windows for years and years so I'm sure if Microsoft didn't want them to, they wouldn't be doing it.
The retail version has better packaging and costs £112.98, the OEM version is functionally exactly the same and costs £71.28.
According to the OEM license (the XP version of which I have read, BTW), I am allowed to purchase the OEM version for installation onto a machine for subsequent reselling. So, as I said, if I buy a Mac, and the OEM version of Windows, install Windows on the Mac with bootcamp, and then sell that Mac to my mother, she has a legitimately licensed copy of Windows and I haven't broken the OEM licence agreement.
How come my mum gets to pay only £71.28 for Windows, but I've got to pay £112.98? Like I said, it's OK because my mum can sell me back the Mac and strictly speaking no-one's broken the OEM license.
For instance, if McDonald's wants to use Gene Roddenberry's Captain Kirk character in a commercial to sell it's Big Macs it has to get Roddenberry's permission. Roddenberry can dictate the exact terms under which McDonald's can use the character. So, if Roddenberry says McDonald's can use the character for one month in it's commercials, no court in the US would allow McDonald's to use it for two months even though MacDonald's paid for one. Further, if McDonald's bought a James T. Kirk doll at Toys R' Us, it couldn't legally use that doll in a commercial to sell Big Macs without Roddenberry's permission both because of copyright and trademark issues.
Apple simply hasn't given Psystar permission to use OSX at all. Unlike use regular folks, Psystar doesn't have permission to buy the OS at all, much less install it.
Copyright law recognizes some exceptions that prevent a copyright holder from exercising a total monopoly over a copyrighted work. One would be allowing a consumer to use a copyrighted work as he or she sees fit after the purchase provided the use is both non commercial and doesn't interfere with the copyright holder's business.
Psystar, however, is trying to use Apple's copyrighted work to make a profit at Apple's expense. The court's have never allowed that.
Furthermore, prosecution is what a government does when somebody does something illegal. Companies can't prosecute. They can certainly persecute and sue in civil court. In addition, it likely would be illegal for a consumer to buy a car, modify it's computer, and re-sell it without the manufacturer's permission if the consumer made a business out of doing so. This is because of both copyright and trademark law. Microsoft and Sony threaten to sue people all the time for doing just what you suggest with X-Boxes and and Playstations. Mod chips are illegal because they alter the copyright holders copyright for commercial gain.
Apple might have a problem with it, and it looks like it does, but since Psystar's copies of OS X are are all legal, purchased copies of Mac OS X, Apple does not really have a foot to stand on legally other than their EULA.
Buying something, modifying it, and then selling it IS LEGAL as long as copyright was not violated. The only thing it violates is whatever crap Apple has in its EULA.
It is like saying that someone buys a car, modifies its internal computer, and sells it again is committing an illegal act and can be prosecuted by the car manufacturer, which is simply bogus.
A company buys 5000 books. The company tears out 5 pages from each book. They sell the books to customers.
That's legal..
No, it's not legal. You can not modify a copyrighted work without permission.
it's Big Macs … it's commercials … The court's have never … it's computer
If you want to give the impression you know what you're talking about, it helps to get basic punctuation right. Read my signature and learn.
How come my Mum gets to pay only £71.28 for Windows, but I've got to pay £112.98? Like I said, it's OK because my Mum can sell me back the Mac and strictly speaking no-one's broken the OEM license.
At first glance it looks like the OEM version is wholesale pricing with only a mark up from the wholesale reseller. That is common enough, but the OEM version also takes any support or warranty off MS' shoulders. I've been going through MS' OEM partner site and it's confusing, to say the least. Their URL hierarchy is bullocks. That sounds like a reasonable rate difference and allows those who, say, purchased an HP with Vista last year and who upgrade to a retail version of Windows 7 to get support from MS as HP will not support that. You and I don't need that insurance, but I can see who would need that support. PS: I could have been wakeboarding and kiteboarding today but instead I'm reading legal mumbo jumbo that are making my eyes tired and brain hurt.
