Psystar files for bankruptcy likely delaying Apple case

1234689

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 168
    davidwdavidw Posts: 971member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    With all the loose definitions of "theft" being thrown around and the multitude of Psystar bashing going on, I once again have arrived to stupidly stand up against a lashing similar to that of breaching dam to defend my opinion.



    Psystar is NOT stealing. They are an unauthorized reseller, and are breaking an EULA.



    A while back I posted this analogy, which I feel fits this situation perfectly.



    So say I buy bags and bags of Starbucks coffee beans at my local grocery store. With them, I open a coffee shop. It just so happens that my mochas are marvelous and my lattes luscious; so much so, in fact, that I'm starting to pull some business from the Starbucks down the block. I legally purchased the beans in the store, I paid exactly what they charged me, they're getting paid for all the coffee I brew. Do they posses the ability to sue me?



    SHOULD they posses that ability?



    In Psystar's case, they do not have a reseller's license so are technically committing a crime. The question is whether or not the law is appropriate.



    As for the EULA, EULAs cannot violate a user's rights. A court could determine that Apple's hardware is sufficiently equivalent to standard third-party hardware (as they should since it is as different from off-the-shelf parts as the different brands are to each other). That being the case, the court could subsequently determine that the EULA's mandate of "Apple labeled" hardware to be an irrelevant one, and ergo, a violation of consumer rights to be imposed.



    The situation is similar to an artist selling a $129 duplication of a copyrighted work, say a painting, but also mandating that you can't display the painting unless you also purchase a $2000 frame, which only he sells. Psystar is purchasing duplicates, putting them in their own, cheaper, less gaudy, more functional frames and reselling the package for less. Copyright law prohibits Psystar from reselling a copyrighted work, but does that make the artist's practice of mandating the purchase of a $2000 frame an ethical one?



    It is also my belief that resale of copyrighted material should be legal so long as the value of the original work is not damaged. In the two analogies I've shared (coffee and painting), the producers have received the market value they requested for the items in question and therefore have not been damaged by the resale of the modified products/works. Any loss of sale would have resulted from their own failure to utilize the product/work and market them in a way that was of value to consumers, and should not be protected by copyright laws.



    Copyright laws exist to protect the works and intellectual property from duplication, but when they can be used to shield companies from legitimate competition of other non-duplicatory / derivative works, the law has been abused as is what I believe is happening here.



    -Clive



    In your coffee beans scenario, Starbuck can not sue unless you infringe upon the "Starbuck" trademark. Another words, you can not advertise that your coffee shop coffee is the same as "Starbucks", for less. You can say "as good as a famous leading brand". But nowhere can you use the name "Starbuck" to sell your coffee. Even though it's made from "Starbuck" brand beans that you bought from a store. Starbuck most likely do not have any patents on the coffee beans they sell. But they do have a trademark on "Starbuck". Therefore, "Starbuck" coffee is coffee you buy from a "Starbuck" not coffee made from the beans they sell in the store under the "Starbuck" brand. MacDonalds is taking away business from Starbucks. For all we know, they're using Starbuck brand beans.



    Psystar is advertising their PC using both the "Apple" and "OSX" trademarks. Plus Apple has a copyright on "OSX".



    In your painting scenario, it 's only true if it applies to the re-selling of the original or authorized copy of the image. But Psystar is selling an unauthorize copy of OSX in their PC. It would be like if you bought an original painting or authorized copy from the artist and then making an unauthorize copy, but only larger, to sell with your large $600 frame. This would be illegal even if you gave away the smaller, authorized copy with each sale. Under copyright laws, you had no right to make such a copy for the purpose of selling your frames. You would need to have the permission of the copyright holder to do so. And it would most likely result in you paying the artist a commision for each frame sold. That's only if the artist gives you the license to do so. Now if you want to buy an original or authorize copy and make an enlarge copy to put on your living wall, you will most like be in your rights to do so. But not for commercial gain.



    Psystar can most likely get away with selling their PC and an original copy of OSX. So long as OSX is not pre-installed on the PC and they don't use any of Apple's trademarks to market their PC. They could only say "comes with an original copy of OSX. They can't encourage buyers to violate any copyright laws by saying that OSX can be installed on their PC's. Even though the buyer can most likely install OSX on a PC for "personal use" without any legal consequences.
  • Reply 102 of 168
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    Psystar is NOT stealing. They are an unauthorized reseller, and are breaking an EULA.



