Apple Disabling Support for Intel Atom Processor in Latest 10.6.2 Build?

[glossywhite]

Given that we've chosen OS X to make life simpler, a lot of people choose to make life INCREDIBLY complex, and sit there pulling laws apart and analysing them, making INCREDIBLE amounts of work... and for what; so that they can "prove" that they're legally obliged to run OS X on a machine that isn't a Mac?.

Look at all the legal & political BS you put yourselves through... you could just get a Mac, and stop trying to prove some "point" that you're entitled to run OS X on a generic machine - YOU'RE NOT, AT *ALL* ENTITLED TO DO SO!.

Grow up. Get a Mac, and stop being such children.

 

[pdjudd]

I have no contract with Apple and they don't tell me the complete terms before the sale at all, thats just rubbish.

Complete nonsense. I can find any Apple SLA before I buy. Consumer research is your problem. Apple makes this stuff very easy to find. THey even print a warning ON THE BOX. The fact that you cannot see the box before hand is a side effect of online business. However you can view it at retail before you give Amazon your money.

I have a contract with Amazon, enforced when the sale was completed when they took my money.

They sell you the box. The license is separate from the box. Just like a car, you get the license from a third party from the car seller.

Legally Amazon are obliged to deal with me as their responsibility is to me, not Apple.

Legally Amazon's business terminates once you get the box. Their return policies state just that.

please try to understand...I'm getting tired

Please understand that Apple's terms are made readily available to you before sale. They do not have to be held in front of you before money leaves your account. Trust me. Unless you can cite a specific law that states that either A) online or brick and mortar retails have to return opened software or B) that software licenses have to be made verbatum in store, I am calling you wrong.

The sale was completed when they shipped you the box. That is what they sell you. Just the box. Apple even tells you this in their SLA which you can see on their website at any time... If you do not read what Apple plainly provides to you, that is your fault. They clealry state on their box that there are terms and where to find them (since it's impractical to put them outside).

THis is how the entire software world runs. Are you saying that every software make that sells licensed software has not thought this through?

 

[uberamd]

THis is how the entire software world runs. Are you saying that every software make that sells licensed software has not thought this through?

It is the "the customer is always right" mentality, which really grinds at me.

 

[Amdahl]

No, first sale can apply to something licensed. You are selling the medium. The contents are still contained under licensing and copyrights. Verner V AutoDesk contended just that staing that you are allowed to sell licensed content while still upholding the notion that licensing terms are still valid.

Maybe it did; maybe what it did was show that a federal judge can see the conflict software companies are creating between licensing and sale, and show software companies that if they are going to play in retail, retail rules will apply. But games aren't licensed in any case.

THis is how the entire software world runs. Are you saying that every software make that sells licensed software has not thought this through?

Not that it hasn't been thought through. It hasn't had a defining moment in case law. Until that moment, they will push as far as they think they can. If software can sidestep the UCC(and copyright fair use!) by claiming license, then who can't? The UCC was created specifically to eliminate the problem of widely differing terms of sale, and to grease the skids of commerce.

Look at all the legal & political BS you put yourselves through... you could just get a Mac, and stop trying to prove some "point" that you're entitled to run OS X on a generic machine - YOU'RE NOT, AT *ALL* ENTITLED TO DO SO!.

For $129, I'm entitled. That is the whole point of the argument, and the Psystar case.

Grow up. Get a Mac, and stop being such children.

Then don't presume to tell us the law isn't the law. As our European friends have pointed out, Apple would be laughed out of many courts in Europe.

 

[polee]

I bought a samsung netbook n140 as there was no apple equivalent. Gee I never imagined I would go back to Windows again and I have to say that Apple OS X is like a zillion times better than Windows XP.

Apple please come out with a netbook soon. One that is not as dear as the macbook air.

 

[djellison]

A Windows 7 Retail license is at least 10 times more expensive than the OEM license

Where are you buying your licences?

You can buy an retail licence of windows and install it on anything you want for
£76.

This is about the same price that Leopard was.

 

[OllyW]

Where are you buying your licences?

You can buy an retail licence of windows and install it on anything you want for
£76.

This is about the same price that Leopard was.

