So it looks like wannabe cloner Psystar's supposedly
hotshot law firm of Carr and Ferrell regrouped for a deep think after
pumping out some
fairly weak arguments in its case against Apple -- according to a new draft of Psystar's countersuit, the Florida-based computer reseller should be allowed to sell whitebox Mac OS X machines because it legally purchased copies of Leopard at retail. That's the first sale doctrine, if you're into copyright law -- it states that the purchaser of copyrighted materials (like a book) can sell or dispose of them however they want. Here's the thing though: a big part of Apple's case (but not
all of it) is based around the fact that consumers
license OS X under the terms of the EULA -- and courts are basically up in the air over whether the first sale doctrine should apply to software transactions. It's an interesting tactic with a ton of repercussions beyond Apple if it's successful, but we honestly can't see it working -- in the cases where first sale has been used to overcome a EULA, it's generally been for used software, not companies like Psystar, who are modifying and installing new copyrighted software sold by a first party. We'll see how Apple responds -- things just got interesting again.
Update: World Of Apple notes that this argument has been present from the outset, but it sounds like Psystar's really pushing it now. We'd say so -- we think it's the only plausible one we've heard so far.
[Thanks, iB3nji]
Disclaimer: Nilay's a lawyer and about to fall over from CES, but he's not your
lawyer, and this isn't legal advice or analysis.
posted Jan 14th 2009 3:13PM
GO APPLE!
Why?
Psystar's argument is full of crap and this is why. Yes, anyone can walk into an Apple store and buy OS X off the shelf, but that's considered a personal copy. Once you start selling hundred of copies of OS X to third parties you essentially become a reseller and you have to obtain a reseller license from Apple. Microsoft does exactly the same thing. Microsoft has sued people for selling hundreds of copies of Windows over the internet without a reseller license.
And even if Psystar wins, one of three things are likely to happen. (1) Apple will stop selling OS X off the shelf and require you to provide your serial number from your Mac in order to buy an upgrade or (2) a bunch of other companies like Dell and HP are going to start to sell Mac clones and drive Psystar, a fly-by-night operation, totally from the market or (3) Apple is forced to license OS X to third parties, thereby forcing them to raise the price to compensate for the lost of hardware margin.
No matter what, Psystar doesn't win. I don't even see why they're trying.
You know I love to use my PC to get on engadget, but I hate to see a certain PC on engadget ;-)
(wait a few minutes and you will get it...)
@Paul: This is actually Psystar's first decent defense route. Some guy on eBay just prevailed with a similar argument against Autodesk. Autodesk tried to stop him from reselling used copies of 3D software he found at a garage sale or something, by claiming the boxes were just placeholders for a "license", based on a similar EULA to Apple's, and that they could not be resold. The courts agreed with the first sale doctrine in that case, and the eBay guy was allowed to resell, IIRC. As long as Psystar buys the OSX boxes from another retailer, they don't need to be a licensed reseller -- just like people on eBay don't have to be licensed to resell used goods.
I think the part of this case with the least precedent is defending the ability to resell a computer with pre-installed software, provided you also provide exclusive transfer of the original software "license" along with the computer. This is pretty common practice with used PC retailers, who include the OS and Office software pre-installed. They basically just hand you the software boxes, discs, and paperwork along with the PC, and promise not to use your license elsewhere. It doesn't really matter if the software and the hardware were pre-used or pre-installed, just as long as the new owner has exclusive use of all items sold. This is the same thing Psystar's trying to do, but Apple is just more angry about it than M$.
Personally, I think EULA's are pretty universally stupid, and the courts need to take them away. If you are sold a dining table, there should be nothing keeping you from using it as a workbench instead, provided you don't sue the table maker if you break it by exceeding its weight limit. Similarly, if you buy software, you should be able to use it any way you please, but the maker just doesn't have to support you if your use falls outside of their guidelines. Support limits are fine, but permitted use definitions are not. That's why these are called "sales", not "rentals"!
IANALBWGAS
Interesting to learn about the "Sell or dispose of" clause...
