Apple’s copyright on OS X doesn’t give Apple the right to tell people what they can do with it after they buy a copy.
Isn't that the definition of a copyright?
On a side note, this entire case is Psystar saying that they can buy a car, put their own logo on it, and resell it. Yes? I have no legal education (it probably shows), but this entire case is undeniably bogus.
I suppose "good" being open to interpretation. The new lawyers were granted a pro hac vice to work on the case. There is no chance it is ever going to Texas. So having idiots sit on the bench, passing IP rulings like candy (or guns) isn't in the cards, sorry.
Camara & Sibley were most likely brought on because they are good at muddling the issue. Turning facts and techno-jargon into human speak may be the only case Psystar has about now. Nothing short of sheer desperation as they turn this case into a "Goliath and the Giant" mockery, making the public believe they are preventing the onslaught of a day were 1+1 = Coke.
On a side note, this entire case is Psystar saying that they can buy a car, put their own logo on it, and resell it. Yes? I have no legal education (it probably shows), but this entire case is undeniably bogus.
No! Putting their own logo on it would be misrepresentation, which is fraud. I have no legal education either but common sense say its bogus. Psystar is using legal delay.
I'd say instead of messing with Apple, Psystar can just make their hack into a software and sell it in the stores like any other software. For example: VM Ware allows a user to use Windows on a Mac as does Parallel. Bootcamp allows users to install Windows on a Mac to use as if it's a PC.
All Psystar needs to do to NOT having to violate the EULA is to NOT install OSX at all! Just sell the codes as a software that allows OSX to be installed on ANY PC... much like a driver! That way, they don't even have to touch OSX. Heck, just sell the computer with the codes/hacks pre-installed! Then the End User would just buy their own copy of OSX and install it themselves.
I'd say instead of messing with Apple, Psystar can just make their hack into a software and sell it in the stores like any other software. For example: VM Ware allows a user to use Windows on a Mac as does Parallel. Bootcamp allows users to install Windows on a Mac to use as if it's a PC.
All Psystar needs to do to NOT having to violate the EULA is to NOT install OSX at all! Just sell the codes as a software that allows OSX to be installed on ANY PC... much like a driver! That way, they don't even have to touch OSX. Heck, just sell the computer with the codes/hacks pre-installed! Then the End User would just buy their own copy of OSX and install it themselves.
with some PC hardware you can install OS X without any hacks. there is a nice database for people that build themselves which motherboards are the most stable, and a few dell laptops take OS X as if they were Apple laptops
It's both, as Apple is selling a license. The sooner all the idiots understand that the better. It has always been the case with commercial software.
What the hell is so difficult about this for people to understand?
That's not the correct word either.
The correct term is "granting", not "selling".
Selling is a final act of release by the seller to the purchaser. You can't sell a license because you can take it back if the terms aren't being followed.
I'd say instead of messing with Apple, Psystar can just make their hack into a software and sell it in the stores like any other software. For example: VM Ware allows a user to use Windows on a Mac as does Parallel. Bootcamp allows users to install Windows on a Mac to use as if it's a PC.
All Psystar needs to do to NOT having to violate the EULA is to NOT install OSX at all! Just sell the codes as a software that allows OSX to be installed on ANY PC... much like a driver! That way, they don't even have to touch OSX. Heck, just sell the computer with the codes/hacks pre-installed! Then the End User would just buy their own copy of OSX and install it themselves.
No. Any act that leads to copyright violation is prosecutable. It's a civil matter, UNLESS, and this is important, the act rises to criminal activity if a large number of violations occur, and profit is being made from that.
This really isn't a question of public support, it is a question of law. Copyright law embraces the concept of derivative works, which is why the "fair use" defense exists as it does. Clearly what Psystar is doing is not fair use, and as such, Apple has the legal right to defend its IP. While it may be easy to make vapid claims that by asserting its legal rights that Apple is being "anti-competitive," it seems quite clear that Apple's biggest competitor, MS is a victim of its own success, and that Apple capitalizes on the closed-nature of its hardware-software relationship. To this end, stripping Apple of the IP protections it is entitled to by its copyrights would undermine its entire business strategy and expose the reputation of OSX to the same perils that have faced Windows for years, but without giving Apple the benefits of ubiquity that itsRedmond counterparts have enjoyed. Thus, if Psystar wishes to make financial gains by offering a computer that uses stable, reliable, and predicable operating system like OSX, it should either acquire the legal right to do so, or develop its own just as Apple had to do. Competition is not defined as letting every conceivable competitor have free reign over your IP. The goal of competition is to encourage innovation, and when looked at comparatively, I doubt very much that Pystar could be considered by anyone to be a genuine innovator when compared to Apple. If our country kowtows to thieves, there will be no incentive left for legitimate firms to innovate, and our global technological superiority will surely falter. If Apple is leading the pack in innovation, they should reap the rewards...Period.
