I still don't think this is the same situation as with Psystar.
Capitalism has never been absolute or unfettered. There are rules as to what you can buy and sell even within individual capitalist enterprises, and irrespective of the laws of a given country, state or province. There simply is no absolute "right" to re-sell *anything* as the whole system would fall apart if there was.
A rough analogy to your wholesalers argument would be a wholesaler that has lucrative agreements with companies to re-sell their product and a third company with no agreement in place decides to also re-sell their product. The wholesaler has a right to restrict who they sell to. It's a very basic feature of business that a business has to have the rights to sell to who they want to and not sell to who they don't want to. It's also a basic right to have control over your own IP.
Why should Apple spend decades developing software that differentiates their hardware from the rest of the market and then be forced to sell it to their competitors, thus removing the advantage? It's patently unfair no matter how you look at it. The only way to justify such a thing would be to hang it on the ludicrous myth of total "Free-market Capitalism" where there are simply no rules, no copyright etc. Such a system has never actually existed and (hopefully) never will.
well, for a start capitalism is dead my friend, a busted flush. The fact that most western govts now own all the major mortgage banks tells you that.
anything will go now.
From a pure economic point of view. OSX on WIntel hardware would be great for consumers.
1/ Nothing is being stolen or taken, each computer has a fully paid copy of OSX on it.
2/ Since you brought up Open Source, then take a guess as to how much of OSX is actually open source code..!
OSX is a great OS and it should NOT be limited to the sh!tty hardware that Apple cripples it with.
OSX for all = big win for everybody.
1) By who's definition of "fully paid"? Apple sells the retail boxed version of OSX and sets the "fully paid" price based on the fact that it is only to be installed on Apple branded hardware, as specified in the agreement you agree to when you install the software. Therefore, the definition of "fully paid" is the price of the retail box PLUS having already purchased Apple branded hardware. Apple's definition of fully paid for someone who doesn't already own Apple hardware may well be $500/copy. They choose not to sell it under those conditions.
2) Irrelevant. Apple is properly using the open source work in accordance with their agreements with those organziations. Just because some of it is "free" doesn't mean all of it is free.
Both excellent points. I don't seem to get why people think that Psystar gets to suddenly start selling Mac clones because they shelled out a hundred bucks for OS X.
Pystar's message is so vague and really cannot understand how they plan to support their argument in any sort of linear fashion. These accusatory bunny trails (Apple is intimidating competitors) are most likely not going to fly.
I believe personally that EULA overstep their boundaries and that individuals can and should fight the ridiculous parts that many of them contain but I do not believe that EULA are wrong nor that a company should be able to base it's business on the backs of another.
well Apple's EULA is so ludicrously vague (maybe cos Apple knew it was unenforceable) that the argument could flip both ways.
"Apple labelled..." ??? hmmm..
from a legal point of view does that mean anything with an Apple sticker on it..?
if not, why not? where is the absolute definition??
and, if so... then are APple allowed to deliberately cripple the software to not boot on 'my' hardware that is Apple labelled by a sticker??
1) By who's definition of "fully paid"? Apple sells the retail boxed version of OSX and sets the "fully paid" price based on the fact that it is only to be installed on Apple branded hardware, as specified in the agreement you agree to when you install the software. Therefore, the definition of "fully paid" is the price of the retail box PLUS having already purchased Apple branded hardware. Apple's definition of fully paid for someone who doesn't already own Apple hardware may well be $500/copy. They choose not to sell it under those conditions.
2) Irrelevant. Apple is properly using the open source work in accordance with their agreements with those organziations. Just because some of it is "free" doesn't mean all of it is free.
1/ When Apple put it up for sale as a standalone product, which they do then the price on the box is the price. It matters not a jot what they plan/think or work out at Cupertino.
2/ True....... but just goes to show that you can get paid for others' work.
well Apple's EULA is so ludicrously vague (maybe cos Apple knew it was unenforceable) that the argument could flip both ways.
"Apple labelled..." ??? hmmm..
from a legal point of view does that mean anything with an Apple sticker on it..?
if not, why not? where is the absolute definition??
and, if so... then are APple allowed to deliberately cripple the software to not boot on 'my' hardware that is Apple labelled by a sticker??
far from clear cut either way..
