If Pystar is correct, I expect Microsoft will skip Windows 7 and move directly to Snow Windows 8.0.
I think all of this is going to be a moot point. I believe Apple will do something different with Snow Leopard to make all the previous OSX headaches a moot point considering the significant changes in Snow Leopard.
Perhaps discontinue selling retail CD's?
Require original OEM CD's and offer only true upgrade-only binaries?
Some type of online-activation or encryption?
Apple is up to something. Like other things in life, all it takes are a few players to ruin it for everyone else.
Their answer to that would be they're buying the full retail version of OS X, and they could claim that it's not really an upgrade since since it is capable of performing a full-install.
That argument about OS X retail being an upgrade is a bunch of revisionist bunk on the part of Apple. Nowhere on the retail boxes for Leopard or Tiger does the work "upgrade" appear. I don't find it in the OS X documentation either. Furthermore, when you run the installer, there's an option plainly visible on the first screen (i.e., where you choose "archive and install" vs. "clean install") to install for first time on this computer. How exactly do you install an "upgrade" for the first time?
This seems more and more like a "let's throw a pile of crap against the wall and see what sticks" kind of defense.
To all you copyright experts out there... I thought copyright didn't require an explicit registration (like trademarks and patents require). Don't you own the copyright to your work as soon as you produce it? Or does that not apply to companies (vs individuals)?
Yes you are automatically protected from the point that you create the work ? but you have to be able to prove that it is your work, and that you produced it on a certain date.
One of the easiest ways to do this, is to immediately print out your work and mail it to yourself. As long as you don't open that envelope, you have a sealed packet containing your work (that is dated). If push comes to shove you can present it in a court of law.
This seems more and more like a "let's throw a pile of crap against the wall and see what sticks" kind of defense.
To all you copyright experts out there... I thought copyright didn't require an explicit registration (like trademarks and patents require). Don't you own the copyright to your work as soon as you produce it? Or does that not apply to companies (vs individuals)?
I agree Last time I checked copyright is implied by the act of creation something alone. It doesn't require any extra steps. The only way to revoke your copyright to your creation is to explicitly say as much.
That argument about OS X retail being an upgrade is a bunch of revisionist bunk on the part of Apple. Nowhere on the retail boxes for Leopard or Tiger does the work "upgrade" appear. I don't find it in the OS X documentation either. Furthermore, when you run the installer, there's an option plainly visible on the first screen (i.e., where you choose "archive and install" vs. "clean install") to install for first time on this computer. How exactly do you install an "upgrade" for the first time?
However, you have to have had a copy of Mac OS to be able to install Mac OS X (i.e. it is effectively an upgrade). The original license for Mac OS is basically a "Macintosh computer".
A quick google search brings up an interesting artical. Makes the company sound even more fishy to me.
I think it's Billy Gates.
Wow! good work ALBIM, that was some relevant reading you found there!
So according to the article, PsyStar is a company that does not seem to be interested in actually selling anything and they don't seem to have sold anything either, yet they have a bad ass legal team.
I suspect PsyStar realizes Apple is actively spying on them to gather relevant information, and therefore PsyStar stays on the the move to make Apple's task that much harder.
First things first; Apple doesn't own the copyright to all the code included with MacOS. Many of the components of MacOS are open source with the copyrights held by somebody else. I would think that Apple would have to be explicit in how each piece of software is copyrighted.
In fact they (Apple) pretty much do so in some of the legal documents that come with MacOS/X. I know when I got my MBP it took awhile just to skim through the file. It would not be impossible for Apple to have overlooked something. Just because you legally publish something does not mean you own the copyright to all materials in the publication. The photographic industry would fall apart if that was true.
As to throwing stuff on the wall and hoping it sticks well that may infact be the case. You don't win in life by ignoring the possibilities. All Pystars legal team needs is an issue or two to stick solidly.
Dave
They are explicit on 3rd party copyrights. They don't have to print it on every page of their product material for it to still be explicit and compliant to the rights of those 3rd party authors.
Absolutely untrue; registration or a refusal from the Copyright Office is a jurisdictional requisite. See 17 USC 411.
As nearly all defendants in a copyright action do: by taking discovery on all aspects validity, including all facts stated in the registration and all substantive and procedural requirements for registration.
Please stop trolling Apple boards for advice on how to win your client's case. It's embarrassing.
The argument that some part of the code used in OS X is not owned by Apple and that this therefore would say anything about the ownership of Mac OS X is committing a classic logical fallacy -- the fallacy of composition -- what is true of the parts has no direct implication for what is true of the whole.