I'd say instead of messing with Apple, Psystar can just make their hack into a software and sell it in the stores like any other software. For example: VM Ware allows a user to use Windows on a Mac as does Parallel. Bootcamp allows users to install Windows on a Mac to use as if it's a PC.
All Psystar needs to do to NOT having to violate the EULA is to NOT install OSX at all! Just sell the codes as a software that allows OSX to be installed on ANY PC... much like a driver! That way, they don't even have to touch OSX. Heck, just sell the computer with the codes/hacks pre-installed! Then the End User would just buy their own copy of OSX and install it themselves.
@zeromeus: Not as bad an idea as that initially sounds, but I think it would be too difficult for them to create a somewhat user-friendly way of doing it. Also, I can't help but think Psystar may have some money from other PC manufacturers behind them, using them as a guinea pig... if by some miracle Psystar wins and is allowed to manufacture Hackintoshes, you can bet all your Apple stock that Dell, HP, et. all will be right behind. And I believe that will _kill_ Apple, because Apple is entirely focused on creating a "closed garden". I'd rather not get into that in the middle of this discussion, though, so I'll stop my reasoning there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
A couple of things:
<snip>
2) "Apple?s copyright on OS X doesn?t give Apple the right to tell people what they can do with it after they buy a copy."
Just don't tell that to ANY software maker trying to earn a living.
Technically it's not the copyright that does this (not really), but the EULA. But even in that case, the EULA is a pile of smelly feces. You're telling me it's impossible to make money selling software without having ultimate control over how people use your product? I don't think Google, Red Hat, Novell, Oracle, Sun..... got the memo. At least not for many of their products, which employ a comparatively lax copyleft, or a permissive license. Imagine a world where you can sell an honest product, without force-feeding your customers and nailing them to your EULA...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Trashing the entire principle of the EULA is not a good idea. For anyone.
I beg to differ. The sooner as I can stop selling my soul to "All rights reserved" documents, the better (and it's already pretty close... the BIOS, Flash, and NVIDIA are some of the few remaining blockers, for me at least).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Good lord, are these people ever fucking stupid. Yes, morons, it DOES give Apple the right, and everyone else the right under the same laws Apple is subject to.
Legal right, yes, moral right, hell no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
What Psystar wants to do here eventually is widen this entire battle into a trial over IP law itself, including the DMCA. Psystar wants to trash Intellectual Property law in the US. Yeah, that'll work out GREAT.
Hey, if they did, I'd celebrate (sadly, they will not). Copyright ("IntellectualProperty") was better in the beginning -- as limited incentive to promote business. Not as the 800-pound bloated gorilla used to exert complete control over the use of products.
To re-clarify my position, I DO believe Psystar has a moral right to their business. "Nobody cares about moral rights, this is about legality!" you say... morality is the basis for all other regulation, or should be at least. I do NOT deny that Psystar is in the legal wrong, and I also don't particularly like Psystar. That said, me and Apple get along worse, and the more their walled garden crumbles, the better. And one other thing, because I know someone will bring it up: I DO believe that programmers should receive fair compensation for their work. Apple is, in this case. They just want to make sure they can lock MacOS to the Mac, and create greater vertical integration (Carnegie would be proud) -- incidentally, the same way they are trying to lock iTunes to the iPod. Bolting everything together.
Eh, I went off-topic partially... apologies.
@djsherley: Companies are trying to convert everything to licensing now, which is very sad... that way, they always get to claim: "You don't own OS X! You own a license to use it in the manner which we specify. Don't worry, we'll make sure that you can use it to full effect... say, with all our other products we happen to make! Just don't try putting this together with a *gasp* competitor's product." If the Information Age continues like this, we'll end up owning nothing but licenses that would take a platoon of lawyers years to decipher and formally conclude how little we actually own.
And on the innovation bit, that line is very true... when copyright used to be a very short time to encourage production of works, and now is anywhere between fifty and a hundred years. Have fun producing new and worthy products not based at all on anything in the last 50-100 years... http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...90621124054133
Remember, people! Copyright was created to incite business to work MORE, for YOU! It is NOT a God-given right of ownership over thoughts and other extra-physical concepts!
I love Apple to death, and would never dream of buying non-apple branded hardware.
... but ....
