With the exception of Powermac.... Apple has always sold there OS as a package deal.... you buy their OS to run on their computers.
Package deal??? That is bull as the OS is and has been available as updates or new releases for some time now. Maybe those shiny boxes on the shelves at the Apple store are purely for show or maybe you never noticed them.
Quote:
i think you should reread EULA. It is the same as downloading songs from p2p. u are using those materials without the consent of the owner of the copyright.
and that would be categories as stealing. just because it is still in the original box doesnt prove anything. Again, u are using those materials without the consent of the owner of the copyright.
Well if the owner of the copyrighted material sold it to you or Psystar, then they consented to the use. If Apple wanted to truly control the situation they would make sure nobody sold to Psystar.
As to EULA there is still a big question as to their being legally binding. For the most part they seem to be crap.
I strongly suspect that one of the reasons Apple has waited so long here is to develop a legal plan based on something they think they have a solid basis for winning with. As such I expect the legal teams to be very focused on what they believe has good case law. As I see it though Apple will have a tough time with this if Psystar can afford a solid legal team. Even Apple can't lock somebody out 100%, given that interoperability and such are still supported in law.
This isn't the same thing (Psystar is reselling Apple's product, not making an emulator that runs it), but there are still some interesting, and possibly significant, parallels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melevittfl
Hmm, well I went into a local store when and picked up a box labelled "Mac OS X". I went to a cash register and gave the store some money in exchange for the box. That seems like a sale to me.
I think Paystar is within their rights as long as they are not modifying OS X.
If they would just throw an OS X box in the package, along with some specialized installation instructions, then you'd be absolutely correct.
When they preload it on non-Apple hardware, they violate the license agreement. And if they ship modified versions of Apple's updates, that's almost definitely a violation of copyright.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeDRC
I think when you click "I Accept" When prompted with the terms and conditions of the license agreement you enter a legally binding contract.
Maybe. Some states have signed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Computer_Information_Transactions_Act">UCI TA</a> into law. This law, among other things, makes click-through and shrink-wrap licenses legally binding. A few states have (through court decisions) declared them binding without UCITA or similar legislation. But in most states, a shrink-wrap or click-through license is not binding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutcho
Look at all the apple fan boys in here. What apple is doing is in no way good for the consumer. They are just trying to protect their business of selling overpriced hardware to their customers.
This is not necessarily good for customers.
Imagine what the platform would be like if there were dozens or hundreds of clones. Apple would be forced to support them, or developers would be forced to work around all the incompatibilities in their apps. People would blame Apple and the software developers for all the problems that will inevitably happen as a result of cheap, shoddy computers.
Just like the Windows world.
As a Mac user, I don't want that future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphodsplanet
They are STEALING an OS they have NO RIGHT TO RESELL!!!!! aka... they are CRIMINALS!!!
...
Apple Built their OS... and THEY OWN IT... anyone who thinks otherwise seriously needs to re-educate themselves....
Not quite. They are buying a full-price retail box of OS X to ship with each system they sell. There is no piracy going on here.
They are installing that OS on unlicensed hardware. That's a violation of the license terms, but it is not priacy, or copyright violation, or theft.
As for ownership, copyright holders usually have no say over what a legitimate customer does with his purchase. When you buy a music CD, the record label retains the copyright, but they can't stop you from doing what you want with that disc (aside from making copies of it.) If you buy CDs for the purpose of making silver/plastic confetti, or for use as skeet-targets, or as some future-looking kind of wallpaper, they have no legal means to stop you.
Apple is trying to impose this restriction via a shrink-wrap license. If Florida has no law or precedent making shrink-wrap licenses legally binding, they may not have a leg to stand on. IMO, Apple will only have a case here when it comes to Psystar's redistribution of system updates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ros3ntan
EULA, thats why microsoft can by law sue someone for sharing their windows with another if they agree to use only one computer. Just so u know, when u buy microsoft's windows, you buy a license. depending on which version, but for the consumer, its usually for one computer. That agreement is similar to apple.
Shrink-wrap and click-through EULAs are only known to be enforceable in a small number of states.
Microsoft can sue you for giving Windows to third parties because that is a violation of copyright law - no EULA gets involved there. If they try to sue for other things (like people who buy a new computer and want to move their old copy of Windows to it, after erasing the old computer's installation), that's where the EULA comes in to play.
Look at all the apple fan boys in here. What apple is doing is in no way good for the consumer. They are just trying to protect their business of selling overpriced hardware to their customers.
Hi Hutcho,
Listen this may come as a shock to you, but Apple's primary responsibility is not to ask themselves at every turn "Is this really best for the consumer?" The driving force behind everything Apple (and most corporations) does is not the noble consumer, wandering like a lost child in the forest with only his wallet of paper blankets to keep him warm.
Their responsibility is to the stockholders (the ones smart enough not to get lost in the forest), and that responsibility is to generate profits (our paper blankets). Seeing as how the tool they use to generate those profits are their products, it behooves Apple (and all companies who produce non-necessity items) to build them such that they appeal to folks, and then charge as much as they can possibly charge to sell them. Period.
