Psystar files for bankruptcy likely delaying Apple case

1234579

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 168
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    ...Psystar isn't doing anything wrong.



    ... so no, Psystar is not stealing, just violating copyright.



    Make up your mind!
  • Reply 122 of 168
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post


    At less than 10 percent of the PC market, Apple is not a monopoly. I have a Toyota and when I need parts, sometimes they are exclusively available from Toyota. Does that make Toyota a monopoly?



    You replace it with a Honda and you don't have to drive on a different set of roads. Apple is 100% of the Mac platform, except in rare cases, software licenses are sold for a specific platform. When you buy a HP and you're not happy, you can move everything over to a different machine. When you're not happy with Apple you have to choose between continuing on displeased or replacing all your software and moving to a different platform probably losing some files in the process.



    Quote:

    I've not been following the prices of Mac Pros. I got a Dual 2GHz G5 PowerMac in 2003 and found that, for my needs, the consumer-level Intel-based Macs of today gave me all the performance I need. In the case of the Mac mini, iMac, MacBook and even the MacBook Pro, Apple has kept prices steady while continually improving the machines.



    So, you're needs are met. that's great. How about those who aren't as lucky? Having one of those improved iMacs, I can tell you that it doesn't hold a candle to the PowerMacs that came before it.



    Quote:

    If you've paid attention, Apple is highly regarded for its quality and customer service, so your gloom-and-doom scenario is illusory.



    Its declining. My first few Macs were problem free. My iBook had to have its motherboard replaced four different occasions, but at least they paid for it to be airmailed both ways and besides the occasional apathetic. When the iMac broke, instead of airmail, I had to take a day off of work to drive a couple hours to the nearest Apple store. When I called to inquire the first time I was cut off. The second time, they were doing additional work that they didn't bother to give me a call about. They finally called a week later from a guy who calling the owners of Macs that had not been picked up. It was done for three or so days, the person who was supposed to call me to tell me it was ready forgot.



    Quote:

    Even if your claim about Mac Pros is correct (are you one who thinks they should get an 8-core for what last generation's quad core cost?), your thesis is very weak.



    No, I'm one of those who think you should get a quad core for a quad core's cost, not a sealed dual core laptop on a stick. I'm one that crunches the numbers of the Mac Pro price increases, notices there there are conspicuously no price overlaps anymore in the SFF/AIO/Workstation range (why say desktop when there aren't any) and sees that something doesn't quite add up. I'm willing to pay more for a superior machine, but I'm not will to sit idly by while being taken advantage of.
  • Reply 123 of 168
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    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.



    I think you're not getting it. This is not about unauthorized reselling. No matter what they choose to call it, the product Psystar is selling is a Macintosh computer, which is Apple's product to sell in the manner they choose. I'm not interested in whether this is "stealing" by someone's definition. Either way, it's illegal because it violates Apple's intellectual property rights. The point being, we don't have to complicate this issue with debates over the validity of the EULA. Apple's IP rights are not defined by the EULA.
  • Reply 124 of 168
    hillstoneshillstones Posts: 1,490member
    Did they even sell one of those pieces of shit? For those of you that think Psystar isn't doing anything illegal, why haven't you supported their cause and purchased one of their Mac Clones? What are you afraid of if you think they are so great?



    Why doesn't anyone mention their "fine print?" That would be enough to turn anyone away from them. The copy of Leopard you receive is an unopened box that does nothing for you. If you need to reinstall Leopard, you must request their special CD (that illegally installs Leopard). By requesting their CD, you sign away all your rights against suing them in the future, and you agree that you are 100% totally satisfied with your purchase. Now do you think they offer a good product? Who would agree to such terms? Also, their computers are unable to run Boot Camp because they claim that is an Apple-specific technology.
  • Reply 125 of 168
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,656member
    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?



    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?



    Very good!
  • Reply 126 of 168
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,656member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    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.



    You aren't "asking" a question at all it seems. Yu are just making a statement that is extreme, and aren't interested in anything that supplants it.



    Quote:

    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.



    What you are saying is daft. You know nothing about business, or you would understand something about basic protections business use. Apple stopped using the term "Mac OS", because they are putting the OS into devices other than Macs.



