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

[BaldiMac]

Baldimac,

If I am not right, then please point to the area of Section 117 that would produce an 'Exact Copy,' under your definition.

An exact copy could be created under 117(a)(1) or (2). It is possible that installation involves transferring an exact copy of a program from a DVD to a hard drive. Much like the installation process for a lot of Mac software from a disc image. Also, the archival copy permitted under 117(a)(2) would most commonly be an exact copy.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Contracts do not require a signature (except, typically, those under the Statute of Frauds - marriage, land, contracts that take more than a year to execute, etc., and others that are defined by statute). Shrinkwrap licenses are valid in the U.S. (subject to certain conditions).

They are also valid in the UK

 

[Amdahl]

Contracts do not require a signature (except, typically, those under the Statute of Frauds - marriage, land, contracts that take more than a year to execute, etc., and others that are defined by statute). Shrinkwrap licenses are valid in the U.S. (subject to certain conditions).

A shrinkwrap license is one which has a seal that reads "breaking the seal implies consent to license," and license is included outside the seal.

 

[Amdahl]

An exact copy could be created under 117(a)(1) or (2). It is possible that installation involves transferring an exact copy of a program from a DVD to a hard drive. Much like the installation process for a lot of Mac software from a disc image. Also, the archival copy permitted under 117(a)(2) would most commonly be an exact copy.

Thank you.

Archival copies would not qualify, as it says they have to be destroyed as soon as you no longer have rights to the software. And adaptations are excluded by name. So that leaves only the copies created by "essential steps to utilize" the software, which are not adaptations. Otherwise known as Installation, and loading into RAM.

 

[archipellago]

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.


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



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?

I'm tired of explaining this to you, it must be me as its not going into your head.

if bothered just Google sale of goods act, hopefully it will be clearer.

In short Apple's EULA and business practice's over here are infamously in conflict.

your points...again...are wrong.

legally you 'shouldn't' need to do any research anywhere other than what comes with the product. They print something on the box, but not the license terms. Its irrelevant.

call me wrong if you like....it's your special subject..

 

[cmaier]

A shrinkwrap license is one which has a seal that reads "breaking the seal implies consent to license," and license is included outside the seal.

Not true. The term is generically used to denote licenses in which the license is on the outside of the box, or the license is in the box, or the license pops up when you try to use the product; the determining factor is that as long as you have the opportunity to read and agree to the license before the point at which you are no longer entitled to a refund if you fail to agree to the license, it's generally permitted.

 

[archipellago]

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.

so 2 out of context points and verbiage is the best you can come up with.?

I'm not talking about me or anyone but generically no one should have to hunt around to see what they can and/or cannot do with a product. It is not reasonable to ask people to research a licence agreement online... they might not have internet access for a start.

the terms should cater to the lowest common denominator. You forget how stupid some users are. I spoke to someone today who didn't know what OS he was using!!!

Apple's EULA, as has been mentioned is wooly at best... Apple labelled?

what does that mean, a strict definition in English might come up with something very different to what Apple actually mean.

or a gasp of....

"oh so thats what the stickers are for..!"

 

[Amdahl]

Not true. The term is generically used to denote licenses in which the license is on the outside of the box, or the license is in the box, or the license pops up when you try to use the product; the determining factor is that as long as you have the opportunity to read and agree to the license before the point at which you are no longer entitled to a refund if you fail to agree to the license, it's generally permitted.

So I hear. My disagreement is with the idea of selling something in a retail store, where UCC applies, and then try to claim it isn't a UCC sale with Copyright law rights, and a license contract applies when you get home. If they want a license, get a signature on a contract. Visa/Mastercard do it every day. Websites can do it with an Agree button.

 

[BaldiMac]

Thank you.

Archival copies would not qualify, as it says they have to be destroyed as soon as you no longer have rights to the software. And adaptations are excluded by name. So that leaves only the copies created by "essential steps to utilize" the software, which are not adaptations. Otherwise known as Installation, and loading into RAM.

Wow. You completely ignored what I wrote. The installation of a computer program can possibly result in an exact copy. The installation of OS X does not result in an exact copy of what is on the DVD.

Archival copies would qualify under 117(b) if they are exact copies. Installed copies created under 117(a)(1) would qualify under 117(b) only if they are exact copies.

