Since Apple "doesn't care" about private use, you think the EULA (which is not for OEMs) which states it can be installed on Apple branded computers only is aimed only at OEMs?
Why, why why bring up the EULA. Attempting to be a distributor and licensor of another company's product has NOTHING to do with an End User License Agreement. That is for the End User; Psystar is not an End User, they are acting as if they are a incensed distributor.
I agree they had no right to hack Apple's code for financial gain. Also [AFAIK] no Apple end user software license has ever granted distribution rights.
Section 3 of the OSX license states that you do have permission to perform a one-time transfer of ownership of the complete software product. This must include all accompanying materials, and you must either include in the transfer any backup copies made, or else destroy them. As well, any components of the software that may have been modified during the course of your use of the product, must be reverted back to their original state. For any practical purposes, this is a necessary precondition to being permitted to resell any used Mac.
Anyway, the ability for the owner of a physical object on which is depicted a representation of a copyrighted work, to resell that physical object without the consent of the copyright holder, is enshrined in US copyright law under First sale doctrine, provided no additional copies have been made.
Since additional copies have been made, First sale doctrine wouldn't apply in Psystar's case.
I think the Microsoft Windows / IE bundling anti-trust case was over a drastically smaller issue. Microsoft couldn't even bundle IE and make its customers use it (a free program)
What makes us think Apple is allowed to bundle its expensive hardware in with its OS? I really don't think that is possible. They can require users not to modify its core OS. Yet that also conflicts with Apple's devil-may-care attitude regarding music CD ripping. Which is illegal according to the record companies.
Apple may have a watertight case here but I sure don't see the framework they will try to use. They themselves have ridiculed such logic for years.
As pointed out several times already. BECAUSE MS WINDOWS IS A MONOPOLY. They control over 90% of the World OS market. Plus the real issue wasn't the "bundling" but that IE installed itself when you installed Windows. And to make matter worst, you couldn't uninstall IE. You could only set it as your non-default browser. MS tried to claim the IE was an integral part of Windows but it was shown the Windows ran fine without IE. MS had the same issue with the EU over their media player.
Mean while Apple "bundles" Safari, Quicktime and iLife with OSX. And no lawsuits. Why? BECAUSE OSX IS NOT A MONOPOLY. OSX is only 4% of the World OS market. The simple fact that there's never been a lawsuit (specially brought on by the EU ) claiming that Apple "bundling" of Safari, Quicktime or iLife is anti-competitive points out that those who claim Apple has a monopoly with OSX are wrong.
Now iTunes (and iTunes Store) is a different matter. Apple is running into "anti-competitive" issues with iTunes (and iTunes Store) because it's beginning to have a controlling share of the market. If not already.
Edit: Correction, actually Apple "bundle" iLife with their hardware (not OSX). But still no complaints of anti-competitive practice. Because, as most of us been telling people, Apple does not have a monopoly with Macs.
Now iTunes (and iTunes Store) is a different matter. Apple is running into "anti-competitive" issues with iTunes (and iTunes Store) because it's beginning to have a controlling share of the market. If not already.
iTunes+iPod does hold a monopoly status. Their is nothing against the law about being a monopoly if the market has elected your product the best and you do nothing to prevent others from competing in a fair market.
Apple is having problems with its DRM strategy. People are calling Apple anti-competitive because no one else can get their DRM on iPods and Apple will not license Fairplay. Which is not really anti-competitive, Apple has done nothing to prevent other companies from making their own innovative mp3 players.
The situation is actually working in the consumers favor. Because no one can get other DRM on the iPod it forces the market to let go of DRM. If Fairplay became the standard DRM the record labels would live with it forever and make it as restrictive as they possibly could.
Simply because Apple sells a retail copy of OS X and use common hardware does not mean anyone has the freedom to buy the retail copy of OS X and set up their own volume business of selling Mac clones.
Outside of your imagination where is their proof that this is permissible?
A switcher who knows the difference between Windows and Mac, would know what they are getting into. What evidence do have that switchers care about Apple's business model?
A switcher doesn't care about the business model I never said they did, what they care about is when they have a driver problem is they have to wait for Apple to fix the problem instead of being able to simply download a driver from a vendors site. Its a closed world.
Perfect example when the Alu iMacs came out the 2600 card had a memory issues. Took Apple months to resolve that problem when it was a simple firmware fix. In fact it took them months to even admit there was a problem. Which is pretty typical Apple.
As far as Psystar who really cares? However if Apple had a slam dunk case they would be putting the hammer to Psystar, clearly there is a snag somewhere. For all the money Apple dumps on stupid Vista ads I doubt they would have a problem dumping a bunch of money to make an example out of a company that is hacking their OS.
Do you ever see the RIAA settle or go easy on someone when when they know they can nail them to the wall and create and example that will strike fear?
3. Plenty of companies "resell" Mac OS X in the box, literally hundreds of private companies do that. But again, this is not my problem. I am just commenting on the facts and Apple's behavior and where that might lead us. We will know the truth in time. Cheers!
Plenty of companies SELL Mac OS X in the box, they do not RESELL.
A switcher doesn't care about the business model I never said they did, what they care about is when they have a driver problem is they have to wait for Apple to fix the problem instead of being able to simply download a driver from a vendors site. Its a closed world.
Drivers? What are those? In the Mac World, users very rarely have to deal with drivers.
