Why does a judge rule on a key issue before the trial has even started? I understand that a judge has to rule on issues of what exactly the trial is about (ie, what charges are dismissed and which go to trial) and what evidence should be allowed.
You already got the answer - a trial is to determine the facts. When the facts are already in evidence and there's no dispute over the facts, all the judge has to do is interpret the law as it applies to the case (i.e., 'summary judgment') - so a trial is not necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Apple and Psystar both applied for summary judgments, hoping to score a deathblow.
In videogame terms, it's the equivalent of using up all your energy for a single, powerful shot, risking all (on part of the issues, or all of them.)
Not really. If the judge had rejected both requests for summary judgment the trial would have gone on. There's really no risk to asking for a summary judgment. If the judge rules for you, you win. If the judge rules against you, you have to go to trial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy
Anybody want to argue the Psystar side of the case? Come on! We're dying to hear from you!
People already are. The most common argument I've seen so far is that Apple won on a technicality and the issue isn't really decided yet. It's really amazing how delusional these "I want to steal Mac OS X because I'm too cheap to buy it" folks can be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyT
Man, that sucks. Goodbye, freedom. Of course, we Apple users all hate that, anyway.
This is, of course, total nonsense. Copyright laws were implemented because lawmakers believed that if there were an incentive for people to benefit from their work that they'd do so more than if their work could be taken from them without compensation. The court simply upheld that principle.
No one took any freedoms from you (or anyone else). The court simply ruled that Apple has the right to benefit from its investment. You're still free to develop your own OS or buy a computer with a different OS. The only 'freedom' that you lost was the ability to steal Apple's work - but you never had that right in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Dummies. They should have just sold the computers along with the necessary apps to install the bootloader, kexts and drivers, then let the consumer buy and install the OS. Apple wouldn't have been able to touch them since they wouldn't have been the ones violating the EULA. As difficult as it is to build a perfectly working Hackintosh, lots of people would pay for hardware that runs OS X flawlessly (and I don't mean genuine Macs).
Look up contributory infringement. If Psystar did what you suggest, they'd have still be guilty of contributory infringement. The judge implied such in his judgment.
It's going to be interesting to see what happens with this dongle that Psystar is selling. From today's ruling, it is also clearly illegal, but knowing the idiots at Psystar, they'll continue trying to sell it and Apple will have to go after them again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore
Apple will now sue for damages (lost revenue, etc.. plus punitive) thus driving Psystar to bankruptcy and shutter of doors. The main reason I like this is because if any manufacturer can do this it will severely hurt Apple and thus the millions of consumers that are served by a strong and robust Apple. Also, if Psystar wins then mobile OSX would be used on other phones.
Actually, Apple probably won't have to wait for Psystar to go bankrupt. They asked for an injunction against Psystar selling computers with Mac OS X on them and the judge will almost certainly grant it. At that point, Pystar effectively goes out of business - whether they are bankrupt or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
On the one hand, that would tend to be supported by the Grokster case cited, which says even third parties could be found guilty. Curiously, though, the summary judgment specifically says, "Psystar is a contributory infringer through its sale of unauthorized copies of Mac OS X to the public." So what would happen to that judgment if Psystar wasn't selling those unauthorized copies?
They would still be a contributory infringer. Anyone who takes action to encourage others to violate a copyright is a contributory infringer. I'll bet $100 that simply selling the dongles that they now offer is sufficient to make them a contributory infringer.
they should send these sh*thead psystar-creators to Guantanamo!
Please keep things in perspective. This is a copyright case and the law seems to be able to deal with the issue adequately. The murder of almost 3,000 people by terrorists on 9/11 and the subsequent loss of life by those to prevent it from happening again should not be cheapened by such comments.
If I was to take the Psystar side of the argument, I'd have to defend the position that copyright itself is invalid, given that it's not real physical property, and has been abused, extended, etc. Other than that, I'd have no clue how to go about it.
That's not my personal position, just how I'd approach defending them if I were in a debating class or something.
Let's try a free ride on public communication i.e. bus. You pay for service, you agree to rules on the bus (you need to know them before you get in), you can't change a route because you paid $2 fare. Psystar did and need to take consequences.