    In fact, no. This case is not about the EULA. Psystar is trading on Apple's copyrights, trademarks and patents. They have no right to do so, period. The EULA does not define Apple's intellectual property rights.
  • Reply 103 of 168
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,658member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post


    What part of the fact that neither Kaypro or Compaq had licenses from IBM when they made the first clones don't you understand?



    Different situation, different problem, different solution.



    Do you actually know anything about either of those two?



    If not, you can furiously look them up before replying.
  • Reply 104 of 168
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,017member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Halvri View Post


    I have a two and half year old MacBook and I have literally never had a single problem with it. If you honestly are having that many issues, then you quite clearly received a faulty model. I also have a three year old iMac that I've never had any problems with either.



    Good for you. You asked for a Dell v Apple comparison. I have that experience and I offered it. Now you're getting defensive?

    Quote:

    Is Apple going to solve world hunger? Does that honestly sound like an even half-way reasonable bit of sarcasm to you? Is Apple gonna solve world hunger? No. Is handing Microsoft a bigger monopoly than it already has by ruining the only business model that has yet been able to stand effectively against it going to solve any of your problems? No. Is what you want going to compromise the experience I and many others have come to expect? Yes. You're selfish, plain and simple. You want what you want and you couldn't care less what the consequences are for others.



    Glad you picked up on the sarcasm. Or is it irony? I forget.

    Quote:

    And let's be honest if "it's a means to an end" is the way you define the world tool, then life itself must be utterly painful for you. Your wife/husband is just a way to have a baby or to not fill lonely. Your parents are just a way of financially supporting yourself until your old enough to get a job. And your life is just a means of getting to whatever you believe is or isn't in an afterlife. How you ever find space for sentiment in that kind of thought process I will never understand.



    Terrible conclusion. FAIL. As you're training to be a lawyer, you'd be schooled (or should be schooled) in logic. You know, syllogism, modes ponens, all that? You've exhibited none of it in that rant.



    Let be honest - it is a means to an end. I can engage with my friends on facebook using a mac, a pc, linux, shit even aix if I care to write myself a chat client. I can process my photos any number of ways on any operating system. I can do my banking. Whichever way you cut it, if you have an operating system and the right software, the combination of the two doesn't matter: you can do whatever it is you need to do. Ergo, it IS a tool, and one that allows me the time to spend my hollow miserable existence with my family, walk my stupid soulless dog and pay for the holidays I give my mum to thank her for bringing me stupid self up.



    I don't understand what you're getting at. Unless you've got some unhealthy relationship with your operating system of choice. I suspect this might be the case.



    Quote:

    Is everything Apple does and makes perfect? Of course not (nothing is). But the idea you have in your head that nothing is of any real consequence is almost philosophically offensive.



    Studying jurisprudence?



    My computer doesn't define me, my personality or my attitude to life. It's a box with tools in it. Sometimes its a PC, sometimes its a Mac. Whatever. None of it has any bearing on this thread, and, unfortunately, you brought it up.
  • Reply 105 of 168
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,658member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    1. Rubbish. Psystar's website claimed to supply a legitimate copy of OS X with the computer being purchased.



    2. I can produce any number of 'Apple-labeled' computers. And what's to say it even has to be 'produced'? At its most asisine, I can slap an Apple sticker on my desktop computer. A genuine one even - it comes in the box with the software. So, is the computer Apple-labeled or not? Not in the sense that you might want it to take, but I merely point out that what appears obvious is not always so. Why, for instance, did the EULA not say "Computer System Supplied by Apple" rather than "Apple-labeled computer"? There may be some legal reasoning for this, but I'm not American, don't know how you guys roll in this respect.



    3. That's the point being made, isn't it? Why don't we let the courts sort it out rather than have one dominant company crush the other. That appears to be way the corporate world works. The question is put, but rarely answered.



    You aren't as backwards as your post suggests, are you?



    Are you simply trying out a bad semantic argument, or is it that you really don't understand any of this?



    "Apple labeled" means any product that Apple either produces, OR licenses someone else to produce, that would be allowed to use Apple's trademarks and copyrights.



    Surely you know that.



    You do, don't you?



    You can't possibly mean that if you make a label on your cheap inkjet, and slap it on some white box computer, it becomes, in the legal sense, an "Apple labeled" product.



    Since we all know you can't mean that, what exactly is your point?