I'm really hoping Psystar wins. For us, the consumers, only good would come from it. It would force Apple to upgrade their systems faster, because if they don't people will have the choice to go elsewhere. Currently that choice simply doesn't exist.
I mean hell, they had a system available LAST YEAR with a blu-ray drive installed. Where is apple's blu-ray option? Granted, you can't watch them (unless you use bootcamp, which is fine) until Apple decides to license the software, but it's still a great example.
The only people who should be rooting against them are Apple Employees and people who have the majority of their assets invested in AAPL stock. Likely less than 1% of Appleinsider's userbase.
I love Apple to death, and would never dream of buying non-apple branded hardware.
... but ....
I'm really hoping Psystar wins. For us, the consumers, only good would come from it. It would force Apple to upgrade their systems faster, because if they don't people will have the choice to go elsewhere. Currently that choice simply doesn't exist.
I mean hell, they had a system available LAST YEAR with a blu-ray drive installed. Where is apple's blu-ray option? Granted, you can't watch them (unless you use bootcamp, which is fine) until Apple decides to license the software, but it's still a great example.
The only people who should be rooting against them are Apple Employees and people who have the majority of their assets invested in AAPL stock. Likely less than 1% of Appleinsider's userbase.
- Xid
Apple already have competition, they are called Dell, HP, Sony, Microsoft, and the list go on. You don't have to sell computers with Mac OS to compete with Apple. Furthermore, unlike other computer manufacturer Apple is facing the most competition since they have to compete in both hardware and software.
These dirtbags know they can't win and are 1. dragging this on as long as they can, and 2. just making trouble for Apple because they know they can't win... just like an immature child who was reprimanded for doing something bad and starts doing something else that's annoying to "get back" at the parents. Squash these parasites already!
A dubious proposition. It's in the Constitution, fer crissakes.
I think a world existed before the constitution. Which is not my constitution, as it happens.
Quote:
The license is not relevant.
I think it is. It the product is sold, then Apple really don't get to say what you can do with it (as MelGross points out, it's the final act of release). With a licence, you are required to adhere to the terms of the grant or the license can be revoked. How can Apple ever realistically watch all x million of its licensees and revoke grants when the license terms are violated? They can't. Does that figure in whether something is a license or a sale? I don't know. That's all I'm saying.
These dirtbags know they can't win and are 1. dragging this on as long as they can, and 2. just making trouble for Apple because they know they can't win... just like an immature child who was reprimanded for doing something bad and starts doing something else that's annoying to "get back" at the parents. Squash these parasites already!
...the company who everyone is surprised managed to have the cash to last _this_ long is "dragging this on as long as they can"? Err... if anyone wants to draw things out, it's Apple, who's easiest tactic would be to drown Psystar in legal fees and then laugh while Psystar bankrupts (which they already did once...), unable to get even a ruling.
And the flaw in your 'analogy' would be that their has been no reprimanding... only Apple saying "Mine!" (and Apple is no parent to Psystar, and has no right to control it IMHO in this situation).
@>_>;: Exactly. Competition == good. Example being, I like Google as a company far more than MS, but some competition from Bing wouldn't hurt at all. Forcibly limiting competition through legal means == bad (more or less).
Comments
http://community.psystar.com/in-comes-the-cavalry/
Apple’s copyright on OS X doesn’t give Apple the right to tell people what they can do with it after they buy a copy.
Isn't that the definition of a copyright?
On a side note, this entire case is Psystar saying that they can buy a car, put their own logo on it, and resell it. Yes? I have no legal education (it probably shows), but this entire case is undeniably bogus.
Welcome to two weeks ago, some good analysis as well - http://news.worldofapple.com/archive...-new-law-firm/
I suppose "good" being open to interpretation. The new lawyers were granted a pro hac vice to work on the case. There is no chance it is ever going to Texas. So having idiots sit on the bench, passing IP rulings like candy (or guns) isn't in the cards, sorry.
Camara & Sibley were most likely brought on because they are good at muddling the issue. Turning facts and techno-jargon into human speak may be the only case Psystar has about now. Nothing short of sheer desperation as they turn this case into a "Goliath and the Giant" mockery, making the public believe they are preventing the onslaught of a day were 1+1 = Coke.
I think this farce has gone on long enough...
Isn't that the definition of a copyright?
On a side note, this entire case is Psystar saying that they can buy a car, put their own logo on it, and resell it. Yes? I have no legal education (it probably shows), but this entire case is undeniably bogus.
No! Putting their own logo on it would be misrepresentation, which is fraud. I have no legal education either but common sense say its bogus. Psystar is using legal delay.
Perhaps the real question is, is purchasing a piece of software a sale or a license?