I only paid £45 for mine.

 

[pdjudd]

Maybe it did; maybe what it did was show that a federal judge can see the conflict software companies are creating between licensing and sale, and show software companies that if they are going to play in retail, retail rules will apply. But games aren't licensed in any case.

All games that I have ever purchased have legal terms that dictate what you can and cannot do with them that extend to copyrights. That's a defacto license if I ever saw one.

Renting retailers like blockbuster stores deal directly with distributors to get large quality of discs for their stores at a discount that come with distribution terms that permit them to be rented out. These terms do not get extended to the average consumer in the store.

And video games are like any other Intellectual based content, you license it under copyright. The terms are really basic, but they are there none the less. You do not buy the game. Buying the game entails acquiring the IP that goes along with it. You just buy the disc/cart. Video games are just like normal software. The only way for the consumer can get money from is would be via first sale which requires them to transfer the disc/cart

 

[diamond.g]

Only if you drink the kool-aid.

I'm sorry, we'll have to disagree on that point. I would rather go with serial numbers and activation than be forced to buy a new computer if I want an OS upgrade.

I don't believe the Hackintosh is that a big threat to Apple anyway. You also read on here that quite a few people who have tried it end up buying the real thing because they like the OS so much.

Honestly I was giving an option that would end the argument. I personally think that Apple should sell OS X for any computer (like MS). But that would probably kill Apple even though the OS is their best asset.

 

[Amdahl]

Renting retailers like blockbuster stores deal directly with distributors to get large quality of discs for their stores at a discount that come with distribution terms that permit them to be rented out. These terms do not get extended to the average consumer in the store.

Yes, if they WANT to. But they can go buy DVDs at Wal-Mart and rent those. Reed Hastings@Netflix has said they do exactly that when they are cut off by distributors on a movie they really want to carry. (Weinstein cut Netflix off to give Blockbuster a 'Rental Exclusive.')

They can buy games at Wal-Mart and rent those. This is what GameFly does, and presumably Blockbuster as well. Game makers have always hated renting, but have realized that downloadables/network-tie-in are the cure(where first sale doctrine likely doesn't exist), rather than try to fight first sale doctrine.

And video games are like any other Intellectual based content, you license it under copyright.

No. You license, or you buy a copy. When you buy a copy, you are controlled by copyright law.

You do not buy the game.

If I don't buy it, then I can't sell it. What is GameStop doing with all those used games?

Buying the game entails acquiring the IP that goes along with it. You just buy the disc/cart.

What about a book, or magazine? Did I license that too?

Video games are just like normal software.

Yes. So the question is, what makes Apple so special? The only difference between OSX and Gran Turismo is that Apple's video game is more expensive, and has less special effects. Oh, and Apple claims to attach 20 pages of contract to the sale that no one can see when they are buying it in the store. Oh, and you didn't actually buy it; it is licensed.

The only way for the consumer can get money from is would be via first sale which requires them to transfer the disc/cart

And until Autodesk, that means it wasn't licensed.

If you want Apple to win the Psystar case, you've go to ask, where is the line drawn? What product can pretend to be sold, but with all sorts of strings attached outside of the law?

Books?
Magazines?
Newspapers?
Sports results?
Ink cartridges to printers? (No refill)
Car parts with electronic interfaces?

Nope, it is much easier to just tell software companies: If you retail it, you sold it. If you want licensing, get a signature on a contract and don't expect Wal-Mart clerks to close your deal.

 

[gnasher729]

For $129, I'm entitled. That is the whole point of the argument, and the Psystar case.

Then don't presume to tell us the law isn't the law. As our European friends have pointed out, Apple would be laughed out of many courts in Europe.

As a "European friend", I can tell you that Psystar would have been slaughtered months ago in a German court. Psystar is a company. Even a company that buys MacOS X to install on their own PCs for internal use only would have none of the consumer protection behind them and would be completely and utterly bound by Apple's license.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Seems like a relatively simple (part) solution to a huge problem. Logical, in other words.

Though it kind of sucks for the CUSTOMERS.