    Apple did license their OS out before, and it's absurd to think that they don't want to protect themselves if they decide to do so again.



    Quote:

    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.



    There is a direct relationship. Apple can very fairly claim that a sale to Psystar is a lost sale to them. We say very clearly that the reason why the original cloning didn't work well for Apple was that the clones, less expensive than Apples', took sales away from them. While clone sales rose, Apple's sales fell in almost lock-step.



    Therefor, in using evidence from that, Apple could show that sales to Psystar are siphoning sales from them. and the term "stealing sales" is entirely appropriate.



    Even if you refuse to use that time honored term for this, you can use others that essentially mean the same thing, if it make you feel better. There are a lot of synonyms.



    A good one would be "misappropriate". It might even be better, but doesn't have the same ring to it.
  • Reply 127 of 168
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,656member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    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



    So how do you define legitimate competition when copyright is being broken. Something that is after all, enshrined in the Constitution itself (as well as in the basic laws of every other country, as well as that of international bodies), as copyright protections were, and are considered to be so important to a HEALTHY intellectual environment?



    How is it proper for a company improperly taking another's works, and using it in a fashion for which they have no permission, and so taking business from the rightful copyholder?



    No explanation can be given to justify that.



    Other companies have the right to do their own OS, or to license one that is licensable, so there's no excuse for them to appropriate one that isn't. Even you seem to agree with that.



    The Constitution gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to determine the distribution channels, and the fitness of use for their work.
  • Reply 128 of 168
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by htoelle View Post


    Another thought

    Most likely Apple will let this thing die where it is, taking no further action.



    the answer to that depends on where things currently lie. If I recall correctly right now, today, Apple has been granted by the courts the legal right to control the hardware used with OSX, they have a valid EULA (since it hasn't been invalidated by the courts), valid copyright on the non open source elements of OSX, a valid trademark on the term OSX etc.



    in other words, they are winning and Pystar was making a last ditch attempt to hit them again. so yeah if they can get a summary order by the courts telling Pystar to stop and don't even think about trying it again (without a successful lawsuit granting them the right), Apple will likely have no choice but to drop it and eat the legal fees etc. cause this bankruptcy is an attempt to claim they can't pay any fines and fees anyway.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post


    Wasn't Psystar formed so Joe 6-Pack had a much less expensive alternative to Apple computers?



    no, it was formed to make some JoeSmo a profit.







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bwik View Post


    This is America. It should be possible for new competitors to enter (if a court agrees with their model). The court has not yet ruled.



    actually they have. several times. that Apple is not violating any anti-trust laws. that they are not a monopoly because 'mac computers' is not a market but merely part of the 'personal computer' market. that Apple has all rights to control the hardware used with their software. that they have a valid claim to copyright on the non open source portions of the software (and thus DCMA protection against things like how Pystar hacked the software to get it to work on their machines). etc.



    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.



    yes and no. they claimed to be shipping a retail disk but when Apple asked to see the receipts for each disk, they didn't have them to produce. claimed they were tossed out.



    which begs the question, did they buy the copies or did they perhaps 5 finger them. it's not hard to do if you pick the right store and time of day. those boxes are very small and drop into bags very easy



    Quote:

    There may be some legal reasoning for this, but I'm not American, don't know how you guys roll in this respect.



    regardless of the wording in the EULA, the courts have validated Apple's right to control the hardware and tossed out all anti-trust claims by Pystar, including the claim that "Mac Computers" is a unique market.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    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?



    ethics aside (and if you believe it to be unethical, don't buy a Mac), the courts have said that yes Apple has the right to make you buy their frame if you want their painting.



    Quote:



    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



    well the courts don't agree with you. on several points in this matter
  • Reply 129 of 168
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,656member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    You replace it with a Honda and you don't have to drive on a different set of roads. Apple is 100% of the Mac platform, except in rare cases, software licenses are sold for a specific platform. When you buy a HP and you're not happy, you can move everything over to a different machine. When you're not happy with Apple you have to choose between continuing on displeased or replacing all your software and moving to a different platform probably losing some files in the process.



    That's irrelevant. When you first make the choice, you are not restricted to one or the other. You can freely choose. The law doesn't break things down as minutely as you seem to think.