You mean like those same venders that won't make Vista drivers for older, but not yet obsolete, hardware. Or those venders that will not make an XP drivers for their new "Vista ready" hardware so you can install XP on a new computer. How about those venders that won't fix their drivers when it knocks out your sound card, network card or modem because they claim it's the other venders fault.
Quote:
Perfect example when the Alu iMacs came out the 2600 card had a memory issues. Took Apple months to resolve that problem when it was a simple firmware fix. In fact it took them months to even admit there was a problem. Which is pretty typical Apple.
It was a firmware fix on the venders graphics card. I'm sure the vender (ATI) was helping in finding a solution. It took a while (several months) because the problem only occurred on some iMacs. Apple had to find out what these iMacs had in common. And this can't be done until there's a large enough sample size. (I know this doesn't help when you own one of the affected iMac. ) If the problem occurred on all the iMacs, then finding a fix would have been much simpler. It turned out that the problem only arises on a graphic card with a certain firmware along with a certain updated version OSX. And that "simple" firmware fix had to be written in such a way that a person with a good iMac can't install it by accident. Thus creating problems on a good machine.
I know on my Mac I have never encountered that dreaded message I sometimes get when installing a new driver on my old Windows PC. The one that goes ",,,,about to install a newer version of xxx.dll file. Do you want to proceed? or keep the old file?." I know that if I don't install the newer xxx.dll file my new hardware will not work. But if I do install the newer xxx.dll file some other hardware or program might no longer work. That's what happens in an open system where anybody can go in and change things around. Too many cooks spoils the soup.
Quote:
As far as Psystar who really cares? However if Apple had a slam dunk case they would be putting the hammer to Psystar, clearly there is a snag somewhere. For all the money Apple dumps on stupid Vista ads I doubt they would have a problem dumping a bunch of money to make an example out of a company that is hacking their OS.
Do you ever see the RIAA settle or go easy on someone when when they know they can nail them to the wall and create and example that will strike fear?
What do you want Apple to do? Hire a bunch of goons to put Psystar out of business by taking sledge hammers to their inventory. Apple is suing Psystar in a court of law. It's now up to the courts to schedule a trial. This non-binding arbitration may be the fastest way to resolve this issue. Otherwise Apple will have to wait until a trail date is set. If Apple wins Psystar is out of the Mac clone business and may have to pay restitution to Apple for the Mac clones they already sold. Each Mac clone is a violation and can carry a hefty fine.
As for the RIAA, so far they have offered all those that they are suing, for downloading (uploading) music illegally, a $3000 out clause. Pay the RIAA $3000 and they'll drop the suit against you. Otherwise it may cost over $100,000 (plus court fees) if you lose in court. That's not settling or going easy on someone that they know they can nail in court?
BTW- It took the RIAA nearly 2 years to shut Napster down. But I don't see any of the new P2P, that's taken Napster place, shutting down any time soon. And illegal downloading (and uploading) of music hasn't declined much. I guess the RIAA hasn't "create and example that will strike fear" yet. Maybe Jobs shouldn't have hurt their feelings with his "Rip, Mix and Burn slogan.
A switcher doesn't care about the business model I never said they did, what they care about is when they have a driver problem is they have to wait for Apple to fix the problem instead of being able to simply download a driver from a vendors site. Its a closed world.
This "driver problem" happens thousands of times less that on the Windows platform. In fact I have difficulty recalling any DRIVER issues in the past four years (the ATI one being a hardware issue).
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
As far as Psystar who really cares? However if Apple had a slam dunk case they would be putting the hammer to Psystar, clearly there is a snag somewhere.
Why would Apple go to the expense of a court trial when Psystar has absolutely NOTHING financially to give Apple should Apple win? Not a sound financial idea really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
For all the money Apple dumps on stupid Vista ads I doubt they would have a problem dumping a bunch of money to make an example out of a company that is hacking their OS.
I have read your sig before, and I don't get it. Your sig tells us that Apple is a hardware company, if you're in the know, but the linked article is all about how Mac will definitely NOT move from PowerPC to Intel (this is in 2003). Of course, Apple did move to intel.
That post isn't about Apple's business model, and it's fundamentally wrong anyway. What exactly did you want us to take away from it?
Plenty of companies SELL Mac OS X in the box, they do not RESELL.
What's the distinction between SELLING in the box and RESELLING in the box?
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that would currently make it unlawful for me to walk into any store, pay the full price to purchase and take ownership of any object containing copyrighted material, then walk out of the store and RESELL the same, unopened, unmodified, and unduplicated object to the first person I meet on the street, at whatever price we find mutually agreeable - be it $1, or $1000, or five shiny buttons and a piece of string.
An incorporated company has the exact same rights and responsibilities as an individual human being under the law with respect to the purchase, ownership, and sale of property.
If one of your arguments is that it's real easy to buy a used Mac on Ebay with it's drive wiped clean..... and now your latest contention is that "this case is going to set an important precedent" due to Apple having to "buy Psystar out of business."..... and therefor allowing any 2 bit company to follow the same route..... then methinks you had better go back to law school.
If you have time perhaps take Business 101 in the evenings.
And I would recommend a Reading 101 class for you.