They all are. Legalese at its best.
However why should we focus on Apple here. If Apple cannot tie software to a hardware platform them frankly NO company that makes hardware/software combinations should be safe right?
This kind of confuses two arguments though, which is not surprising since Psystar and their supporters are relying on and propagating this essential confusion with their case.
The point is not installing OS-X on some other hardware, the point is doing that and selling the end result in competition to Apple. Apple has let OSX86 hobbyists do this for years and not contemplated suing them or taking them to jail. There were even some indications that Apple had (unofficially) supported such projects in the past.
The difference here is that no one should have the right to take someone else's work and sell it for a profit. Especially since doing so will also cut into the profit of the people that originally came up with the work.
1/ When Apple put it up for sale as a standalone product, which they do then the price on the box is the price. It matters not a jot what they plan/think or work out at Cupertino.
Except they never did put it up for sale as a standalone product. They put it up for sale as an upgrade for the full version that was paid for as part of the computer's original purchase price.
It matters not a jot whether the upgrade installation process happens to involve only patching existing files on the hard drive, or if it just deletes everything and starts over from scratch. The fact remains that either way, if used according to instructions, there was a fully-paid-for original version at some point in the past, and this is nothing but an upgrade.
It doesn't say "upgrade" anywhere on the box. It doesn't say: "requires a previous version" or "requires an Apple-branded computer". And when they compare prices to Vista, they always use the Vista stand-alone versions. So arguably, it is marketed as a stand-alone product.
And that's why this is insane. Instead of paying millions in legal fees battling who-knows-how-many clone makers, they only have to add the word "update" to the package...
well Apple's EULA is so ludicrously vague (maybe cos Apple knew it was unenforceable) that the argument could flip both ways.
"Apple labelled..." ??? hmmm..
from a legal point of view does that mean anything with an Apple sticker on it..?
if not, why not? where is the absolute definition??
and, if so... then are APple allowed to deliberately cripple the software to not boot on 'my' hardware that is Apple labelled by a sticker??
far from clear cut either way..
You can put a sticker on a computer and it will become Apple labelled, sure. But if you start selling those computers, with Apple stickers on them, for profit then you are violating Apple trademark and will be hit with a more solid lawsuit. Clearly Apple wrote the EULA to stop Mac OS cloning not to stop people from installing Mac OS on their home computers.
"[Psystar] fails to explain, however, how this conduct constitutes harm to competition or a violation of the spirit of the antitrust laws," he wrote. "[Tying copyrights to computer hardware] requires monopolization. PsyStar has identified none.
It doesn't say "upgrade" anywhere on the box. It doesn't say: "requires a previous version" or "requires an Apple-branded computer". And when they compare prices to Vista, they always use the Vista stand-alone versions. So arguably, it is marketed as a stand-alone product.
And that's why this is insane. Instead of paying millions in legal fees battling who-knows-how-many clone makers, they only have to add the word "update" to the package...
You're stating that what is clearly states on their website is not also listed on the box bottom, even though HW requirements (and SW if we are not talking about an OS) are a staple of all SW installs?
2/ Since you brought up Open Source, then take a guess as to how much of OSX is actually open source code..!
According to the red-meat open source crowd, nearly none of it is. There's a steady drumbeat that since the lineage from *NIX is so muddied as to be immaterial, and that since Apple has retained some - make that any - proprietary parts to their builds of the OS, then it's beneath contempt.
1/ Nothing is being stolen or taken, each computer has a fully paid copy of OSX on it.
2/ Since you brought up Open Source, then take a guess as to how much of OSX is actually open source code..!
OSX is a great OS and it should NOT be limited to the sh!tty hardware that Apple cripples it with.
OSX for all = big win for everybody.
As it is, if you buy a Mac then ONE company gives you support for the WHOLE computer. If it goes your way then you will end up with the hardware company blaming the software company for when something goes wrong and visa versa. You'll also have the consumers ALWAYS blaming Apple since most of them will be PC folk. That sounds a whole lot like the Windows world. NO THANKS!
Someone mention; "either stupid or wants to stick it to Apple". Since you like the OS I guess that clears that up.