    If that were so, every program that had its own file format would be considered a monopoly in its own little sphere. That clearly is not the case.



    Many programs and file formats are easily transportable between the two major OS's, and in fact, between Linux distro's as well.



    No one can make the claim that they can't switch between Apple's OS, MS's OS and the Linux distro's. Will some money need to change hands? Yes, what of it?



    This is the easiest time for users of one OS to move to another than it's ever been.



    Only if there were major obstructions to moving from one system to another might there some possibility that your statement might be true. but it doesn't even come close, and it never did.



    By your reasoning, almost everything would be a monopoly.



    My Canon camera would be one, Nikon would be one, etc. Neither have to license out their lens mounts, but they CHOOSE to do so.



    Hassleblad, which went to a proprietary system, to cut out third party digital back manufacturers, would be considered a monopoly of Hassie cameras, in your view. But while many in the medium format industry were angry by what they had done, none is calling them monopolistic because of it. That just makes no sense.
  • Reply 130 of 168
    davidwdavidw Posts: 971member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    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.







    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



    But Psystar is not paying any "royalty" for their use of OSX. If they requested and got a license from Apple to sell that "adaptive" copy of OSX then what Psystar is doing would be legal under copyright law. But Psystar must request and get that license first. And there's no law that states that the owner of any IP must grant that license.





    You can not just go out and buy CD's of the songs you want to use in a movie you're planning to releases to the public for profit. You have to ask the artist if you can use their songs in your movie. It doesn't matter that you think the artist got paid when you bought their CD's. Some of the artist might not want their songs used in your movie for what ever reasons. Some may ask for a small royalty or fee. Others may just let you use it for a credit line. Regardless, you need permission to use some else's IP for commercial gain. Copyright laws isn't just about protecting the monetary benefit of an owners IP. It also protects the owner rights to dictate how their IP can be used.





    There are systems and laws in place that would allow Psystar to do what they're doing legal. The law is not that they can't modify and pre-load OSX. The law is that they can't do that without Apples permission. Psystar is never considered the owner of OSX. Apple retains all rights to how OSX can be used. Regardless that Psystar bought a copy of it. It's the way copyright laws work. And it's the way it should work. It's been like this for over 400 years (Worldwide) and it will most likely get stricter (in the US) with this administration. Nearly all developed nation have copyright laws in place to protect an owner's IP. If they didn't, they mostly likely wouldn't have ended up on the list of developed nations



    You keep stating that Psystar is not stealing but just violating copyright laws. As though violating copyright law is some minor offense. It's stealing that can be the minor offense. If you shoplifted a $15 CD you'll most likely only have to pay for the $15 for the CD and get off with a misdemeanor citation. You violate copyright law and illegally copy that $15 CD, it can cost you up to a $10,000 fine. (per infraction)
  • Reply 131 of 168
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,656member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    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?



    I missed this earlier, but as it's been replied to, I think I have an even better response.



    Apple here would be the artist.



    If we look at the OS as a lithograph, Serigraph, or other original "copy" of the work (I say original copy, for those who don't know, because every impression of the work from those methods of reproduction is considered to be an original, though they are copies of each other), then Apple is allowed, obviously, to make as many as they wish, and can sell them any way they wish.



    The art business is like the computer business in one way, works are sold either "naked", as in unframed, the way MS sells their OS, and "clothed", or framed, the way Apple sells theirs.



    If the artist decides that their work is only complete when framed the way the artist insists, then that is the entire work. If that work is copyrighted, as it would be, then no one has the right to remove the frame and sell it separately, or to sell the painting, the other part of the work, separately. Copyrights state that works may not be altered without the copyright holders permission.



    Is it ethical?



    Of course it is! Who else has the right to decide what a finished work of art is other than the one who made it?



    Apple's computers and OS combination can be considered to be a complete work of art when together. The OS upgrades, are sold exclusively to enhance that work of art, just as we see with copies of books that are corrected in later versions. It isn't sold to enhance someone else's work of art.