I'm not sure what your response was supposed to mean, but it bears little similarity to any arguments I've made. My eBay comments were in response to Apple's silly contention that OS X is an upgrade. If that's the case, then that means you cannot legally install OS X purchased off-the-shelf on a Mac bought on eBay with the drive wiped clean and with no OS discs. I've never heard of Apple going after people for doing that. Have you?
I wrote my blog post with the question in mind as two what law Psystar is breaking. I could come up with none.
They sell a PC to a customer (legal.)
They sell a boxed, off-the-shelf copy of OS X (legal.)
They open and install OS X on the PC at the customer's request prior to shipping (legal.)
And I would recommend a Reading 101 class for you.
I'm not sure what your response was supposed to mean, but it bears little similarity to any arguments I've made. My eBay comments were in response to Apple's silly contention that OS X is an upgrade. If that's the case, then that means you cannot legally install OS X purchased off-the-shelf on a Mac bought on eBay with the drive wiped clean and with no OS discs. I've never heard of Apple going after people for doing that. Have you?
Before Leopard, Apple sold two versions of their OSX. A full install version and an upgrade version. The full install version cost around $179.00. While the upgrade version cost around $129.00. If you had an upgrade version it will not install on a blank drive. (Windows did the same thing with 95, 98 ME and maybe XP.)
I know there were two version of Panther. I have the upgrade version and in order for me to load it on a newly reformatted drive I have to load my copy of Cheetah first (which is a full version).
But I think Tiger in only available in an upgrade version. If you look at the requirement for Tiger it states that you need to have Panther (or earlier) on the drive you're installing it on. If you bought a used Mac on eBay with a blank drive you can not install Tiger without first installing Panther (or any other version of OSX below it.) And it you must use the full install version.
Leopard is a different animal. It is only available as a full version. But for $129.00. Therefore it will install on a blank drive of any compatible Mac.
But regardless, all OSX in the off the shelve box is consider an upgrade. That's because it is only meant to be installed on a Mac. And every new Mac sold came with a version of OSX. So even if the use Mac has a blank drive, Leopard would still be an upgrade of the OSX that originally came with it. Unless of course if you lost or damaged your original Leopard disk that came with your Mac.
Of course I'm talking about the off the shelve OSX here. The OSX on the disc that comes with a Mac will install on a blank drive. Providing it's the on the same model Mac that it came with. Another words, the OSX disc that comes with an iMac will only install on an iMac.
Quote:
I wrote my blog post with the question in mind as two what law Psystar is breaking. I could come up with none.
They sell a PC to a customer (legal.)
They sell a boxed, off-the-shelf copy of OS X (legal.)
They open and install OS X on the PC at the customer's request prior to shipping (legal.)
What law is being broken exactly?
They can not sell a modified version of OSX. The OSX that is pre-loaded on their Mac clone has been modified. It must be return to it's original unaltered state or deleted from the drive before it can be sold.
Read "lfmorrison" post several post up.
It's one thing to modify your own copy of OSX and load it on your own computer. But you can't make a business out of it by advertising and selling PC's with modified version of OSX on it. Even if you include an original off the shelve copy of OSX with each PC. You need a license from Apple Inc. Otherwise you are infringing on some one else's copyrighted IP by modifying it and using as an incentive for people to buy something that they would otherwise not buy, unless it came with that modified IP. It's now beyond personal use.
Even if you didn't open the OSX box to load it on the PC but only gave instructions to the buyer on how to load OSX on to a PC. You would still be guilty of copyright infringement if it can be proven that you encourage the infringement. That's how the RIAA and movie industry shut down Napster and Grokster.
And I would recommend a Reading 101 class for you.
I'm not sure what your response was supposed to mean, but it bears little similarity to any arguments I've made. My eBay comments were in response to Apple's silly contention that OS X is an upgrade. If that's the case, then that means you cannot legally install OS X purchased off-the-shelf on a Mac bought on eBay with the drive wiped clean and with no OS discs.
That is a ridiculous, unsupportable assertion. Every Macintosh computer ever sold has included an original license to install and run Mac OS. I will repeat that because it needs to be clearly understood: Every Macintosh computer Apple has ever produced, has included a license to run Mac OS.
There are a finite number of original licenses to run Mac OS in existence in the world. Specifically, exactly one original license to run Mac OS exists for every Mac that has ever been manufactured. Every other license that has accompanied any retail boxed edition of Mac OS has been permission to upgrade the OS version of an existing license.
Whether or not you wipe the hard drive clean is irrelevant - the license to run Mac OS itself doesn't disappear along with the software. The license is not a piece of software, or a file on a disc somewhere that can be deleted, but rather a legal agreement granting permission to run the software in the first place.
The fact that certain pieces of OS X installation media may have or have not been capable of being installed on a wiped-clean hard drive is an arbitrary technical decision made by Apple, but I don't see it imposing any legal requirement on the "upgrade" status of the software license.
Using an "upgrade" OS X disc on a Mac that has been wiped clean is not illegal, because Apple gets to decide what preconditions are necessary to qualify for an upgrade. If at their discretion they decided that, for Leopard, an Apple-manufactured computer is the only qualification, regardless of whether the hard drive actually contains any previous version at the time of installation, then that's their decision to make.
