Apple finally sues unauthorized clone maker Psystar

13468911

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 210
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    The rights of the consumer have exactly zero to do with this. This is a corporation suing another corporation that is modifying and reselling their copyrighted material.



    From nytimes.com:



    "Apple's lawsuit charges Psystar with violating its shrink wrap license, as well as with trademark and copyright infringement. "Psystar has been manufacturing and selling a line of computers which sell pre-installed with Apple's OSX operating system," Espinosa noted in an entry to his blog today. "Apple's shrink wrap license which comes with OSX specifically requires that the software be installed only on Apple branded computers."



    I consider the issues of first-sale doctrine, EULAs, and the clarification of licenses vs sales to be valid consumer issues. I don't think anything interesting will come of this case, however, since I don't think Psystar is anything but a bug on Apple's windshield.
  • Reply 102 of 210
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by echosonic View Post


    If you do not recognize that socialism can only exist where freedom and a free market don't exist, then you have not spent enough years on Earth.



    i think you are thinking of communism. socialism is a tad different
  • Reply 103 of 210
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melevittfl View Post


    Whether Apple calls it "an upgrade" or not is irrelevant. That's the point I'm trying to get across here. Under US law, if Apple sells someone a copy of OS X, that person can do what they like with except distribute a copy of it (modified or not). They are perfectly within their legal rights to hack it so that it runs on Non-Apple hardware. That one copy that was purchased is the buyer's property. They can also sell that one copy to someone else. This is called the First Sale Doctrine and it's why you can by used CDs and books.



    Your argument is the exact opposite of the truth. The fact that somebody bought a full-price copy of OS X when they bought an Apple computer is why Apple will let you sell that computer with the OS on it, transfer that copy to another used computer, sell or give away your copy of OS X, etc., etc.: just like a CD or a book. It's Microsoft's business model that makes criminals of anybody who wants to use a copy of Windows that they have bought and paid for on another computer, or sell or give it to somebody else. This is also why there is a flourishing market for used Macs, while the only "market" for used PCs is the landfill. Microsoft claims that in order to sell a used computer, you are legally required to wipe the hard drive and the purchaser has to buy a new Windows license. How much of a used car market would there be if you had to junk the engine before you sold it and force the buyer to buy a new one?
  • Reply 104 of 210
    A lot of people don't seem to understand that violating an Software Licensing Agreement is copyright infringement.
    Several exclusive rights typically attach to the holder of a copyright:

    to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies (mechanical rights; including, sometimes, electronic copies: distribution rights)

    to import or export the work

    to create derivative works (works that adapt the original work)

    to perform or display the work publicly (performance rights)

    to sell or assign these rights to others

    to transmit or display by radio or video (broadcasting rights)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Exclusive_rights



    A copyright allows the owner of the copyright exclusive and complete control over copies of the copyrighted work; that's why it's called a copyright.



    The license agreement for OS X restricts installing(copying) the OS to Apple branded computers, and is therefore under the scope of copyright law (here's another interesting case that goes even further: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...copyright.html). Apple does not have to make OS X available to anyone. In fact, if Jobs suddenly went crazy (or perhaps crazier ), new versions of OS X could be only be available with new hardware purchases and there would be nothing anyone could do about it except refuse to buy Macs. Let's just hope that doesn't happen.



    Btw, Linux and other GPLed software have license agreements that restrict what you can do with them: http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3761924232.html
  • Reply 105 of 210
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    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.



    "stealing" isn't the right word, but it does fit in a way, and it also has the strongest possible impact or connotation. No one gets excited when someone says "copyright infringement", which is what it really is in legal terms, and they resort to the sharpest sound bite by using the most loaded term possible.



    "stealing" in this case is just a club that people use, like a club, it packs the punch, but really lacks in subtlety.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hutcho View Post


    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.



    It might be a problem if there were no alternatives. But there is Windows, Linux, BSD and so on, running on HP, Dell, Toshiba and so on. Who says you have to run OS X? Who says you have to use a Mac?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cactus_man View Post


    Not to single you out, but I'm sick of hearing this argument. The fact of the matter is that not everybody can choose. For instance, if you have to run Final Cut Pro (which is gradually overtaking Avid as the industry standard in DNLE's), then you must buy a Mac. No, there isn't "always Vista."



    On the other hand, Avid Media Composer and all of the Adobe applications run on both Mac and WIndows. Users of those applications DO have a choice. But like I said, when it comes to DNLE's, fewer and fewer people in the lower-budget realm of film are using Avid anymore; in order to remain relevant, you have have Final Cut Pro.



    It's not just Avid and FCP, there's also Premiere Pro. If you need something semi-pro like Final Cut Express, Liquid is supposed to be roughly equivalent in functionality. There are others too. I know some people that really like Vegas.



