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.
Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually, the plural of "fanboy" as you've spelled it would be "fanboys" without the apostrophe.
I hope you aren't offended by my correction of your incorrect reference either. Also, both spellings are in fact correct:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fanboi
Not in the Apple context. Also since my reference was not part of a legal proceeding my typo was acceptable
I am impressed that you linked a reference to substantiate your point however
That's because you're not a big-time lawyer I'm guessing. Who even said this was a criminal matter?
The problem is no lawyers have commented on this one, we've just had assumptions from the media that it's all EULA-based and Apple was failing because it didn't think it could uphold its EULA. Fact: the day after this machine was being sold Apple asked for a court hearing.
I'm sure that Apple's lawyers (who are probably paid many millions of dollars) can put a lid on a bunch of punks who tried to sell Mac clones with modified versions of OS X out of their garage.
Disclaimer: Okay maybe not the case I have no idea how big the company is or where/how they produce their stuff, but it's safe to assume they're tiny compared to Apple and have not been raking in millions. I also don't know whether they are punks; it is likely that they do not conform with punk culture/music.
So a book I marked up with notes and a highlighter can't be sold?
Do you know how absurd you sound?
What's the difference? Because it's being sold for profit?
So, are you saying that if I, an individual, install a legally purchased copy of OS X on a hackintosh computer, then I should not be legally allowed to sell it on eBay or in my local classifieds? If you think I shouldn't be allowed to do that, then you're effectively giving a corporation, Apple, control over my private property.
Really? They play music before every concert I've ever been to, and I've never seen anyone sued (or won) more money than I'll ever make in my lifetime.
I have, however, seen small places like coffee shops get threatening letters from licensing agencies (SESAC, ASCAP, BMI...) that force them to pay fees in order to have the right to play music in their store. Concert venues small and large most likely already pay these sorts of fees.
Absurd?So a book I marked up with notes and a highlighter can't be sold?
Do you know how absurd you sound?
Comment, note, mark up? Yes.
Change the original work to make it sound/read/end/work the way you want it to? And then sell it? No. You STILL can't do that.
The incompetence of Spindler and Amelio did great damage to the companies. If they wouldn't have existed, a lot of users may have left an utterly clueless Apple.
Really? They play music before every concert I've ever been to, and I've never seen anyone sued (or won) more money than I'll ever make in my lifetime.
But you dont know that they haven't licensed that music for that purpose, which I'm pretty sure they have. Since it is all probably owned by the record company(ies) that are hosting the concert.
Per Apples license you cannot install OS X on a non-Apple computer. Whether you sell it or keep it for your own personal use it's still illegal.
Apples case will decide if the EULA will be upheld, if it is not you can expect Apple to return to hardware to keep clones out of its business.
I looked at the pdf and it does seem to be aimed toward EULA issue in one of the claims, but ....
Like most of the other piracy and 10 licenses and 100 install cases.
This might hold up as well as those, since they are unathorized to install the OS as a manufacturer or "modify" the OS to work on their computer.
In line (21) they have the get out of EULA trouble by simply stating they never authorized Psystar to install, use, or sell the Mac OS on any non-Apple-labeled computer.
Might work ... along with hurting Apple's trade dress, and improper use of their trademarks.
Any of the 10 claims could cripple and take down Psystar, even if Apple dumps the licensing claim.
Edit: Sort of like the inducement to breach claim.
Not quite true, you can buy a copy of "Gone with the Wind" and alter it and resell it if you like
"Frankly my dear, I do kind of sort of maybe give a damn, but my memory isn't good so I will probably forget this episode by morning"
LOL,
I think one thing some of the pro cloners are missing is apples aggressive pricing structure on some of their applications would have to change overnight if they lost this case.
Take for example a film editor or studio owner who wanted to cheap out on a clone, they would then have access to apples pro apps which are sold cheaply (considering what you get and the competition), and as reasons to buy a mac in the first place. I think we'd see Logic and Finalcut (not to mention Apeture, iLife and iWork) steadily increase in price.
I'd rather spend a hefty price on tightly integrated H/W and S/W and get my Logic fix cheap than by a POS clone and have to spend more on software.
There are three choices actually.
A) Buy inadequate hardware (iMac or Mini) that fits your budget with superior operating system from Apple.
B) Buy MacPro that comes far beyond needs and budget.
C) Buy adequate hardware from other vendor but be sidelined with inadequate operating system (windows).
The perfect solution no longer exists.
as a note, the EULA is not the only thing Apple is contesting in this lawsuit. thanks to an above post with the entire case PDF, most of apple's contentions deal with copyright infringement, i.e. Psystar selling software with apple's trademarks, such as Apple (and the logo), Leopard, and Mac. because Psystar sold products bearing these names, it infringed Apple's copyrights. even if the EULA doesn't stand up in court, these things will. I'm no lawyer, or trying to be one, bu this is plain copyright infringement.
What if I rip out the last few pages and write my own ending on the back cover? Isn't that legal?
I think if Apple's 7% of the market suddenly became 28% of the market, they'd be more than happy to see their sales of Final Cut and Logic increase 400% without a price increase.
What if I rip out the last few pages and write my own ending on the back cover? Isn't that legal?
Now who's being absurd?
What if I rip out the last few pages and write my own ending on the back cover? Isn't that legal?
It still has the author's name on the cover, not yours. I don't know how illegal that would be, but I'd sure be pissed off if I got to the end of the book and some jerkoff replaced the ending with his own
Not even if you just rent it.
This is the difference between CleanFlicks and ClearPlay, both approaches to removing "foul" content from DVDs.
Hardware to modify playback without modifying the content OK.
Modifying the content to remove objectionable material not OK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CleanFlicks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearPlay
What if I rip out the last few pages and write my own ending on the back cover? Isn't that legal?
See the CleanFlicks decision linked above. Legal precedent says no.
B
What if I rip out the last few pages and write my own ending on the back cover? Isn't that legal?
Remember, we are talking about more than one copy. Stop thinking of only one copy of something.
I think any one of this would rather give their money to Apple, but when they decide they don't want to take it, what do you do. Apple is a lifestyle device company now. Professional applications are no longer their focus.