 

[AidenShaw]

How can anyone believe that it's in Apple's best interest to force someone to buy Windows 7 for their system instead of Apple OSX?
...
Apple is benefitting a lot from an "Apple is cool" perception at the moment. A few heavy-handed actions like blocking Atom could quickly damage that perception. We see posts on these fora from long-time Apple users who don't like things about the company's direction. Upset the Ipod/Iphone newbies, and Apple's computer market share would drop from the mid single-digits to the low single-digits faster than you can say "Power Computing" or "Gil Amelio".

Ticking people off just as Windows 7 is released is not a good strategy.

To be on-topic, I think that these ideas are most relevant to this topic.

If these actions "tarnish" the Apple image, they'll lose far more than any revenues associated with netbooks might be. Clichés like "Dead Right" and "Win the Battle, Lose the War" come to mind.

The "spiteful pettiness" that this shows is not the way to convince more switchers - it could easily backfire.

In public relations, "being right" is not as valuable as the perception of "being good".

 

[Amdahl]

Wow. You completely ignored what I wrote. The installation of a computer program can possibly result in an exact copy. The installation of OS X does not result in an exact copy of what is on the DVD.

Yet it also doesn't result in an adaptation. So you are claiming a third type of legal copy, unnamed, and which is not excluded by 117(b), except by implication of third meanings existence, when they were perfectly capable of naming and excluding copies they intended to exclude: adaptations. You're inventing meaning.

There is no third meaning; there are two, and it will come down to which of the two the court thinks Psystar has created.

Archival copies would qualify under 117(b) if they are exact copies. Installed copies created under 117(a)(1) would qualify under 117(b) only if they are exact copies.

No, they(archival) don't qualify at all for transfer under 117(b) because they must be destroyed at the end of your rightful possession.

 

[Bubba Satori]

We can't compete.

 

[BaldiMac]

Yet it also doesn't result in an adaptation. So you are claiming a third type of legal copy, unnamed, and which is not excluded by 117(b), when they were perfectly capable of naming and excluding copies they intended to exclude: adaptations. You're inventing meaning.

There is no third meaning; there are two, and it will come down to which of the two the court thinks Psystar has created.

There are three terms. Copy. Exact Copy. Adaptation. Psystar's installation results in a copy or an adaptation. It does not result in an exact copy.

No, they don't qualify at all for transfer under 117(b) because they must be destroyed at the end of your rightful possession.

Except that 117(b) expressly permits the transfer of your rights to a third-party.

 

[Amdahl]

There are three terms. Copy. Exact Copy. Adaptation. Psystar's installation results in a copy or an adaptation. It does not result in an exact copy.

No point in further argument. I disagree, because the law has specifically protected copies made in normal utilization, it has categorized them as separate from adaptations, and your interpretation would damage the intent of of protecting normal operation in 117(a)(1) when it is time to sell the software and transfer it to the new user. They made clear archival copies are not to be transferred, by ordering them destroyed at the end of the rights to possession. If they intended the same for anything which BaldiMac deems not an 'exact copy,' they would have said so.

You are inventing meaning where none is present, and where it is clear Congress knew how to say what they intended in clear language.

Except that 117(b) expressly permits the transfer of your rights to a third-party.

No, it permits the transfer of your copies which are not adaptations or archival copies, not speaking to the rights themselves. The archival copies are only permitted to be made provided that they are destroyed when you cease to have rights to the software. If there was an exception in 117(b) to destroying the archival copies, they would have said so in 117(a)(2) with "except as provided in this section."

 

[cmaier]

So I hear. My disagreement is with the idea of selling something in a retail store, where UCC applies, and then try to claim it isn't a UCC sale with Copyright law rights, and a license contract applies when you get home. If they want a license, get a signature on a contract. Visa/Mastercard do it every day. Websites can do it with an Agree button.

But then, of course, you understand that the UCC applies to the media, not to the intellectual property. Like it or not, copyright permits the copyright holder exclusive rights to the intellectual property, and the copyright holder can choose to license some or all of those rights. Like it or not, software is copyrightable material. Personally, I think it shouldn't be, any more than a specially-cut cog in an industrial era machine is copyrightable. Unfortunately, we are where we are.

 

[pdjudd]

But then, of course, you understand that the UCC applies to the media, not to the intellectual property.