    There isn't any question of ethics here.
  • Reply 132 of 168
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    I think you're not getting it. This is not about unauthorized reselling. No matter what they choose to call it, the product Psystar is selling is a Macintosh computer, which is Apple's product to sell in the manner they choose. I'm not interested in whether this is "stealing" by someone's definition. Either way, it's illegal because it violates Apple's intellectual property rights. The point being, we don't have to complicate this issue with debates over the validity of the EULA. Apple's IP rights are not defined by the EULA.



    Psystar by definition cannot sell a Macintosh. Psystar is selling an OS X-equipped PC. The strength in Apple's argument is in copyright violation from Psystar reselling pre-loaded PCs, not that Psystar is selling a "Macintosh."



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    So how do you define legitimate competition when copyright is being broken. Something that is after all, enshrined in the Constitution itself (as well as in the basic laws of every other country, as well as that of international bodies), as copyright protections were, and are considered to be so important to a HEALTHY intellectual environment?



    You define legitimate competition as competition which complies in all ways with copyright laws. I am saying that the laws are preventing forms of competition which should be deemed legitimate... i.e. allowing a party to purchase a product, modify it, and resell it.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    How is it proper for a company improperly taking another's works, and using it in a fashion for which they have no permission, and so taking business from the rightful copyholder?



    No explanation can be given to justify that.



    Other companies have the right to do their own OS, or to license one that is licensable, so there's no excuse for them to appropriate one that isn't. Even you seem to agree with that.



    The Constitution gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to determine the distribution channels, and the fitness of use for their work.



    THERE IS NO TAKING. IT'S BUYING.



    They BUY an installation of OS X and pay Apple's asking price. They install it on generic hardware and resell it. Aside from restating Apple's EULA or copyright law, explain to me how that is ethically wrong.



    -Clive
  • Reply 133 of 168
    davidwdavidw Posts: 971member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    You replace it with a Honda and you don't have to drive on a different set of roads. Apple is 100% of the Mac platform, except in rare cases, software licenses are sold for a specific platform. When you buy a HP and you're not happy, you can move everything over to a different machine. When you're not happy with Apple you have to choose between continuing on displeased or replacing all your software and moving to a different platform probably losing some files in the process.



    There are thousands of computer users that has to face that same dilemma everyday of the year. And you know what? It still didn't stop them from moving to the Mac platform.
  • Reply 134 of 168
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,656member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    You define legitimate competition as competition which complies in all ways with copyright laws. I am saying that the laws are preventing forms of competition which should be deemed legitimate... i.e. allowing a party to purchase a product, modify it, and resell it.



    Understand something here Clive, I'M not defining anything. The Constitution is defining it, and the laws that the Constitution specifically states that Congesss may raise up to extend, or modify the basic inderstanding that is written into the Constitution are defining it. I'm simply referring to that.



    You, and some other here, are the ones attempting to re-define Copyright, and the rights that extend from it.



    It's been well thought out over centuries, and now a few get rich quick at other's expense people, are trying to define it in a way that benefits themselves. You seem to agree with them.





    Quote:

    THERE IS NO TAKING. IT'S BUYING.



    They BUY an installation of OS X and pay Apple's asking price. They install it on generic hardware and resell it. Aside from restating Apple's EULA or copyright law, explain to me how that is ethically wrong.



    -Clive



    Wow. How many times do we have to explain that to you. If you don't want to understand, the number of explanations won't help. I've already explained it pretty clearly, as have others.



    You simply don't want to believe it.



    There's really no point to have to explain it again, as all we can do is to repeat our explanations.



    All you are really saying is that you don't agree with what you consider to be correct. Thats confusing everyone who is trying to help you.
  • Reply 135 of 168
    vista home premium oem is about that price with top oem ver at $200.
  • Reply 136 of 168
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    Psystar by definition cannot sell a Macintosh. Psystar is selling an OS X-equipped PC. The strength in Apple's argument is in copyright violation from Psystar reselling pre-loaded PCs, not that Psystar is selling a "Macintosh."