I have to take issue with the claim that OS X merely crashes on non-apple systems. This is not evidence that no copy protection exists, this is evidence that the firmware is different, and that the kernel expects to find certain structures that simply aren't there (tables of some kind), hence the XNU kernel panics, because it can't go on from there without that info.
This is a separate issue from the ACTUAL DRM tying OS X to apple hardware, which does exist, has nothing to do with the crashing issue (or the firmware for that matter), and doesn't cause a crash, it allows the system to load but refuses to run certain things, like the dock, the finder, spotlight etc. That is in fact a DRM system, it ties the operating system in its complete form to a specific line of hardware.
If one were to get the XNU kernel to boot on an EFI compatible non-apple system, the OS would probably boot normally provided the hardware components were similar to an apple model, but once the GUI loads it won't do anything. That is the protection.
XNU already does run on non-Apple systems and has since its inception. It is not only the base of Mac OS X, but also of Darwin, which is a standalone operating system (if you're interested, you can download old copies of OpenDarwin and run it in a VM and there is a new group of developers making a new project called PureDarwin, which is based around Darwin 9, the same which Mac OS X 10.5 is based around).
Another commonly held myth is that Intel Macs contain an active TPM chip, or hardware DRM. This is untrue, you can verify this for yourself by going into Terminal and typing this:
Code:
ioreg | grep TPM
No results were found on my Intel Mac (2.16GHz white MacBook), but it would be interesting to see this done on different machines. Note that this does not mean that they don't contain one, it just means that it cannot be used as it is disabled.
The actual DRM in Mac OS X comes from the non-open source components (ie, the Apple-written stuff). There is a kernel extension called "Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext" which ensures that the proprietary components stay encoded, and cannot be used by the system. This includes components like the Finder, the HFS+ driver etc (in order to prevent piracy various system components are encrypted and are only decrypted when needed). More info, some more info
Microsoft sells an OS separate from hardware, so "fixing" it to run only on Dell hardware but not on a competitor is definitely wrong and represents some kind of sweetheart deal. Apple on the other hand, sells an OS only for specific machines that it makes, so to have a test for "foreign" machines at start up seems rather appropriate to me.
Apple does sell the OS separate from the hardware. The boxed version of OS X is NOT an upgrade version; it is a full version of the software. No where on Apple's site is a previous version of OS X stated as being required.
I guess I'm just missing the fundamental difference. In your example of Microsoft fixing XP/Vista to only work on Dell computers, how is that different than what Apple has done. Except they've made it even more of a "sweetheart deal" as you called it by making the hardware themselves instead of contracting with a 3rd party (which would cut into profits).
What would your reaction be if the next Windows security update brought along a bit of code that checked for the chip(s) that Apple uses to lock OS X to their hardware? If the chip was found, Windows would immediately crash to the "blue screen of death." I know there are many people on here who use Windows either through Bootcamp or a virtual machine. How many of them would suddenly cry foul of such an action, despite the fact that there is NO DIFFERENCE between that and what Apple has done.
Quote:
It occurs to me that almost all their arguments are predicated on the idea that the OS is separate from the hardware (as in Windows land), and they just don't see it any other way. If you assume that Apple's OS-X is exactly the same as any other OS in that regard then all these comparisons make sense. All it will take is one idiot judge who doesn't realise the difference and they might even win.
Isn't it just a handful of system-critical files that Apple has locked to the hardware? Wouldn't the vast majority of OS X function just fine with no software modifications? So where is the difference. All Apple has done is taken a fully functional OS and sewn a couple of pieces to their hardware in an effort to destroy compatibility with other computers.
I wouldn't be surprised if the OS X hackers who Apple has chosen to generally ignore didn't get dragged in as part of Psystar's defense/attack.
This reminds me of a story about a friend of mine.
For years he had a company name and practice, that allow him to do business. Now comes along a company with MUCH deeper pockets, who at some point in time, had trademark a bunch of phrases - one of which is friend of mine (The Hog Farm) used. Now he had been using it longer then company B (Harley-Davidson) had the trademark for, but because they were Big and Bad, HD decided they would sue.
Well they sued, it went to court, my friend won. Now after the trail he got on the front steps of the court and proudly claim "He had kick Harley's ass, and it was now time to let the world know". That was he first mistake. It was at that time, that Harley file a motion, blah, blah, blah.