Using phrases like "What Apple is doing is in no way good for the consumer" just makes you sound like a closet socialist.
"Overpriced" is nonsense. There is no such thing as "Overpriced". You could say their machines are expensive, but not "overpriced". But if you don't like the price, then you don't have to buy one. You have a choice. There's always Vista.
With the exception of Powermac.... Apple has always sold there OS as a package deal.... you buy their OS to run on their computers.
i think you should reread EULA. It is the same as downloading songs from p2p. u are using those materials without the consent of the owner of the copyright.
and that would be categories as stealing. just because it is still in the original box doesnt prove anything. Again, u are using those materials without the consent of the owner of the copyright.
Not quite.
If Psystar were simply buying a retail copy of Leopard, then buying an empty computer, and turning around and selling the two together in a single package, then there would not have been any copyright violation at all.
If Psystar were buying a bunch of retail copy of Leopard, then buying a batch of old used PowerBook G4's (one for every Leopard disc they bought), then installing Leopard on those G4's, then selling the G4's along with the used Leopard discs in a single package, then there still wouldn't have been any copyright violation at all.
In fact, it Psystar had purchased a bunch of retail copies of G4's, then purchased a batch of old G4's (one for every Leopard disc thay bought), then modified the portions of Leopard that are covered by OSS licenses, then installed the modified version of Leopard on those G4's, then sold the G4's along with the used Leopard discs in a single package... Even then, there would not have been any violation. (See Mac OS X EULA clause 1D)
It is mainly by virtue of the fact that Psystar was installing its modified copy of OS X on a non-Apple-manufactured piece of hardware that the question of violation started to come into play. Secondarily, we have the question of whether or not the modifications Psystar was making to OS X were to components which were covered by OSS licenses. Both of these issues come into play only as a consequence of conditions in the EULA.
Now, we can add to the mix the fact that Psystar started duplicating and reistributing modified copies of Apple's automatic updates for free download to anybody. This is quite distinct from their previous role, and carries with it a whole new series of complications independently of any conditions that may or may not exist in the EULA.
"What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers?," he said. "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"
Worst... argument... EVER! I better lawyer up well if that is the best rebuttal he has.
PS: I'm guessing it behooves Apple to wait to file a judgement. If Apple did this prior to them selling a single item then an out of court arrangement would most likely be made if a cease and-desist didn't work. The more money Psystar invests into their business the more likely they are going to fight, which will set a court recorded precedence and keep other from doing it in the future. It's like beating up the biggest kid in a school gang in order to get the rest to leave you alone. Of course, you have to win the fight for it to be effective.
With the exception of Powermac.... Apple has always sold there OS as a package deal.... you buy their OS to run on their computers.
i think you should reread EULA. It is the same as downloading songs from p2p. u are using those materials without the consent of the owner of the copyright.
and that would be categories as stealing. just because it is still in the original box doesnt prove anything. Again, u are using those materials without the consent of the owner of the copyright.
I think that falls more into the realm of copyright infringement than theft (hence the case is a copyright case). After all, the software was purchased legally.
i think you should reread EULA. It is the same as downloading songs from p2p. u are using those materials without the consent of the owner of the copyright.
EULA has nothing to do with copyright.
Companies demand that you click-through to EULAs precisely because copyright law doesn't permit them to restrict the kind of things that are spelled out in those license agreements.
P2P music sharing is altogether different. There is no EULA for music (have you ever seen one on an audio CD?) Copyright law directly prohibits duplication and distribution of music. No special license is needed or used to enforce this.
This isn't the same thing (Psystar is reselling Apple's product, not making an emulator that runs it), but there are still some interesting, and possibly significant, parallels.
If they would just throw an OS X box in the package, along with some specialized installation instructions, then you'd be absolutely correct.
And Bleem wasn't free; I remember it being on sale and on store shelves when it was released. Aside from the fact that OS X is software, Psystar modded that software (and didn't emulate it), it sounds like a closely related case.
Look at all the apple fan boys in here. What apple is doing is in no way good for the consumer. They are just trying to protect their business of selling overpriced hardware to their customers.
Took long enough. Apple better win this case and leave them broke. What if, the Xbox 360 OS was only available for Xbox 360? What if the Zune OS was only available for the Zune? What if you could only launch fireworks on July 4th (In some cities/counties in the US, that actually is true)
As for Psystar's claim of anti trust violations they may have grounds there as Apple has an absolute lock on PC's running Mac OS/X. Which comes back to possibly why Apple has focused their suit on a very narrow issue of copyright infringement.
That's as silly an arguement as saying Coke has an absolute lock on cans containing Coke. Microsoft didn't get sued because of their monopoly of computers running Windows. They got sued because of [their abuse of] their monopoly of personal computers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
Where do you get the idea they were stealing anything?
I belive the user even gets the original box the OS came in when purchased by Psystar.