    As for your point"3", the courts will decide if one company attempting to work at the edge of the law can steal another's IP for its own gain.
  • Reply 106 of 168
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


    In your coffee beans scenario, Starbuck can not sue unless you infringe upon the "Starbuck" trademark. Another words, you can not advertise that your coffee shop coffee is the same as "Starbucks", for less. You can say "as good as a famous leading brand". But nowhere can you use the name "Starbuck" to sell your coffee. Even though it's made from "Starbuck" brand beans that you bought from a store. Starbuck most likely do not have any patents on the coffee beans they sell. But they do have a trademark on "Starbuck". Therefore, "Starbuck" coffee is coffee you buy from a "Starbuck" not coffee made from the beans they sell in the store under the "Starbuck" brand. MacDonalds is taking away business from Starbucks. For all we know, they're using Starbuck brand beans.



    Psystar is advertising their PC using both the "Apple" and "OSX" trademarks. Plus Apple has a copyright on "OSX".



    Certainly Starbucks' bean roasting recipe is their intellectual property, no? As is OS X.



    As per using Apple's trademarks, Psystar stopped using "OpenMac" after a week of sales... for a reason.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


    In your painting scenario, it 's only true if it applies to the re-selling of the original or authorized copy of the image. But Psystar is selling an unauthorize copy of OSX in their PC. It would be like if you bought an original painting or authorized copy from the artist and then making an unauthorize copy, but only larger, to sell with your large $600 frame. This would be illegal even if you gave away the smaller, authorized copy with each sale. Under copyright laws, you had no right to make such a copy for the purpose of selling your frames. You would need to have the permission of the copyright holder to do so. And it would most likely result in you paying the artist a commision for each frame sold. That's only if the artist gives you the license to do so. Now if you want to buy an original or authorize copy and make an enlarge copy to put on your living wall, you will most like be in your rights to do so. But not for commercial gain.



    I can't speak for Psystar's installation methods, but some methods don't require any modification of OS X, just the correct "frame." Purchasing OS X entitles the consumer to an installation of said OS. The EULA restricts it to one of Apple's frame. If not for the unauthorized aspect of it, Psystar isn't doing anything wrong.



    It's also that unauthorized aspect that I take issue with. Like I explained earlier, Psystar is meeting Apple's requests for purchasing its OS, just as I am with Starbucks' beans. If Starbucks is losing customers to my coffee stand, they have no one to blame but themselves, since we both began with the same base product. If I provide an enhancement to a legally purchased product which consumers find superior to the original, do I not have the right to sell that enhancement?



    Psystar offers a cost-effective, power-effective, no-frills PC capable of running OS X. Do they not have the right to sell that enhancement provided they purchase an installation of OS X for each unit they sell?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


    Psystar can most likely get away with selling their PC and an original copy of OSX. So long as OSX is not pre-installed on the PC and they don't use any of Apple's trademarks to market their PC. They could only say "comes with an original copy of OSX. They can't encourage buyers to violate any copyright laws by saying that OSX can be installed on their PC's. Even though the buyer can most likely install OSX on a PC for "personal use" without any legal consequences.



    I would've done things differently if I was in charge of Psystar given the laws we currently have... that's not to say that our current laws don't err on the side of over-protecting business... because they do... and they shouldn't.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    In fact, no. This case is not about the EULA. Psystar is trading on Apple's copyrights, trademarks and patents. They have no right to do so, period. The EULA does not define Apple's intellectual property rights.



    Unauthorized reselling of OS X is an implied violation of copyright but not the same as stealing... so no, Psystar is not stealing, just violating copyright. Legally, there's a difference.
  • Reply 107 of 168
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,017member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    You aren't as backwards as your post suggests, are you?



    Are you simply trying out a bad semantic argument, or is it that you really don't understand any of this?



    "Apple labeled" means any product that Apple either produces, OR licenses someone else to produce, that would be allowed to use Apple's trademarks and copyrights.



    According to who? You might think you're banging your head against a brick wall but you've shared nothing which would indicate your assertion to be true.



    Quote:



    Surely you know that.



    You do, don't you?



    Do you? This is the question. Is there a court in the land that has ruled on this proposition? Let me ask again, directly this time: Why does the EULA describe an "Apple-labeled" computer? Why isn't it an "Apple Manufactured Computer" for instance? I asked if there was some fine distinction in that crazy country of yours which necessitates the use of such language, but since you've not actually bothered to address it, labelling it as self-evident - well that leads to its own conclusion.



    Quote:

    You can't possibly mean that if you make a label on your cheap inkjet, and slap it on some white box computer, it becomes, in the legal sense, an "Apple labeled" product.



    Since we all know you can't mean that, what exactly is your point?



    You logic is just as complete as that other guy's.