If anyone here has ever searched ebay for a used copy of the "Rosetta Stone" language learning program, you'll find it non existent. There is a clause in their ULA that states you cannot resell the program after you have used it. ebay takes down every auction they report (and they are constantly checking)
> "a bunch of other companies like Dell and HP are going to start to sell Mac clones and drive Psystar, a fly-by-night operation, totally from the market"
Personally, I don't even think Psystar is a company in the market. Has anyone ever bought one of their machines? Until they are in Best Buy, one aisle from the real Macs, they aren't a real computer company. Psystar is just a legal team, who pretends to sell computers. They are putting on this dog and pony show trying to prove a point. I don't see how Psystar gets funding for its legal team. It's not like they are selling a lot of computers!
I don't think HP and Dell would want to sell clones. It might damage their relationship with Microsoft, who already gives deep discounts to HP and Dell for OEM copies of Windows.
And if Apple is forced to allow OSX to be installed on HP or Dell machines... what prevents Apple from raising the price of OSX to an unobtainable price?
OSX: included free with an Apple Mac
OSX OEM Edition: $499
It would be like cell phones... $99 with a 2 year contract... $599 without a contract.
If Apple loses the case... they can still control the price of OSX... making it next to impossible for HP and Dell to sell a profitable Mac clone.
@Paul-
What if I want to upgrade from leopard to snow leopard? Do I then have to buy a new mac in order to get a liscense? What further proves that they wont do this is that they just releaed ANOTHER bundle of mac software-leopard, iLife, and iWork for like $160...I really doubt that will happen...
Disclaimer: When is Nilay going to give up writing these silly lines? Yes you studied law, but nobody is going to call you out on it given that the articles are just that - articles - not legal advice. Enough now, we know you studied law .. ooooh!
When you start paying my malpractice insurance.
Ziiiiiiiing!
Jose: I believe he is required by the bar association to have that disclaimer. Or else someone who is lacking in intelligence (read: people who sue McDonalds for getting fat, etc) could sue Nilay for giving them faulty legal advice.
He should just put "Nilay Patel_ IAALBNYL" as his username. ;-)
I, for one, enjoy the clever twist put on his disclaimer.
Wow, Apple is really stupid.
Since they usually reserve the right to change the EULA they should change it to "This OS can be installed only on computers sold by Apple" instead of the stupid "computers with the Apple sticker"
They're stupid to have written it like that in the first place.
Oh wait, it's Apple, never mind.
From what I read, it said "Apple-labeled", which doesn't imply, "computers with the Apple sticker."
Because from what I see, Apple computers aren't labeled with stickers.
If I stick an Apple sticker on my computer, I could call it Apple labeled too.
"This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use
or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so"
This is a direct quote from Apple's EULA (End User Licensing Agreement)
This case will rest on the interpretation of "Apple Labeled computer" by the court.
I don't think Psystar has a chance honestly because of First Sale Limitations, this being a license, the Four Factors test and other issues but it really boils down to that. If Apple would have defined more clearly what "labeled" meant, this wouldn't even be going this far...Contracts people, you need well written contracts!!
This has all become one giant pissing contest.
Wait, "Apple-labeled" is the only requirement? I'm going to start collecting Granny Smith stickers for all my future OSX86 installs...
Wow, you really know nothing about law, do you?
@Mike- DJ Osta "I don't think Psystar has a chance honestly because of First Sale Limitations, this being a license"
I believe you are wrong. The law does not just look at the label given to something, particularly when the label is given by one of the parties to a lawsuit. In other words, just because Apple calls it a license, doesn't mean it isn't a sale. The "licensee" pays a fee to Apple, and in exchange gets a product. At its core, this is a sale. The only people who try to argue it is a "license" are those who stand to lose a lot of money if it is found to be a "sale," and because of that, it is a little hard to trust their ability to be objective.
Yah, if a computer is apple labeled, that just means it is sold and licensed by apple, and most importantly, has their logo on it, which you can only use under their permission. it's a pretty solid argument.
It would be great if Psystar won since it would bring a lot more competition to the market. Microsoft would have to compete directly with OSX on the same hardware and Apple would be forced to lower the cost of their hardware to complete with Mac clones. Both Apple and Microsoft would come away worse off from a Psystar victory and the real winner would be the consumer.
