Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Appeals Court Sides with Apple in Dispute over Psystar's Unauthorized Mac Clones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I got the reference, and I though it was rushed. The pacing started out alright, but then rushed the ending, it should of been a couple more episodes. But that's just me. :/
Hugh
Wow, well this wasn't exactly surprising was it? Apple wins. Kinda expected it to be honest....
I can hear all those wanting a mini tower Mac shouting now......
I can hear all those wanting a mini tower Mac shouting now......
I want to install a different engine in my car and I want to change it from gas to diesel, but after I make all these adjustments, I want to keep my warranty so the car maker can pay for all my adjustments. Yeah try that!
After the warranty you can change it to your hearts content. No one is stopping you. Maybe you need a special screw driver so what!
Huh? That analogy makes no sense. I am talking about personal use here. If I bought a book , protected under copyright laws, from Starbucks, I should be able to read it anywhere, not just at their store, so they can make more money. Same with software, protected by copyright laws. I should be able to install in any machine, not just an Apple machine, so they can make more money. Nobody is denying that Apple invested money in their software, and should be paid for the use of that software. I just want to pay for only their software, and nothing more.
You have clearly bought into the definition given by big businesses of what a license is, and what can and can't be restricted by a license. But it doesn't have to be the way they want it. Laws are made for the public good, not for the benefit of big businesses. Start thinking about the bigger picture.
BTW, in what world are all these ittywitty corporations being taken advantage of by the big bad consumer? Its the other way around.
Copyright protection rights are granted by us, the public. There are numerous examples of intellectual properties that aren't protected and are just considered public domain. Math techniques and scientific discoveries being some of them. The rights that we grant, we define, with limitations and restrictions given. These corporations don't have more rights than this, and some of the restrictions they have placed in their EULA clearly overreaches.
Last edited:
Sigh. No, I have bought into the definition of what a license is stemming from hundreds of years of legal precedent. Before you spout off it would be helpful if you knew what you are talking about - I'm happy to recommend some good books on licensing.
Licences aren't all powerful rules that you have to blindly follow. Corporations are always overreaching in what they say their right are. Some contentions cases have gone to court. Courts have thrown out some licenses as unenforcible. Look it up. See...not all powerful.
I don't even know why we're having this debate. Obviously, anyone who thinks and argues that Psystar had a legal footing here is dead wrong. The courts have decided, twice, and it's done. Psystar acted illegally in all of this and Apple was in their right.
If Psystar wanted an OS different from Windows that bad they should have built one themselves.
The problem with getting a ruling saying a license is invalid is that you then revert back to copyright law, which means that you lose any distribution rights or rights to make a derivative work. Since there is legal precedent that simply running software is making a copy of it and requires a valid license from a copyright holder, getting a licensed invalidated means you cannot even run your software anymore since under copyright law, you no longer have any rights to make a copy.
Software does not just drop to the public domain because its license got invalidated. The copyright on it is still very valid.
For Psystar it's even worse : they were basically making a derivative copy by modifying OS X, they were then distributing this copy without any license to do so from Apple. Worse, they didn't even pay for the original licenses (failed to submit any paperwork showing the purchases, not an accounting mistake, they had no paperwork at all) and use a single master copy off of an imaging server. They installed the software in breach of the EULA and circumvented copyright protection mecanism in breach of the DMCA. They then proceded to profit from all of this illegal work.
I don't even understand how anyone here can argue that they had even a glimpse of a moral or legal standing to do any of this.
If Psystar wanted an OS different from Windows that bad they should have built one themselves.
The problem with getting a ruling saying a license is invalid is that you then revert back to copyright law, which means that you lose any distribution rights or rights to make a derivative work. Since there is legal precedent that simply running software is making a copy of it and requires a valid license from a copyright holder, getting a licensed invalidated means you cannot even run your software anymore since under copyright law, you no longer have any rights to make a copy.
Software does not just drop to the public domain because its license got invalidated. The copyright on it is still very valid.
For Psystar it's even worse : they were basically making a derivative copy by modifying OS X, they were then distributing this copy without any license to do so from Apple. Worse, they didn't even pay for the original licenses (failed to submit any paperwork showing the purchases, not an accounting mistake, they had no paperwork at all) and use a single master copy off of an imaging server. They installed the software in breach of the EULA and circumvented copyright protection mecanism in breach of the DMCA. They then proceded to profit from all of this illegal work.
I don't even understand how anyone here can argue that they had even a glimpse of a moral or legal standing to do any of this.
Last edited:
If you make someone a promise, you don't keep it? Because that's what a license is - a set of promises.
In any event, I don't know what "contentions cases" means, but yes, some licenses have been ruled invalid by courts. But if you are basing your argument on what courts say, you lose again - not only a federal district court, but a federal court of appeals has now said that APPLE'S license is not unenforceable, is not overreaching, and is perfectly valid.
