Must be why just about anything you buy from Apple comes with a couple of them, then...
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
Must be why just about anything you buy from Apple comes with a couple of them, then...
Did I say copyright infringment, no. And since this thread applies to selling a product commercially, I didn't really feel the need to make that distinction. I have a sticker on my car, does that make it an Apple iCar?
Trademark infringement: the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods.
Haha, you're right: You didn't say "copyright", but rather "trademark". The part that mattered, though, were the "infringement", so it's just as nonsensical as before.
I rest my case.
The fact that you even have to point out trademark infringement in the first place shows that some people in this thread need to have every distinction pointed out to them.
If Psystar slapped one of the stickers that came with Leopard on each case in order to meet the "Apple-labeled" requirement of the EULA, it would be trademark infringement. Which is where the conversation was going, I guess I jumped ahead and tried to cut that train of thought off, apparently it didn't work.
Yes, IF it could be misconstrued as "endorsement" or "approval". But let's say they simply went "this computer is not endorsed or approved by Apple Inc".
To the average person, it would cause confusion, which is the most important part.
lol, so saying something is NOT endorsed or approved causes confusion to "the average" person?
Man, if that's the intellectual capacity of the average person, I'd hate to think what the lower fifty percentile are like.
lol, so saying something is NOT endorsed or approved causes confusion to "the average" person?
Man, if that's the intellectual capacity of the average person, I'd hate to think what the lower fifty percentile are like.
Yep, people already complain enough when Apple's updates cause HW and SW to stop working.
Add another level to computers Apple isn't testing with and another batch of people may get angry.
Right now the number of people is small, but if Apple lets this go and a Chinese company tries this -- there might be 5 million people mad at Apple for a SW update destroying their data.
lol, so saying something is NOT endorsed or approved causes confusion to "the average" person?
Man, if that's the intellectual capacity of the average person, I'd hate to think what the lower fifty percentile are like.
Shall I help you out with an example?
So, for example, the use of an identical mark on the same product would clearly constitute infringement. If I manufacture and sell computers using the mark "Apple," my use of that mark will likely cause confusion among consumers, since they may be misled into thinking that the computers are made by Apple Computer, Inc. Using a very similar mark on the same product may also give rise to a claim of infringement, if the marks are close enough in sound, appearance, or meaning so as to cause confusion. So, for example, "Applet" computers may be off-limits; perhaps also "Apricot." On the other end of the spectrum, using the same term on a completely unrelated product will not likely give rise to an infringement claim. Thus, Apple Computer and Apple Records can peacefully co-exist, since consumers are not likely to think that the computers are being made by the record company, or vice versa.
Between the two ends of the spectrum lie many close cases, in which the courts will apply the factors listed above. So, for example, where the marks are similar and the products are also similar, it will be difficult to determine whether consumer confusion is likely. In one case, the owners of the mark "Slickcraft" used the mark in connection with the sale of boats used for general family recreation. They brought an infringement action against a company that used the mark "Sleekcraft" in connection with the sale of high-speed performance boats. Because the two types of boats served substantially different markets, the court concluded that the products were related but not identical. However, after examining many of the factors listed above, the court concluded that the use of Sleekcraft was likely to cause confusion among consumers. AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979).
Source: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
That's true. Psystar knows that and was looking to capitalize on it. Apple should take this as a sign to fill that hole in their product line. It's annoyed me for quite a while too. And no- an iMac won't do.
Very true, but I wasn't talking about using the actual icon when I wrote "This product is not endorsed nor approved by Apple Inc".
Heh, funny you should mention Apple Records and Apple computers "peacefully coexisting," because they didn't for very long time.
Yes, and you're implying that a disclaimer wherein Apple's name is part will in itself be confusing to "the average" person.