    Quote:

    As for your point"3", the courts will decide if one company attempting to work at the edge of the law can steal another's IP for its own gain.



    You can't STEAL SOMEONE'S IP! You can only infringe it. Keep saying STEAL: One day it will be true. *there's no place like home*
  • Reply 108 of 168
    halvrihalvri Posts: 146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    Good for you. You asked for a Dell v Apple comparison. I have that experience and I offered it. Now you're getting defensive?



    Glad you picked up on the sarcasm. Or is it irony? I forget.



    Terrible conclusion. FAIL. As you're training to be a lawyer, you'd be schooled (or should be schooled) in logic. You know, syllogism, modes ponens, all that? You've exhibited none of it in that rant.



    Let be honest - it is a means to an end. I can engage with my friends on facebook using a mac, a pc, linux, shit even aix if I care to write myself a chat client. I can process my photos any number of ways on any operating system. I can do my banking. Whichever way you cut it, if you have an operating system and the right software, the combination of the two doesn't matter: you can do whatever it is you need to do. Ergo, it IS a tool, and one that allows me the time to spend my hollow miserable existence with my family, walk my stupid soulless dog and pay for the holidays I give my mum to thank her for bringing me stupid self up.



    I don't understand what you're getting at. Unless you've got some unhealthy relationship with your operating system of choice. I suspect this might be the case.







    Studying jurisprudence?



    My computer doesn't define me, my personality or my attitude to life. It's a box with tools in it. Sometimes its a PC, sometimes its a Mac. Whatever. None of it has any bearing on this thread, and, unfortunately, you brought it up.



    Yes, it's a rant meant to be principally emotional, especially given we're in an informal setting. My point about operating systems has to do with how it affects others, not simply yourself. You have an extremely jaded view of things.



    You can do the same stuff in many different ways on several different systems with several different pieces of software, but that says nothing about the quality of the experience. I fundamentally do not believe in the idea of "it gets the job done." If all I, or for that matter, any one else, wanted was that, we'd all be using Linux and Open Office and something like Picasa. The fact of the matter is, few open source distros provide the kind of user experience people are looking for and, in my personal case, Windows provides nothing but hassle (completely unintuitive). I have PowerPoint and Keynote 09 on my MacBook and both can do the same stuff, but Keynote can do it a hell of alot easier and faster than PowerPoint. They do the exact same thing, but they are by no means equal.



    Also, I did not ask for a Dell example, I simply offered it up as my own example of something I consider to be utterly devoid of quality. Having your own experience is fine, but my point is simply that PC OEMs cut corners to cut prices and Dell is by far one of the worst offenders.



    You and I view computers, indeed, material items, in entirely different ways. I don't have an unhealthy relationship with my computer. I have to use it for research and contacting family I live two states away from for about nine hours most days (depending on my course load at the time), so it's very important to me that the computing experience is as good as it can be. Apple provides that to me, again, because unlike Windows, it doesn't have to be everything to everyone. The UI is much cleaner and less cluttered and a hell of alot more consistent (it's just plain coded better). And things like Expose and Spaces make my workflow substantially faster. Part of the experience comes from having a limited hardware set and a smaller audience of customers. If you don't see the value in that, so be it, but ruining that experience for the ones that do serves no purpose to anyone but yourself.



    Again, is it a tool? Yes. However, it's also an accessory to my life by the nature of how I have to use it. A car is an ends to a means, but I'm sure as hell not buying a Chevy Cobalt when I'm provided a much better experience by a Honda Civic. They do the same thing, but they are not equal. No one defines themselves by their computers or cars or anything of the sort, but they do enhance our lives.



    I commented on your attitude because if you would apply this sense you have of material things to other areas of your life, you might see some of the flaws inherent to it.



    One last thing: is sarcasm not simply ironic mockery? I forget.
  • Reply 109 of 168
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,658member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    No. It's not being stolen. Look up what stolen actually means. In every jurisdiction in the world where IP laws exist, it cannot be "stolen". Your IP rights can be infringed but to say that revenue is stolen is a ridiculous assertion and there's no correlation between x copies of widget being sold in an "unauthorised" way and x * y dollars of revenue being lost. That might go the quantum of damages but they ARE NOT THE SAME THING.



    Perhaps you should look it up. Tosteal business has meaning, even if you don't know it.



    Several meanings. I can't do all your work for you, but here is one;





    http://ezinearticles.com/?How-Wholes...its&id=1968348



    By breaking Apple's EULA, and putting the OS into a computer of their own making, STEALS business that rightfully could go to Apple.