This new approach seems a lot more reasonable then their previous efforts and I wish Psystar the best of luck.
Even though they're going against the EULA? Apple's whole basis is that the hardware and software are made by the same company. Everything is supposed to "just work." This guarantee, of sorts, is lost when there is a 3rd party involved. Apple isn't necessarily a software company, they are a hardware company that happens to have a highly desirable OS. If Apple sold OS X to the public for use on any computer, it would go against everything they stand for, and make them far less successful.
+1
This way, M$ would think twice before shuffing us crappy OS like Vista, especially after using Windows 7 beta. Apple would price its products competitively.
And the shortsided, Psystar responders chime in.
Apple wouldn't have to lower their prices on any HW. For the same tech other PC vendors charge about the same, and often more than Apple as you go up to the higher end. This has been proven time and time again.
What would happen if Psystar won would be on the SW side. OS X upgrade copies would be changed to require the original system OS to be installed before upgrading or Apple would just charge more for OS X retail copies. The former is a PITA since you'd have to install an OS 2x to get up-to-date. The latter could be offered at a higher price but with a rebate for those with bona fide Macs, not illegal clones, by proving you have a Mac that falls within the upgrade abilty of the HW.
@ Alex,
The EULA is not a relevant issue here since Psystar is NOT the end user.
Hell yeah, even though they're going against the EULA!
Nilay, I know you're not my lawyer, but it seems to me that if Apple happily sells me software when I don't own a Mac, but won't let me install the software on anything but a Mac, then the EULA is void due to failure to perform. Then what?
agreed, but then Apple would have to support multiple hardware platforms... don't think they want to do that.
if Psystar wins it means that the courts don't get a shit about copyright and plagarism
forget the EULA, forget the doctrine of First Sale.
The courts have already determined that the market is personal computers. There is no "macintosh computer market" so Apple is not an illegal monopoly. They have stated that Apple has all rights to restrict what hardware is used with their software. So those games are over.
Psystar is trying to claim that they bought a copy of the software for every computer they sold and that the disk was put into the box with the machine. They didn't buy one and copy it over and over so they broke no rules (trying to brush the allowed restriction under the rug). So essentially all they were doing was pre-installing it just like Apple does with their machines.
But that is not true. In order to get around the legally allowed tying they had to modify the software. They admitted as much. And that is where the trouble is. In essense by doing that modification they recreated a new OS. A PsystarMacOS. Which, although partly open source, was also partly created by in effect copying code created by Apple and under copyright with Apple as the owner. Registered properly (despite Psystar's claims) with the LOC thus allowing legal action etc.
THAT is what this is really about. And that is why Psystar should not and likely will not win. Because the US Courts don't like cheaters.
@Bender Bending Rodriguez
Actually, it is. Because Psystar is the end user, according to Apple. If you read the EULA, it says:
3. Transfer. You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software...
So, Psystar is buying the license, making them the end user. They then redistribute it, which violates the EULA.
Even if this didn't apply, Psystar is not an Apple Authorized Reseller (one can assume), so they don't have the right to sell the software. From Apple's "Find a Reseller" page:
Please be aware that if you purchase a product over the Internet or through a Catalog from a Reseller who is not on the list, you are not buying from a reseller authorized by Apple to make Internet or catalog sales.
Thanks but if I don't want to be aware, then I don't have to. I'm under absolutely no obligation to go online and check some list. Screw that!
fhlh: The "Apple would have to support multiple hardware platforms" argument has always struck me as a little odd.
The onus is upon the hardware manufacturer to support the operating system. Microsoft don't write everyone's drivers for them.
Lucas, just because the courts made that determination doesn't mean it's even remotely accurate. Psystar, ISN'T selling apple computers, and Apple IS selling the software separately, so the statement that the market in question is personal computers is patently ridiculous. The market in question is software operating systems.
I mean if Psystar started selling some other non-pc device with osx loaded on it, they could argue on the basis of the court's statement that the injunctions don't apply because the court has already determined that the market is personal computers.