What was stolen?
For what it's worth, the article stated, "just one day after Psystar began distributing a modified version of the Mac OS X 10.5.4 Leopard update". If that was the basis of the lawsuit, it suggests that Psystar downloaded a free copy of the 10.5.4 update (you can't purchase it retail), modified it, and then redistributed it. This isn't the same as purchasing a retail copy of OSX and installing it for your customers on your Mac clone, and then including the boxed copy with the computer when you ship it. They are redistributing a modified version of Apple's copyrighted material for which they did not purchase a license.
Look at all the apple fan boys in here. What apple is doing is in no way good for the consumer. They are just trying to protect their business of selling overpriced hardware to their customers.
I believe what you wanted to say was "They are just trying to protect their business of selling hardware and software to their customers".
It doesn't matter how expensive or in-expensive it is ? it's theirs!
I think when you click "I Accept" When prompted with the terms and conditions of the license agreement you enter a legally binding contract.
Well, that's what Apple's lawyers want you to think.
Various courts have ruled in different ways on the validity of terms in an "license agreement". In the case I linked to in my previous post, a court ruled that a term in the license that prohibited the resale of the software had no legal standing.
It had no legal standing because the a "license agreement" only can apply to something that is licensed. The judge ruled that, just because the software company called in a "license", the fact was that the buyer "purchased" the software, there was no end-date to the license where the user had to return the software, and the buyer was not making continuing payments. In other words, even though the company called it a license, it actually had all the characteristics of a sale.
Now here's the trick: once you sell a copy of a work, the copyright holder has no legal right to prevent you from selling on that copy.
All that being said, Paystar seems to be giving you an unmodified copy of the software, which is legal, but pre-installing a modified copy on the machine. That's likely to get them in trouble.
Also, whenever I click "I Agree" on any software I make sure to say out loud that I do not agree to any terms which go beyond those granted under copyright law.
They are violating apple's software license, and they are selling a modified version of Apple's OS without permission.
No... STEALING is the right word. They are reselling something.... regardless of whether they paid for it or not.... and modifying code THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO FART WITH.....
I/We pay a premium to have something as cool and functionally complete as OSX. Apple has spent probably billions developing it to work on the hardware they sell. The ULA clearly states this relationship.
I'm willing to pay MORE for this.... and trust that Apple will continue to be able to innovate above all others because of the business model I support when I purchase their products.
So.... Psystar has NO RIGHT.... to "borrow" something they don't own... to sell it on their POS hardware.... so... THEY ARE STEALING.... ROBBING... Raping.... taking something they have no right to. It's Illegal... and it's wrong.... and now... they're gonna pay through the ass for that... as they should.
It's black and white dude.... no grey area about this.
True but it is safe to assume those at Psystar installing Mac OS X onto their machines are certaintly not minors or mentally incompetent therefore they can be prosecuted on the grounds on breaking the license agreement they chose to accept.
I don't think so. I think you'd have to be nuts to buy a Psystar!
If Psystar were simply buying a retail copy of Leopard, then buying an empty computer, and turning around and selling the two together in a single package, then there would not have been any copyright violation at all.
If Psystar were buying a bunch of retail copy of Leopard, then buying a batch of old used PowerBook G4's (one for every Leopard disc they bought), then installing Leopard on those G4's, then selling the G4's along with the used Leopard discs in a single package, then there still wouldn't have been any copyright violation at all.
In fact, it Psystar had purchased a bunch of retail copies of G4's, then purchased a batch of old G4's (one for every Leopard disc thay bought), then modified the portions of Leopard that are covered by OSS licenses, then installed the modified version of Leopard on those G4's, then sold the G4's along with the used Leopard discs in a single package... Even then, there would not have been any violation. (See Mac OS X EULA clause 1D)
It is mainly by virtue of the fact that Psystar was installing its modified copy of OS X on a non-Apple-manufactured piece of hardware that the question of violation started to come into play. Secondarily, we have the question of whether or not the modifications Psystar was making to OS X were to components which were covered by OSS licenses. Both of these issues come into play only as a consequence of conditions in the EULA.
Now, we can add to the mix the fact that Psystar started duplicating and reistributing modified copies of Apple's automatic updates for free download to anybody. This is quite distinct from their previous role, and carries with it a whole new series of complications independently of any conditions that may or may not exist in the EULA.
It's not "Complicated"..... what they are doing is Illegal. The OS is the intellectual property of Apple. Not Psystar..... and when you buy a copy of OSX it is "Supposed" to be used with an Apple computer and there are countermeasures in place to assure this. The Crooks at Psystar are friggin with something they have no right to frig with. Period. End of Story.
Whatever parts they Modified is a straw dog. The point still stands that they HAD NO RIGHT TO DO THAT to make OSX work on their shit machines. This IS NOT LINUX... it's OSX. Yes it's built on UNIX but that is also another moot point.
Pystar is wrong....and will pay dearly.