Every "upgrade" disc produced by Microsoft for the Windows platform is capable of being installed from scratch on a blank hard drive. (Yes, this even includes Windows 95, 98 and ME, despite what was said in a previous post.) Microsoft doesn't care if the previous version of the OS is actually present on the hard drive or not, they just want to have confirmation that, at some point in the past, a legitimate copy of the original qualifying software has been purchased for the computer in question. If you're installing on a blank drive, the installer will verify evidence of previous ownership by allowing you to insert a key or other unique identifying feature from a previous installation disc at the time of installation to prove the existence of the prior license. This is necessary because, in the beige box PC world, where Microsoft doesn't regulate the manufacturing of hardware, there is no guarantee that any particular compatible piece of hardware actually was sold in a bundle along with a license to run Windows. So Microsoft needs to resort to external checks to verify the prior existence of a license.
Since all Macintosh computers capable of running OS X have had some unique feature in hardware or firmware which the OS can inspect at installation time to verify that the computer is a genuine Apple-manufactured machine (except in cases where ether the OS installer or the computer's firmware has been hacked), and since every Macintosh computer was sold with a license to run Mac OS, Apple doesn't need to bother checking for a previous installation, or asking to verify the state of the previous installation disc. The very fact that it's being installed on genuine Apple hardware in the first place is a guarantee that a previous Mac OS license must exist.
My eBay comments were in response to Apple's silly contention that OS X is an upgrade.
It doesn't really matter if your second hand Mac has an OS or not. It is still an Apple labelled computer. I am sure Apple has no problem with the Mac second hand market. At least they are not losing a sale to a competitor.
Quote:
I've never heard of Apple going after people for doing that. Have you?
Individual "people"? No I haven't. When "people" try to turn that into a volume business that has the potential to harm Apple's business..... I have!
Quote:
They open and install OS X on the PC at the customer's request prior to shipping (legal.)
What is legal about that? Apple states that they only allow you to install THEIR software on THEIR computers. Do you really think that you can avoid breaking the rules by .... maybe.... asking a friend to break the rules for you?
"I didn't murder him your honour. I requested that Pystar do it!"
If you have a problem with Apple's "rules" being legally binding then fine, argue that point. Your comments only offer the case for circumventing them.
Quote:
what law is Psystar breaking
They are modifying and illegally installing another company's copyrighted intellectual property. They are using that as an inducement to sell their own product.
What law is Apple breaking? (Try that without using the M word!)
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that would currently make it unlawful for me to walk into any store, pay the full price to purchase and take ownership of any object containing copyrighted material, then walk out of the store and RESELL the same, unopened, unmodified, and unduplicated object to the first person I meet on the street
True, however...
Selling a copy of OS X on it's own to someone on the street is hardly a volume business.
Psystar is distributing a modified copy of Apple's work (this is the main issue in this case).
Psystar aren't selling OS X on it's own (as would be the case with your selling on the street example).
A switcher doesn't care about the business model I never said they did, what they care about is when they have a driver problem is they have to wait for Apple to fix the problem instead of being able to simply download a driver from a vendors site. Its a closed world.
If that's what you are looking for then Windows is your OS of choice, and non-Apple is your choice of hardware. And that is when you enter the world of pain that is Windows and it's sea of crap drivers some for nVidia-based cards, others for the same CPU on an official nVidia card, for example. Which don't inter-operate all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
Perfect example when the Alu iMacs came out the 2600 card had a memory issues. Took Apple months to resolve that problem when it was a simple firmware fix. In fact it took them months to even admit there was a problem. Which is pretty typical Apple.
That was a problem with the BIOS that ATI had shipped on the cards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
As far as Psystar who really cares? However if Apple had a slam dunk case they would be putting the hammer to Psystar, clearly there is a snag somewhere. For all the money Apple dumps on stupid Vista ads I doubt they would have a problem dumping a bunch of money to make an example out of a company that is hacking their OS.
Apple are trying to put the hammer to Psystar, or had you missed that? It's just the courts are busy for a whole year.
*Selling a copy of OS X on it's own to someone on the street is hardly a volume business.
I'm not convinced that by itself would make any difference.
Quote:
Psystar is distributing a modified copy of Apple's work (this is the main issue in this case).
I conceded (in the last sentence of the post you've partially quoted) that Psystar was doing more than just reselling the original disc. I totally agree that as soon as they started selling modifications of Apple's copyrighted work, they were treading perilously on Apple's exclusive rights.
Quote:
Psystar aren't selling OS X on it's own (as would be the case with your selling on the street example).
Again, I'm not sure that by itself would make any difference - for example, consider the possible case of reselling OS X in a bundle along with a bag of peanuts.
On the other hand, if they sold it along with, say, a booklet giving instructions on how to circumvent the EULA on your own, I'd err on the side of caution and say they were probably in the wrong.
That is a ridiculous, unsupportable assertion. Every Macintosh computer ever sold has included an original license to install and run Mac OS. I will repeat that because it needs to be clearly understood: Every Macintosh computer Apple has ever produced, has included a license to run Mac OS.
So it's like the dells that have windows with them that you have the RIGHT NOT TO pay for so call apple and say I want to buy a mac with no software on it and I want the cost of mac os x taken off the price then you will find out the cost of the os that each system has in it's price. Then some should be able to buy osx for that price.
So it's like the dells that have windows with them that you have the RIGHT NOT TO pay for so call apple and say I want to buy a mac with no software on it and I want the cost of mac os x taken off the price then you will find out the cost of the os that each system has in it's price. Then some should be able to buy osx for that price.