    Quote:

    It made me wonder just how much I overpaid for my Mac Pro. (I really don't want to look into it.)



    Workstations with similar specs are about the same or more.



    Quote:

    On a relevant note, consider the iPod. If I decided I wanted a Walkman, or Creative (which I could get since I run Windows in Boot Camp) to replace my iPod, I suddenly wouldn't be able to listen to my MP3's in the car anymore, since my Alpine is only iPod-compatible (like pretty much all car audio systems these days). I'd also have to get rid of my Harman Kardon Go + Play. In other words, it would be a MAJOR pain in the A$$ to abandon the iPod due to the monopoly Apple has established in the digital music player market, so Apple would have to screw up pretty badly with future incarnations to motivate the switch.



    There are car sound systems that have an AUX jack. If the other makers got their act together and finished a unified dock spec, the controls wouldn't be a problem. As it is, I'm not happy with how Apple plays with their their dock spec, every new iPod revision seems to "change the locks" such that some old dock accessories don't work. As such, I don't think it makes that much sense to buy dock accessory devices. It's especially the case with cars, the earlier cars with iPod connection compatibility won't work with new devices. If a car is used for 15 years, the last compatible iPod made might be 12 years old.
  • Reply 106 of 210
    Of course Apple are in the clear legally, good grief, you think they don't have a team of lawyers who know this shit back to front. I guarantee you Pystar have tripped up somewhere, I'm sure it's not hard to do at all, in fact for someone trying to scam the system it must be like walking a minefield.
  • Reply 107 of 210
    Quote:

    A copyright allows the owner of the copyright exclusive and complete control over copies of the copyrighted work



    That's not true. There's "fair use", "limitations and exceptions to copyright", and "first sale".



    First sale says that in general the owners of copyrighted works have the right to dispose of them as they see fit (such as by reselling them, giving them away, or lending them out). It's even been applied to software. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine:



    "Federal district courts in California and Texas issued decisions applying the doctrine of first sale for bundled computer software in Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) even if the software contains an EULA prohibiting resale."



    Copyright law is not absolute, it is legislation interpreted by the judicial system.
  • Reply 108 of 210
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post


    No, Marxism-Leninism is a very bad thing. Socialism, as embodied in the Progressive-Era reforms of 1912-1920, that the Republicans are now trying to destroy, is a very good thing! You will notice that they have wholeheartedly embraced the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall part of them to destroy the rest.



    "Personal socialism" is fine by me, as long as you want to give your property or money to others is up to you... just don't force everyone to abide by your personal decisions.
  • Reply 109 of 210
    wilcowilco Posts: 985member
    What an enlightening discussion between the finest legal minds Earth has to offer.



  • Reply 110 of 210
    skottichanskottichan Posts: 193member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by echosonic View Post


    If you do not recognize that socialism can only exist where freedom and a free market don't exist, then you have not spent enough years on Earth.



    Yes, because Sweden, Denmark and Portugal (and countries like Japan, Canada, and France have had Socialists in the majority of their respective gov'ts) are bastions of oppression.
  • Reply 111 of 210
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    "Personal socialism" is fine by me, as long as you want to give your property or money to others is up to you... just don't force everyone to abide by your personal decisions.



    And if you want to live in some Hobbsian "War of All Against All," survivalist-style, that's up to you. Many of us, however, believe that "Governments were instituted among men" to ameliorate this conflict, and by protecting the weak against the strong, provide a livable existence for as many as possible.
  • Reply 112 of 210
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by echosonic View Post


    If you do not recognize that socialism can only exist where freedom and a free market don't exist, then you have not spent enough years on Earth.





    Crikey...what sort of lunacy is this...???
  • Reply 113 of 210
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pixelcruncher View Post


    That's not true. There's "fair use", "limitations and exceptions to copyright", and "first sale".



    First sale says that in general the owners of copyrighted works have the right to dispose of them as they see fit (such as by reselling them, giving them away, or lending them out). It's even been applied to software. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine:



    "Federal district courts in California and Texas issued decisions applying the doctrine of first sale for bundled computer software in Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) even if the software contains an EULA prohibiting resale."



    Copyright law is not absolute, it is legislation interpreted by the judicial system.