Apple is right and will spend more then they will probably ever make from suing those loosers.
Listen this may come as a shock to you, but Apple's primary responsibility is not to ask themselves at every turn "Is this really best for the consumer?" The driving force behind everything Apple (and most corporations) does is not the noble consumer, wandering like a lost child in the forest with only his wallet of paper blankets to keep him warm.
Their responsibility is to the stockholders (the ones smart enough not to get lost in the forest), and that responsibility is to generate profits (our paper blankets). Seeing as how the tool they use to generate those profits are their products, it behooves Apple (and all companies who produce non-necessity items) to build them such that they appeal to folks, and then charge as much as they can possibly charge to sell them. Period.
Using phrases like "What Apple is doing is in no way good for the consumer" just makes you sound like a closet socialist.
"Overpriced" is nonsense. There is no such thing as "Overpriced". You could say their machines are expensive, but not "overpriced". But if you don't like the price, then you don't have to buy one. You have a choice. There's always Vista.
Amen Echosonic..... You're eloquent, logical.... and Right...
No... STEALING is the right word. They are reselling something.... regardless of whether they paid for it or not.... and modifying code THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO FART WITH.....
I/We pay a premium to have something as cool and functionally complete as OSX. Apple has spent probably billions developing it to work on the hardware they sell. The ULA clearly states this relationship.
I'm willing to pay MORE for this.... and trust that Apple will continue to be able to innovate above all others because of the business model I support when I purchase their products.
So.... Psystar has NO RIGHT.... to "borrow" something they don't own... to sell it on their POS hardware.... so... THEY ARE STEALING.... ROBBING... Raping.... taking something they have no right to. It's Illegal... and it's wrong.... and now... they're gonna pay through the ass for that... as they should.
It's black and white dude.... no grey area about this.
In the sense that are taking without permission or legal right, they are stealing. In this case, I think we should use copyright infringement over stealing to imply the misuse of a legally purchased good, as to not to confuse it was Psystar breaking into an Apple Store and stealing copies of OS X. In other words, using a more accurate term for the type of stealing involved.
though Psystar isn't modifying the software, they are merely installing the modified software (though I think they did modified Software Updater to point to their servers). The OSx86 Project is also unhappy with Psystar for taking their efforts without permission, then selling it for profit.
There is plenty of grey area, if there wasn't there would no need for the courts.
To those of you who think Psystar has a case what in the hell is wrong with your brains.
They've been imprinted with some knowledge of copyright law.
Quote:
With the exception of Powermac.... Apple has always sold there OS as a package deal.... you buy their OS to run on their computers.
And HP has always sold printers as a package deal with their overpriced toner cartridges. Just because Apple's business model is to sell a cheap OS and make money on the hardware doesn't give Apple the right to dictate what someone can do with a legally purchased copy of the OS.
Quote:
Psystar has no leg to stand on here legally....morally... or Ethically!!!!!
Given that they seem to be modifying Apple's OS first, you're right here, but not because they're reselling OS X.
Quote:
They are STEALING an OS they have NO RIGHT TO RESELL!!!!! aka... they are CRIMINALS!!!
They stole it? You mean they walked into a store and took a copy without paying for it? That's a tall claim. Can you back it up?
Again, they are perfectly within their rights to resell an unmodified copy. Just like you are perfectly within your rights to sell a CD to a used record store or a book to a used book store.
Quote:
There's NO GREY AREA here.... it's Black and White.... and most of all... IT'S WRONG.
Luckily the justice system isn't so black and white. Where would Apple be if the courts has such a black and white view of property rights regarding software when Apple was sued by Xerox? Did Apple STEAL Xerox's property? Xerox certainly thought they did.
Quote:
Those of you that believe Psystar has the RIGHT to use Apple's Property must be suffering from the worst form of Liberalism/Progressivism .... a true mental disorder....
Hmm, so being liberal means the ability to understand subtle distinctions in law and how that might apply to a particular issue?
Quote:
You know I've got a Visa Card.... now give me your wallet so I can use your Visa card.... since I've got a visa card I must have the right to use your visa card??? Right???? It's not much different then that.
If by "not much different" you mean actually, a completely different situation entirely, then perhaps. Not sure how you and I being the customer of the same banking facility has any relationship with this issue.
Quote:
Apple Built their OS... and THEY OWN IT... anyone who thinks otherwise seriously needs to re-educate themselves....
Again, holding the copyright on a work does not give the copyright holder absolute control over an individual copy. Do you think used bookstores would exist if publishers had the right to stop people from "reselling" their books? And of course, you do realize that Apple, in fact, does NOT own large parts of their operating system? Quite a lot of it is copyrighted by other people.
Quote:
Psystar is about to be History... and They deserve it for STEALING property that isn't theirs to use.
It's true they probably won't survive this, but they aren't "stealing property". At worst they have committed copyright infringement, but that's not stealing. Ask someone who's actually had their car stolen if they think copying a record is the same thing.