@ lucas
You make a good point about the modification of the software, but your statement "US Courts don't like cheaters" simply begs the question "Is Psystar a cheater here?" And the answer to that is what the whole lawsuit is about. In essence you said "Psystar is guilty of copyright infringement if they infringed Apple's copyright." A tautology like that is no argument.
This just got interesting. Defenders of the first sale doctrine who support Apple are going to have a hard time deciding where their loyalties lie with this one.
I don't know if Psystar has any legs to stand on, but I'd love for how damaged the FSD has become to become a focalpoint of the debate.
Are there really any defenders of first sale doctrine who would actually side with Apple?
I don't even get why this is a copyright violation? They're not selling OS X as their own. They're not calling it Psystar OSX. they are simply installing it on a machine other than an apple. Does the copyright state that you can legally only install OSX on a Mac? What if Microsoft did the same petty whiney baby stuff and banned all those dual booting mac people. Apple get off your high horse and quit whining.
Yes, it basically says exactly that.
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf
That's a good point and the reason why Microsoft has such a large market share to begin. If you can install their software on your machine, go ahead and do it. If it doesn't work, then it's your fault.
If Psystar can get OSX to run well on a no-Apple product, more power to them. Apple is still selling software licenses.
I hope Microsoft does that now, so Apple supporters can feel the same they dish out, although I suspect they can dish it out but can't take it. So they will whine and claim how it violates their rights on owning hardware and being able to install whatever OS they want on it.. the irony would be fun to watch.
From the EULA:
3. Transfer. You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software. Subject to the restrictions set forth below, you may, however, make a one-time
permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party, provided that: (a) the transfer must
include all of the Apple Software, including all its component parts (excluding Apple Boot ROM code and firmware), original media, printed materials and this License; (b)
you do not retain any copies of the Apple Software, full or partial, including copies stored on a computer or other storage device; and (c) the party receiving the Apple
Software reads and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this License. You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute, sublicense or transfer any Apple Software that
has been modified or replaced under Section 2D above. All components of the Apple Software are provided as part of a bundle and may not be separated from the bundle
and distributed as standalone applications. Apple Software provided with a particular Apple-labeled hardware product may not run on other models of Apple-labeled
hardware.
Apple has never been much of a software company, they don't make much money on OS X software licences, they make the money on the machines. If that changes, then Apple will have to completely restructure how they sell OS X, namely price increase and product keys.
@MadMike
Just because something is in a EULA does not make it legal. If the EULA said you had to give your first born child to Apple upon installing OS X does not mean it would be legal.
@darknerd
yeah, but you're not required to accept the license. Psystar is choosing to accept the license. And they're also choosing to go against the license.
EULA stands for End User License Agreement. This agreement applies to End user, and Psystar was just distributing the product to consumers, the end users.
Jump off the high horse Apple!
they are using the Apple trademark on MacOS to sell the machines. that is issue number one.
and the second is that even though they don't call it the PsystarOS, they still illegally hacked the software to make it work on their machines and in effect created a new software, stolen from the non open source portions of the MacOS.
"Yes, it basically says exactly that."
No the copyright does not say that. The EULA says it. The EULA is not the copyright. The only rights afforded by a copyright are those that are spelled out by law.
I'd like to see Psystar prevail on this, even if it has to go to the Supreme Court, so that we can finally be rid of the silly notion of "You don't actually own a copy of the software, you only have a license to use a copy of the software" and our rights will be what the law says, not what the seller says.
Well said, Wilford. The question then is, "Does the EULA serve as an extension of the copyright holder's rights (for restricted use) to the user, and to what extent is it reasonable to restrict the license that is being sold?" (For now, I reserve my contention that the entire business of selling licenses to use information is a shameful, tragic joke)
I believe the rulings until now are far outside the bounds of reason.
@ Alex
Accepting an illegal license doesn't make it any more legal. In Darknerd's example of Apple requiring your first born to install OSX, there is surely some MacHead somewhere who would agree to such a term, but it would still be completely illegal and void.