After THOUSAND more dollars for he's attorneys fees, his wife divorcing him, his lack of funds, causing him to shut dow his business ? it went to court again. He WON a second time, but at this time his attorney told him "Shut your mouth" "Walk away knowing you won, and don't say a word."
He did, and Harley went on their way quietly.
He DOES tell anyone who listen the story, as he feels it has a morel to it. Which is "Shut up, Listen and learn when to walk away.
He has since started his business back up, (with the help of MANY friends and family members).
His business - http://www.the-hog-farm.com and the part that Harley owns is the word "Hog" when part of the motorcycle industry ? except in his case
- So do they have deep pockets ??
- Are they being stubborn and hoping for a win, that they can announce to the world ??
- Are they being stupid and hoping ??
Even if someone is taking this on in hopes of winning and looking good, there is a point where folks finally give in, and after that, they fall off into the sunset never to be heard from again.
You'd think they HAVE something on Apple, or it wouldn't have gone this far?
I think Psystar is very smart. Here is what they are doing:
#1) They noticed that Leopard is on a DVD. The copyright mentions CDs not DVDs. If a Judge wants to be over technical... wham Apple looses.
#2) What they are really going after is the Open Source and especially Darwin components. To run osx86 you hack Darwin and the Open Source Darwin Kernel to report that all is okay and that this is an Apple computer. The system boots. So the DMCA is mute because it isn't illegal to change open source software.
In fact I don't think anything is CHANGED at ALL in copywritten software. Go check out the osx86 community and they always have to wait for the Darwin Source Code before the can start issue updates to the Kernel (especially those on AMD or SSE2).
EFI hacks don't work this way (in changing the Open Source Kernel) but this is the tool that checks if EFI is there, not the copywritten Aqua overlay.
This also makes the EULA very tricky, as it claims I only have CERTAIN RIGHTS when in fact, I have every right to take Darwin or other open source components and copy or edit those if I choose. I think thats what the Lawyers are trying to get at...
Is it just me or does this post sound like it's only intent is to diss five different people at the same time?
I know the part that referred to my post was countering arguments that I didn't even make.
I don't see anywhere that you've tried to refute anything I said. Maybe if you did more than just throw slime at the wall?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aapl-ip
Absolutely untrue; registration or a refusal from the Copyright Office is a jurisdictional requisite. See 17 USC 411.
As nearly all defendants in a copyright action do: by taking discovery on all aspects validity, including all facts stated in the registration and all substantive and procedural requirements for registration.
I stand corrected on the registration. However, it's not really relevant - since Apple HAS registered the copyright.
As for the rest, that's obvious. But the point you ignored is that Apple very clearly developed Mac OS X and copyrighted it. If you have any specifics on how Psystar can claim it's invalid, go ahead and show them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALBIM
I think it's Billy Gates.
That would be just insane. Why would Microsoft want to invalidate Apple's copyright - allowing Mac OS X to be used freely on any computers manufactured anywhere in the world?
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp
That argument about OS X retail being an upgrade is a bunch of revisionist bunk on the part of Apple. Nowhere on the retail boxes for Leopard or Tiger does the work "upgrade" appear.
Who says the word 'upgrade' needs to appear? The EULA very specifically states that it can only be installed on Apple-branded hardware. Since all Apple-branded hardware comes with OS X pre-installed, that makes it an upgrade version - even if they don't specifically call it that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiah
Yes you are automatically protected from the point that you create the work ? but you have to be able to prove that it is your work, and that you produced it on a certain date.
One of the easiest ways to do this, is to immediately print out your work and mail it to yourself. As long as you don't open that envelope, you have a sealed packet containing your work (that is dated). If push comes to shove you can present it in a court of law.
By registration, you get prima facie evidence that it is your work and the other side has to prove it isn't. But mailing yourself an envelope won't do it. As someone corrected me above, you need to register a copyright in order to sue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
Apple does sell the OS separate from the hardware. The boxed version of OS X is NOT an upgrade version; it is a full version of the software. No where on Apple's site is a previous version of OS X stated as being required.
Again, this is incorrect. It is not called an upgrade version, but it specifically states that it can only be installed on Apple-branded hardware - which means that it is an upgrade by definition.
It's not like the non-Apple PC world where it's easy to get a computer without an OS so it makes sense to sell full and upgrade versions separately. In the Apple world, every computer ships with OS X, so there's no need to explicitly state that it's an upgrade.