    Quote:

    Conjecture. That may just as easily be a victim of the GFC.



    It's no more conjecture that what you're saying, and it makes sense (unlike what you're saying).



    Quote:

    Hardly poor games. Courts are entirely pre-occupied with construction of words and terms. Are courts concerned with popular meaning? Possibly. But you're assuming that everyone thinks the same way you do. Apple nowhere defined what an Apple-labeled computer is. You've defined it in your head and maybe a lot of people share the same view, but in the end you're agreeing to a black letter contract - the room for ambiguity should be as little as possible.



    Your construction is a poor game.



    Please! You really are playing games. Or you are just unable to understand the meaning. Right now, from reading more of your writing, its difficult to tell which. no court would ever agree with your interpretation, and you know it.



    Quote:

    What Apple don't make very clear, and it's not just Apple, is they can't abrogate rights given to you by statute or the common law. Agreements can be excised to the extent they are not consistent with the law, but that isn't necessarily going to stop someone from inserting a clause forcing you to do the chicken dance every sunday.



    Courts have agreed that EULA is valid many times. a number of states have even written the concept of shrinkwrapped EULAs into law. Apple gives one the chance to return the package after it's been opened, but not used. A EULA is a contract Contracts are enforceable in courts.



    Taking business away from a company by breaking contract has been deemed by courts to be improper, and have awarded good sums to those having been affected. Apple could well win exactly what it's asking for.
  • Reply 110 of 168
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,658member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    According to who? You might think you're banging your head against a brick wall but you've shared nothing which would indicate your assertion to be true.



    By that logic, neither have you.



    Quote:

    Do you? This is the question. Is there a court in the land that has ruled on this proposition? Let me ask again, directly this time: Why does the EULA describe an "Apple-labeled" computer? Why isn't it an "Apple Manufactured Computer" for instance? I asked if there was some fine distinction in that crazy country of yours which necessitates the use of such language, but since you've not actually bothered to address it, labelling it as self-evident - well that leads to its own conclusion.



    Apple may very well, in the future, as I've already said, decide to enter into an agreement with another company tohave them produce Apple labelmachines. It could also simply be that Apple has the machines built by others, and so has had legal advice that their EULA should say "Apple labeled" rather than "made by Apple" or some such statement.



    The concept that I'm reading that it could mean any computer that anyone else builds and sticks an "Apple label" on it is daft!



    Quote:

    You logic is just as complete as that other guy's.



    So you have no answer?



    Quote:

    You can't STEAL SOMEONE'S IP! You can only infringe it. Keep saying STEAL: One day it will be true. *there's no place like home*



    Of course you can. Infringing on someone's IP and using it as your own is stealing it. If you don't ask, and receive permission to use something the way it's designated to be used when there is a EULA, then you're stealing whatever purpose, or product you are using it for, as it takes sales away from the legitimate user. In this case, Apple.
  • Reply 111 of 168
    davidwdavidw Posts: 971member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    Certainly Starbucks' bean roasting recipe is their intellectual property, no? As is OS X.



    As per using Apple's trademarks, Psystar stopped using "OpenMac" after a week of sales... for a reason.







    I can't speak for Psystar's installation methods, but some methods don't require any modification of OS X, just the correct "frame." Purchasing OS X entitles the consumer to an installation of said OS. The EULA restricts it to one of Apple's frame. If not for the unauthorized aspect of it, Psystar isn't doing anything wrong.



    It's also that unauthorized aspect that I take issue with. Like I explained earlier, Psystar is meeting Apple's requests for purchasing its OS, just as I am with Starbucks' beans. If Starbucks is losing customers to my coffee stand, they have no one to blame but themselves, since we both began with the same base product. If I provide an enhancement to a legally purchased product which consumers find superior to the original, do I not have the right to sell that enhancement?



    Psystar offers a cost-effective, power-effective, no-frills PC capable of running OS X. Do they not have the right to sell that enhancement provided they purchase an installation of OS X for each unit they sell?







    I would've done things differently if I was in charge of Psystar given the laws we currently have... that's not to say that our current laws don't err on the side of over-protecting business... because they do... and they shouldn't.







    Unauthorized reselling of OS X is an implied violation of copyright but not the same as stealing... so no, Psystar is not stealing, just violating copyright. Legally, there's a difference.