Are you really that dim? OS X, created by Apple at significant expense, was modified by Psystar, and then sold by Psystar for Psystar's own profit. Psystar is not allowed to modify Apple's intellectual property to make Psystar's products functional, and then sell those products (the existence of which was made possible by Apple's hard work and massive investment) to make money for themselves.
Methinks you just have some irrational hatred of "Big Corporations." Oooh, they are so eeeee-vil. Hmmm. Maybe we should limit the stranglehold that McDonald's has over the Big Mac. It's not fair. I wanna sell Big Macs! Wah!
I am not arguing for Psystar at all. In their case, they definitely did not pay for all the copies they distributed. I am arguing for personal use. And we all know that there is a lot more leeway when it comes to personal use. I don't believe its legally enforcible to limit a software to a particular hardware only, when software is protected under copyright laws, and these laws places no such limit.
That is your interpretation of a court ruling. I have a broader interpretation that merely states that Apple is entitled to copyright protection, which I don't disagree with. The point of me bringing the invalided licences up is to point out that invoking the restrictions in the license itself means nothing. Not everything that a company wants to restrict is enforcible.
Yeah, remember Power Computing and Motorola StarMax....
I remember some really exciting MacWorld San Francisco booth activities from Power Computing....they were pretty wild.......
Yeah, remember Power Computing and Motorola StarMax....
I remember some really exciting MacWorld San Francisco booth activities from Power Computing....they were pretty wild.......
I guess that the clones almost put Apple going out of business. That's why when Steve came back to kill the clones, they weren't helping Apple. They where hurting Apple.
Clones that I remember are: Power Computing, EMacs, Motorola, Raidus, APC. That where some of them, I know there where more.
Hugh
Are you joking?
You get to form your own opinion. You don't get to form your own facts.
Except that's not what the court said.
But everything in Apple's EULA is.
Wow, didn't remember those other clone-makers......but I agree that at the time they hurting Apple sales, although expanding the Apple user base....
It may be difficult for those outside of Miami (Florida), or not raised in a Cuban household to appreciate. But does anyone remember the ruckus caused by the Cuban exile community when Elian Gonzales was rescued off the coast? Or the violent protests that occur when Cuban artists or sports teams perform in the US, even today?
We have a tendency to fight a losing cause, just to see it through to the end. To refuse to let others push us around (or dictate terms to us). And to flaunt or ignore other norms to have it our way. Even if it means that we cut off our own noses.
You are arguing a point of law with an attorney. Kind of like arguing with your doctor on medical matters....
Last edited:
It's simple really
OK - Use an OS X install CD you purchased to install OS X on a hackintosh, you aren't entitled to any support or upgrade compatibility from Apple. The Hackintosh community accepts this and Apple leaves them alone.
NOT OK - Selling non-Apple computers with OS X installed. You are now profiting off the work of Apple in violation of numerous laws and licencses. This is what Psystar did, but it's not all. In addition they did not pay for enough licencses to cover the software they were using AND they were modifying the software on top of all that.
The moral of this story should be perfectly clear. If you, the individual user are simply modifying your own device Apple will leave you alone, even if you might be straddling a legal line. They have no interest in hunting down users with Hackintoshes or Jailbroken iPhones. However if you start making a business of modifying and selling Apple products outside the agreed upon terms you are in big trouble and deservedly so. Apple has pumped literally billions of dollars into research and development of their various products and should have the right to protect their business from people seeking to misappropriate their works.
Simple example. You are allowed to buy a CD, copy it to your MP3 player, turn it into a coaster sell it to a friend whatever. You are NOT allowed to make copies and sell them. Another example. You can buy a DVD and watch it, sell it, loan it, etc. you aren't , however, allowed to put up a big screen in your backyard and charge people to come watch it with you.
OK - Use an OS X install CD you purchased to install OS X on a hackintosh, you aren't entitled to any support or upgrade compatibility from Apple. The Hackintosh community accepts this and Apple leaves them alone.
NOT OK - Selling non-Apple computers with OS X installed. You are now profiting off the work of Apple in violation of numerous laws and licencses. This is what Psystar did, but it's not all. In addition they did not pay for enough licencses to cover the software they were using AND they were modifying the software on top of all that.
The moral of this story should be perfectly clear. If you, the individual user are simply modifying your own device Apple will leave you alone, even if you might be straddling a legal line. They have no interest in hunting down users with Hackintoshes or Jailbroken iPhones. However if you start making a business of modifying and selling Apple products outside the agreed upon terms you are in big trouble and deservedly so. Apple has pumped literally billions of dollars into research and development of their various products and should have the right to protect their business from people seeking to misappropriate their works.
Simple example. You are allowed to buy a CD, copy it to your MP3 player, turn it into a coaster sell it to a friend whatever. You are NOT allowed to make copies and sell them. Another example. You can buy a DVD and watch it, sell it, loan it, etc. you aren't , however, allowed to put up a big screen in your backyard and charge people to come watch it with you.