    Yeah, I should have said "complete (with limitations)" :P



    The first sale doctrine only allows consumers to transfer their legally obtained copy of a work to another person, under the condition that no other copy is made (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine). It does not allow consumers to copy (installing is copying ) the work in question onto whatever medium they wish, and as far as I can tell, neither does fair use. However, many software agreements allow at least one backup copy to be made.
    You may make one copy of the Apple Software (excluding the Boot ROM code and other Apple firmware that is embedded or otherwise contained in Apple-labeled

    hardware) in machine-readable form for backup purposes only; provided that the backup copy must include all copyright or other proprietary notices contained on the

    original. Apple Boot ROM code and firmware is provided only for use on Apple-labeled hardware and you may not copy, modify or redistribute the Apple Boot ROM code or

    firmware, or any portions thereof.
    Leopard License Agreement: http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf
  • Reply 114 of 210
    penchantedpenchanted Posts: 1,070member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cactus_man

    Not to single you out, but I'm sick of hearing this argument. The fact of the matter is that not everybody can choose. For instance, if you have to run Final Cut Pro (which is gradually overtaking Avid as the industry standard in DNLE's), then you must buy a Mac. No, there isn't "always Vista."



    On the other hand, Avid Media Composer and all of the Adobe applications run on both Mac and WIndows. Users of those applications DO have a choice. But like I said, when it comes to DNLE's, fewer and fewer people in the lower-budget realm of film are using Avid anymore; in order to remain relevant, you have have Final Cut Pro. As a result, editors are in the same situation that most consumers found themselves in back in the mid '90's with Windows: you either use the operating system, or you don't use anything at all. (Meaning, you're screwed.)



    It is interesting to note that this situation grew out of Avid's and Adobe's indifference towards the Mac platform which required Apple, in a defensive move, to purchase Final Cut from Macromedia. Both Avid and Adobe did what they could to switch Mac users to their Windows software. It is hard to see how Apple, by offering a product that is perceived as better value, should be called to task for people choosing its solution.



    Quote:

    On a relevant note, consider the iPod. If I decided I wanted a Walkman, or Creative (which I could get since I run Windows in Boot Camp) to replace my iPod, I suddenly wouldn't be able to listen to my MP3's in the car anymore, since my Alpine is only iPod-compatible (like pretty much all car audio systems these days). I'd also have to get rid of my Harman Kardon Go + Play. In other words, it would be a MAJOR pain in the A$$ to abandon the iPod due to the monopoly Apple has established in the digital music player market, so Apple would have to screw up pretty badly with future incarnations to motivate the switch.



    It sounds to me that your argument is with Alpine and Harman-Kardan. What has Apple done to preclude the use of other devices with these companies offerings?
  • Reply 115 of 210
    ros3ntanros3ntan Posts: 201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hutcho View Post


    They are not stealing anything, they have legally bought the OS and are just selling it on their hardware.



    Like I said before, there are too many Apple Fan Boys here. If Microsoft was doing this same thing, everyone would be scorning them. But Apple do it and they are PRAISED for it! Simply unbelievable. You fan boys are pathetic.



    I bought an iPhone 3G because it is an excellent device. I'd give it 10 points, with the next smart phone being maybe 4 at best. There is nothing currently on the market that comes close to this. However, the iPhone would score double points if Apple would stop restricting what it can do and let developers truly do what they want (and the iStore does not do this - so far the apps are boring as hell, and with Apple's controlling hands it in, it will stay that way).



    Why can't I copy a file onto the device anywhere I want? Why can't I have a terminal with SSH? Why can't I record video? Why can't I use a SIP/VoIP client? The list goes on. All these things are entirely possible TODAY with a hacked iPhone. I can't wait until a hack comes out for the 3G so I can immediately free my device and use it to its full potential.



    Of course, Apple will probably stop me doing this - stop me using a device I bought how I damn well want to. No, I have to use iTunes (possibly the worst bit of software ever written) and buy everything through their store so they can rip me off to the limit. No doubt you all support Apple on this one too?



    And I'm sure everyone just LOVES how they are restricted in what carrier they can use the iPhone with. This has never happened before with any phone anywhere in the world as I know it. Another restrictive first for Apple.



    I say screw Apple. They are probably the most inovative company in the tech field today but their restrictive practices are bad for the consumer. The fact they won't let another company sell hardware with their software on it (that they are getting paid for) is BAD for us and only good for those with millions of Apple shares.



    I hope that by some fluke Pystar wins on this one and gives the big f*ck off finger to Apple.



    Dude, your argument would be perfect for communism. Because what you are describing is for apple to share their technology with other companies. If that happens, soon, the government will force other companies such as ferraris to share their impressive engine with other car makers, example detroit manufacturer.



    Communism = sharing.



    I am not pro or con against communism or capitalist. I am just stating the fact.



    And there is a reason why Apple is the most innovative company today. The iphone technology is not yours. Why do u get to decide on what to do with it. Hell, if Apple wants to charge $5000 on an iphone, they can. Its THEIR TECHNOLOGY.