Comments
With the exception of Powermac.... Apple has always sold there OS as a package deal.... you buy their OS to run on their computers.
Package deal??? That is bull as the OS is and has been available as updates or new releases for some time now. Maybe those shiny boxes on the shelves at the Apple store are purely for show or maybe you never noticed them.
i think you should reread EULA. It is the same as downloading songs from p2p. u are using those materials without the consent of the owner of the copyright.
and that would be categories as stealing. just because it is still in the original box doesnt prove anything. Again, u are using those materials without the consent of the owner of the copyright.
Well if the owner of the copyrighted material sold it to you or Psystar, then they consented to the use. If Apple wanted to truly control the situation they would make sure nobody sold to Psystar.
As to EULA there is still a big question as to their being legally binding. For the most part they seem to be crap.
I strongly suspect that one of the reasons Apple has waited so long here is to develop a legal plan based on something they think they have a solid basis for winning with. As such I expect the legal teams to be very focused on what they believe has good case law. As I see it though Apple will have a tough time with this if Psystar can afford a solid legal team. Even Apple can't lock somebody out 100%, given that interoperability and such are still supported in law.
Dave
If Apple loses you'd think Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo would be guilty of not offering their XBox, PS3 or Wii OS on each other's consoles.
It's worth noting that Sony sued the makers of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleem!">Bleem!</a>; - a PlayStation emulator. Sony lost that suit.
This isn't the same thing (Psystar is reselling Apple's product, not making an emulator that runs it), but there are still some interesting, and possibly significant, parallels.
Hmm, well I went into a local store when and picked up a box labelled "Mac OS X". I went to a cash register and gave the store some money in exchange for the box. That seems like a sale to me.
I think Paystar is within their rights as long as they are not modifying OS X.
If they would just throw an OS X box in the package, along with some specialized installation instructions, then you'd be absolutely correct.
When they preload it on non-Apple hardware, they violate the license agreement. And if they ship modified versions of Apple's updates, that's almost definitely a violation of copyright.
I think when you click "I Accept" When prompted with the terms and conditions of the license agreement you enter a legally binding contract.
Maybe. Some states have signed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Computer_Information_Transactions_Act">UCI TA</a> into law. This law, among other things, makes click-through and shrink-wrap licenses legally binding. A few states have (through court decisions) declared them binding without UCITA or similar legislation. But in most states, a shrink-wrap or click-through license is not binding.
Look at all the apple fan boys in here. What apple is doing is in no way good for the consumer. They are just trying to protect their business of selling overpriced hardware to their customers.
This is not necessarily good for customers.
Imagine what the platform would be like if there were dozens or hundreds of clones. Apple would be forced to support them, or developers would be forced to work around all the incompatibilities in their apps. People would blame Apple and the software developers for all the problems that will inevitably happen as a result of cheap, shoddy computers.
Just like the Windows world.
As a Mac user, I don't want that future.
They are STEALING an OS they have NO RIGHT TO RESELL!!!!! aka... they are CRIMINALS!!!
...
Apple Built their OS... and THEY OWN IT... anyone who thinks otherwise seriously needs to re-educate themselves....
Not quite. They are buying a full-price retail box of OS X to ship with each system they sell. There is no piracy going on here.
They are installing that OS on unlicensed hardware. That's a violation of the license terms, but it is not priacy, or copyright violation, or theft.
As for ownership, copyright holders usually have no say over what a legitimate customer does with his purchase. When you buy a music CD, the record label retains the copyright, but they can't stop you from doing what you want with that disc (aside from making copies of it.) If you buy CDs for the purpose of making silver/plastic confetti, or for use as skeet-targets, or as some future-looking kind of wallpaper, they have no legal means to stop you.
Apple is trying to impose this restriction via a shrink-wrap license. If Florida has no law or precedent making shrink-wrap licenses legally binding, they may not have a leg to stand on. IMO, Apple will only have a case here when it comes to Psystar's redistribution of system updates.
EULA, thats why microsoft can by law sue someone for sharing their windows with another if they agree to use only one computer. Just so u know, when u buy microsoft's windows, you buy a license. depending on which version, but for the consumer, its usually for one computer. That agreement is similar to apple.
Shrink-wrap and click-through EULAs are only known to be enforceable in a small number of states.
Microsoft can sue you for giving Windows to third parties because that is a violation of copyright law - no EULA gets involved there. If they try to sue for other things (like people who buy a new computer and want to move their old copy of Windows to it, after erasing the old computer's installation), that's where the EULA comes in to play.
Look at all the apple fan boys in here. What apple is doing is in no way good for the consumer. They are just trying to protect their business of selling overpriced hardware to their customers.
Hi Hutcho,
Listen this may come as a shock to you, but Apple's primary responsibility is not to ask themselves at every turn "Is this really best for the consumer?" The driving force behind everything Apple (and most corporations) does is not the noble consumer, wandering like a lost child in the forest with only his wallet of paper blankets to keep him warm.