Everyone who claims a EULA cannot be enforced usually has this problem: At best, you have the choice of having a licence according to the terms of the EULA, or no licence at all. If someone doesn't like that they are not allowed to install MacOS X on their PC, they have the choice of having no licence at all, so they can't install it on their PC, and they can't install it on a Mac either.
If Apple's EULA said: "You agree to pay us $10,000 for every non Apple-branded computer on which the software is installed", then it would make sense to argue that the licence cannot be enforced, because you might be better off without licence (copyright infringement) than with licence (agreed to pay $10,000). But as it is, rejecting Apple's licence doesn't buy you anything so arguing that it cannot be enforced is totally pointless.
1. It is called "copyright law". Copyright law is about copying. If you buy a car engine and install it, no copy is made. If you buy software and install it, a copy is made. In the first case, copyright law cannot apply because no copy is made, in the second case a copy is made. Apple couldn't stop you from making a wall clock using a MacOS X DVD, because no copy is being made.
2. It seems that Honda doesn't care too much where you want to install their engines. If they cared for some reason, they could sell their engines with a license, and then we would eventually see if that license can be enforced or not. For example, if Honda's engines used half the fuel of other engines and everyone bought Honda cars because of the engine, then Ford might be very keen to buy Honda engines and put them into Ford cars, and Honda might be very keen to not allow them to do it. We don't know. But as a current example, I have bought boxes of cans with drinks marked with a sign "not to be resold individually". So someone thinks that when a shop is delivered boxes with 24 cans of drinks, the shop wouldn't be allowed to sell them individually and that could be enforced.
Last edited:
Actually, there's copyrighted code in many engines these days -- in the ECU.
Exhaustion means that once it's legally sold (all patent rights adhered to), no claim can be made on its further sale, even as part of a larger product. Patent, like copyright, is a right to prevent others from reproducing your work, damaging your market for it. It's not supposed to be about controlling how your work is used.
For those of you who think once you get a license and do do what ever you want with it, and no one should limit you.
Think of your drivers license. Once the state grants this you are free to drive a car, however you cannot drive it anywhere you want, you cannot drive as fast as you want you must obey traffic laws, or pay the price. (i.e. ticket and possible revoking of said license.) The license says you can drive any type of car you are qualified on. If you have an car license and want to drive a motor cycle you must get an additional license. if you wish to drive a bus or large truck yet another license.
This is all Apples software says. if you are granted a license use it on the right type of vehicle. If you wish to drive a different vehicle then you need an additional license, try win 7, or XP or linux. Lot of choices, and they are all yours.
Apple writes their license so it has to be used on there class of machine. It is really simple.
The thing Apple does not do is limit the hardware. If you own apple hardware you can run linux, or windows, they will not stop you, and they do not care.
Think of your drivers license. Once the state grants this you are free to drive a car, however you cannot drive it anywhere you want, you cannot drive as fast as you want you must obey traffic laws, or pay the price. (i.e. ticket and possible revoking of said license.) The license says you can drive any type of car you are qualified on. If you have an car license and want to drive a motor cycle you must get an additional license. if you wish to drive a bus or large truck yet another license.
This is all Apples software says. if you are granted a license use it on the right type of vehicle. If you wish to drive a different vehicle then you need an additional license, try win 7, or XP or linux. Lot of choices, and they are all yours.
Apple writes their license so it has to be used on there class of machine. It is really simple.
The thing Apple does not do is limit the hardware. If you own apple hardware you can run linux, or windows, they will not stop you, and they do not care.
Here's my view, having read the history of copyright and its laws from the beginning to present. I know it disagrees with current law and the courts, because they are now mostly designed to shift power to the few, who are now indeed very highly favored. Madison had a very poor crystal ball, while Jefferson's was quite clear.
Basically, you don't need to make that promise. An EULA doesn't need to say "We allow you to make one backup of this software for personal archival reasons." You don't need to trade consideration for receiving the ability to do that -- because you already can do that without their permission, and they can do nothing to stop you.
If I buy a book I don't need further permission whenever I want to read. I don't need to give them permission to inspect my copy, and indeed my entire library, at will. I can resell it at will and at any price, I can mark it up as I wish. I bought it, it's mine. Copyright restricts me from copying it further and giving away or selling copies. That's their exclusive right, nothing more.
I always use the book example: If it doesn't make sense with a dead-tree book, it doesn't make sense with software.
That's because you're on their roads. You don't even need a license off of public roads. The machine on which you install OS X is yours, not Apple's. The copy of OS X you PURCHASED is yours, not Apple's (although this whole EULA thing tries to say you didn't buy a copy).
The ONLY thing that prevents everyone from copying all this software at will without fear of retribution is copyright. The free sharing of information is considered the natural state, copyright is a restriction on that in order to provide inducement to create. Coyright grants certain specific rights to publishers, along with certain restrictions. Licenses are a way around those restrictions.
It's supposed to be a balance -- we the people want authors to create. So in return for providing us with works, we grant a limited monopoly on those works.
Does copyright today look at all balanced to you?