That's right, Apple's EULA is legal. It "means exactly what it says."
A win for Apple, a win for consumers, and a win for vendors who depend on the integrity of the EULA.
a key to the EULA issue is that Apple's agreement is merely a codification of the rights granted to them by other laws, like copyright. If they were trying to assert additional rights that were not previously granted or violated user rights legally granted to users, then it would be a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog
Selling a product containing tampered copyrighted code has always been illegal, which makes me ask: Why did Psystar invest all those resources in the first place?
because they wanted to see if they could do it and then got cocky and figured they could pull an Apple -- copy someone else's work but better. Only they got a cease and desist and tried to play anti-trust etc. Probably figured they would be heroes when they forced Apple to allow cloning again.
Quote:
They do not seem interested in selling their computers, they do not answer their phones, attend to potential customer, and they are continuously on the move claiming to lose important records.
Yep. which is going to cost them their legit Windows/Linux sales and those lost records are going to be of great interest to the IRS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir
Can somebody explain me this:
Why does a judge rule on a key issue before the trial has even started?
In a civil case you can ask the judge to rule before the trial. both sides did.
[QUOTE=Quadra 610;1521183]
In videogame terms, it's the equivalent of using up all your energy for a single, powerful shot, risking all (on part of the issues, or all of them.)
It's an imperfect explanation but maybe it simplifies it./QUOTE]
better example.
Asking for a summary judgment is like going all in at the table because you believe the other guy is bluffing (ie has a weak hand)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
You still have the freedom to make a hackintosh, you just don't have the freedom to make money selling them out of your garage.
Actually no. The DMCA doesn't care about profit. Anyone that makes an HackMac is breaking the law. The only grey area is that if you don't tell anyone you did it, you aren't likely to get caught. Psystar shouted it very loud and very clear so they were easy to catch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore
Apple will now sue for damages (lost revenue, etc.. plus punitive) thus driving Psystar to bankruptcy and shutter of doors.
Actually on this particular issue Apple isn't likely to ask for damages. since they know there's nothing to collect. Shuttering the doors will be enough. the legal fees will bankrupt Psystar plenty
Quote:
The main reason I like this is because if any manufacturer can do this it will severely hurt Apple and thus the millions of consumers that are served by a strong and robust Apple.
this is part of why Apple needed to see the sitch all the way through and let Psystar toss out all their arguments. Get them shot down now and not when someone with a better rep and chance of actually selling machines decides to get cute.
I'm thrilled that Apple has won. Being forced to reopen the cloning game means more time having to support all the various options which means I won't necessarily get the attention I want them to pay to my machine which is a fully AppleMac. I don't want to have to wait 3 times as long to get a bug fixed cause they have to test a zillion set ups. yeah it sucks that I have to play $4000 to get the imac I want, but if I"m going to be able to use it for the next 5 years, that's not so bad (yeah, I max'd that baby out all the way)
While all of the Apple-bashers are trying to come up with novel (read: bizarre) arguments to back their position that Psystar was perfectly OK, doing what they did, let's explore what the consequences would have been if Psystar had won:
1. Software vendors would no longer be able to sell an OEM version. After the software left their hands, it could be used on new equipment or by a DIYer.
2. Software vendors would no longer be able to sell an upgrade version at reduced price. There would be only one price for software - whether it were used on new equipment, existing equipment, upgrade, whatever.
3. Software vendors would no longer be able to give a discount for quantity purchases. IBM probably buys Windows for a license fee of $10 or 20 per unit - but they would be free to sell it on the open market for whatever price they wished.
4. There would be no way to prevent reverse engineering of software. I could buy a copy of Windows (probably one of those $10 IBM site licenses), modify the launch screen with my own name and sell it as my own product.
5. Home DVDs are for personal use only. You can not legally use it for commercial purposes or public displays. That restriction would no longer be binding.
6. Book copyrights would disappear. Once you buy a book, you would be free to reprint it with your own cover and call it your own work.
And so on.
This one was a no-brainer. If the judge had ruled in Psystar's favor, copyright laws would essentially have ceased to exist.
Selling a product containing tampered copyrighted code has always been illegal, which makes me ask: Why did Psystar invest all those resources in the first place?