That may be a different situation. The Windows EULA clearly states/stated that you may choose to not accept the software license and return the software to the vendor. If Apple's Mac OS X EULA shows a clear and concise seperation between the OS and HW, then you would be right, but since it's purposely sold as a bundle from the same company I doubt that Apple would word their EULA in such a manner. But check it out, and if so, give it a shot. It would be fun to read about.
Comments
Since Apple "doesn't care" about private use, you think the EULA (which is not for OEMs) which states it can be installed on Apple branded computers only is aimed only at OEMs?
Why, why why bring up the EULA. Attempting to be a distributor and licensor of another company's product has NOTHING to do with an End User License Agreement. That is for the End User; Psystar is not an End User, they are acting as if they are a incensed distributor.
I agree they had no right to hack Apple's code for financial gain. Also [AFAIK] no Apple end user software license has ever granted distribution rights.
Section 3 of the OSX license states that you do have permission to perform a one-time transfer of ownership of the complete software product. This must include all accompanying materials, and you must either include in the transfer any backup copies made, or else destroy them. As well, any components of the software that may have been modified during the course of your use of the product, must be reverted back to their original state. For any practical purposes, this is a necessary precondition to being permitted to resell any used Mac.
Anyway, the ability for the owner of a physical object on which is depicted a representation of a copyrighted work, to resell that physical object without the consent of the copyright holder, is enshrined in US copyright law under First sale doctrine, provided no additional copies have been made.
Since additional copies have been made, First sale doctrine wouldn't apply in Psystar's case.
Why, why why bring up the EULA.
Because TenoBell wrote;
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I said Apple doesn't care about private use
I think the Microsoft Windows / IE bundling anti-trust case was over a drastically smaller issue. Microsoft couldn't even bundle IE and make its customers use it (a free program)
What makes us think Apple is allowed to bundle its expensive hardware in with its OS? I really don't think that is possible. They can require users not to modify its core OS. Yet that also conflicts with Apple's devil-may-care attitude regarding music CD ripping. Which is illegal according to the record companies.
Apple may have a watertight case here but I sure don't see the framework they will try to use. They themselves have ridiculed such logic for years.
As pointed out several times already. BECAUSE MS WINDOWS IS A MONOPOLY.
Mean while Apple "bundles" Safari, Quicktime and iLife with OSX. And no lawsuits. Why? BECAUSE OSX IS NOT A MONOPOLY.
Now iTunes (and iTunes Store) is a different matter. Apple is running into "anti-competitive" issues with iTunes (and iTunes Store) because it's beginning to have a controlling share of the market. If not already.
Edit: Correction, actually Apple "bundle" iLife with their hardware (not OSX). But still no complaints of anti-competitive practice. Because, as most of us been telling people, Apple does not have a monopoly with Macs.
Now iTunes (and iTunes Store) is a different matter. Apple is running into "anti-competitive" issues with iTunes (and iTunes Store) because it's beginning to have a controlling share of the market. If not already.
iTunes+iPod does hold a monopoly status. Their is nothing against the law about being a monopoly if the market has elected your product the best and you do nothing to prevent others from competing in a fair market.
Apple is having problems with its DRM strategy. People are calling Apple anti-competitive because no one else can get their DRM on iPods and Apple will not license Fairplay. Which is not really anti-competitive, Apple has done nothing to prevent other companies from making their own innovative mp3 players.
The situation is actually working in the consumers favor. Because no one can get other DRM on the iPod it forces the market to let go of DRM. If Fairplay became the standard DRM the record labels would live with it forever and make it as restrictive as they possibly could.
Simply because Apple sells a retail copy of OS X and use common hardware does not mean anyone has the freedom to buy the retail copy of OS X and set up their own volume business of selling Mac clones.
Outside of your imagination where is their proof that this is permissible?
A switcher who knows the difference between Windows and Mac, would know what they are getting into. What evidence do have that switchers care about Apple's business model?
A switcher doesn't care about the business model I never said they did, what they care about is when they have a driver problem is they have to wait for Apple to fix the problem instead of being able to simply download a driver from a vendors site. Its a closed world.
Perfect example when the Alu iMacs came out the 2600 card had a memory issues. Took Apple months to resolve that problem when it was a simple firmware fix. In fact it took them months to even admit there was a problem. Which is pretty typical Apple.
As far as Psystar who really cares? However if Apple had a slam dunk case they would be putting the hammer to Psystar, clearly there is a snag somewhere. For all the money Apple dumps on stupid Vista ads I doubt they would have a problem dumping a bunch of money to make an example out of a company that is hacking their OS.
Do you ever see the RIAA settle or go easy on someone when when they know they can nail them to the wall and create and example that will strike fear?
3. Plenty of companies "resell" Mac OS X in the box, literally hundreds of private companies do that. But again, this is not my problem. I am just commenting on the facts and Apple's behavior and where that might lead us. We will know the truth in time. Cheers!
Plenty of companies SELL Mac OS X in the box, they do not RESELL.
A switcher doesn't care about the business model I never said they did, what they care about is when they have a driver problem is they have to wait for Apple to fix the problem instead of being able to simply download a driver from a vendors site. Its a closed world.
Drivers? What are those? In the Mac World, users very rarely have to deal with drivers.