@ lucas "they are using the Apple trademark on MacOS to sell the machines"
Apple's trademark claim is one of the weakest trademark claims I've ever heard of. You are allowed to use a trademark for informational purposes, so long as it isn't trademark infringement. Psystar isn't even using MacOS as a trademark (it would have to call its product Psystar MacOS" or something similar to do that. They are just saying "our computer runs MacOS," which is factually true. It's similar to Pepsi being allowed to say "We're better than Coca-Cola" or "78 out of 100 people couldn't tell the difference between our product and Coca-Cola." Yes, they are using the Coca-Cola trademark to sell their soda, but it still isn't trademark infringement.
I will admit that your "modified software" point is interesting, albeit possibly not valid either.
The software developer's supreme authority over the reseller and user may be legal, but it sure as hell is medieval. Basically they own the turf and so any little serf who wants to make use of it has to pledge fealty?
All hail!
Yeah, but "I'm a serf" really doesn't have the same ring to it as other similar sayings.
What is going to end up happening is Apple no longer selling Full versions and only "Upgrade" versions of OSX on the shelves. Meaning you have to have a current install to install an upgrade. This would probably result on clean installs requiring you to insert the original Software disk the computer came with to tell the upgrade disk you have a full copy. If this happens I swear to god. OMG. This is just getting old, Apple has every right to say they only want their software to be installed on their computers, end of story. Like it or not, if thats what they choose. I hope the law takes Apples side, this is just getting old and taking up valuable time. Here is me hoping all the court fees push Psystar into bankruptcy.
If that happens you'll swear to god?
Anyway, I do hope that happens, so OSX can grow more and more isolated from mainstream computing an finally die. Yay
this is the only way a normal person or small company can fight illegal and unfair business. an individual cannot lobby congress with millions to craft copyright laws. the only thing possible that a small fry can do is disregard that law. when the big boy comes along and slaps him with a team of lawyers it is small fry's job to prove to the court why that law is unfair/illegal. after that the courts will change the law to be more fair.
anyone that roots for apple on this one is fundamentally wrong on this issue. i own two apple computers. i have two different copies of osx and i should be able to do anything i want to them because they are mine. screw the eula. screw you useless chumps that bought "licenses", grow a spine and buy software. i do not ask apple for permission to use the stuff that i paid for and they don't have the power to stop me from installing it on a x86 system that i built.
i can install dozens of OSs on my x86 pc. why does a eula have the legal right to keep me from putting osx on it? can i put a chevy engine on a ford? sure. does anyone give a crap? no.
people should stop being fanboys and grow up to be educated adults. even better, adults with a spine.
"...the cases where first sale has been used to overcome a EULA, it's generally been for used software..."
Well, if it has been installed by Psystar, it has been "used"
There's got to be someone big behind all this, i mean how hard can it be for Psystar to just sell Hackintoshes and then provide a link to Amazon or any other retailer for people to just grab their own copies of OS X, i mean ether they're pretty dumb or they're just a front for a big company that's looking to sue Apple but wanna stay out of the public eye
They would have better lawyers if they were a front for a big company. Who wants to run OSX anyways? Windows 7 beta installed since launch and its SWEEEET.
Apple really opened this can of worms themselves when they switched to Intel. They drastically increased their profitability by running on commodity hardware, instead of PowerPC... but it let the hackers in, and they knew it would happen. Apple will protect their hardware lock until the bitter end... but as long as they remain on commodity hardware, they are going to have a constant battle.
Why Hackintosh? Vista is far more compatible and stable for a PC than OSX is. I think the "we want our OS locked out of your reach" crowd is really just peeved that OSX isn't so elite and special anymore.
I thought they'd be keen on more people adopting OSX and would be pushing Apple to release a stable version for PCs.
It's not ..'."we want our OS locked out of your reach" crowd is really just peeved that OSX isn't so elite and special anymore. '
It's a "I don't want to spend my time running a bloated OS and have to find every driver for each different device from some vendor website every time Windows decides to take a header" I'd rather have something that works all the time with controlled hardware choices that already work with the OS.
There's no elitist mentallity among most mac users. We just want stuff to work well and the increased cost is worth it. (hint, it's not that much more money).
If I want to save a bunch of money, I'll run to some outlet and by a refurb'd crappy machine and trade the money I saved for headaches I'll get. At least then I have a chance to get it working with the right drivers. Will pystar be making drivers for OSx available?