However why should we focus on Apple here. If Apple cannot tie software to a hardware platform them frankly NO company that makes hardware/software combinations should be safe right?
Except they never did put it up for sale as a standalone product. They put it up for sale as an upgrade for the full version that was paid for as part of the computer's original purchase price.
rubbish, nothing on the packaging or description on any site mentions upgrading. You can buy it standalone. Just because you think its' obvious doesn't make it so.
Quote:
It matters not a jot whether the upgrade installation process happens to involve only patching existing files on the hard drive, or if it just deletes everything and starts over from scratch. The fact remains that either way, if used according to instructions, there was a fully-paid-for original version at some point in the past, and this is nothing but an upgrade.
As it is, if you buy a Mac then ONE company gives you support for the WHOLE computer. If it goes your way then you will end up with the hardware company blaming the software company for when something goes wrong and visa versa. You'll also have the consumers ALWAYS blaming Apple since most of them will be PC folk. That sounds a whole lot like the Windows world. NO THANKS!
Someone mention; "either stupid or wants to stick it to Apple". Since you like the OS I guess that clears that up.
after sales support is not the issue or even mentioned....
Licensed versions of OSX would have to be supported by the vendor..not Apple.
posting from a Mac, with leopard, ilife 09, iwork'09 etc... all legal and paid for.
Why so few see this is beyond me. All Apple has to do to push Psystar out of business is a simple increase of the Mac OS X upgrade price to Windows-like prices and/or make the retail discs upgrade 'only', not full installs. The latter would keep the price down for current Mac users but would come with the added hassle of needing a previous version of Mac OS X installed first. None of these are good for the consumer and, as you stated, Psystar still loses.
Yes.
-MacOSX Full Install $10,000
-MacOSX Upgrade $129
Every Mac comes bundled with a MacOSX Full Install (non transferable)
Most people don't know why Apple don't want to license their OS. To understand why you have to understand why they stopped it more than 10 years ago. I am not going to say anything, I will let SJ tell you why in this video.
Comments
I still don't think this is the same situation as with Psystar.
Capitalism has never been absolute or unfettered. There are rules as to what you can buy and sell even within individual capitalist enterprises, and irrespective of the laws of a given country, state or province. There simply is no absolute "right" to re-sell *anything* as the whole system would fall apart if there was.
A rough analogy to your wholesalers argument would be a wholesaler that has lucrative agreements with companies to re-sell their product and a third company with no agreement in place decides to also re-sell their product. The wholesaler has a right to restrict who they sell to. It's a very basic feature of business that a business has to have the rights to sell to who they want to and not sell to who they don't want to. It's also a basic right to have control over your own IP.
Why should Apple spend decades developing software that differentiates their hardware from the rest of the market and then be forced to sell it to their competitors, thus removing the advantage? It's patently unfair no matter how you look at it. The only way to justify such a thing would be to hang it on the ludicrous myth of total "Free-market Capitalism" where there are simply no rules, no copyright etc. Such a system has never actually existed and (hopefully) never will.
well, for a start capitalism is dead my friend, a busted flush. The fact that most western govts now own all the major mortgage banks tells you that.
anything will go now.
From a pure economic point of view. OSX on WIntel hardware would be great for consumers.
2 points....
1/ Nothing is being stolen or taken, each computer has a fully paid copy of OSX on it.
2/ Since you brought up Open Source, then take a guess as to how much of OSX is actually open source code..!
OSX is a great OS and it should NOT be limited to the sh!tty hardware that Apple cripples it with.
OSX for all = big win for everybody.
1) By who's definition of "fully paid"? Apple sells the retail boxed version of OSX and sets the "fully paid" price based on the fact that it is only to be installed on Apple branded hardware, as specified in the agreement you agree to when you install the software. Therefore, the definition of "fully paid" is the price of the retail box PLUS having already purchased Apple branded hardware. Apple's definition of fully paid for someone who doesn't already own Apple hardware may well be $500/copy. They choose not to sell it under those conditions.
2) Irrelevant. Apple is properly using the open source work in accordance with their agreements with those organziations. Just because some of it is "free" doesn't mean all of it is free.