You mean like those same venders that won't make Vista drivers for older, but not yet obsolete, hardware. Or those venders that will not make an XP drivers for their new "Vista ready" hardware so you can install XP on a new computer. How about those venders that won't fix their drivers when it knocks out your sound card, network card or modem because they claim it's the other venders fault.
Perfect example when the Alu iMacs came out the 2600 card had a memory issues. Took Apple months to resolve that problem when it was a simple firmware fix. In fact it took them months to even admit there was a problem. Which is pretty typical Apple.
It was a firmware fix on the venders graphics card. I'm sure the vender (ATI) was helping in finding a solution. It took a while (several months) because the problem only occurred on some iMacs. Apple had to find out what these iMacs had in common. And this can't be done until there's a large enough sample size. (I know this doesn't help when you own one of the affected iMac.
I know on my Mac I have never encountered that dreaded message I sometimes get when installing a new driver on my old Windows PC. The one that goes ",,,,about to install a newer version of xxx.dll file. Do you want to proceed? or keep the old file?." I know that if I don't install the newer xxx.dll file my new hardware will not work. But if I do install the newer xxx.dll file some other hardware or program might no longer work. That's what happens in an open system where anybody can go in and change things around. Too many cooks spoils the soup.
As far as Psystar who really cares? However if Apple had a slam dunk case they would be putting the hammer to Psystar, clearly there is a snag somewhere. For all the money Apple dumps on stupid Vista ads I doubt they would have a problem dumping a bunch of money to make an example out of a company that is hacking their OS.
Do you ever see the RIAA settle or go easy on someone when when they know they can nail them to the wall and create and example that will strike fear?
What do you want Apple to do? Hire a bunch of goons to put Psystar out of business by taking sledge hammers to their inventory. Apple is suing Psystar in a court of law. It's now up to the courts to schedule a trial. This non-binding arbitration may be the fastest way to resolve this issue. Otherwise Apple will have to wait until a trail date is set. If Apple wins Psystar is out of the Mac clone business and may have to pay restitution to Apple for the Mac clones they already sold. Each Mac clone is a violation and can carry a hefty fine.
As for the RIAA, so far they have offered all those that they are suing, for downloading (uploading) music illegally, a $3000 out clause. Pay the RIAA $3000 and they'll drop the suit against you. Otherwise it may cost over $100,000 (plus court fees) if you lose in court. That's not settling or going easy on someone that they know they can nail in court?
BTW- It took the RIAA nearly 2 years to shut Napster down. But I don't see any of the new P2P, that's taken Napster place, shutting down any time soon. And illegal downloading (and uploading) of music hasn't declined much. I guess the RIAA hasn't "create and example that will strike fear" yet. Maybe Jobs shouldn't have hurt their feelings with his "Rip, Mix and Burn slogan.
A switcher doesn't care about the business model I never said they did, what they care about is when they have a driver problem is they have to wait for Apple to fix the problem instead of being able to simply download a driver from a vendors site. Its a closed world.
This "driver problem" happens thousands of times less that on the Windows platform. In fact I have difficulty recalling any DRIVER issues in the past four years (the ATI one being a hardware issue).
As far as Psystar who really cares? However if Apple had a slam dunk case they would be putting the hammer to Psystar, clearly there is a snag somewhere.
Why would Apple go to the expense of a court trial when Psystar has absolutely NOTHING financially to give Apple should Apple win? Not a sound financial idea really.
For all the money Apple dumps on stupid Vista ads I doubt they would have a problem dumping a bunch of money to make an example out of a company that is hacking their OS.
Again, it's not worth the outlay.
Read my post signature and you will understand.
I have read your sig before, and I don't get it. Your sig tells us that Apple is a hardware company, if you're in the know, but the linked article is all about how Mac will definitely NOT move from PowerPC to Intel (this is in 2003). Of course, Apple did move to intel.
That post isn't about Apple's business model, and it's fundamentally wrong anyway. What exactly did you want us to take away from it?
Plenty of companies SELL Mac OS X in the box, they do not RESELL.
What's the distinction between SELLING in the box and RESELLING in the box?
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that would currently make it unlawful for me to walk into any store, pay the full price to purchase and take ownership of any object containing copyrighted material, then walk out of the store and RESELL the same, unopened, unmodified, and unduplicated object to the first person I meet on the street, at whatever price we find mutually agreeable - be it $1, or $1000, or five shiny buttons and a piece of string.
An incorporated company has the exact same rights and responsibilities as an individual human being under the law with respect to the purchase, ownership, and sale of property.
Psystar, of course, isn't doing just that.
Sadly I followed your link!
If one of your arguments is that it's real easy to buy a used Mac on Ebay with it's drive wiped clean..... and now your latest contention is that "this case is going to set an important precedent" due to Apple having to "buy Psystar out of business."..... and therefor allowing any 2 bit company to follow the same route..... then methinks you had better go back to law school.
If you have time perhaps take Business 101 in the evenings.
And I would recommend a Reading 101 class for you.
I'm not sure what your response was supposed to mean, but it bears little similarity to any arguments I've made. My eBay comments were in response to Apple's silly contention that OS X is an upgrade. If that's the case, then that means you cannot legally install OS X purchased off-the-shelf on a Mac bought on eBay with the drive wiped clean and with no OS discs. I've never heard of Apple going after people for doing that. Have you?