That's what my point was. Amazon's involvement covers the disc. They are not part of the contract phase that involves the EULA. Resellers aren't part of that unless they are names. Apple's SLA never talks about the reseller because they are irrelevant parties.

 

[Amdahl]

But then, of course, you understand that the UCC applies to the media, not to the intellectual property. Like it or not, copyright permits the copyright holder exclusive rights to the intellectual property, and the copyright holder can choose to license some or all of those rights. Like it or not, software is copyrightable material. Personally, I think it shouldn't be, any more than a specially-cut cog in an industrial era machine is copyrightable. Unfortunately, we are where we are.

UCC law applies to the media, and Copyright law gives me rights to the the intellectual property content on the media. I think that is what you are missing.(I have rights under Copyright law, not just Apple.)

Each exists without the presence of a license contract between the buyer and Apple Inc. The license contract attempts to take away rights I would have had under UCC and Copyright law. Usually, it takes a signed waiver to give up rights. You would have us believe that I lose my rights over a contract that is not shown at the checkout stand, and which I haven't signed.

 

[BaldiMac]

No point in further argument. I disagree, because the law has specifically protected copies made in normal utilization, it has categorized them as separate from adaptations, and your interpretation would damage the intent of of protecting normal operation in 117(a)(1) when it is time to sell the software and transfer it to the new user. They made clear archival copies are not to be transferred, by ordering them destroyed at the end of the rights to possession. If they intended the same for anything which BaldiMac deems not an 'exact copy,' they would have said so.

You are inventing meaning where none is present, and where it is clear Congress knew how to say what they intended in clear language.

You are the one inventing meaning. "Exact copy" is very clear and unambiguous. Your only argument is that the word "exact" is extraneous! Did they included it in one and only one paragraph of the section for fun?

No, it permits the transfer of your copies which are not adaptations or archival copies, not speaking to the rights themselves.

It permits the transfer of the copies with the transfer of the rights.

"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."

 

[cmaier]

UCC law applies to the media, and Copyright law gives me rights to the the intellectual property content on the media. I think that is what you are missing.(I have rights under Copyright law, not just Apple.)

Each exists without the presence of a license contract between the buyer and Apple Inc. The license contract attempts to take away rights I would have had under UCC and Copyright law. Usually, it takes a signed waiver to give up rights. You would have us believe that I lose my rights over a contract that is not shown at the checkout stand, and which I haven't signed.

Your only rights are the rights Apple gives you. 17 USC 106 - Apple has the exclusive rights to the IP. You have absolutely no rights until Apple gives you SOME rights. (ignoring fair use - it clearly doesn't apply in this situation)

Once you have SOME rights, you may have other rights, even rights not intended by Apple. But until you have SOME rights, you have nothing. And, here's the point - the only way to have SOME rights is via the EULA. If you violate the EULA you have no rights via the EULA, and thus no other rights (for example, the right to back up the media by making a copy).

PS: I refer only to U.S. law. Other countries may vary.

 

[BaldiMac]

Your only rights are the rights Apple gives you. 17 USC 106 - Apple has the exclusive rights to the IP. You have absolutely no rights until Apple gives you SOME rights. (ignoring fair use - it clearly doesn't apply in this situation)

Once you have SOME rights, you may have other rights, even rights not intended by Apple. But until you have SOME rights, you have nothing. And, here's the point - the only way to have SOME rights is via the EULA. If you violate the EULA you have no rights via the EULA, and thus no other rights (for example, the right to back up the media by making a copy).

PS: I refer only to U.S. law. Other countries may vary.

There are many limitations to exclusive rights other than Fair Use. Particularly, 17 USC 117 which describes limitations specific to computer programs.

 

[Amdahl]

You are the one inventing meaning. "Exact copy" is very clear and unambiguous. Your only argument is that the word "exact" is extraneous! Did they included it in one and only one paragraph of the section for fun?

I say they did include it mistakenly. It happens. Why do you think there is so much concern about 1,990 page Health care Bill that no one has read? The word 'exact' doesn't appear anywhere else in the entire Copyright Code! How is anyone to know the difference between a Copy and an Exact Copy, when Copyright has never cared whether something is Exact or not?

It should have either had some meaning given to it, some comparative quality to a mere 'copy,' or it was extraneous.

It permits the transfer of the copies with the transfer of the rights.

Maybe we're arguing a circle on this one. 109(a) gives you the right to sell your right to the original copy and all the uses you are allowed of it.

