You're not a 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.
I am not allowed to buy a computer, add an internal harddrive and DVD-R, and sell it for a profit? What law is that breaking?
Quote:
So Psystar is modifying Apple's IP in order to make a profit; I'm pretty sure that's illegal.
Software is like tickets to a baseball game now? Anti-scalping laws for Mac OS X?
Quote:
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!
I don't think it's crap. They sell cost-effective computers without the stylistic excess from Apple.
When you have to compete with the ridiculously overpriced computers from Apple, you have a lot of room to make a profit.
Ah. You must have been in line behind my colleague who bought a PC laptop at Radio Shack for $700 and beamed about his wisdom. That was before he found out lovely things like the 2 hour battery, no firewire, and a 768v 16" screen. w00t! I feel confident with my $999 white nvidia FW MacBook.
I am not allowed to buy a computer, add an internal harddrive and DVD-R, and sell it for a profit? What law is that breaking?
A computer is hardware and not subject to copyright laws.
We're talking about modifying copyright material (software) and re-selling for a profit. That's a potential violation of derivative-work copyright law.
I'll grant you that it's arguable that the modifications made are so minor that the OS on a Pystar is too similar to be considered a derivative work. However, even if that's the case, it's almost certain that Psystar are violating the DMCA by circumventing Apple's anti-copying measures.
Ah. You must have been in line behind my colleague who bought a PC laptop at Radio Shack for $700 and beamed about his wisdom. That was before he found out lovely things like the 2 hour battery, no firewire, and a 768v 16" screen. w00t! I feel confident with my $999 white nvidia FW MacBook.
I forgot that Apple has the sole patent on products worthy of purchase by consumers.
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!
On top of that, I've asked every Psystar supporter on these boards to describe what would happen if Psystar wins and how it would benefit the consumer. I can't get a single answer, but I've thought about it and the answer is that Psystar's business still goes south and the consumer loses.
They never consider why it's only one small shop selling Macs with OS X on it, why Dell and HP with the money for good lawyers having been making their own clones and why the previous cloners didn't just keep making clones with retail copies of OS X if it is perfectly legal (and obvious).
Apple would lose the least is Psystar won because they could up the price of the retail version until it isn't worth the trouble. MS sells stunted versions of Windows for cheap machines but Apple only sells Mac OS X in one flavour so charging $499 for a retail copy kills their business and Apple can offer ways to get it for $129 if you have a Mac.
Microsoft could potentially lose the most as any installation of Mac OS X reduces their sales. Especially if Apple would then, backed into this hypothetically impossible corner, offer Dell and HP versions of the OS for certain machines at a certain price below retail. Psystar couldn't compete with that either.
There is no scenario, outside of socializing Mac OS X, in which Psystar could possibly come out ahead.
Is the OS on a Psystar a derivative work? Or is it so similar to OS X that it isn't and therefore the first-sale doctrine applies? (In which case, there's no copyright violation). The legal case for copyright infringement isn't as clear-cut as many of you think it is.
What is more clear cut is that Psystar is violating the DMCA (which as far as I can tell is more serious - isn't violating the DMCA a criminal offence rather than just a civil matter?) and is run by morons.
There's a hell of a lot of over-complication going on here. Forget about the EULA -- it really isn't the critical issue. The important issue is far more straight-forward.
Apple makes Macintosh computers. A Macintosh computer isn't just the hardware, and it isn't just the software. It's the combination of the two. Only Apple has the right to make Macintosh computers, because they own the intellectual property. And they don't have to allow anyone else to to make them just because it's possible. Full stop.
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.
It's not the same thing. You keep using the most horrid and inappropriate examples to illustrate your point.
But that's just fine. Come November you'll see exactly where Psystar will end up in this case, and perhaps you'll finally learn what for some reason you're not able to understand yet. Hint: You won't be able to purchase a non-Apple PC with OS X on it in 2010 in the US via public sale.
There's a hell of a lot of over-complication going on here. Forget about the EULA -- it really isn't the critical issue. The important issue is far more straight-forward.
Apple makes Macintosh computers. A Macintosh computer isn't just the hardware, and it isn't just the software. It's the combination of the two. Only Apple has the right to make Macintosh computers, because they own the intellectual property. And they don't have to allow anyone else to to make them just because it's possible. Full stop.
A Mac computer is a combination of commonly obtained PC components with proprietary components with a distinct exterior and form factor and Mac OS X.
Another way to think of it is this: is Psystar selling a Mac? Or is it selling a PC with an operating system installed on it sold by Apple?