What makes this case a head-scratcher is Psystar's behavior of not attempting to become a successful business. They do not seem interested in selling their computers, they do not answer their phones, attend to potential customer, and they are continuously on the move claiming to lose important records.
I can't wait either!
REASON----simple, they were a shell for other pc makers i hope as time goes by that apple finds out
On the one hand, that would tend to be supported by the Grokster case cited, which says even third parties could be found guilty. Curiously, though, the summary judgment specifically says, "Psystar is a contributory infringer through its sale of unauthorized copies of Mac OS X to the public." So what would happen to that judgment if Psystar wasn't selling those unauthorized copies?
Anyone who is an infringer is guilty. No one has the right to make a hackintosh. However, those who do so for themselves are violating civil law.
Selling the unauthorized copies is just part of the problem with that. They have no license to sell the OS as a vendor.
In addition, any action taken to encourage the infringement by others is illegal.
Lastly, in response to an earlier comment, it would not take a constitutional amendment to change copyright law. While you're right that the US Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to enact laws protecting artistic (copyright) and scientific (patent) works for a limited period of time, the actual laws are passed by Congress and can be altered or altogether eliminated at any time.
Gee, until I got to this, I was going to comment that I agree with your entire post.
You apparently didn't read mine carefully enough before you responded to that part.
Therefor, I will quote the relevant part for you:
Quote:
The only way copyright can be overturned, rather than modified, is by a Constitutional Amendment.
1) There are always less and less Psystar supporters with each article.
2) I don?t recall anyone ever saying they had an Psystar machine, for better or for worse. Not one.
3) I imagine that Apple is going to ask for damages so severe that no one will attempt this again, at least in the US. How is that German Mac cloner doing?
4) A bit of a segue, but EFiX is one clone solution that may not be winnable in court. It changes no code and, as we?ve seen before, they refuse to license their product to anyone in the US that pairs OS X with the chip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac_dog
where's teckstud?
Likely having trouble with his Psystar machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyT
Man, that sucks. Goodbye, freedom. Of course, we Apple users all hate that, anyway.
(And yes, I have a Mac and an iPhone)
Losing freedom is not having your work protected and not having the ability to choose who you wish to sell license your products to. Psystar winning would have been a huge loss for the consumer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore
The backers could be shielding even deeper backers.
I have always had doubts that they have backers. Nothing about this case was ever winnable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
The iPhone OS is not sold separately so there's no way to buy it except in a device.
You can DL the entire iPhone OS for free off the internet.
Please keep things in perspective. This is a copyright case and the law seems to be able to deal with the issue adequately. The murder of almost 3,000 people by terrorists on 9/11 and the subsequent loss of life by those to prevent it from happening again should not be cheapened by such comments.
- there the prisoners are not only people accused about 9/11, but I'm sorry that mentioning the name of that place was touching you so deeply. Of course, i didn't mean it seriously.
Seriously, why this company thought they could fight against law, against the whole industry? I mean, this behavior hasn't been usual before, at all (only mafias do it in countries where they control the law or the corruption is much higher than in the occidental countries).
Where does those jail-breakers come from or where do they hide themselves?
how could any tourist buy iPhone in really cheap price in China?
So, the act of Psystar sounded really stupid since the beginning, who does thing like that, must be either mentally ill or supported by well-informed backers.
I also don't understand how those really low-quality iPod-imitations can be sold out of Asia, in Europe e.g.? I thought the design of the apple products were protected.
My question is: does Apple have a legal remedy available to it to 'force' disclosure of the financial backers of Psystar? Could this occur if Apple sues for damages, and thus can find the deep pockets via discovery in that legal process?
There is some legal recourse.
If Apple is granted a judgement that requires Psystar to pay them money, for example, and Psystar fails to comply, then Apple can examine the top executives of the company to attempt to find out who the backers of the company are, etc.
But, if the company complies with the judgement, then unless Apple forwards an additional case, they're through.
Comments
I don't think he meant it seriously.
Can somebody explain me this:
Why does a judge rule on a key issue before the trial has even started? I understand that a judge has to rule on issues of what exactly the trial is about (ie, what charges are dismissed and which go to trial) and what evidence should be allowed.