Both excellent points. I don't seem to get why people think that Psystar gets to suddenly start selling Mac clones because they shelled out a hundred bucks for OS X.
Pystar's message is so vague and really cannot understand how they plan to support their argument in any sort of linear fashion. These accusatory bunny trails (Apple is intimidating competitors) are most likely not going to fly.
I believe personally that EULA overstep their boundaries and that individuals can and should fight the ridiculous parts that many of them contain but I do not believe that EULA are wrong nor that a company should be able to base it's business on the backs of another.
well Apple's EULA is so ludicrously vague (maybe cos Apple knew it was unenforceable) that the argument could flip both ways.
"Apple labelled..." ??? hmmm..
from a legal point of view does that mean anything with an Apple sticker on it..?
if not, why not? where is the absolute definition??
and, if so... then are APple allowed to deliberately cripple the software to not boot on 'my' hardware that is Apple labelled by a sticker??
far from clear cut either way..
1) By who's definition of "fully paid"? Apple sells the retail boxed version of OSX and sets the "fully paid" price based on the fact that it is only to be installed on Apple branded hardware, as specified in the agreement you agree to when you install the software. Therefore, the definition of "fully paid" is the price of the retail box PLUS having already purchased Apple branded hardware. Apple's definition of fully paid for someone who doesn't already own Apple hardware may well be $500/copy. They choose not to sell it under those conditions.
2) Irrelevant. Apple is properly using the open source work in accordance with their agreements with those organziations. Just because some of it is "free" doesn't mean all of it is free.
1/ When Apple put it up for sale as a standalone product, which they do then the price on the box is the price. It matters not a jot what they plan/think or work out at Cupertino.
2/ True....... but just goes to show that you can get paid for others' work.
well Apple's EULA is so ludicrously vague (maybe cos Apple knew it was unenforceable) that the argument could flip both ways.
"Apple labelled..." ??? hmmm..
from a legal point of view does that mean anything with an Apple sticker on it..?
if not, why not? where is the absolute definition??
and, if so... then are APple allowed to deliberately cripple the software to not boot on 'my' hardware that is Apple labelled by a sticker??
far from clear cut either way..
They all are. Legalese at its best.
However why should we focus on Apple here. If Apple cannot tie software to a hardware platform them frankly NO company that makes hardware/software combinations should be safe right?
2 points....
OSX is a great OS and it should NOT be limited to the sh!tty hardware that Apple cripples it with.
Translation: You want a BMW but you are only willing to pay for a Yugo.
Screw you.
This kind of confuses two arguments though, which is not surprising since Psystar and their supporters are relying on and propagating this essential confusion with their case.
The point is not installing OS-X on some other hardware, the point is doing that and selling the end result in competition to Apple. Apple has let OSX86 hobbyists do this for years and not contemplated suing them or taking them to jail. There were even some indications that Apple had (unofficially) supported such projects in the past.
The difference here is that no one should have the right to take someone else's work and sell it for a profit. Especially since doing so will also cut into the profit of the people that originally came up with the work.
Well put.
1/ When Apple put it up for sale as a standalone product, which they do then the price on the box is the price. It matters not a jot what they plan/think or work out at Cupertino.
Except they never did put it up for sale as a standalone product. They put it up for sale as an upgrade for the full version that was paid for as part of the computer's original purchase price.
It matters not a jot whether the upgrade installation process happens to involve only patching existing files on the hard drive, or if it just deletes everything and starts over from scratch. The fact remains that either way, if used according to instructions, there was a fully-paid-for original version at some point in the past, and this is nothing but an upgrade.
And that's why this is insane. Instead of paying millions in legal fees battling who-knows-how-many clone makers, they only have to add the word "update" to the package...
well Apple's EULA is so ludicrously vague (maybe cos Apple knew it was unenforceable) that the argument could flip both ways.
"Apple labelled..." ??? hmmm..
from a legal point of view does that mean anything with an Apple sticker on it..?
if not, why not? where is the absolute definition??
and, if so... then are APple allowed to deliberately cripple the software to not boot on 'my' hardware that is Apple labelled by a sticker??
far from clear cut either way..