No, it's not legal. You can not modify a copyrighted work without permission.
Oh my gosh! I accidentally crossed words out in my book! And then I sold it to someone else. I just broke the LAW!!!
You people will go to any lengths to defend Apple's anti-competitive actions, even if it means abandoning common sense and reason.
Apple simply hasn't given Psystar permission to use OSX at all. Unlike use regular folks, Psystar doesn't have permission to buy the OS at all, much less install it.
Psystar doesn't have PERMISSION to buy the OS? Are you bonkers?
Psystar, however, is trying to use Apple's copyrighted work to make a profit at Apple's expense. The court's have never allowed that.
The courts have never allowed resale? Are you insane?
And you say "at Apple's expense". Do you even know what you are saying? Apple gets paid IN FULL for each copy of Mac OS X it sells to Psystar.
At first glance it looks like the OEM version is wholesale pricing with only a mark up from the wholesale reseller. That is common enough, but the OEM version also takes any support or warranty off MS' shoulders. I've been going through MS' OEM partner site and it's confusing, to say the least. Their URL hierarchy is bullocks. That sounds like a reasonable rate difference and allows those who, say, purchased an HP with Vista last year and who upgrade to a retail version of Windows 7 to get support from MS as HP will not support that. You and I don't need that insurance, but I can see who would need that support. PS: I could have been wakeboarding and kiteboarding today but instead I'm reading legal mumbo jumbo that are making my eyes tired and brain hurt.
Ah yes, it's a support thing. Why call it an OEM version? Why the clause about re-selling? Why not an "OEM/reduced support" version - the OEM version as it stands is identifiable to Microsoft as an OEM version through its license key so they can deny support to anyone using an OEM version as an end-user.
You do know that Joe Blow can buy copies of Microsft Windows XP legally, install them on computers he builds himself, and sell those computers legally without being a "licensed OEM partner" or whatever bullshit you come up with, right?
...how to make a million dollars loading full retail copies of Windows onto hand-built PCs?
Easy - start with $2M.
...how to make a million dollars loading full retail copies of Windows onto hand-built PCs?
Easy - start with $2M.
When you have to compete with the ridiculously overpriced computers from Apple, you have a lot of room to make a profit.
The courts have never allowed resale? Are you insane?
You're not allowed to modify and re-sell at a profit. Would Psystar be able to sell its machines if they weren't running OS X? OS X is the only remarkable thing about them - without it Psystar is just another box maker and you may as well save some money by getting the same specs for less from DELL.
So Psystar is modifying Apple's IP in order to make a profit; I'm pretty sure that's illegal.
Even if you don't know anything about law, it's been obvious for a long time now that Psystar is a joke. Just look at the crap they've been coming out with. Read the story that this thread is supposedly about. You cannot be serious if you think these guys have a snowball's chance in hell of winning any legal battle, even if they were right!
If you want to give the impression you know what you're talking about, it helps to get basic punctuation right. Read my signature and learn.
Psystar doesn't have PERMISSION to buy the OS? Are you bonkers?
And you say "at Apple's expense". Do you even know what you are saying? Apple gets paid IN FULL for each copy of Mac OS X it sells to Psystar.
The EULA says what can be done and what cannot be done by agreement. Psystar is in dutch not because they are buying it, but because Apple believes they are in violation of that EULA via the use of the OS. Apple's challenge is in place regardless of how many uninvolved end-users think they like the terms of the EULA or not.
As for Apple's expense, unlike MS and pick-your-nix, also profit from the sale of the Apple computers tied to the OS. In the realm of new computers, yes, Apple additionally profits from the sale of the "whole shebang" NIB units, and originally made money on the Apple branded computer that subsequent OS versions get installed on. Separately, Apple's expenses might also be involved if people with an Apple OS on their machine start marching into Apple's service universe kvetching and demanding satisfaction.
Apple has a user experience reputation to maintain (#1 in laptops & smartphone customer satisfaction), and things like this are seen as a treat. So they respond.