117(b) is telling you what additional copies you have made, under the permission of 117, can also be transferred when you transfer your rights. Section 109(a):

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 109(a), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.

(ignoring fair use - it clearly doesn't apply in this situation)

It does apply. It is the basis for Sega losing the Sega v. Accolade lawsuit.

Separately, 109(b)(1)(B) says that video games and embedded software systems are exempt from prohibitions on rentals of computer software. So that is why you can legally rent video game software, but nobody rents out computer software.

 

[wackymacky]

Apple are getting twitchy about it eating in to their profit for the tablet no doubt.

Can see no other reason for it as they have 'allowed/ ignored' it for so long.

This is bad news for me as I was thinking of buying a small netbook and installing OSX.

I don't buy this argument. the iSlate or iTablet or what ever will be a high end product not a cheep and nasty knock of netbook.

I suspect it's more about Apple trying to preserve the image of OSX as a high end product as well.

Good on them as far as I'm concerned. If you don't want to run windows and don't want to pay for OSX then get a free open source OS and stop complaining.

 

[gnasher729]

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?

First, it is quite common that a contract is formed without anything written and without the parties even knowing who they are dealing with. I go the the next shop and hand over some money for a newspaper: I just entered into a sales contract with a shop owner who is completely unknown to me, and the shop owner (or whoever is the legally responsible person) has entered into a sales contract with me.

The contract is entered when both sides have presented what they want, agreed on the terms, and done the necessary step to turn that agreement into a contract. In the case of the newspaper, the shop owner wants to sell newspapers for money, I want to buy a newspaper for money, we agree (the shopkeeper shows agreement by putting the newspaper with a price tag on his shelves, I show agreement by handing over the money), and the exchange of money closes the deal.

In the case of MacOS X, Apple wants to sell you a DVD and the right to use the software under its license terms. You want to install MacOS X on a computer, most likely a Mac, but perhaps some other computers. Both sides show some intent to enter into a contract by the fact that you walk away with a box, but Apple hasn't yet accepted the contract, and neither have you. Apple wants you to accept a license first, which you haven't even seen yet, so clearly there is no contract yet. You may not have noticed that Apple wants you to accept the license, but that doesn't change the fact (this is legally fine unless a company tries to sneak in terms in a way that you don't notice; you can't really miss Apple's license because the installer will display it).

At some point you are presented with the license. At that point you have a few choices. You can disagree with the license, and that means there is no contract. You and Apple should work together to undo the effect of the actions that already happened: You should return the software, Apple should refund the money. Or you can agree with the license, "tangible consent" is created when you click on an "I agree" button and the software is installed. Or you can decide that you want different contract terms. You can contact Apple and ask for a license that allows installation on your netbook. You might offer more money for such a license. I suspect Apple will reject your offer, so no contract will be entered.

But anyway, a contract is entered without Apple knowing who you are, and without Apple having anything in writing that you entered the contract. That should be fine; you know who Apple is, and you have the contract terms in writing, so if there was a legal argument you could always prove the terms of the contract. Apple might not be able to proof that you entered the contract, but they seem to be fine with that (either there was no contract, in which case you didn't have the right to install their software anywhere, or there was a contract, and you only had the right to install the software according to the license).

So assuming that Apple does not accept any offers for a different contract, there is indeed a valid contract if you paid for the software and accepted Apple's license, even though there is no signed contract and Apple doesn't even know who you are. There is nothing unusual about that.

Now think what would be the alternative: Do you think Apple should show you the license terms and sign a contract when you buy MacOS X? What is better for you as a customer: Having to read the license in a crowded Apple Store, with your wife pointing to her watch, putting you under pressure to make your decision quicker, or you don't have your reading glasses with you, so you have to come back later, or being able to read the license later at your home, where you can take as much time as you like to examine it, no sales people in your neck? All this "show me the license and make me sign a contract" is really nice for having an argument on the Internet, but in practice it would be just a major pain in the behind.

UCC law applies to the media, and Copyright law gives me rights to the the intellectual property content on the media. I think that is what you are missing.(I have rights under Copyright law, not just Apple.)

Each exists without the presence of a license contract between the buyer and Apple Inc. The license contract attempts to take away rights I would have had under UCC and Copyright law. Usually, it takes a signed waiver to give up rights. You would have us believe that I lose my rights over a contract that is not shown at the checkout stand, and which I haven't signed.