You already got the answer - a trial is to determine the facts. When the facts are already in evidence and there's no dispute over the facts, all the judge has to do is interpret the law as it applies to the case (i.e., 'summary judgment') - so a trial is not necessary.
Apple and Psystar both applied for summary judgments, hoping to score a deathblow.
In videogame terms, it's the equivalent of using up all your energy for a single, powerful shot, risking all (on part of the issues, or all of them.)
Not really. If the judge had rejected both requests for summary judgment the trial would have gone on. There's really no risk to asking for a summary judgment. If the judge rules for you, you win. If the judge rules against you, you have to go to trial.
Anybody want to argue the Psystar side of the case? Come on! We're dying to hear from you!
People already are. The most common argument I've seen so far is that Apple won on a technicality and the issue isn't really decided yet. It's really amazing how delusional these "I want to steal Mac OS X because I'm too cheap to buy it" folks can be.
Man, that sucks. Goodbye, freedom. Of course, we Apple users all hate that, anyway.
This is, of course, total nonsense. Copyright laws were implemented because lawmakers believed that if there were an incentive for people to benefit from their work that they'd do so more than if their work could be taken from them without compensation. The court simply upheld that principle.
No one took any freedoms from you (or anyone else). The court simply ruled that Apple has the right to benefit from its investment. You're still free to develop your own OS or buy a computer with a different OS. The only 'freedom' that you lost was the ability to steal Apple's work - but you never had that right in the first place.
Dummies. They should have just sold the computers along with the necessary apps to install the bootloader, kexts and drivers, then let the consumer buy and install the OS. Apple wouldn't have been able to touch them since they wouldn't have been the ones violating the EULA. As difficult as it is to build a perfectly working Hackintosh, lots of people would pay for hardware that runs OS X flawlessly (and I don't mean genuine Macs).
Look up contributory infringement. If Psystar did what you suggest, they'd have still be guilty of contributory infringement. The judge implied such in his judgment.
It's going to be interesting to see what happens with this dongle that Psystar is selling. From today's ruling, it is also clearly illegal, but knowing the idiots at Psystar, they'll continue trying to sell it and Apple will have to go after them again.
Apple will now sue for damages (lost revenue, etc.. plus punitive) thus driving Psystar to bankruptcy and shutter of doors. The main reason I like this is because if any manufacturer can do this it will severely hurt Apple and thus the millions of consumers that are served by a strong and robust Apple. Also, if Psystar wins then mobile OSX would be used on other phones.
Actually, Apple probably won't have to wait for Psystar to go bankrupt. They asked for an injunction against Psystar selling computers with Mac OS X on them and the judge will almost certainly grant it. At that point, Pystar effectively goes out of business - whether they are bankrupt or not.
On the one hand, that would tend to be supported by the Grokster case cited, which says even third parties could be found guilty. Curiously, though, the summary judgment specifically says, "Psystar is a contributory infringer through its sale of unauthorized copies of Mac OS X to the public." So what would happen to that judgment if Psystar wasn't selling those unauthorized copies?
They would still be a contributory infringer. Anyone who takes action to encourage others to violate a copyright is a contributory infringer. I'll bet $100 that simply selling the dongles that they now offer is sufficient to make them a contributory infringer.
they should send these sh*thead psystar-creators to Guantanamo!
Please keep things in perspective. This is a copyright case and the law seems to be able to deal with the issue adequately. The murder of almost 3,000 people by terrorists on 9/11 and the subsequent loss of life by those to prevent it from happening again should not be cheapened by such comments.
If I was to take the Psystar side of the argument, I'd have to defend the position that copyright itself is invalid, given that it's not real physical property, and has been abused, extended, etc. Other than that, I'd have no clue how to go about it.
That's not my personal position, just how I'd approach defending them if I were in a debating class or something.
Let's try a free ride on public communication i.e. bus. You pay for service, you agree to rules on the bus (you need to know them before you get in), you can't change a route because you paid $2 fare. Psystar did and need to take consequences.
where's teckstud?
You rang? Psystar never had a case unlike Palm which Apple has yet to challenge legally. Apple has instead insisted on cat and mouse game. Hmmmmm.