    What defines a Macintosh computer is the combination of the hardware and the software. This is easily seen because neither functions as a Macintosh computer by itself. You (and Psystar) are trying argue that if you can buy any one piece of what makes up a Macintosh computer that you may combine those parts and sell Macintosh computers. This is to say the least, a novel argument. If applied to any other copyrighted or patented good, its absurdity would be readily understood and acknowledged. You seem to believe that an entirely different logic applies because the object in question is a computer. It doesn't.
  • Reply 137 of 168
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


    But Psystar is not paying any "royalty" for their use of OSX. If they requested and got a license from Apple to sell that "adaptive" copy of OSX then what Psystar is doing would be legal under copyright law. But Psystar must request and get that license first. And there's no law that states that the owner of any IP must grant that license.



    I know that's what the law says. I'm saying I don't agree. If I buy a product, why should I have to have permission to resell that product?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


    You can not just go out and buy CD's of the songs you want to use in a movie you're planning to releases to the public for profit. You have to ask the artist if you can use their songs in your movie. It doesn't matter that you think the artist got paid when you bought their CD's. Some of the artist might not want their songs used in your movie for what ever reasons. Some may ask for a small royalty or fee. Others may just let you use it for a credit line. Regardless, you need permission to use some else's IP for commercial gain. Copyright laws isn't just about protecting the monetary benefit of an owners IP. It also protects the owner rights to dictate how their IP can be used.



    Bad analogy. Movies get seen by thousands/millions of people. Copies of OS X purchased then resold by Psystar are 1:1.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


    There are systems and laws in place that would allow Psystar to do what they're doing legal. The law is not that they can't modify and pre-load OSX. The law is that they can't do that without Apples permission. Psystar is never considered the owner of OSX. Apple retains all rights to how OSX can be used. Regardless that Psystar bought a copy of it. It's the way copyright laws work. And it's the way it should work. It's been like this for over 400 years (Worldwide) and it will most likely get stricter (in the US) with this administration. Nearly all developed nation have copyright laws in place to protect an owner's IP. If they didn't, they mostly likely wouldn't have ended up on the list of developed nations



    Then I disagree with the requirements of a "developed nation" and I disagree with strengthening of copyright laws. It also seems pretty hypocritical of an administration that hates big business to armor it with stricter IP/copyright laws.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


    You keep stating that Psystar is not stealing but just violating copyright laws. As though violating copyright law is some minor offense. It's stealing that can be the minor offense. If you shoplifted a $15 CD you'll most likely only have to pay for the $15 for the CD and get off with a misdemeanor citation. You violate copyright law and illegally copy that $15 CD, it can cost you up to a $10,000 fine. (per infraction)



    Once again, Psystar is not going into an Apple Store and shoplifting OS X. They are paying the full retail price and then reselling it.



    Also, I'm so sorry to sound cavalier about breaking copyright, but one tends to sound that way when they disagree with a law.



    FYI, in my state, it's illegal to sleep naked. If my wife wants to sleep naked, I'm going to let her.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Apple here would be the artist.



    [...]



    I agree that if the entire work is the frame + graphic, then yes, Apple has the right to sell it that way. What I don't think Apple should have the right to do is sell you a duplicate of the graphic and force you to put it in a frame that can only be purchased from them.



    Why do they get to have it both ways? Either they sell the whole thing as a complete work of art, or they sell the duplicate and let the buyer use it as (s)he chooses. Apple should not have the right to control how I use a product of theirs after I've paid for it and left the store.



    -Clive
  • Reply 138 of 168
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,656member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post




    FYI, in my state, it's illegal to sleep naked. If my wife wants to sleep naked, I'm going to let her.



    What you mean to say is that; as long as she wants to sleep naked with ME, I'm going to let her.



    I just saved your marriage.



    Quote:

    I agree that if the entire work is the frame + graphic, then yes, Apple has the right to sell it that way. What I don't think Apple should have the right to do is sell you a duplicate of the graphic and force you to put it in a frame that can only be purchased from them.



    That's not what they're doing. they're selling an IMPROVED, fixed (as much as possible at the time) version of the graphic. They're even allowing you to keep the older version. Apple never sells just the frame. Every one comes with the graphic.



    Quote:

    Why do they get to have it both ways? Either they sell the whole thing as a complete work of art, or they sell the duplicate and let the buyer use it as (s)he chooses. Apple should not have the right to control how I use a product of theirs after I've paid for it and left the store.