Comments
If Pystar is correct, I expect Microsoft will skip Windows 7 and move directly to Snow Windows 8.0.
I think all of this is going to be a moot point. I believe Apple will do something different with Snow Leopard to make all the previous OSX headaches a moot point considering the significant changes in Snow Leopard.
Perhaps discontinue selling retail CD's?
Require original OEM CD's and offer only true upgrade-only binaries?
Some type of online-activation or encryption?
Apple is up to something. Like other things in life, all it takes are a few players to ruin it for everyone else.
Michael Dell sure is desperate.
LOL
This was nice :-)
Their answer to that would be they're buying the full retail version of OS X, and they could claim that it's not really an upgrade since since it is capable of performing a full-install.
That argument about OS X retail being an upgrade is a bunch of revisionist bunk on the part of Apple. Nowhere on the retail boxes for Leopard or Tiger does the work "upgrade" appear. I don't find it in the OS X documentation either. Furthermore, when you run the installer, there's an option plainly visible on the first screen (i.e., where you choose "archive and install" vs. "clean install") to install for first time on this computer. How exactly do you install an "upgrade" for the first time?
This seems more and more like a "let's throw a pile of crap against the wall and see what sticks" kind of defense.
To all you copyright experts out there... I thought copyright didn't require an explicit registration (like trademarks and patents require). Don't you own the copyright to your work as soon as you produce it? Or does that not apply to companies (vs individuals)?
Yes you are automatically protected from the point that you create the work ? but you have to be able to prove that it is your work, and that you produced it on a certain date.
One of the easiest ways to do this, is to immediately print out your work and mail it to yourself. As long as you don't open that envelope, you have a sealed packet containing your work (that is dated). If push comes to shove you can present it in a court of law.
This seems more and more like a "let's throw a pile of crap against the wall and see what sticks" kind of defense.
To all you copyright experts out there... I thought copyright didn't require an explicit registration (like trademarks and patents require). Don't you own the copyright to your work as soon as you produce it? Or does that not apply to companies (vs individuals)?
I agree Last time I checked copyright is implied by the act of creation something alone. It doesn't require any extra steps. The only way to revoke your copyright to your creation is to explicitly say as much.
Hopefully they'll be forced out of business soon.
That argument about OS X retail being an upgrade is a bunch of revisionist bunk on the part of Apple. Nowhere on the retail boxes for Leopard or Tiger does the work "upgrade" appear. I don't find it in the OS X documentation either. Furthermore, when you run the installer, there's an option plainly visible on the first screen (i.e., where you choose "archive and install" vs. "clean install") to install for first time on this computer. How exactly do you install an "upgrade" for the first time?
However, you have to have had a copy of Mac OS to be able to install Mac OS X (i.e. it is effectively an upgrade). The original license for Mac OS is basically a "Macintosh computer".
A quick google search brings up an interesting artical. Makes the company sound even more fishy to me.
I think it's Billy Gates.
Wow! good work ALBIM, that was some relevant reading you found there!
So according to the article, PsyStar is a company that does not seem to be interested in actually selling anything and they don't seem to have sold anything either, yet they have a bad ass legal team.
I suspect PsyStar realizes Apple is actively spying on them to gather relevant information, and therefore PsyStar stays on the the move to make Apple's task that much harder.
First things first; Apple doesn't own the copyright to all the code included with MacOS. Many of the components of MacOS are open source with the copyrights held by somebody else. I would think that Apple would have to be explicit in how each piece of software is copyrighted.
In fact they (Apple) pretty much do so in some of the legal documents that come with MacOS/X. I know when I got my MBP it took awhile just to skim through the file. It would not be impossible for Apple to have overlooked something. Just because you legally publish something does not mean you own the copyright to all materials in the publication. The photographic industry would fall apart if that was true.
As to throwing stuff on the wall and hoping it sticks well that may infact be the case. You don't win in life by ignoring the possibilities. All Pystars legal team needs is an issue or two to stick solidly.
Dave
They are explicit on 3rd party copyrights. They don't have to print it on every page of their product material for it to still be explicit and compliant to the rights of those 3rd party authors.
Absolutely untrue; registration or a refusal from the Copyright Office is a jurisdictional requisite. See 17 USC 411.
As nearly all defendants in a copyright action do: by taking discovery on all aspects validity, including all facts stated in the registration and all substantive and procedural requirements for registration.
Please stop trolling Apple boards for advice on how to win your client's case. It's embarrassing.