You don't have any rights to anything until you enter into some contract with Apple. You will then have exactly the rights that the contract gives you. You _want_ a contract that says (I'm assuming) "I hand over cash to Apple, Apple gives me a DVD with MacOS X, and the right to install the software on a computer of my choice, and some reasonable additional rights like making a backup and loading the software into RAM to execute it". Unfortunately for you, that is not a contract that Apple is willing to accept. They offer a contract that you don't like. You can accept, decline, or make a different offer. If you accept the contract offer, you don't get all the rights that you wanted, but you don't lose any rights, because without the contract, you had no rights at all.

It doesn't matter that you didn't know the exact terms of the contract at the checkout stand, because nobody asked you to accept the contract at that point, and you didn't enter into a contract at that point. At the point you enter the contract, you know the terms (or you were too lazy or too trusting to read them). You enter the contract. The fact that you don't sign anything means you may be able to deny entering the contract if you feel that is beneficial for you.

And the signature under a contract doesn't make the contract more valid (except when you have a contract that says "only valid if both parties signed here"), it only means that it is easier for the sides to _prove_ that a contract was entered. If Apple said "you owe us your first-born child because the MacOS X license says so", you could just turn around and tell them that they cannot prove that there is any contract between you because you signed nothing. If Apple said "you were infringing on our copyrights by using the software without accepting the license" you can just turn around and tell them they cannot prove that you didn't enter the contract by accepting the license, because they didn't ask for a signature.

Obviously, without a contract you don't have any rights to the software at all.

 

[cmaier]

There are many limitations to exclusive rights other than Fair Use. Particularly, 17 USC 117 which describes limitations specific to computer programs.

Again, 17 USC 117 is merely a limitation on exclusive rights. It doesn't give anyone any rights unless they first have SOME rights. You can't walk into Fry's, steal a copy of the disc, and then make a bunch of copies and claim 17 USC 117 permits it.

Like I said, there are various statutes and judicial case law that permits a person who was already granted SOME rights by the exclusive right holder to do things the exclusive right holder doesn't want them to do. But there is nothing (other than fair use in some situations) that gives someone NOT granted ANY rights by the copyright holder ANY rights.

 

[Amdahl]

First, it is quite common that a contract is formed without anything written and without the parties even knowing who they are dealing with. I go the the next shop and hand over some money for a newspaper: I just entered into a sales contract with a shop owner who is completely unknown to me, and the shop owner (or whoever is the legally responsible person) has entered into a sales contract with me.

You are describing the Uniform Commercial Code, exactly what I think Apple is dodging with this 'licensing' rubbish.

Both sides show some intent to enter into a contract by the fact that you walk away with a box, but Apple hasn't yet accepted the contract, and neither have you.

Under UCC, the sale, and the implied contract, has already happened at this point.

Apple wants you to accept a license first, which you haven't even seen yet, so clearly there is no contract yet.

By letting the UCC sale complete, Apple has lost the opportunity to negotiate another contract.

You may not have noticed that Apple wants you to accept the license, but that doesn't change the fact (this is legally fine unless a company tries to sneak in terms in a way that you don't notice; you can't really miss Apple's license because the installer will display it).

Apple may not have noticed that a sale has already occurred under UCC.

At some point you are presented with the license.

Under UCC, the time to spring a contract is before the sale is completed, not after.

Now think what would be the alternative: Do you think Apple should show you the license terms and sign a contract when you buy MacOS X?

Yes.

What is better for you as a customer: Having to read the license in a crowded Apple Store, with your wife pointing to her watch, ...

Hence the UCC. If the UCC terms aren't good enough for Apple, then yes, they have to go with a contract. Just like a car rental agreement, a credit card sales slip, etc.

You don't have any rights to anything until you enter into some contract with Apple.

Buying the disc under UCC and Copyright law give you the rights.

And the signature under a contract doesn't make the contract more valid (except when you have a contract that says "only valid if both parties signed here"), it only means that it is easier for the sides to _prove_ that a contract was entered.

A contract also requires 'consideration,' i.e., a payment or exchange of one thing of value for the other. That happened the checkout stand under UCC. Apple then wants to add a second, overriding contract, but offers nothing of value that you don't already own and have rights to.