    -Clive



    You keep missing the point here. I just explained it in this very post, above. You're asking the same question twice!



    They aren't selling a duplicate, they are selling that improved version to everyone who already bought the complete work of art.
  • Reply 139 of 168
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Understand something here Clive, I'M not defining anything. The Constitution is defining it, and the laws that the Constitution specifically states that Congesss may raise up to extend, or modify the basic inderstanding that is written into the Constitution are defining it. I'm simply referring to that.



    You, and some other here, are the ones attempting to re-define Copyright, and the rights that extend from it.



    No, you're interpreting my use of the word "legitimate" as "legally allowed." I'm using "legitimate" as meaning "justifiable, fair."



    I understand why we have copyright laws and why they are important. I simply contend the massive power we've instilled into the rights that extend from it. That doesn't make me anti-Constitution as you are subtly implying, it means that I disagree with the modern interpretation of the Constitution within the realm of copyright laws.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    It's been well thought out over centuries, and now a few get rich quick at other's expense people, are trying to define it in a way that benefits themselves. You seem to agree with them.



    I don't care whether Psystar lives or dies. I just believe that companies should not be able to control use of a product past the point of sale. That goes for modifying, installing, reselling, what have you. So long as that copy goes toward a single installation of OS X, I believe I am within my rights to do with it what I please.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Wow. How many times do we have to explain that to you. If you don't want to understand, the number of explanations won't help. I've already explained it pretty clearly, as have others.



    You simply don't want to believe it.



    There's really no point to have to explain it again, as all we can do is to repeat our explanations.



    All you are really saying is that you don't agree with what you consider to be correct. Thats confusing everyone who is trying to help you.



    No, you are the one who is not understanding. I know what copyright law says. I disagree with the law.



    I'm looking for ethical reasons as to why you believe the law is correct, not simply "because copyright law says so." That's a circular argument.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    What defines a Macintosh computer is the combination of the hardware and the software. This is easily seen because neither functions as a Macintosh computer by itself. You (and Psystar) are trying argue that if you can buy any one piece of what makes up a Macintosh computer that you may combine those parts and sell Macintosh computers. This is to say the least, a novel argument. If applied to any other copyrighted or patented good, its absurdity would be readily understood and acknowledged. You seem to believe that an entirely different logic applies because the object in question is a computer. It doesn't.



    You are creating that definition to strengthen your case. Apple owns the trademark "Macintosh" and by definition no one else can create a Macintosh. Apple cannot claim stake to any computer running OS X. So let's use this in an example and I will show you how not-ridiculous this is.



    Say Warhol Jr. sells standalone duplicates of a painting "Ketchup Bottle" but also sells it with a special frame together as "The Complete Tomato." If I buy "Ketchup Bottle" and put it in my own frame, I have not created a "The Complete Tomato." If I purchase several copies of "Ketchup Bottle," frame them myself and then resell them, I am not selling "The Complete Tomato." I am selling framed duplicates of "Ketchup Bottle" (each duplicate legally purchased, by the way).



    -Clive
  • Reply 140 of 168
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    What you mean to say is that; as long as she wants to sleep naked with ME, I'm going to let her.



    I just saved your marriage.



    Hah, you wish, buddy



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    That's not what they're doing. they're selling an IMPROVED, fixed (as much as possible at the time) version of the graphic. They're even allowing you to keep the older version. Apple never sells just the frame. Every one comes with the graphic.



    How does that change that they're selling full versions of the OS off-the-shelf? Who cares if they never sell "just the frame?" They sell "just the OS" and that's what matters.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    They aren't selling a duplicate, they are selling that improved version to everyone who already bought the complete work of art.



    Calling it an upgrade doesn't make it functionally different from a full version. There is no prerequisite to installing OS X. It's available to everyone to purchase. So long as one's hardware has the proper boot-loader and instruction set, the installer will work.



    If Apple only sold OS X through paid software updates, I'd be on Apple's side on this, but they do not. They sell the OS through retail channels as an independent work, as well as in a complete work, bundled with their hardware. That said, I don't believe they should be allowed to control the software's use after the point-of-sale.



    -Clive
Sign In or Register to comment.