You can put a sticker on a computer and it will become Apple labelled, sure. But if you start selling those computers, with Apple stickers on them, for profit then you are violating Apple trademark and will be hit with a more solid lawsuit. Clearly Apple wrote the EULA to stop Mac OS cloning not to stop people from installing Mac OS on their home computers.
"[Psystar] fails to explain, however, how this conduct constitutes harm to competition or a violation of the spirit of the antitrust laws," he wrote. "[Tying copyrights to computer hardware] requires monopolization. PsyStar has identified none.
Their goes their Sherman Anti-Trust claim.
This is a big blow to Psystar.
It doesn't say "upgrade" anywhere on the box. It doesn't say: "requires a previous version" or "requires an Apple-branded computer". And when they compare prices to Vista, they always use the Vista stand-alone versions. So arguably, it is marketed as a stand-alone product.
And that's why this is insane. Instead of paying millions in legal fees battling who-knows-how-many clone makers, they only have to add the word "update" to the package...
You're stating that what is clearly states on their website is not also listed on the box bottom, even though HW requirements (and SW if we are not talking about an OS) are a staple of all SW installs?
2 points....
2/ Since you brought up Open Source, then take a guess as to how much of OSX is actually open source code..!
According to the red-meat open source crowd, nearly none of it is. There's a steady drumbeat that since the lineage from *NIX is so muddied as to be immaterial, and that since Apple has retained some - make that any - proprietary parts to their builds of the OS, then it's beneath contempt.
2 points....
1/ Nothing is being stolen or taken, each computer has a fully paid copy of OSX on it.
2/ Since you brought up Open Source, then take a guess as to how much of OSX is actually open source code..!
OSX is a great OS and it should NOT be limited to the sh!tty hardware that Apple cripples it with.
OSX for all = big win for everybody.
As it is, if you buy a Mac then ONE company gives you support for the WHOLE computer. If it goes your way then you will end up with the hardware company blaming the software company for when something goes wrong and visa versa. You'll also have the consumers ALWAYS blaming Apple since most of them will be PC folk. That sounds a whole lot like the Windows world. NO THANKS!
Someone mention; "either stupid or wants to stick it to Apple". Since you like the OS I guess that clears that up.
However why should we focus on Apple here. If Apple cannot tie software to a hardware platform them frankly NO company that makes hardware/software combinations should be safe right?
absolutely.
Translation: You want a BMW but you are only willing to pay for a Yugo.
Screw you.
bad translation..... Yugo describes Apple's hardware.
Posting from a Mac btw...
Except they never did put it up for sale as a standalone product. They put it up for sale as an upgrade for the full version that was paid for as part of the computer's original purchase price.
rubbish, nothing on the packaging or description on any site mentions upgrading. You can buy it standalone. Just because you think its' obvious doesn't make it so.
It matters not a jot whether the upgrade installation process happens to involve only patching existing files on the hard drive, or if it just deletes everything and starts over from scratch. The fact remains that either way, if used according to instructions, there was a fully-paid-for original version at some point in the past, and this is nothing but an upgrade.
Used to instructions?
on Apple labelled hardware?? check...
next..??
As it is, if you buy a Mac then ONE company gives you support for the WHOLE computer. If it goes your way then you will end up with the hardware company blaming the software company for when something goes wrong and visa versa. You'll also have the consumers ALWAYS blaming Apple since most of them will be PC folk. That sounds a whole lot like the Windows world. NO THANKS!
Someone mention; "either stupid or wants to stick it to Apple". Since you like the OS I guess that clears that up.
after sales support is not the issue or even mentioned....
Licensed versions of OSX would have to be supported by the vendor..not Apple.
posting from a Mac, with leopard, ilife 09, iwork'09 etc... all legal and paid for.
Why so few see this is beyond me. All Apple has to do to push Psystar out of business is a simple increase of the Mac OS X upgrade price to Windows-like prices and/or make the retail discs upgrade 'only', not full installs. The latter would keep the price down for current Mac users but would come with the added hassle of needing a previous version of Mac OS X installed first. None of these are good for the consumer and, as you stated, Psystar still loses.
Yes.
-MacOSX Full Install $10,000
-MacOSX Upgrade $129
Every Mac comes bundled with a MacOSX Full Install (non transferable)
The EULA becomes moot.