Are drivers really that big an issue these days? I bet Apple's driver support would be phenomenal, and innovative and would show the industry a few new tricks. Even the much maligned Vista, after it's teething horrors, is pretty much painfree when it comes to sorting drivers.
Apple, as has been said before, is primarily a hardware company. They make hardware and then put their operating system on it. The cool thing is of course that OSX is a huge selling point, it is especially in terms of the average user, a far superior OS, simple and easy to use, obviously not the greatest environment for corporate activities, but used as a home computer it is far superior to windows. Most of you people seem to have forgotten what happened when apple allowed clones in the past, they very nearly died, apple's premium pricing on their hardware would now guarantee that failure, without OSX fueling apple hardware sales, there would be no Apple, and therefore in the end no OSX, and essentially no competition to Windows, meaning a Virtual monopoly beyond what we see to day, and no matter how you look at that, a monopoly is in the long run detrimental to the consumer. Obviously Linux would still exist, but they appeal to a completely different group than the average consumer, and so they would not be able to offer any significant competition.
"Most of you people seem to have forgotten what happened when apple allowed clones in the past, they very nearly died, apple's premium pricing on their hardware would now guarantee that failure . . . [ramble ramble ramble]"
How is Apple's inability to compete on a level playing field at all relevant to the legal argument? We get it, Apple sucked at business, so they had to implement a protectionist and restrictive policy to support their overpriced hardware, sprinkled with a lot of marketing savvy. But the issue here is whether Apple can implement that protectionist policy... the sucking at business has no part in the argument.
Just heard Jobs is leaving as CEO.
In my opinion, Apple is the Bose of computers, people have bought into the marketing crap. Enjoy your over priced white laptops...
I think Psystar is just buying time, because they already lost, and they WILL lost. I prefer otherwise, but it's a fact. They are just extending it because:
- they would go bankrupt anyway, even the first lawsuit would be enough in lawyer royalties and damages for them to pay, so why not try a bit more?
- while it's still on cour, they are selling (I believe), so they can still make the initial investment pay off before closing doors. If they admit defeat, they will need to withdraw their product form the market and die.
Actually, I'm sure they're putting every possible argument out there because they intend to appeal.
If PsyStar wins or not Apple went to Intel chips and opened them up to the open source community. The 1st quality open source project to come out with an emulator will destroy the need for Apple hardware and bring this whole issue to an end and when it comes to defending against this sort of thing the open source community has the advantage because all they need to do is find a crack in that famous Apple armor. And the only thing Apple can do to defend against this issue is by using updates/patches. There is no effective way to peruse/defend against this if they stop one programmer 10 more pick up where he left off with a different name. They cant stop what's being developed by the community only what is currently out. And on top of all that they wouldn't be distributing OSX they would be freely giving the ability to emulate the Os on Win/Linux machines.
Im not a mac fan but I would like an alternative to Advid other than Final Cut Pro or the ability to put Final Cut Pro on my pc.
I just don't understand why anyone thinks that if Psystar wins this suit, something good is going to happen for consumers.
1. If you're savvy enough to get your personal copy of OS X running on high-end commodity hardware, and you believe that offers you a better overall cost/benefit situation, you're free to do so today (whatever the EULA, and whatever the relevant copyright law). The information is out there; the tools are out there. If the actual cost/benefit of hacking OS X to run on high-end commodity hardware was so great, more people would be doing it. And if you're into rendering or whatever, and the cost/benefit really is great for you, hire someone to administer a hacked OS X rendering lab inside your company and enjoy. But don't kid yourself into thinking your situation is above the market noise floor.
2. If I write a piece of software (whether it's an OS or anything else), and someone buys a copy, that does not give them the right to modify it and subsequently resell it. Not as something new, but DEFINITELY (and in many ways more importantly) not as something that claims to be identical to what I brought to market. It's the worst of (2 of 3) worlds...it's a *competing product* for which I got some license revenue but have no QA, and which I'm asked to support. And particularly in the case of an OS, when users are potentially going to show up at my door with weird bugs, and they've got some vendor coaching them on how to hide the fact that they're running a hacked OS when they call me, I'm going to incur costs that damage support both for them AND for the rest of my customer base. The thought of that static alone is enough to have me sending for the lawyers.