It's both, as Apple is selling a license. The sooner all the idiots understand that the better. It has always been the case with commercial software.
What the hell is so difficult about this for people to understand?
All Psystar needs to do to NOT having to violate the EULA is to NOT install OSX at all! Just sell the codes as a software that allows OSX to be installed on ANY PC... much like a driver! That way, they don't even have to touch OSX. Heck, just sell the computer with the codes/hacks pre-installed! Then the End User would just buy their own copy of OSX and install it themselves.
I'd say instead of messing with Apple, Psystar can just make their hack into a software and sell it in the stores like any other software. For example: VM Ware allows a user to use Windows on a Mac as does Parallel. Bootcamp allows users to install Windows on a Mac to use as if it's a PC.
All Psystar needs to do to NOT having to violate the EULA is to NOT install OSX at all! Just sell the codes as a software that allows OSX to be installed on ANY PC... much like a driver! That way, they don't even have to touch OSX. Heck, just sell the computer with the codes/hacks pre-installed! Then the End User would just buy their own copy of OSX and install it themselves.
with some PC hardware you can install OS X without any hacks. there is a nice database for people that build themselves which motherboards are the most stable, and a few dell laptops take OS X as if they were Apple laptops
It's both, as Apple is selling a license. The sooner all the idiots understand that the better. It has always been the case with commercial software.
What the hell is so difficult about this for people to understand?
That's not the correct word either.
The correct term is "granting", not "selling".
Selling is a final act of release by the seller to the purchaser. You can't sell a license because you can take it back if the terms aren't being followed.
I'd say instead of messing with Apple, Psystar can just make their hack into a software and sell it in the stores like any other software. For example: VM Ware allows a user to use Windows on a Mac as does Parallel. Bootcamp allows users to install Windows on a Mac to use as if it's a PC.
All Psystar needs to do to NOT having to violate the EULA is to NOT install OSX at all! Just sell the codes as a software that allows OSX to be installed on ANY PC... much like a driver! That way, they don't even have to touch OSX. Heck, just sell the computer with the codes/hacks pre-installed! Then the End User would just buy their own copy of OSX and install it themselves.
No. Any act that leads to copyright violation is prosecutable. It's a civil matter, UNLESS, and this is important, the act rises to criminal activity if a large number of violations occur, and profit is being made from that.
I'd say instead of messing with Apple, Psystar can just make their hack into a software and sell it in the stores like any other software. For example: VM Ware allows a user to use Windows on a Mac as does Parallel. Bootcamp allows users to install Windows on a Mac to use as if it's a PC.
All Psystar needs to do to NOT having to violate the EULA is to NOT install OSX at all! Just sell the codes as a software that allows OSX to be installed on ANY PC... much like a driver! That way, they don't even have to touch OSX. Heck, just sell the computer with the codes/hacks pre-installed! Then the End User would just buy their own copy of OSX and install it themselves.
You'll run into the same issues.
A couple of things:
<snip>
2) "Apple?s copyright on OS X doesn?t give Apple the right to tell people what they can do with it after they buy a copy."
Just don't tell that to ANY software maker trying to earn a living.
Technically it's not the copyright that does this (not really), but the EULA. But even in that case, the EULA is a pile of smelly feces. You're telling me it's impossible to make money selling software without having ultimate control over how people use your product? I don't think Google, Red Hat, Novell, Oracle, Sun..... got the memo. At least not for many of their products, which employ a comparatively lax copyleft, or a permissive license. Imagine a world where you can sell an honest product, without force-feeding your customers and nailing them to your EULA...
Trashing the entire principle of the EULA is not a good idea. For anyone.
I beg to differ. The sooner as I can stop selling my soul to "All rights reserved" documents, the better (and it's already pretty close... the BIOS, Flash, and NVIDIA are some of the few remaining blockers, for me at least).
Good lord, are these people ever fucking stupid. Yes, morons, it DOES give Apple the right, and everyone else the right under the same laws Apple is subject to.
Legal right, yes, moral right, hell no.
What Psystar wants to do here eventually is widen this entire battle into a trial over IP law itself, including the DMCA. Psystar wants to trash Intellectual Property law in the US. Yeah, that'll work out GREAT.
Hey, if they did, I'd celebrate (sadly, they will not). Copyright ("Intellectual Property") was better in the beginning -- as limited incentive to promote business. Not as the 800-pound bloated gorilla used to exert complete control over the use of products.