And since when were PC owners customers? "Oh I paid $30 for a license for snow leopard which I am breaking" compared to I bought a MacBook for $999 and then paid $30 for an upgrade... I know who Apple would call a customer, and they aren't being inconvenienced

 

[harlinator]

IS NOT PIRACY!

I'm getting so sick and tired of people saying that using software that you purchased is piracy. I can do what I want! Get off my back.

I'm usually a rather calm person but the way everyone right now is trying to control my life, from Apple to the United States government, is really starting to piss me off.

Go ahead and flame me, but I could not care less.

I will...
Apple has the right to put it's OS on what it wants to... they invented it so it's theirs! If you like OS X so much just buy a Mac and run it the way it's supposed to run you cheap skate! Your just a broke bum and can't afford anything nice. Don't take it out on the people who can save some money to buy something that is an integrated system! Also, your screwing up what the Mac stands for and that it's a complete solution... if you want to hack just make your own OS then.
It's really simple, just develop your own platform to play with.
And life has what are called RULES... you have to play by them or your just going to be broke and not have anything (like you most obviously do)...
If you can't own a Mac to run OS X on then your just too broke to even run OS X period IMO!

 

[BaldiMac]

If you want Apple to win the Psystar case, you've go to ask, where is the line drawn?

Psystar is a much more clear cut case of copyright infringement than an individual hackintosher. Their primary defense is Section 117(a). However, Section 117(b) clearly prohibits the sale of the installed copy or adaptation without the permission of the copyright owner. They also make additional copies in order to order to facilitate the bulk copying that they do.

 

[pdjudd]

No. You license, or you buy a copy. When you buy a copy, you are controlled by copyright law. If I don't buy it, then I can't sell it. What is GameStop doing with all those used games? What about a book, or magazine? Did I license that too?

FIRST SALE ALLOWS YOU TO SELL THE DISCS. Selling the discs and selling the content on the disc have very different legla meanings. Pay attention. Just because you sell a video game, does not transfer any intellectual rights to that game. First sale changes none of that. You are still bound under the legal terms mentioned in the games documentation.

Yes. So the question is, what makes Apple so special? The only difference between OSX and Gran Turismo is that Apple's video game is more expensive, and has less special effects. Oh, and Apple claims to attach 20 pages of contract to the sale that no one can see when they are buying it in the store. Oh, and you didn't actually buy it; it is licensed.

You are still licensing the game. I do not posses any rights to the Grand Turismo name or content when I get the disc. If I buy the rights, then I own them. Buying the game only entails me to personal use and first sale rights. That is why software is not sold. Selling implies certain things that no reasonable person would get.

And until Autodesk, that means it wasn't licensed.

Verner v Auto desk dealt with first sale doctrine and did not negate the concept of software licensing. I read it. First sale doctorine does not apply to Hackintoshes.

If you want Apple to win the Psystar case, you've go to ask, where is the line drawn? What product can pretend to be sold, but with all sorts of strings attached outside of the law?

Books?
Magazines?
Newspapers?
Sports results?
Ink cartridges to printers? (No refill)
Car parts with electronic interfaces?

Not all of those things are licensble though. The courts have been pretty clear on that.

 

[/dev/toaster]

Oh well, I will just stick with Leopard on my Hackintosh. Honestly, I wasn't even sure if I was going to upgrade to Snow Leopard. There is very little reason to. Sure, its a smaller foot print and has few nice enhancements but thats not enough of a reason to upgrade especially when they are trying to disable ATOM support.

 

[harlinator]

Oh well, I will just stick with Leopard on my Hackintosh.

Can we play Frisbee with it?

 

[Amdahl]

Psystar is a much more clear cut case of copyright infringement than an individual hackintosher. Their primary defense is Section 117(a). However, Section 117(b) clearly prohibits the sale of the installed copy or adaptation without the permission of the copyright owner. They also make additional copies in order to order to facilitate the bulk copying that they do.

They are not making an adaptation. An adaptation would be taking a book story and turning it in to a movie. Moving the underlying creative expression and putting it into an entirely different medium. OS X on a Psystar is still OS X. It is still the actual Apple bits running. If they ran OSX through a converter to SPARC, put that on a disc, and attempted to sell it, they would have clearly created an adaptation.