I have to take issue with the claim that OS X merely crashes on non-apple systems. This is not evidence that no copy protection exists, this is evidence that the firmware is different, and that the kernel expects to find certain structures that simply aren't there (tables of some kind), hence the XNU kernel panics, because it can't go on from there without that info.
This is a separate issue from the ACTUAL DRM tying OS X to apple hardware, which does exist, has nothing to do with the crashing issue (or the firmware for that matter), and doesn't cause a crash, it allows the system to load but refuses to run certain things, like the dock, the finder, spotlight etc. That is in fact a DRM system, it ties the operating system in its complete form to a specific line of hardware.
If one were to get the XNU kernel to boot on an EFI compatible non-apple system, the OS would probably boot normally provided the hardware components were similar to an apple model, but once the GUI loads it won't do anything. That is the protection.
XNU already does run on non-Apple systems and has since its inception. It is not only the base of Mac OS X, but also of Darwin, which is a standalone operating system (if you're interested, you can download old copies of OpenDarwin and run it in a VM and there is a new group of developers making a new project called PureDarwin, which is based around Darwin 9, the same which Mac OS X 10.5 is based around).
Another commonly held myth is that Intel Macs contain an active TPM chip, or hardware DRM. This is untrue, you can verify this for yourself by going into Terminal and typing this:
ioreg | grep TPM
No results were found on my Intel Mac (2.16GHz white MacBook), but it would be interesting to see this done on different machines. Note that this does not mean that they don't contain one, it just means that it cannot be used as it is disabled.
The actual DRM in Mac OS X comes from the non-open source components (ie, the Apple-written stuff). There is a kernel extension called "Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext" which ensures that the proprietary components stay encoded, and cannot be used by the system. This includes components like the Finder, the HFS+ driver etc (in order to prevent piracy various system components are encrypted and are only decrypted when needed). More info, some more info
Microsoft sells an OS separate from hardware, so "fixing" it to run only on Dell hardware but not on a competitor is definitely wrong and represents some kind of sweetheart deal. Apple on the other hand, sells an OS only for specific machines that it makes, so to have a test for "foreign" machines at start up seems rather appropriate to me.
Apple does sell the OS separate from the hardware. The boxed version of OS X is NOT an upgrade version; it is a full version of the software. No where on Apple's site is a previous version of OS X stated as being required.
I guess I'm just missing the fundamental difference. In your example of Microsoft fixing XP/Vista to only work on Dell computers, how is that different than what Apple has done. Except they've made it even more of a "sweetheart deal" as you called it by making the hardware themselves instead of contracting with a 3rd party (which would cut into profits).
What would your reaction be if the next Windows security update brought along a bit of code that checked for the chip(s) that Apple uses to lock OS X to their hardware? If the chip was found, Windows would immediately crash to the "blue screen of death." I know there are many people on here who use Windows either through Bootcamp or a virtual machine. How many of them would suddenly cry foul of such an action, despite the fact that there is NO DIFFERENCE between that and what Apple has done.
It occurs to me that almost all their arguments are predicated on the idea that the OS is separate from the hardware (as in Windows land), and they just don't see it any other way. If you assume that Apple's OS-X is exactly the same as any other OS in that regard then all these comparisons make sense. All it will take is one idiot judge who doesn't realise the difference and they might even win.
Isn't it just a handful of system-critical files that Apple has locked to the hardware? Wouldn't the vast majority of OS X function just fine with no software modifications? So where is the difference. All Apple has done is taken a fully functional OS and sewn a couple of pieces to their hardware in an effort to destroy compatibility with other computers.
I wouldn't be surprised if the OS X hackers who Apple has chosen to generally ignore didn't get dragged in as part of Psystar's defense/attack.
Michael Dell sure is desperate.
I don't think Bill Gates ever left Microsoft. He's just working undercover.
For years he had a company name and practice, that allow him to do business. Now comes along a company with MUCH deeper pockets, who at some point in time, had trademark a bunch of phrases - one of which is friend of mine (The Hog Farm) used. Now he had been using it longer then company B (Harley-Davidson) had the trademark for, but because they were Big and Bad, HD decided they would sue.
Well they sued, it went to court, my friend won. Now after the trail he got on the front steps of the court and proudly claim "He had kick Harley's ass, and it was now time to let the world know". That was he first mistake. It was at that time, that Harley file a motion, blah, blah, blah.