    It doesn't matter if Psystar does nothing to alter the installation of OSX. That copy of OSX in their PC is what's refer to as an "adaptive" copy. (Even the OSX on a Mac is considered an "adaptive" copy.) As OSX must be altered from the original form to make it run on your machine. Legally, you can alter any softwware, any way you want, for the purpose of making it run on your machine. What's not legal is the transfer or ownership of that "adaptive" copy. You must have permission from the original owner of the copyrighted material from which that "adaptive" copy was derived from, in order to transfer it's ownership. It is within Apple's right, as the owner of the copyright, to grant permission for anyone to transfer an "adaptive" copy of their OSX, so long as it's on a Mac. They have the right to stop any transfer of ownership of any "adaptive" copy on a PC. Which is why you can legally change OSX any way you want so that it can run on your PC. So long as you don't sell (or even give away) that PC with it on there. Psystar is violating copyright laws when they are transfering the ownership of that "adaptive" copy of OSX without Apple's permission.



    Title 17 section 117 b of the copyright law



    http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117



    Why do you think Psystar is so hard up on trying to invalidate Apple's copyright on OSX?



    You can not "enhance" some one else's copyrighted work and market it without the perimission from the owner of the original copyrighted material that you "derived" your work from. It's like if you were to market an "enhanced" version of a Harry Potter story by changing the characters names to Spanish names so that the citizens of South America can better relate to the story. You can't do this without permission. The original owner still deserves to be compensated for his/her original work from which you used to "derive" your "enhanced" work from. Just because you bought the book doesn't mean that you have any rights to the IP contained within that book. You only own the physical material that the IP is printed on.



    It's the same for copyrighted music. There are many instances where I like some one else's "cover" of a song more than the original artist version. But the artist of the "enhanced" "cover" version must have get a license to do that "cover" version of the song. Either from the original artist or the music studio that owns the copyright. The original copyright owner deserves to be compensated if some one else is making money off his/her work.



    Why can't you understand this basic concept of the copyright laws pertaining to ALL copyrighted material?
  • Reply 112 of 168
    macfindermacfinder Posts: 32member
    I've found out that Apple have created much more powerful protection from installing the 10.6 on PCs.

    Hope there will not be any 500$ updates for those Hackintoshes.
  • Reply 113 of 168
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,017member
    Quote:

    Apple may very well, in the future, as I've already said, decide to enter into an agreement with another company tohave them produce Apple labelmachines. It could also simply be that Apple has the machines built by others, and so has had legal advice that their EULA should say "Apple labeled" rather than "made by Apple" or some such statement.



    I asked a simple question - why Apple-labeled and not something more concrete? And this is what you come up with. They *might* enter an agreement, so they *may* have had legal advice. You can't build arguments on assumptions. Not good ones, anyway. The EULA already states that subsequent agreements supercede previous ones, so why bother addressing the hypothetical licensing scenario now? The truth is, you don't know. I know I don't, and that's why I asked. So you may as well admit it.

    Quote:

    The concept that I'm reading that it could mean any computer that anyone else builds and sticks an "Apple label" on it is daft!



    No more 'daft' than conjecture and innuendo about some pie-in-the-sky potential future licensing arrangement forming the basis of the "apple-labeled" computer terminology.



    Quote:

    Of course you can. Infringing on someone's IP and using it as your own is stealing it. If you don't ask, and receive permission to use something the way it's designated to be used when there is a EULA, then you're stealing whatever purpose, or product you are using it for, as it takes sales away from the legitimate user. In this case, Apple.



    Stealing my very well be the vernacular and one you appear to subscribe to, and yes, infringing someone's IP is wrong, no doubt, but legally there is no concept of 'stealing' IP. NONE. ZERO. Not once in my textbook is the infringement of IP described as stealing.



    It may very well feel like stealing, but losing revenue as a result is more conjecture - although a widely held one. There is no direct relationship. One instance of infringement on the one hand, does not equate to a lost sale on the other.



    I really wish you would get that point.
  • Reply 114 of 168
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,017member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Halvri View Post


    Yes, it's a rant meant to be principally emotional, especially given we're in an informal setting. My point about operating systems has to do with how it affects others, not simply yourself. You have an extremely jaded view of things.



    You can do the same stuff in many different ways on several different systems with several different pieces of software, but that says nothing about the quality of the experience. I fundamentally do not believe in the idea of "it gets the job done." If all I, or for that matter, any one else, wanted was that, we'd all be using Linux and Open Office and something like Picasa. The fact of the matter is, few open source distros provide the kind of user experience people are looking for and, in my personal case, Windows provides nothing but hassle (completely unintuitive). I have PowerPoint and Keynote 09 on my MacBook and both can do the same stuff, but Keynote can do it a hell of alot easier and faster than PowerPoint. They do the exact same thing, but they are by no means equal.