Their responsibility is to the stockholders (the ones smart enough not to get lost in the forest), and that responsibility is to generate profits (our paper blankets). Seeing as how the tool they use to generate those profits are their products, it behooves Apple (and all companies who produce non-necessity items) to build them such that they appeal to folks, and then charge as much as they can possibly charge to sell them. Period.
Using phrases like "What Apple is doing is in no way good for the consumer" just makes you sound like a closet socialist.
"Overpriced" is nonsense. There is no such thing as "Overpriced". You could say their machines are expensive, but not "overpriced". But if you don't like the price, then you don't have to buy one. You have a choice. There's always Vista.
With the exception of Powermac.... Apple has always sold there OS as a package deal.... you buy their OS to run on their computers.
i think you should reread EULA. It is the same as downloading songs from p2p. u are using those materials without the consent of the owner of the copyright.
and that would be categories as stealing. just because it is still in the original box doesnt prove anything. Again, u are using those materials without the consent of the owner of the copyright.
Not quite.
If Psystar were simply buying a retail copy of Leopard, then buying an empty computer, and turning around and selling the two together in a single package, then there would not have been any copyright violation at all.
If Psystar were buying a bunch of retail copy of Leopard, then buying a batch of old used PowerBook G4's (one for every Leopard disc they bought), then installing Leopard on those G4's, then selling the G4's along with the used Leopard discs in a single package, then there still wouldn't have been any copyright violation at all.
In fact, it Psystar had purchased a bunch of retail copies of G4's, then purchased a batch of old G4's (one for every Leopard disc thay bought), then modified the portions of Leopard that are covered by OSS licenses, then installed the modified version of Leopard on those G4's, then sold the G4's along with the used Leopard discs in a single package... Even then, there would not have been any violation. (See Mac OS X EULA clause 1D)
It is mainly by virtue of the fact that Psystar was installing its modified copy of OS X on a non-Apple-manufactured piece of hardware that the question of violation started to come into play. Secondarily, we have the question of whether or not the modifications Psystar was making to OS X were to components which were covered by OSS licenses. Both of these issues come into play only as a consequence of conditions in the EULA.
Now, we can add to the mix the fact that Psystar started duplicating and reistributing modified copies of Apple's automatic updates for free download to anybody. This is quite distinct from their previous role, and carries with it a whole new series of complications independently of any conditions that may or may not exist in the EULA.
Worst... argument... EVER! I better lawyer up well if that is the best rebuttal he has.
PS: I'm guessing it behooves Apple to wait to file a judgement. If Apple did this prior to them selling a single item then an out of court arrangement would most likely be made if a cease and-desist didn't work. The more money Psystar invests into their business the more likely they are going to fight, which will set a court recorded precedence and keep other from doing it in the future. It's like beating up the biggest kid in a school gang in order to get the rest to leave you alone. Of course, you have to win the fight for it to be effective.
With the exception of Powermac.... Apple has always sold there OS as a package deal.... you buy their OS to run on their computers.
i think you should reread EULA. It is the same as downloading songs from p2p. u are using those materials without the consent of the owner of the copyright.
and that would be categories as stealing. just because it is still in the original box doesnt prove anything. Again, u are using those materials without the consent of the owner of the copyright.
I think that falls more into the realm of copyright infringement than theft (hence the case is a copyright case). After all, the software was purchased legally.
i think you should reread EULA. It is the same as downloading songs from p2p. u are using those materials without the consent of the owner of the copyright.
EULA has nothing to do with copyright.
Companies demand that you click-through to EULAs precisely because copyright law doesn't permit them to restrict the kind of things that are spelled out in those license agreements.
P2P music sharing is altogether different. There is no EULA for music (have you ever seen one on an audio CD?) Copyright law directly prohibits duplication and distribution of music. No special license is needed or used to enforce this.
It's worth noting that Sony sued the makers of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleem!">Bleem!</a>; - a PlayStation emulator. Sony lost that suit.
This isn't the same thing (Psystar is reselling Apple's product, not making an emulator that runs it), but there are still some interesting, and possibly significant, parallels.
If they would just throw an OS X box in the package, along with some specialized installation instructions, then you'd be absolutely correct.
And Bleem wasn't free; I remember it being on sale and on store shelves when it was released. Aside from the fact that OS X is software, Psystar modded that software (and didn't emulate it), it sounds like a closely related case.
Look at all the apple fan boys in here. What apple is doing is in no way good for the consumer. They are just trying to protect their business of selling overpriced hardware to their customers.
If you're buying, they're selling. Get it?
As for Psystar's claim of anti trust violations they may have grounds there as Apple has an absolute lock on PC's running Mac OS/X. Which comes back to possibly why Apple has focused their suit on a very narrow issue of copyright infringement.
That's as silly an arguement as saying Coke has an absolute lock on cans containing Coke. Microsoft didn't get sued because of their monopoly of computers running Windows. They got sued because of [their abuse of] their monopoly of personal computers.
Where do you get the idea they were stealing anything?