To re-clarify my position, I DO believe Psystar has a moral right to their business. "Nobody cares about moral rights, this is about legality!" you say... morality is the basis for all other regulation, or should be at least. I do NOT deny that Psystar is in the legal wrong, and I also don't particularly like Psystar. That said, me and Apple get along worse, and the more their walled garden crumbles, the better. And one other thing, because I know someone will bring it up: I DO believe that programmers should receive fair compensation for their work. Apple is, in this case. They just want to make sure they can lock MacOS to the Mac, and create greater vertical integration (Carnegie would be proud) -- incidentally, the same way they are trying to lock iTunes to the iPod. Bolting everything together.
Eh, I went off-topic partially... apologies.
@djsherley: Companies are trying to convert everything to licensing now, which is very sad... that way, they always get to claim: "You don't own OS X! You own a license to use it in the manner which we specify. Don't worry, we'll make sure that you can use it to full effect... say, with all our other products we happen to make! Just don't try putting this together with a *gasp* competitor's product." If the Information Age continues like this, we'll end up owning nothing but licenses that would take a platoon of lawyers years to decipher and formally conclude how little we actually own.
And on the innovation bit, that line is very true... when copyright used to be a very short time to encourage production of works, and now is anywhere between fifty and a hundred years. Have fun producing new and worthy products not based at all on anything in the last 50-100 years... http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...90621124054133
Just to cite that bit of the Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
Remember, people! Copyright was created to incite business to work MORE, for YOU! It is NOT a God-given right of ownership over thoughts and other extra-physical concepts!
... but ....
I'm really hoping Psystar wins. For us, the consumers, only good would come from it. It would force Apple to upgrade their systems faster, because if they don't people will have the choice to go elsewhere. Currently that choice simply doesn't exist.
I mean hell, they had a system available LAST YEAR with a blu-ray drive installed. Where is apple's blu-ray option? Granted, you can't watch them (unless you use bootcamp, which is fine) until Apple decides to license the software, but it's still a great example.
The only people who should be rooting against them are Apple Employees and people who have the majority of their assets invested in AAPL stock. Likely less than 1% of Appleinsider's userbase.
- Xid
I love Apple to death, and would never dream of buying non-apple branded hardware.
... but ....
I'm really hoping Psystar wins. For us, the consumers, only good would come from it. It would force Apple to upgrade their systems faster, because if they don't people will have the choice to go elsewhere. Currently that choice simply doesn't exist.
I mean hell, they had a system available LAST YEAR with a blu-ray drive installed. Where is apple's blu-ray option? Granted, you can't watch them (unless you use bootcamp, which is fine) until Apple decides to license the software, but it's still a great example.
The only people who should be rooting against them are Apple Employees and people who have the majority of their assets invested in AAPL stock. Likely less than 1% of Appleinsider's userbase.
- Xid
Apple already have competition, they are called Dell, HP, Sony, Microsoft, and the list go on. You don't have to sell computers with Mac OS to compete with Apple. Furthermore, unlike other computer manufacturer Apple is facing the most competition since they have to compete in both hardware and software.
A dubious proposition. It's in the Constitution, fer crissakes.
I think a world existed before the constitution. Which is not my constitution, as it happens.
The license is not relevant.
I think it is. It the product is sold, then Apple really don't get to say what you can do with it (as MelGross points out, it's the final act of release). With a licence, you are required to adhere to the terms of the grant or the license can be revoked. How can Apple ever realistically watch all x million of its licensees and revoke grants when the license terms are violated? They can't. Does that figure in whether something is a license or a sale? I don't know. That's all I'm saying.
These dirtbags know they can't win and are 1. dragging this on as long as they can, and 2. just making trouble for Apple because they know they can't win... just like an immature child who was reprimanded for doing something bad and starts doing something else that's annoying to "get back" at the parents. Squash these parasites already!
...the company who everyone is surprised managed to have the cash to last _this_ long is "dragging this on as long as they can"? Err... if anyone wants to draw things out, it's Apple, who's easiest tactic would be to drown Psystar in legal fees and then laugh while Psystar bankrupts (which they already did once...), unable to get even a ruling.
And the flaw in your 'analogy' would be that their has been no reprimanding... only Apple saying "Mine!" (and Apple is no parent to Psystar, and has no right to control it IMHO in this situation).
@>_>;: Exactly. Competition == good. Example being, I like Google as a company far more than MS, but some competition from Bing wouldn't hurt at all. Forcibly limiting competition through legal means == bad (more or less).
... if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the law isn't going to say its a cat even if you assert it is.
Oh, I get it, it's a bunny rabbit, isn't it?
They buy hundreds of copies of OS X and that makes them one of Apple's biggest customers? What planet are they on?
Very true. I know schools that buy far more.