FIRST SALE ALLOWS YOU TO SELL THE DISCS. Selling the discs and selling the content on the disc have very different legla meanings. Pay attention.

No, you've got it wrong. When you sell a copy, you have a right to use the content. And that right transfer with the first sale doctrine, just like a used book. Licensing is an entirely different framework, and it is a framework Apple is attempting to impose on a retail sale.

Just because you sell a video game, does not transfer any intellectual rights to that game. First sale changes none of that.

Correct. But it is not because of the license, it is because of copyright law.

You are still bound under the legal terms mentioned in the games documentation.

There is no license. If you'd care to point to Sony/Polyphony Digital's license, that would be great. Or even an image of the box saying it is a license. If there was a license, GameFly would not exist.

You are still licensing the game. I do not posses any rights to the Grand Turismo name or content when I get the disc. If I buy the rights, then I own them. Buying the game only entails me to personal use and first sale rights. That is why software is not sold. Selling implies certain things that no reasonable person would get.

You should go read the law. There is a "copyright owner," and there is an "owner of a copy of a copyrighted work." Licensing is not implied in buying a game, a software, or a book.

Not all of those things are licensble though. The courts have been pretty clear on that.

Any of those things could be licensable. Nobody would put up with it if they tried, though.

 

[BaldiMac]

They are not making an adaptation. An adaptation would be taking a book story and turning it in to a movie. Moving the underlying creative expression and putting it into an entirely different medium. OS X on a Psystar is still OS X. It is still the actual Apple bits running. If they ran OSX through a converter to SPARC, put that on a disc, and attempted to sell it, they would have clearly created an adaptation.

They are making an adaptation. The paragraph differentiates between an exact copy and an adaptation. An installation is not an exact copy of the arguably "owned" copy on the DVD.

 

[Amdahl]

They are making an adaptation. The paragraph differentiates between an exact copy and an adaptation. An installation is not an exact copy of the arguably "owned" copy on the DVD.

You have to read it with (b), which allows the essential steps in utilizing the software on a machine. Installation is an essential step that happens with every copy of OS X, whether it is Psystar doing it or Steve Jobs.

Couple that with Sega v. Accolade & Sony v. Connectix, and you have a defense against any potential infringements done in order to facilitate interoperability.

They also make additional copies in order to order to facilitate the bulk copying that they do.

I forgot to address this earlier, but these additional copies can be dismissed if they are for reverse engineering purposes, or necessary steps in achieving the interoperability as well. Sony v. Connectix, and Sega v. Accolade I believe as well. In the Sega v. Accolade case, including pieces of Sega code in every Accolade game was allowed. And, in the OS X case, many of the low-level code is publicly available under an open source license, collectively known as Darwin, I think.

As an aside, Atari/Tengen lost their case versus Nintendo, because they didn't keep their nose clean. In order to figure out the interoperability problems with the NES, they told the Copyright Office they needed a copy of Nintendo's source code for legal reasons, even though no case was filed. They then used the source code to achieve interoperability. Because they had not worked with an 'authorized' copy(i.e, the distributed binary) of the code, 117 protections didn't apply.

 

[gnasher729]

Again....

UK law is different.

I have no contract with Apple and they don't tell me the complete terms before the sale at all, thats just rubbish.

I have a contract with Amazon, enforced when the sale was completed when they took my money.

Legally Amazon are obliged to deal with me as their responsibility is to me, not Apple.

please try to understand...I'm getting tired

I copied this from a UK site explaining things about copyright (relevant to the UK):

But if I've bought something, can't I use it however I like?
Just buying a copy of a book, CD, video, computer program, etc. does not necessarily give you the right to make further copies (even for private use) or play or show them in public. The right to do these things will generally remain with the copyright owner, whose permission you would need. You should note that photocopying a work, scanning a work to produce an electronic copy and downloading a copy of a work which is in an electronic form (eg. on a CD-ROM or an on-line database) all involve copying the work so that permission to copy is generally needed.
But if I have permission, ie. a licence, to use a work, can`t I use it however I like?
Not unless the licence you have allows any use of the work. Often a copyright owner will only give permission for some uses of a work, eg. publication of a photograph in a particular newspaper, and, if you want to use the work in any other way, eg by publishing the photograph in a magazine, you will need to seek further permission.