    Customers dont mean shit to corporation. Why? Because, customer wont bail out apple 10 years ago when they were on the verge of bankruptcy. Hell, if apple makes crappy product, i wont care about making this comment at all. The fact of the matter is, if you want a piece of device that fits your every need, MAKE IT YOURSELF.
  • Reply 116 of 210
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by echosonic

    If you do not recognize that socialism can only exist where freedom and a free market don't exist, then you have not spent enough years on Earth.



    Crikey...what sort of lunacy is this...???



    This is Reaganism/Thatcherism. Fortunately, your country outgrew Thatcherism, whereas the Dark Forces? who used Reagan as their sock puppet have had the last 28 years to run this country completely into the ground. With any luck, it'll be over soon.
  • Reply 117 of 210
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JoeDRC View Post


    How is it illegal? When you buy Mac OS X your buying a license for that product. You have to agree to that license in order to use it.



    Not unless you have signed a contact without such you have not agreed to anything. The vast majority of the end user agreements out there simply aren't legal contracts.



    Dave
  • Reply 118 of 210
    ros3ntanros3ntan Posts: 201member
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080715...anyapplebrazil



    here you go for you guys who wants the unlock phone



    they did in Brazil, they claim...
  • Reply 119 of 210
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bokuwaomar View Post


    A lot of people don't seem to understand that violating an Software Licensing Agreement is copyright infringement.
    Several exclusive rights typically attach to the holder of a copyright:

    to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies (mechanical rights; including, sometimes, electronic copies: distribution rights)




    The record companies just lost an interesting case that revolved around the resale of CD's given to radio stations. That in the last couple of months. The law here isn't absolute, you do have the right to resell stuff that you purchased from somebody else. If not our junk yards would be filled with a lot of single use stuff.



    Mind you this is a specific case, that did not involve duplication or coping but rather CD's given to radio stations. Take your logic to far and the general populace would not be able to sell their old computer or paper back books. All the second hand shops selling such would go out of business.

    Quote:

    to import or export the work

    to create derivative works (works that adapt the original work)



    Even derivative works have some protection.

    Quote:

    to perform or display the work publicly (performance rights)

    to sell or assign these rights to others

    to transmit or display by radio or video (broadcasting rights)



    Quote:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Exclusive_rights



    A copyright allows the owner of the copyright exclusive and complete control over copies of the copyrighted work; that's why it's called a copyright.



    That all depends on what you mean by complete. Obviously stamping "not for resale" on the CD's didn't help the record companies one bit. Once you make a sale your rights to that one copy sold are limited and not absolute as you would imply.

    Quote:



    The license agreement for OS X restricts installing(copying) the OS to Apple branded computers, and is therefore under the scope of copyright law (here's another interesting case that goes even further: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...copyright.html). Apple does not have to make OS X available to anyone.



    This is true but at the same time they are currently making the software available to everybody by selling it through a number of vendors. Now the question is can a end user agreement legally prevent you from using something you purchased without a contract. The reality is that unless you signed the contract as part of the transaction there is a big question as to the legality of any supposed contract.

    Quote:

    In fact, if Jobs suddenly went crazy (or perhaps crazier ), new versions of OS X could be only be available with new hardware purchases and there would be nothing anyone could do about it except refuse to buy Macs. Let's just hope that doesn't happen.



    Actually it may come down to something like this. That is people may be forced to sign a contract at the time of purchase acknowledging the exsitance of a contract between the two parties. Obviously this blows a big whole in the warm fuzzy feeling Apple likes to present. If Apple can't keep this legal action focused on a very specific argument about a copyright violation, they may very well blow thing open in such a way that the distribution of OS/X becomes very controlled. I really don't believe Apple has as strong a hand here as many think and is likely why they waited for a specific issue to pop up and address.

    Quote:



    Btw, Linux and other GPLed software have license agreements that restrict what you can do with them: http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3761924232.html



    Not even remotely relevant other than the reality that Mac OS/X is made up in part with some of that open source code.



    Dave
  • Reply 120 of 210
    penchantedpenchanted Posts: 1,070member
    Quote:

    Actually it may come down to something like this. That is people may be forced to sign a contract at the time of purchase acknowledging the exsitance of a contract between the two parties. Obviously this blows a big whole in the warm fuzzy feeling Apple likes to present. If Apple can't keep this legal action focused on a very specific argument about a copyright violation, they may very well blow thing open in such a way that the distribution of OS/X becomes very controlled. I really don't believe Apple has as strong a hand here as many think and is likely why they waited for a specific issue to pop up and address.



    Unfortunately, I think that Apple's loss would likely lead to Apple using hardware authentication with many controls in place (as you suggest, contracts). Maybe Apple increases the price of OSX upgrades to $400 and rebates some amount when you register that copy to a specific serial number. This is decidedly not the experience I wish to endure.
Sign In or Register to comment.