    Also, I did not ask for a Dell example, I simply offered it up as my own example of something I consider to be utterly devoid of quality. Having your own experience is fine, but my point is simply that PC OEMs cut corners to cut prices and Dell is by far one of the worst offenders.



    You and I view computers, indeed, material items, in entirely different ways. I don't have an unhealthy relationship with my computer. I have to use it for research and contacting family I live two states away from for about nine hours most days (depending on my course load at the time), so it's very important to me that the computing experience is as good as it can be. Apple provides that to me, again, because unlike Windows, it doesn't have to be everything to everyone. The UI is much cleaner and less cluttered and a hell of alot more consistent (it's just plain coded better). And things like Expose and Spaces make my workflow substantially faster. Part of the experience comes from having a limited hardware set and a smaller audience of customers. If you don't see the value in that, so be it, but ruining that experience for the ones that do serves no purpose to anyone but yourself.



    Again, is it a tool? Yes. However, it's also an accessory to my life by the nature of how I have to use it. A car is an ends to a means, but I'm sure as hell not buying a Chevy Cobalt when I'm provided a much better experience by a Honda Civic. They do the same thing, but they are not equal. No one defines themselves by their computers or cars or anything of the sort, but they do enhance our lives.



    I commented on your attitude because if you would apply this sense you have of material things to other areas of your life, you might see some of the flaws inherent to it.



    One last thing: is sarcasm not simply ironic mockery? I forget.



    Look I appreciate the value in what you're saying. I bought a luxury car this week and I love it. It too is a means to an end - a tool if you like - but I do identify with personal preference. Just not with OSes. For me, nearly everything is conducted through a web browser which at end of the day are pretty much homogenous items, or applications such as skype which are so similar in implementation across the platforms as makes nearly no difference. So even if I spent 12 hours a day on a computer apart from the aesthetic it would make little difference to me.
  • Reply 115 of 168
    aizmovaizmov Posts: 989member
    Good!

    Serve them right!

    What a bunch of leechers!



    Hopefully the same for the other infringers.



    If Apple really want to put them out of business, just do something propreitary with the hardware.



    Apple has the engineering expertise to design something custom, and not disclose its details.



    BOOM!





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    I cannot believe some of the comments here, such as someone hopes they loose their homes and other calling these folks pricks, etc. The elite Apple fanboys (not everyone here) need to give it a rest. It is a computer...



    I, for one, would like to be able to install OSX on my PC hardware. PC hardware that I carefully picked out. PC hardware that is easily of the same caliber of Apple's so-called quality hardware. Sorry, their hardware is the same as any other PC. Please don't claim that because I have non-Apple hardware that I am a "Windoze PC Loser", etc. I am neither a PC or Apple fanatic. It is just a tool. But I will not pay for another computer just to use an OS when my system works perfectly.



    Apple, sell me the OSX, I will pay for it and use it.



    Then you have to forego OS X.



    Apple doesn't want your business, because Apple is in the business of hardware.



    Either buy a Mac, or use some other OS.
  • Reply 116 of 168
    macfandavemacfandave Posts: 603member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    Apple is a "Vertical Monopoly." That means if you subscribe to one product, you must also subscribe to another/other unrelated products. Examples: OS X and "Apple-labeled hardware," iTunes .aacs and iPod, iPhone and iTunes App Store.



    The three you list are related products. I don't see where a piece of hardware and an online service dedicated to that hardware is anti-consumer. It seems like an offering for a consumer to choose freely.



    I buy into the Mac "vertical monopoly" because it is one! If I have a problem that my be related to hardware, the OS or a good bit of the software, I call Apple and they fix it. It's not the runaround where Dell says it's a Microsoft problem who says it's the ISV's problem who says it's a Dell problem, etc. Given that this "vertical monopoly" represents a small slice of the market, it actually is a consumer choice since alternatives actually dominate the market. Making Apple operate like the Windows world would actually be the anti-consumer action!
  • Reply 117 of 168
    ianeftianeft Posts: 4member
    Nobody really gets it.... Google Map the proximity of Psystar's offices to Alienware....Who owns Alienware. Who has "lusted" after Tiger & Leopard for that matter since the Intel kernel reared its head. To direct quote this person "If Apple decides to open the Mac OS to others, we would be happy to offer it to our customers," Hmmmm, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the deal was probably, You win the lawsuit & I'll buy the company. Thus getting his license for no fee. Mikey will you ever learn.
  • Reply 118 of 168
    istinkistink Posts: 250member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by IanEft View Post