I belive the user even gets the original box the OS came in when purchased by Psystar.
What was stolen?
For what it's worth, the article stated, "just one day after Psystar began distributing a modified version of the Mac OS X 10.5.4 Leopard update". If that was the basis of the lawsuit, it suggests that Psystar downloaded a free copy of the 10.5.4 update (you can't purchase it retail), modified it, and then redistributed it. This isn't the same as purchasing a retail copy of OSX and installing it for your customers on your Mac clone, and then including the boxed copy with the computer when you ship it. They are redistributing a modified version of Apple's copyrighted material for which they did not purchase a license.
Look at all the apple fan boys in here. What apple is doing is in no way good for the consumer. They are just trying to protect their business of selling overpriced hardware to their customers.
I believe what you wanted to say was "They are just trying to protect their business of selling hardware and software to their customers".
It doesn't matter how expensive or in-expensive it is ? it's theirs!
Skip
I think when you click "I Accept" When prompted with the terms and conditions of the license agreement you enter a legally binding contract.
Well, that's what Apple's lawyers want you to think.
Various courts have ruled in different ways on the validity of terms in an "license agreement". In the case I linked to in my previous post, a court ruled that a term in the license that prohibited the resale of the software had no legal standing.
It had no legal standing because the a "license agreement" only can apply to something that is licensed. The judge ruled that, just because the software company called in a "license", the fact was that the buyer "purchased" the software, there was no end-date to the license where the user had to return the software, and the buyer was not making continuing payments. In other words, even though the company called it a license, it actually had all the characteristics of a sale.
Now here's the trick: once you sell a copy of a work, the copyright holder has no legal right to prevent you from selling on that copy.
All that being said, Paystar seems to be giving you an unmodified copy of the software, which is legal, but pre-installing a modified copy on the machine. That's likely to get them in trouble.
Also, whenever I click "I Agree" on any software I make sure to say out loud that I do not agree to any terms which go beyond those granted under copyright law.
I don't know if "stealing" is the right word.
They are violating apple's software license, and they are selling a modified version of Apple's OS without permission.
No... STEALING is the right word. They are reselling something.... regardless of whether they paid for it or not.... and modifying code THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO FART WITH.....
I/We pay a premium to have something as cool and functionally complete as OSX. Apple has spent probably billions developing it to work on the hardware they sell. The ULA clearly states this relationship.
I'm willing to pay MORE for this.... and trust that Apple will continue to be able to innovate above all others because of the business model I support when I purchase their products.
So.... Psystar has NO RIGHT.... to "borrow" something they don't own... to sell it on their POS hardware.... so... THEY ARE STEALING.... ROBBING... Raping.... taking something they have no right to. It's Illegal... and it's wrong.... and now... they're gonna pay through the ass for that... as they should.
It's black and white dude.... no grey area about this.
True but it is safe to assume those at Psystar installing Mac OS X onto their machines are certaintly not minors or mentally incompetent therefore they can be prosecuted on the grounds on breaking the license agreement they chose to accept.
I don't think so. I think you'd have to be nuts to buy a Psystar!
Not quite.
If Psystar were simply buying a retail copy of Leopard, then buying an empty computer, and turning around and selling the two together in a single package, then there would not have been any copyright violation at all.
If Psystar were buying a bunch of retail copy of Leopard, then buying a batch of old used PowerBook G4's (one for every Leopard disc they bought), then installing Leopard on those G4's, then selling the G4's along with the used Leopard discs in a single package, then there still wouldn't have been any copyright violation at all.
In fact, it Psystar had purchased a bunch of retail copies of G4's, then purchased a batch of old G4's (one for every Leopard disc thay bought), then modified the portions of Leopard that are covered by OSS licenses, then installed the modified version of Leopard on those G4's, then sold the G4's along with the used Leopard discs in a single package... Even then, there would not have been any violation. (See Mac OS X EULA clause 1D)
It is mainly by virtue of the fact that Psystar was installing its modified copy of OS X on a non-Apple-manufactured piece of hardware that the question of violation started to come into play. Secondarily, we have the question of whether or not the modifications Psystar was making to OS X were to components which were covered by OSS licenses. Both of these issues come into play only as a consequence of conditions in the EULA.
Now, we can add to the mix the fact that Psystar started duplicating and reistributing modified copies of Apple's automatic updates for free download to anybody. This is quite distinct from their previous role, and carries with it a whole new series of complications independently of any conditions that may or may not exist in the EULA.
It's not "Complicated"..... what they are doing is Illegal. The OS is the intellectual property of Apple. Not Psystar..... and when you buy a copy of OSX it is "Supposed" to be used with an Apple computer and there are countermeasures in place to assure this. The Crooks at Psystar are friggin with something they have no right to frig with. Period. End of Story.
Whatever parts they Modified is a straw dog. The point still stands that they HAD NO RIGHT TO DO THAT to make OSX work on their shit machines. This IS NOT LINUX... it's OSX. Yes it's built on UNIX but that is also another moot point.