With regards to the legal situation with Apple and Amazon: You personally know that Apple doesn't allow you to install MacOS X on a non-Apple computer. So if you hand over money to get a copy of MacOS X in your hands with the intent of installing it on a non-Apple computer you do that fully knowing that Apple doesn't give you that right. You now try to find all possible reasons why you might be allowed to do that, fully knowing that Apple has no intention to allow it and doesn't want to sell you what you want. You claim to intend to go through a third party fully knowing that you are just wasting their time because you have no intention of buying what they have the right to sell. Fact is, you _know_ Apple's license or you deliberately chose not to know it (type "MacOS X license" into Google), so anything you say about not seeing the license when you pay is just nonsense.

 

[Amdahl]

With regards to the legal situation with Apple and Amazon: You personally know that Apple doesn't allow you to install MacOS X on a non-Apple computer....Fact is, you _know_ Apple's license or you deliberately chose not to know it (type "MacOS X license" into Google), so anything you say about not seeing the license when you pay is just nonsense.

The issue isn't what we 'know' Apple would like. The issue is what Apple actually did, what a buyer actually does. Did they sell the product? When I walk in to Fry's and buy a box on a shelf, without ever being presented the contract, or asked if I agree to a contract, do I have a valid license contract with Apple that overrides UCC and Copyright law?

That is the issue. Uniform Commercial Code often throws questions of intent out the window, and comes to dwell on process. What actually happened?

Look at how ridiculous the issue is: A store can get my signature for a $5 credit card purchase, but Apple has a contract without showing it, and without getting any tangible consent?

 

[BaldiMac]

You have to read it with (b), which allows the essential steps in utilizing the software on a machine. Installation is an essential step that happens with every copy of OS X, whether it is Psystar doing it or Steve Jobs.

Couple that with Sega v. Accolade & Sony v. Connectix, and you have a defense against any potential infringements done in order to facilitate interoperability.

Section 117 (b) only allows the "Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer" of an "exact copy" without the authorization of the copyright owner. It couldn't be more clear.

I forgot to address this earlier, but these additional copies can be dismissed if they are for reverse engineering purposes, or necessary steps in achieving the interoperability as well. Sony v. Connectix, and Sega v. Accolade I believe as well. In the Sega v. Accolade case, including pieces of Sega code in every Accolade game was allowed.

As I said, the additional copies are not for any of the purposes that you specified. The copies are made to make it easier for Psystar to image a large volume of hard drives.

 

[BenEndeem]

Sometimes I wonder whether it would make good business sense for Apple to respond by making a similar, but decidedly separate OS for generic PC hardware, perhaps with less features than true OS X. Though on the other hand, there would be the strong possibility of cannibalising Mac sales and as the old saying goes, 'If it aint broke, don't fix it'.

In this situation though, I suppose this could point towards an upcoming attempt to enter that market by Apple, and the whole compatibility thing could turn into an ongoing battle like Palm Pre syncing.

 

[Amdahl]

Section 117 (b) only allows the "Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer" of an "exact copy" without the authorization of the copyright owner. It couldn't be more clear.

I'm going to quote the section:

(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation. — Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.

I can identify three types of copy here: Exact Copy, Original Copy, and Adaptation. It says that the Exact Copy "prepared in accordance with this section", which includes 117(a)(1), can be transferred along with the Original Copy. That means Psystar is in the clear. If their copy is deemed an adaptation, they are screwed. That simple.

As I said, the additional copies are not for any of the purposes that you specified. The copies are made to make it easier for Psystar to image a large volume of hard drives.

That is permissible. Accolade included a copy of Sega code in every game they sold for the Sega system, and that was not considered infringement. Psystar has a different issue, because they are installing the uncooperative software to their hardware, rather than making their software work with someone elses hardware. The parallel is clear, and if the Sega v. Accolade defense holds, those copies will likely not be considered infringements.

In Sony v. Connectix, Sony tried to claim infringements for copies on each engineers computer at Connectix. The court bluntly said those copies are legitimate reverse engineering copies, and they weren't going to nitpick at that level (copies in RAM, etc).