    Nobody really gets it.... Google Map the proximity of Psystar's offices to Alienware....Who owns Alienware. Who has "lusted" after Tiger & Leopard for that matter since the Intel kernel reared its head. To direct quote this person "If Apple decides to open the Mac OS to others, we would be happy to offer it to our customers," Hmmmm, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the deal was probably, You win the lawsuit & I'll buy the company. Thus getting his license for no fee. Mikey will you ever learn.



    lol so you think dell is behind this? That would be hilarious. Don't dell laptops and apple laptops get built by the same source? Maybe he talked to his suppliers and they were all like, "Ya dude, nothing special about apple laptops, you could run os x on yours, or even desktops, but how will you not get fined!?" :P
  • Reply 119 of 168
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


    It doesn't matter if Psystar does nothing to alter the installation of OSX. That copy of OSX in their PC is what's refer to as an "adaptive" copy. (Even the OSX on a Mac is considered an "adaptive" copy.) As OSX must be altered from the original form to make it run on your machine. Legally, you can alter any softwware, any way you want, for the purpose of making it run on your machine. What's not legal is the transfer or ownership of that "adaptive" copy. You must have permission from the original owner of the copyrighted material from which that "adaptive" copy was derived from, in order to transfer it's ownership. It is within Apple's right, as the owner of the copyright, to grant permission for anyone to transfer an "adaptive" copy of their OSX, so long as it's on a Mac. They have the right to stop any transfer of ownership of any "adaptive" copy on a PC. Which is why you can legally change OSX any way you want so that it can run on your PC. So long as you don't sell (or even give away) that PC with it on there. Psystar is violating copyright laws when they are transfering the ownership of that "adaptive" copy of OSX without Apple's permission.



    Title 17 section 117 b of the copyright law



    http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117



    Why do you think Psystar is so hard up on trying to invalidate Apple's copyright on OSX?



    That's what I've been saying minus the legal mumbo jumbo. Psystar's unauthorized retailing implies copyright violation. They can't sell pre-loaded PCs like MacMall can.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


    You can not "enhance" some one else's copyrighted work and market it without the perimission from the owner of the original copyrighted material that you "derived" your work from. It's like if you were to market an "enhanced" version of a Harry Potter story by changing the characters names to Spanish names so that the citizens of South America can better relate to the story. You can't do this without permission. The original owner still deserves to be compensated for his/her original work from which you used to "derive" your "enhanced" work from. Just because you bought the book doesn't mean that you have any rights to the IP contained within that book. You only own the physical material that the IP is printed on.



    It's the same for copyrighted music. There are many instances where I like some one else's "cover" of a song more than the original artist version. But the artist of the "enhanced" "cover" version must have get a license to do that "cover" version of the song. Either from the original artist or the music studio that owns the copyright. The original copyright owner deserves to be compensated if some one else is making money off his/her work.



    Why can't you understand this basic concept of the copyright laws pertaining to ALL copyrighted material?



    Psystar isn't simply selling a duplicated work with "changed names." If anything, they're buying the book, whiting-out the English names and typing in Spanish names, then reselling that one copy. They repeat that process for each "book" they sell. There is no market damage to the author because she gets a sale for every copy purchased.



    Its the same with the cover. The royalty is to purchase the use of the song and modify it on each copy sold. In fact, it's a brilliant example to illustrate why what Psystar is doing should be legal. Apple is getting the full market value royalty on every copy Psystar resells.



    Look, I understand copyright law pretty well - IANAL, but I know what's going on in that department. I'm not saying that what Psystar is doing isn't illegal, because it is. I'm saying that the laws too-powerfully favor the copyright holder - so much so that it shields the holder from HEALTHY, LEGITIMATE competition. If Apple gets their piece of the pie for each copy of OS sold, I firmly believe Psystar should be able to do what they want with the copies they buy - including reselling them on generic hardware.



    -Clive
  • Reply 120 of 168
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Besides the consumer, MS would lose the most if Psystar were to win.



    Correct. Mac OS X is much less of a threat to Redmond tied only to Apple hardware. Dell, HP, Acer, or Lenovo would have much more to gain.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    If that were true, then it was true before the switch from PPC to x86, as Unix and Linux ran on PPC.



    Apple designed their own chipsets during the PPC days. They weren't off the shelf. A PPC Mac running Apple's chipset and a Pentium machine running a VIA chipset wouldn't use the same drivers. A Mac and non-Apple machine running the same Intel or Nvida chipset would.
Sign In or Register to comment.