I wrote my blog post with the question in mind as two what law Psystar is breaking. I could come up with none.
They sell a PC to a customer (legal.)
They sell a boxed, off-the-shelf copy of OS X (legal.)
They open and install OS X on the PC at the customer's request prior to shipping (legal.)
What law is being broken exactly?
And I would recommend a Reading 101 class for you.
I'm not sure what your response was supposed to mean, but it bears little similarity to any arguments I've made. My eBay comments were in response to Apple's silly contention that OS X is an upgrade. If that's the case, then that means you cannot legally install OS X purchased off-the-shelf on a Mac bought on eBay with the drive wiped clean and with no OS discs. I've never heard of Apple going after people for doing that. Have you?
Before Leopard, Apple sold two versions of their OSX. A full install version and an upgrade version. The full install version cost around $179.00. While the upgrade version cost around $129.00. If you had an upgrade version it will not install on a blank drive. (Windows did the same thing with 95, 98 ME and maybe XP.)
I know there were two version of Panther. I have the upgrade version and in order for me to load it on a newly reformatted drive I have to load my copy of Cheetah first (which is a full version).
But I think Tiger in only available in an upgrade version. If you look at the requirement for Tiger it states that you need to have Panther (or earlier) on the drive you're installing it on. If you bought a used Mac on eBay with a blank drive you can not install Tiger without first installing Panther (or any other version of OSX below it.) And it you must use the full install version.
Leopard is a different animal. It is only available as a full version. But for $129.00. Therefore it will install on a blank drive of any compatible Mac.
But regardless, all OSX in the off the shelve box is consider an upgrade. That's because it is only meant to be installed on a Mac. And every new Mac sold came with a version of OSX. So even if the use Mac has a blank drive, Leopard would still be an upgrade of the OSX that originally came with it. Unless of course if you lost or damaged your original Leopard disk that came with your Mac.
Of course I'm talking about the off the shelve OSX here. The OSX on the disc that comes with a Mac will install on a blank drive. Providing it's the on the same model Mac that it came with. Another words, the OSX disc that comes with an iMac will only install on an iMac.
I wrote my blog post with the question in mind as two what law Psystar is breaking. I could come up with none.
They sell a PC to a customer (legal.)
They sell a boxed, off-the-shelf copy of OS X (legal.)
They open and install OS X on the PC at the customer's request prior to shipping (legal.)
What law is being broken exactly?
They can not sell a modified version of OSX. The OSX that is pre-loaded on their Mac clone has been modified. It must be return to it's original unaltered state or deleted from the drive before it can be sold.
Read "lfmorrison" post several post up.
It's one thing to modify your own copy of OSX and load it on your own computer. But you can't make a business out of it by advertising and selling PC's with modified version of OSX on it. Even if you include an original off the shelve copy of OSX with each PC. You need a license from Apple Inc. Otherwise you are infringing on some one else's copyrighted IP by modifying it and using as an incentive for people to buy something that they would otherwise not buy, unless it came with that modified IP. It's now beyond personal use.
Even if you didn't open the OSX box to load it on the PC but only gave instructions to the buyer on how to load OSX on to a PC. You would still be guilty of copyright infringement if it can be proven that you encourage the infringement. That's how the RIAA and movie industry shut down Napster and Grokster.
And I would recommend a Reading 101 class for you.
I'm not sure what your response was supposed to mean, but it bears little similarity to any arguments I've made. My eBay comments were in response to Apple's silly contention that OS X is an upgrade. If that's the case, then that means you cannot legally install OS X purchased off-the-shelf on a Mac bought on eBay with the drive wiped clean and with no OS discs.
That is a ridiculous, unsupportable assertion. Every Macintosh computer ever sold has included an original license to install and run Mac OS. I will repeat that because it needs to be clearly understood: Every Macintosh computer Apple has ever produced, has included a license to run Mac OS.
There are a finite number of original licenses to run Mac OS in existence in the world. Specifically, exactly one original license to run Mac OS exists for every Mac that has ever been manufactured. Every other license that has accompanied any retail boxed edition of Mac OS has been permission to upgrade the OS version of an existing license.
Whether or not you wipe the hard drive clean is irrelevant - the license to run Mac OS itself doesn't disappear along with the software. The license is not a piece of software, or a file on a disc somewhere that can be deleted, but rather a legal agreement granting permission to run the software in the first place.
The fact that certain pieces of OS X installation media may have or have not been capable of being installed on a wiped-clean hard drive is an arbitrary technical decision made by Apple, but I don't see it imposing any legal requirement on the "upgrade" status of the software license.
Using an "upgrade" OS X disc on a Mac that has been wiped clean is not illegal, because Apple gets to decide what preconditions are necessary to qualify for an upgrade. If at their discretion they decided that, for Leopard, an Apple-manufactured computer is the only qualification, regardless of whether the hard drive actually contains any previous version at the time of installation, then that's their decision to make.