3. The best competition is rarely (but sometimes) between a bunch of companies who have exactly the same business model and go-to-market strategy. We could talk at length about exactly how Apple vs. Microsoft strategy and execution have led to pros and cons in each ecosystem's set of consumable results, but the inescapable fact is that the differences are real. And the bare fact that there are differences is very, very good for consumers as a group, whether or not those differences happen to benefit you or I individually.
4. Microsoft has a product that matches the integrated solution philosophy that Apple applies to the Mac...it's called xbox. They spent so much money developing that platform, the cost/benefit tipping point didn't happen for them until Halo 3 took off. So let's say I start selling commodity hardware bundles configured with some hypothetical hacked OS-xbox, with the implicit promise that Microsoft would (or explicit argument that they should) support you if/when my hack stops working, even though Microsoft already has their hands full supporting configurations they actually test. Explain to me why I should profit from that behavior at Microsoft's expense.
wow engadget is seriously full of apple hater and seriously makes the Windows community look bad. Way to be close minded guys. You people are all against Apple just because it's Apple. You guys are not trying to understand the full legal issue. The problem here is Psystar presenting a red herring to the real case, which is the alteration of the OS X code. By arguing that they, as consumer of the software, have legal rights to distribute the OS is crap. In reality they are selling back an altered version of the OS (the work-around to Apple hardware detection), which is illegal. That's like plagiarism: modify someone else's work and presenting it as your own.
I seriously can't stand this bias crap. You people are just as horribly zealous as Apple fanboys. But what do I know. Continue being part of some mindless drones. Whatever.
Actually I hate Windows, and strongly prefer Apple. I just like my freedom more.
Dale, what matters to me is that the EULA terms are overly restrictive, and possibly illegal, and trying to enforce a copyright beyond that which you have rights is also overly restrictive, and probably illegal. It just happens to be that Apple is the company doing the restricting. My dislike for the practice has nothing to do with Apple.
Can't stand this bias crap. You guys are all against Apple just because it's Apple, you're not trying to understand the real case here. This complaint is only a red herring to the real issue. Psystar is arguing they have the right to distribute the software because they are consumers of the product, which is bull crap. This problem in actuality is Psystar modifying the code of OS X and reselling it, which is illegal. It's like plagiarism: changing the work of someone else's and presenting it as your own. But of course, the Apple haters here can't get past their biasm to understand the issue. Have fun hating and being close-minded.
dang browser and the messaging system, way to whack up my post.
They're not modifying the code. They're adding a layer to allow it to function on their system. In principle it's no different than a mfr's hardware driver.
Interesting how Mac is ok with those other companies that buy their hardware and software to modify them (like making a tablet mac). I suppose the law for modifying hardware and reselling it is very different than software.
The fact that no one "owns" software always rubs me way wrong. Especially consider how much I pay for it!!!
Of the thoughts that come to mind when reading the comments, the prevalent one is that I never understood why people had such a big problem with "licensing vs. ownership" when it comes to software. If I want to go out and buy a Leopard disc today, I'd spend around 130 dollars. There is no way I deserve to "own" the software for that amount.
To be clear on this one, I mean the following: If I wanted a new house, I'd have to pay for the construction of that house. I then own that house. Think of the millions spent on salaries for the man-hours required for Research, Development, Quality Assurance Testing, Printing, Shipping, Deployment - the list goes on and on. Only Apple has a right to truly claim ownership over the software, as only Apple spent the actual cost of the construction of that software.
Yes, you pay money for it, and yes, that helps Apple recoup - then profit from - the money spent on construction. Sure. But, to reach back to the house analogy, if you built an apartment building, you'd be renting out the apartments; that is, you'd be licensing (leasing) the apartment spaces to recoup - then profit from - the amount spent on the construction of that building. But your tenants don't suddenly own that apartment; they're licensees. You don't often hear tenants whining about this online, because they understand the nature of their purchases.