I'm very pleased by this.
I wish I could legally run OSX on some decent hardware.
I wish I could legally run OSX on some decent hardware.
MacPro?
MacPro?
I'll grant you that. Just doesn't meet my needs- too pricey. But if I had an unlimited budget I could go for that. Solves that matte issue at least.
That's right, Apple's EULA is legal. It "means exactly what it says."
A win for Apple, a win for consumers, and a win for vendors who depend on the integrity of the EULA.
a key to the EULA issue is that Apple's agreement is merely a codification of the rights granted to them by other laws, like copyright. If they were trying to assert additional rights that were not previously granted or violated user rights legally granted to users, then it would be a problem.
Selling a product containing tampered copyrighted code has always been illegal, which makes me ask: Why did Psystar invest all those resources in the first place?
because they wanted to see if they could do it and then got cocky and figured they could pull an Apple -- copy someone else's work but better. Only they got a cease and desist and tried to play anti-trust etc. Probably figured they would be heroes when they forced Apple to allow cloning again.
They do not seem interested in selling their computers, they do not answer their phones, attend to potential customer, and they are continuously on the move claiming to lose important records.
Yep. which is going to cost them their legit Windows/Linux sales and those lost records are going to be of great interest to the IRS.
Can somebody explain me this:
Why does a judge rule on a key issue before the trial has even started?
In a civil case you can ask the judge to rule before the trial. both sides did.
[QUOTE=Quadra 610;1521183]
In videogame terms, it's the equivalent of using up all your energy for a single, powerful shot, risking all (on part of the issues, or all of them.)
It's an imperfect explanation but maybe it simplifies it./QUOTE]
better example.
Asking for a summary judgment is like going all in at the table because you believe the other guy is bluffing (ie has a weak hand)
You still have the freedom to make a hackintosh, you just don't have the freedom to make money selling them out of your garage.
Actually no. The DMCA doesn't care about profit. Anyone that makes an HackMac is breaking the law. The only grey area is that if you don't tell anyone you did it, you aren't likely to get caught. Psystar shouted it very loud and very clear so they were easy to catch.
Apple will now sue for damages (lost revenue, etc.. plus punitive) thus driving Psystar to bankruptcy and shutter of doors.
Actually on this particular issue Apple isn't likely to ask for damages. since they know there's nothing to collect. Shuttering the doors will be enough. the legal fees will bankrupt Psystar plenty
The main reason I like this is because if any manufacturer can do this it will severely hurt Apple and thus the millions of consumers that are served by a strong and robust Apple.
this is part of why Apple needed to see the sitch all the way through and let Psystar toss out all their arguments. Get them shot down now and not when someone with a better rep and chance of actually selling machines decides to get cute.
I'm thrilled that Apple has won. Being forced to reopen the cloning game means more time having to support all the various options which means I won't necessarily get the attention I want them to pay to my machine which is a fully AppleMac. I don't want to have to wait 3 times as long to get a bug fixed cause they have to test a zillion set ups. yeah it sucks that I have to play $4000 to get the imac I want, but if I"m going to be able to use it for the next 5 years, that's not so bad (yeah, I max'd that baby out all the way)
Agreed. Come back in about 3 years.
1. Software vendors would no longer be able to sell an OEM version. After the software left their hands, it could be used on new equipment or by a DIYer.
2. Software vendors would no longer be able to sell an upgrade version at reduced price. There would be only one price for software - whether it were used on new equipment, existing equipment, upgrade, whatever.
3. Software vendors would no longer be able to give a discount for quantity purchases. IBM probably buys Windows for a license fee of $10 or 20 per unit - but they would be free to sell it on the open market for whatever price they wished.
4. There would be no way to prevent reverse engineering of software. I could buy a copy of Windows (probably one of those $10 IBM site licenses), modify the launch screen with my own name and sell it as my own product.
5. Home DVDs are for personal use only. You can not legally use it for commercial purposes or public displays. That restriction would no longer be binding.
6. Book copyrights would disappear. Once you buy a book, you would be free to reprint it with your own cover and call it your own work.
And so on.