Every "upgrade" disc produced by Microsoft for the Windows platform is capable of being installed from scratch on a blank hard drive. (Yes, this even includes Windows 95, 98 and ME, despite what was said in a previous post.) Microsoft doesn't care if the previous version of the OS is actually present on the hard drive or not, they just want to have confirmation that, at some point in the past, a legitimate copy of the original qualifying software has been purchased for the computer in question. If you're installing on a blank drive, the installer will verify evidence of previous ownership by allowing you to insert a key or other unique identifying feature from a previous installation disc at the time of installation to prove the existence of the prior license. This is necessary because, in the beige box PC world, where Microsoft doesn't regulate the manufacturing of hardware, there is no guarantee that any particular compatible piece of hardware actually was sold in a bundle along with a license to run Windows. So Microsoft needs to resort to external checks to verify the prior existence of a license.
Since all Macintosh computers capable of running OS X have had some unique feature in hardware or firmware which the OS can inspect at installation time to verify that the computer is a genuine Apple-manufactured machine (except in cases where ether the OS installer or the computer's firmware has been hacked), and since every Macintosh computer was sold with a license to run Mac OS, Apple doesn't need to bother checking for a previous installation, or asking to verify the state of the previous installation disc. The very fact that it's being installed on genuine Apple hardware in the first place is a guarantee that a previous Mac OS license must exist.
My eBay comments were in response to Apple's silly contention that OS X is an upgrade.
It doesn't really matter if your second hand Mac has an OS or not. It is still an Apple labelled computer. I am sure Apple has no problem with the Mac second hand market. At least they are not losing a sale to a competitor.
I've never heard of Apple going after people for doing that. Have you?
Individual "people"? No I haven't. When "people" try to turn that into a volume business that has the potential to harm Apple's business..... I have!
They open and install OS X on the PC at the customer's request prior to shipping (legal.)
What is legal about that? Apple states that they only allow you to install THEIR software on THEIR computers. Do you really think that you can avoid breaking the rules by .... maybe.... asking a friend to break the rules for you?
"I didn't murder him your honour. I requested that Pystar do it!"
If you have a problem with Apple's "rules" being legally binding then fine, argue that point. Your comments only offer the case for circumventing them.
what law is Psystar breaking
They are modifying and illegally installing another company's copyrighted intellectual property. They are using that as an inducement to sell their own product.
What law is Apple breaking? (Try that without using the M word!)
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that would currently make it unlawful for me to walk into any store, pay the full price to purchase and take ownership of any object containing copyrighted material, then walk out of the store and RESELL the same, unopened, unmodified, and unduplicated object to the first person I meet on the street
True, however...
A switcher doesn't care about the business model I never said they did, what they care about is when they have a driver problem is they have to wait for Apple to fix the problem instead of being able to simply download a driver from a vendors site. Its a closed world.
If that's what you are looking for then Windows is your OS of choice, and non-Apple is your choice of hardware. And that is when you enter the world of pain that is Windows and it's sea of crap drivers some for nVidia-based cards, others for the same CPU on an official nVidia card, for example. Which don't inter-operate all the time.
Perfect example when the Alu iMacs came out the 2600 card had a memory issues. Took Apple months to resolve that problem when it was a simple firmware fix. In fact it took them months to even admit there was a problem. Which is pretty typical Apple.
That was a problem with the BIOS that ATI had shipped on the cards.
As far as Psystar who really cares? However if Apple had a slam dunk case they would be putting the hammer to Psystar, clearly there is a snag somewhere. For all the money Apple dumps on stupid Vista ads I doubt they would have a problem dumping a bunch of money to make an example out of a company that is hacking their OS.
Apple are trying to put the hammer to Psystar, or had you missed that? It's just the courts are busy for a whole year.
True, however...
*Selling a copy of OS X on it's own to someone on the street is hardly a volume business.
I'm not convinced that by itself would make any difference.
Psystar is distributing a modified copy of Apple's work (this is the main issue in this case).
I conceded (in the last sentence of the post you've partially quoted) that Psystar was doing more than just reselling the original disc. I totally agree that as soon as they started selling modifications of Apple's copyrighted work, they were treading perilously on Apple's exclusive rights.
Psystar aren't selling OS X on it's own (as would be the case with your selling on the street example).
Again, I'm not sure that by itself would make any difference - for example, consider the possible case of reselling OS X in a bundle along with a bag of peanuts.
On the other hand, if they sold it along with, say, a booklet giving instructions on how to circumvent the EULA on your own, I'd err on the side of caution and say they were probably in the wrong.
That is a ridiculous, unsupportable assertion. Every Macintosh computer ever sold has included an original license to install and run Mac OS. I will repeat that because it needs to be clearly understood: Every Macintosh computer Apple has ever produced, has included a license to run Mac OS.
So it's like the dells that have windows with them that you have the RIGHT NOT TO pay for so call apple and say I want to buy a mac with no software on it and I want the cost of mac os x taken off the price then you will find out the cost of the os that each system has in it's price. Then some should be able to buy osx for that price.
So it's like the dells that have windows with them that you have the RIGHT NOT TO pay for so call apple and say I want to buy a mac with no software on it and I want the cost of mac os x taken off the price then you will find out the cost of the os that each system has in it's price. Then some should be able to buy osx for that price.
That may be a different situation. The Windows EULA clearly states/stated that you may choose to not accept the software license and return the software to the vendor. If Apple's Mac OS X EULA shows a clear and concise seperation between the OS and HW, then you would be right, but since it's purposely sold as a bundle from the same company I doubt that Apple would word their EULA in such a manner. But check it out, and if so, give it a shot. It would be fun to read about.