After THOUSAND more dollars for he's attorneys fees, his wife divorcing him, his lack of funds, causing him to shut dow his business ? it went to court again. He WON a second time, but at this time his attorney told him "Shut your mouth" "Walk away knowing you won, and don't say a word."
He did, and Harley went on their way quietly.
He DOES tell anyone who listen the story, as he feels it has a morel to it. Which is "Shut up, Listen and learn when to walk away.
He has since started his business back up, (with the help of MANY friends and family members).
His business - http://www.the-hog-farm.com and the part that Harley owns is the word "Hog" when part of the motorcycle industry ? except in his case
- So do they have deep pockets ??
- Are they being stubborn and hoping for a win, that they can announce to the world ??
- Are they being stupid and hoping ??
Even if someone is taking this on in hopes of winning and looking good, there is a point where folks finally give in, and after that, they fall off into the sunset never to be heard from again.
You'd think they HAVE something on Apple, or it wouldn't have gone this far?
Skip
LOL I can just see Steve walking into the court room and providing one piece of paper that knocks all claims against Apple.
iPaper
Your Honor, Just one more thing...
#1) They noticed that Leopard is on a DVD. The copyright mentions CDs not DVDs. If a Judge wants to be over technical... wham Apple looses.
#2) What they are really going after is the Open Source and especially Darwin components. To run osx86 you hack Darwin and the Open Source Darwin Kernel to report that all is okay and that this is an Apple computer. The system boots. So the DMCA is mute because it isn't illegal to change open source software.
In fact I don't think anything is CHANGED at ALL in copywritten software. Go check out the osx86 community and they always have to wait for the Darwin Source Code before the can start issue updates to the Kernel (especially those on AMD or SSE2).
EFI hacks don't work this way (in changing the Open Source Kernel) but this is the tool that checks if EFI is there, not the copywritten Aqua overlay.
This also makes the EULA very tricky, as it claims I only have CERTAIN RIGHTS when in fact, I have every right to take Darwin or other open source components and copy or edit those if I choose. I think thats what the Lawyers are trying to get at...
Is it just me or does this post sound like it's only intent is to diss five different people at the same time?
I know the part that referred to my post was countering arguments that I didn't even make.
I don't see anywhere that you've tried to refute anything I said. Maybe if you did more than just throw slime at the wall?
Absolutely untrue; registration or a refusal from the Copyright Office is a jurisdictional requisite. See 17 USC 411.
As nearly all defendants in a copyright action do: by taking discovery on all aspects validity, including all facts stated in the registration and all substantive and procedural requirements for registration.
I stand corrected on the registration. However, it's not really relevant - since Apple HAS registered the copyright.
As for the rest, that's obvious. But the point you ignored is that Apple very clearly developed Mac OS X and copyrighted it. If you have any specifics on how Psystar can claim it's invalid, go ahead and show them.
I think it's Billy Gates.
That would be just insane. Why would Microsoft want to invalidate Apple's copyright - allowing Mac OS X to be used freely on any computers manufactured anywhere in the world?
That argument about OS X retail being an upgrade is a bunch of revisionist bunk on the part of Apple. Nowhere on the retail boxes for Leopard or Tiger does the work "upgrade" appear.
Who says the word 'upgrade' needs to appear? The EULA very specifically states that it can only be installed on Apple-branded hardware. Since all Apple-branded hardware comes with OS X pre-installed, that makes it an upgrade version - even if they don't specifically call it that.
Yes you are automatically protected from the point that you create the work ? but you have to be able to prove that it is your work, and that you produced it on a certain date.
One of the easiest ways to do this, is to immediately print out your work and mail it to yourself. As long as you don't open that envelope, you have a sealed packet containing your work (that is dated). If push comes to shove you can present it in a court of law.
This is not correct. http://www.intellectlawgroup.com/pdf...ght%20Myth.pdf
By registration, you get prima facie evidence that it is your work and the other side has to prove it isn't. But mailing yourself an envelope won't do it. As someone corrected me above, you need to register a copyright in order to sue.
Apple does sell the OS separate from the hardware. The boxed version of OS X is NOT an upgrade version; it is a full version of the software. No where on Apple's site is a previous version of OS X stated as being required.
Again, this is incorrect. It is not called an upgrade version, but it specifically states that it can only be installed on Apple-branded hardware - which means that it is an upgrade by definition.
It's not like the non-Apple PC world where it's easy to get a computer without an OS so it makes sense to sell full and upgrade versions separately. In the Apple world, every computer ships with OS X, so there's no need to explicitly state that it's an upgrade.