This one was a no-brainer. If the judge had ruled in Psystar's favor, copyright laws would essentially have ceased to exist.
Selling a product containing tampered copyrighted code has always been illegal, which makes me ask: Why did Psystar invest all those resources in the first place?
What makes this case a head-scratcher is Psystar's behavior of not attempting to become a successful business. They do not seem interested in selling their computers, they do not answer their phones, attend to potential customer, and they are continuously on the move claiming to lose important records.
I can't wait either!
REASON----simple, they were a shell for other pc makers i hope as time goes by that apple finds out
the SHREDDING MACHINES WILL WORK OVERTIME TONIGHT
now what
On the one hand, that would tend to be supported by the Grokster case cited, which says even third parties could be found guilty. Curiously, though, the summary judgment specifically says, "Psystar is a contributory infringer through its sale of unauthorized copies of Mac OS X to the public." So what would happen to that judgment if Psystar wasn't selling those unauthorized copies?
Anyone who is an infringer is guilty. No one has the right to make a hackintosh. However, those who do so for themselves are violating civil law.
Selling the unauthorized copies is just part of the problem with that. They have no license to sell the OS as a vendor.
In addition, any action taken to encourage the infringement by others is illegal.
Lastly, in response to an earlier comment, it would not take a constitutional amendment to change copyright law. While you're right that the US Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to enact laws protecting artistic (copyright) and scientific (patent) works for a limited period of time, the actual laws are passed by Congress and can be altered or altogether eliminated at any time.
Gee, until I got to this, I was going to comment that I agree with your entire post.
You apparently didn't read mine carefully enough before you responded to that part.
Therefor, I will quote the relevant part for you:
The only way copyright can be overturned, rather than modified, is by a Constitutional Amendment.
What does that say?
2) I don?t recall anyone ever saying they had an Psystar machine, for better or for worse. Not one.
3) I imagine that Apple is going to ask for damages so severe that no one will attempt this again, at least in the US. How is that German Mac cloner doing?
4) A bit of a segue, but EFiX is one clone solution that may not be winnable in court. It changes no code and, as we?ve seen before, they refuse to license their product to anyone in the US that pairs OS X with the chip.
where's teckstud?
Likely having trouble with his Psystar machine.
Man, that sucks. Goodbye, freedom. Of course, we Apple users all hate that, anyway.
(And yes, I have a Mac and an iPhone)
Losing freedom is not having your work protected and not having the ability to choose who you wish to sell license your products to. Psystar winning would have been a huge loss for the consumer.
The backers could be shielding even deeper backers.
I have always had doubts that they have backers. Nothing about this case was ever winnable.
The iPhone OS is not sold separately so there's no way to buy it except in a device.
You can DL the entire iPhone OS for free off the internet.
Please keep things in perspective. This is a copyright case and the law seems to be able to deal with the issue adequately. The murder of almost 3,000 people by terrorists on 9/11 and the subsequent loss of life by those to prevent it from happening again should not be cheapened by such comments.
- there the prisoners are not only people accused about 9/11, but I'm sorry that mentioning the name of that place was touching you so deeply. Of course, i didn't mean it seriously.
Seriously, why this company thought they could fight against law, against the whole industry? I mean, this behavior hasn't been usual before, at all (only mafias do it in countries where they control the law or the corruption is much higher than in the occidental countries).
Where does those jail-breakers come from or where do they hide themselves?
how could any tourist buy iPhone in really cheap price in China?
So, the act of Psystar sounded really stupid since the beginning, who does thing like that, must be either mentally ill or supported by well-informed backers.
I also don't understand how those really low-quality iPod-imitations can be sold out of Asia, in Europe e.g.? I thought the design of the apple products were protected.
My question is: does Apple have a legal remedy available to it to 'force' disclosure of the financial backers of Psystar? Could this occur if Apple sues for damages, and thus can find the deep pockets via discovery in that legal process?
There is some legal recourse.
If Apple is granted a judgement that requires Psystar to pay them money, for example, and Psystar fails to comply, then Apple can examine the top executives of the company to attempt to find out who the backers of the company are, etc.
But, if the company complies with the judgement, then unless Apple forwards an additional case, they're through.