Psystar is not selling a Mac by that definition. It doesn't even look like one!
Although I sometimes when in a hurry punctuate incorrectly, I understand the usage. Maybe it has something to do with living in the streets for a good portion of my early schooling when most other kids were solidifying their grammar lessons. I am not complaining though, as I somehow made it through law school and am even making a living at practicing law. To be truthful though, I am not interested in receiving a grammar lesson. I am interested in sharing ideas about intelligence property.
Clearly, I conveyed my thoughts well enough to be understood. Further, I fail to understand what intellectual property has to do with grammar. If I wrote you an email telling you that your house is on fire, I hope you wouldn't give me a grammar lesson before attending to the fire. I was sharing information on copyright. If you failed to find my thoughts compelling enough to address, would it be so hard to pass them over? I wouldn't be offended. Maybe your ego doesn't let you act in such a way.
Finally, perhaps you are to presumptuous. Maybe I am dyslectic. Maybe, English is my fourth language. Maybe, I hit the submit button before I edited my comments. The problem with correcting a stranger's grammar is that there is always somebody out there better at it then you. I probably am not one of those people, but perhaps you could tell me why your sentence fails to include a "that."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
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.
I forgot that Apple has the sole patent on products worthy of purchase by consumers.
Well, no, because that's not true. I merely provided a concrete example in the form of a comparison. His Toshiba now sits in the breakfast nook, unused, while he gets actual work done on his new MacBook. In your attempt at humor, you simply forgot that in the main, once you get a PC ramped up to the specs of a Mac, the price difference is smaller than many are willing to admit.
Comments
Oh my gosh! I accidentally crossed words out in my book! And then I sold it to someone else. I just broke the LAW!!!
If you make a business out of selling edited books without permission from the copyright holder you are breaking the law.
Ah wilco, nice of you to join us. Constructive as always!
You're not a 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.
I am not allowed to buy a computer, add an internal harddrive and DVD-R, and sell it for a profit? What law is that breaking?
So Psystar is modifying Apple's IP in order to make a profit; I'm pretty sure that's illegal.
Software is like tickets to a baseball game now? Anti-scalping laws for Mac OS X?
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!
I don't think it's crap. They sell cost-effective computers without the stylistic excess from Apple.
I don't think it's crap. They sell cost-effective computers without the stylistic excess from Apple.
I'm not taking about the product. I'm talking about the way the company is run. They're morons. Can't you see it?
When you have to compete with the ridiculously overpriced computers from Apple, you have a lot of room to make a profit.
Ah. You must have been in line behind my colleague who bought a PC laptop at Radio Shack for $700 and beamed about his wisdom. That was before he found out lovely things like the 2 hour battery, no firewire, and a 768v 16" screen. w00t! I feel confident with my $999 white nvidia FW MacBook.
If you make a business out of selling edited books without permission from the copyright holder you are breaking the law.
USED BOOK STORES?
Because the copyright holder has the magical power to have sole dominion in deciding who can sell books and who can not?
I am not allowed to buy a computer, add an internal harddrive and DVD-R, and sell it for a profit? What law is that breaking?
A computer is hardware and not subject to copyright laws.
We're talking about modifying copyright material (software) and re-selling for a profit. That's a potential violation of derivative-work copyright law.
I'll grant you that it's arguable that the modifications made are so minor that the OS on a Pystar is too similar to be considered a derivative work. However, even if that's the case, it's almost certain that Psystar are violating the DMCA by circumventing Apple's anti-copying measures.
Ah. You must have been in line behind my colleague who bought a PC laptop at Radio Shack for $700 and beamed about his wisdom. That was before he found out lovely things like the 2 hour battery, no firewire, and a 768v 16" screen. w00t! I feel confident with my $999 white nvidia FW MacBook.
I forgot that Apple has the sole patent on products worthy of purchase by consumers.
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!
On top of that, I've asked every Psystar supporter on these boards to describe what would happen if Psystar wins and how it would benefit the consumer. I can't get a single answer, but I've thought about it and the answer is that Psystar's business still goes south and the consumer loses.
They never consider why it's only one small shop selling Macs with OS X on it, why Dell and HP with the money for good lawyers having been making their own clones and why the previous cloners didn't just keep making clones with retail copies of OS X if it is perfectly legal (and obvious).