Pystar is wrong....and will pay dearly.
Apple is right and will spend more then they will probably ever make from suing those loosers.
You're really over-thinking this.
Hi Hutcho,
Listen this may come as a shock to you, but Apple's primary responsibility is not to ask themselves at every turn "Is this really best for the consumer?" The driving force behind everything Apple (and most corporations) does is not the noble consumer, wandering like a lost child in the forest with only his wallet of paper blankets to keep him warm.
Their responsibility is to the stockholders (the ones smart enough not to get lost in the forest), and that responsibility is to generate profits (our paper blankets). Seeing as how the tool they use to generate those profits are their products, it behooves Apple (and all companies who produce non-necessity items) to build them such that they appeal to folks, and then charge as much as they can possibly charge to sell them. Period.
Using phrases like "What Apple is doing is in no way good for the consumer" just makes you sound like a closet socialist.
"Overpriced" is nonsense. There is no such thing as "Overpriced". You could say their machines are expensive, but not "overpriced". But if you don't like the price, then you don't have to buy one. You have a choice. There's always Vista.
Amen Echosonic..... You're eloquent, logical.... and Right...
No... STEALING is the right word. They are reselling something.... regardless of whether they paid for it or not.... and modifying code THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO FART WITH.....
I/We pay a premium to have something as cool and functionally complete as OSX. Apple has spent probably billions developing it to work on the hardware they sell. The ULA clearly states this relationship.
I'm willing to pay MORE for this.... and trust that Apple will continue to be able to innovate above all others because of the business model I support when I purchase their products.
So.... Psystar has NO RIGHT.... to "borrow" something they don't own... to sell it on their POS hardware.... so... THEY ARE STEALING.... ROBBING... Raping.... taking something they have no right to. It's Illegal... and it's wrong.... and now... they're gonna pay through the ass for that... as they should.
It's black and white dude.... no grey area about this.
In the sense that are taking without permission or legal right, they are stealing. In this case, I think we should use copyright infringement over stealing to imply the misuse of a legally purchased good, as to not to confuse it was Psystar breaking into an Apple Store and stealing copies of OS X. In other words, using a more accurate term for the type of stealing involved.
though Psystar isn't modifying the software, they are merely installing the modified software (though I think they did modified Software Updater to point to their servers). The OSx86 Project is also unhappy with Psystar for taking their efforts without permission, then selling it for profit.
There is plenty of grey area, if there wasn't there would no need for the courts.
To those of you who think Psystar has a case what in the hell is wrong with your brains.
They've been imprinted with some knowledge of copyright law.
With the exception of Powermac.... Apple has always sold there OS as a package deal.... you buy their OS to run on their computers.
And HP has always sold printers as a package deal with their overpriced toner cartridges. Just because Apple's business model is to sell a cheap OS and make money on the hardware doesn't give Apple the right to dictate what someone can do with a legally purchased copy of the OS.
Psystar has no leg to stand on here legally....morally... or Ethically!!!!!
Given that they seem to be modifying Apple's OS first, you're right here, but not because they're reselling OS X.
They are STEALING an OS they have NO RIGHT TO RESELL!!!!! aka... they are CRIMINALS!!!
They stole it? You mean they walked into a store and took a copy without paying for it? That's a tall claim. Can you back it up?
Again, they are perfectly within their rights to resell an unmodified copy. Just like you are perfectly within your rights to sell a CD to a used record store or a book to a used book store.
There's NO GREY AREA here.... it's Black and White.... and most of all... IT'S WRONG.
Luckily the justice system isn't so black and white. Where would Apple be if the courts has such a black and white view of property rights regarding software when Apple was sued by Xerox? Did Apple STEAL Xerox's property? Xerox certainly thought they did.
Those of you that believe Psystar has the RIGHT to use Apple's Property must be suffering from the worst form of Liberalism/Progressivism .... a true mental disorder....
Hmm, so being liberal means the ability to understand subtle distinctions in law and how that might apply to a particular issue?
You know I've got a Visa Card.... now give me your wallet so I can use your Visa card.... since I've got a visa card I must have the right to use your visa card??? Right???? It's not much different then that.
If by "not much different" you mean actually, a completely different situation entirely, then perhaps. Not sure how you and I being the customer of the same banking facility has any relationship with this issue.
Apple Built their OS... and THEY OWN IT... anyone who thinks otherwise seriously needs to re-educate themselves....
Again, holding the copyright on a work does not give the copyright holder absolute control over an individual copy. Do you think used bookstores would exist if publishers had the right to stop people from "reselling" their books? And of course, you do realize that Apple, in fact, does NOT own large parts of their operating system? Quite a lot of it is copyrighted by other people.
Psystar is about to be History... and They deserve it for STEALING property that isn't theirs to use.
It's true they probably won't survive this, but they aren't "stealing property". At worst they have committed copyright infringement, but that's not stealing. Ask someone who's actually had their car stolen if they think copying a record is the same thing.