If you really wanted to own your operating system, download a Linux distro, and contribute to the community somehow - make a donation, aid with development, or offer support on the forums. If you decide that a closed source OS is better suited to your needs, that's your right to choose what's best for your computing experience; but, you should at least be mature enough to understand the nature of your purchase.
Devon, to demonstrate the absurdity of your analogy, let's actually make it a 1:1 relationship. If I came and used a gigantic modified Star Trek food replicator and copied your house exactly, hauled it away to my own lot, and never so much as parked out front of your place, THAT would be the corollary. You shouldn't even get to charge me $1.30 to do that.
So what you're saying is that in order to demonstrate your perceived absurdity of an analogy which used real world economic principles, you're using a device from a science fiction franchise, that didn't even exist within that franchise, because you just made up your own fantasy device in an already fantasy universe?
THAT is your corollary. That's your 1:1 relationship. Wow.
Well, to bring it back to real world terms, there are already exact replications of houses all over the (real) world; for example, the McMansion phenomenon in the United States. If you buy a McMansion and choose to live in it, you still have to pay for your copy of that house; albeit not as much, as you don't have to pay an architect to design the house before it is built.
Although it is technically a duplicate, it is still something which costs more than one dollar and thirty cents. And, hey - just like there are open source OSes, if you think that paying for a duplicate house is unjust, there are plenty of open source housing solutions out there for you: housing projects, trailer parks, homeless shelters, the wilderness, cardboard boxes... there's a wide gradient of options at your disposal.
@ Devon "If I want to go out and buy a Leopard disc today, I'd spend around 130 dollars. There is no way I deserve to "own" the software for that amount."
Of course you do, since Apple was willing to sell it to you at that price (you admitted as much when you said "buy"). Why is it the consumers' fault that Apple sold a product at a price lower than it could charge?
"Only Apple has a right to truly claim ownership over the software, as only Apple spent the actual cost of the construction of that software."
Very true. But Apple doesn't have a claim of ownership over something it willingly sold to me, the Leopard disc. Any attempt to control the disc after they sold it is void.
"But, to reach back to the house analogy, if you built an apartment building, you'd be renting out the apartments; that is, you'd be licensing (leasing) the apartment spaces to recoup - then profit from - the amount spent on the construction of that building"
This is so ricockulous I don't even know where to begin. I guess I'll stick with the obvious... I didn't realize you were able to pick up apartments and carry them around in your backpack. Apartments are real property, Leopard discs are personal property. The laws of real property and personal property are fundamentally different because the properties themselves are fundamentally different.
"You don't often hear tenants whining about this online, because they understand the nature of their purchases."
Exactly "they understand the nature of their purchases." But when it comes to personal property, the normal, and reasonable, understanding of a purchase is that it is an outright sale, not a license.
Mikey, the part you don't understand about what I'm saying is that you are referring to the Leopard disc. The physical item that contains the software. And you're right, you own that. You bought and paid for that disc, you can carry it around in your pocket.
But I'm not talking about building a disc - I'm referring to building software. You don't buy the software; just like you said yourself - you buy the disc. The physical container of the software. But in doing so, you are also purchasing a license for the software.
Ultimately, what everybody is hung up on is the fact that they don't like how a company chose to exercise its rights. Apple can phrase its EULA and protect its software the way they're doing because that's their right. The same way we can choose to bitch and moan about how they do so online, because we have a right to free speech, regardless of whether or not everyone agrees with it.
I'm not defending Apple, and I'm not saying what they're doing is correct, or even what I, as a person who has developed software for a living, would do; I'm just trying to explain that Apple is not this great Satan that invented this particular business model with the intention of screwing over customers. They're just a company, exercising their rights; regardless of whether or not everyone agrees with it.
How is this different that Dell, for instance, restricting you from reinstalling Windows XP, for example, (with your OEM reinstall disk) on a computer other than the one you bought it with. Please don't reply in an arrogant manner, I am sincerely wanting an answer.
@ Alex
Accepting an illegal license doesn't make it any more legal. In Darknerd's example of Apple requiring your first born to install OSX, there is surely some MacHead somewhere who would agree to such a term, but it would still be completely illegal and void.