Apple would lose the least is Psystar won because they could up the price of the retail version until it isn't worth the trouble. MS sells stunted versions of Windows for cheap machines but Apple only sells Mac OS X in one flavour so charging $499 for a retail copy kills their business and Apple can offer ways to get it for $129 if you have a Mac.
Microsoft could potentially lose the most as any installation of Mac OS X reduces their sales. Especially if Apple would then, backed into this hypothetically impossible corner, offer Dell and HP versions of the OS for certain machines at a certain price below retail. Psystar couldn't compete with that either.
There is no scenario, outside of socializing Mac OS X, in which Psystar could possibly come out ahead.
USED BOOK STORES?
Because the copyright holder has the magical power to have sole dominion in deciding who can sell books and who can not?
Used book stores do not sell modified/edited books. They sell the original work.
If you have not grasped that by now you must be very thick so further discussion with you is pointless.
Used book stores do not sell modified/edited books. They sell the original work.
If you have not grasped that by now you must be very thick so further discussion with you is pointless.
See this wikipedia article on derivative work and its source.
Is the OS on a Psystar a derivative work? Or is it so similar to OS X that it isn't and therefore the first-sale doctrine applies? (In which case, there's no copyright violation). The legal case for copyright infringement isn't as clear-cut as many of you think it is.
What is more clear cut is that Psystar is violating the DMCA (which as far as I can tell is more serious - isn't violating the DMCA a criminal offence rather than just a civil matter?) and is run by morons.
Apple makes Macintosh computers. A Macintosh computer isn't just the hardware, and it isn't just the software. It's the combination of the two. Only Apple has the right to make Macintosh computers, because they own the intellectual property. And they don't have to allow anyone else to to make them just because it's possible. Full stop.
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.
It's not the same thing. You keep using the most horrid and inappropriate examples to illustrate your point.
But that's just fine. Come November you'll see exactly where Psystar will end up in this case, and perhaps you'll finally learn what for some reason you're not able to understand yet. Hint: You won't be able to purchase a non-Apple PC with OS X on it in 2010 in the US via public sale.
Used book stores do not sell modified/edited books. They sell the original work.
If you have not grasped that by now you must be very thick so further discussion with you is pointless.
So you are saying that used book stores do not sell used books which have highlighting in it, underlining, torn pages, missing pages?
There's a hell of a lot of over-complication going on here. Forget about the EULA -- it really isn't the critical issue. The important issue is far more straight-forward.
Apple makes Macintosh computers. A Macintosh computer isn't just the hardware, and it isn't just the software. It's the combination of the two. Only Apple has the right to make Macintosh computers, because they own the intellectual property. And they don't have to allow anyone else to to make them just because it's possible. Full stop.
A Mac computer is a combination of commonly obtained PC components with proprietary components with a distinct exterior and form factor and Mac OS X.
Another way to think of it is this: is Psystar selling a Mac? Or is it selling a PC with an operating system installed on it sold by Apple?
Psystar is not selling a Mac by that definition. It doesn't even look like one!
See this wikipedia article on derivative work and its source (still wikipedia, but has external links to full text of ruling).
Interesting case. I am surprised I hadn't heard of it before.
It's not the same thing. You keep using the most horrid and inappropriate examples to illustrate your point.
It's a comparison of similar principles. Intellectual property law applies to both.
My point stands.
Interesting case. I am surprised I hadn't heard of it before.
Oops, just realised the second link is all wrong. It should be this, which goes straight to the ruling.
Clearly, I conveyed my thoughts well enough to be understood. Further, I fail to understand what intellectual property has to do with grammar. If I wrote you an email telling you that your house is on fire, I hope you wouldn't give me a grammar lesson before attending to the fire. I was sharing information on copyright. If you failed to find my thoughts compelling enough to address, would it be so hard to pass them over? I wouldn't be offended. Maybe your ego doesn't let you act in such a way.
Finally, perhaps you are to presumptuous. Maybe I am dyslectic. Maybe, English is my fourth language. Maybe, I hit the submit button before I edited my comments. The problem with correcting a stranger's grammar is that there is always somebody out there better at it then you. I probably am not one of those people, but perhaps you could tell me why your sentence fails to include a "that."
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.
I forgot that Apple has the sole patent on products worthy of purchase by consumers.
Well, no, because that's not true. I merely provided a concrete example in the form of a comparison. His Toshiba now sits in the breakfast nook, unused, while he gets actual work done on his new MacBook. In your attempt at humor, you simply forgot that in the main, once you get a PC ramped up to the specs of a Mac, the price difference is smaller than many are willing to admit.