The 1.6 was later reduced to $1,799
they also had
G4/1.0 GHz 256/60/Combo/GeForce4x introduced 2003.01.28 at $1,499; reduced to $1,149 on 2003.06.23
G4/1.25 GHz dual 256/80/Combo/Radeon 9000 introduced 2003.01.28 at $1,999; reduced to $1,699 on 2003.06.23
as well as the
1.25 GHz 256/80/Combo introduced 2003.06.23 at $1,299, 1.25 GHz dual 256/80/Combo introduced 2003.06.23 at $1,599
They had a $1300 tower now they want $1000 more for a tower with slots and a real video card.
The imacs do not have a good screen for pro work. The older imacs did.
The mini may be a ok system for pro work it is hardware was not so out of date for it's cost.
But the original conversation was about the Apple stickers ...
I didn't come up with the example, check my source link.
I'm not implying anything, that is what the link says. Are you saying that just because the is a disclaimer, they are free to use the Apple name and logo to promote their products?
True, but the reason those stickers came into the discussion was because you made a blanket statement.
There is nothing wrong with your example.
No, I'm saying that you take it as a given, that someone would put, say, a huge Apple on the lid of laptop, which is not at all what I'm saying.
I'm saying that since you can install OS X on a laptop not designed by Apple, the "disclaimer" which "confuses" people could stand on it's own, and certainly not what you're inferring that I'm somehow thinking that they could use a big apple on the lid, or otherwise pretend they're an Apple designed laptop.
That last part is where your example (no matter you didn't wrote it) doesn't pertain to this made-up situation. It's not the example that doesn't work, it's you making it fit this thought up situation.
It may have looked like a blanket statement only because I hit reply instead of quote. Here is the statement above my reply was intended for, which does say to put a sticker on something.
And suddenly it makes a whole lot of sense.
Well, that was twenty minutes almost wasted
The biggest problem is if you want multiple screens, and especially if those screens "need" to be third party (eg: certified for some special type of use). Multiple monitors have been seeing rapid uptake over the last few years - about the only employees in our offices who don't have at least two screens attached to their primary computer are the receptionists (and I personally haven't had a workstation without multiple screens for a decade).
So, we have this problem with Radiologists who work with multiple screens rotated into portrait mode. While they only need as much "grunt" as an iMac (or probably even a Mac Mini), the iMac (or Mini) is obviously unsuitable for the other requirements - instead we need to get them Mac Pros. To add insult to injury, Apple's Nvidia drivers can't do screen rotation, so we then need to add in a needless and expensive ATI video card upgrade (this latter situation may have changed, haven't looked at what the default video card is for a while because we haven't bought any for a while).
That's pretty much exactly what I said.
I disagree. The majority of the whining has come from recent switchers who are wedded to the concept of cheapish towers. Do I agree with them? Generally, yes. I owned a G3 iMac and it soured me on the concept of the all-in-one, for my uses. My next Mac will be a Pro, despite the expense.
But the fact that Apple has a percieved "gaping hole" in the product line doesn't give anyone the right to create unauthorized clones. And just because the OS X retail box doesn't say "Upgrade Only" in huge letters or employs onerous authentication processes to ensure you don't install on a hackintosh doesn't mean it's OK to do so.
I'm 100% confidant the court will see it this way, whatever your views on copyright laws are.
Apple could design a mid-priced mid tower to perfectly fill the "gaping hole", and then put out ads taunting people about how they were never intending to sell it. And that would still give you exactly zero right to set up a business selling clones. In other words, the "gaping hole" counts for nothing.
Sorry, I thought you were emphasising a wider range of vendors to choose hardware from, rather than greater configurability from a single vendor.
Of that I also have little doubt. Doesn't mean I have to like it though
.That sort of thing might add some weight to the "monopoly" long-shot.
You have a point there....
Now that you mention it. It is an update of Mac OS 10.0. We are going from 10.0 to 10.5 therefore an update. Now if we where going from 10.0 to 11.0 that wouldn't be an update. It would be updated software but not an update.
Hugh
Now that you mention it. It is an update of Mac OS 10.0. We are going from 10.0 to 10.5 therefore an update. Now if we where going from 10.0 to 11.0 that wouldn't be an update. It would be updated software but not an update.
Hugh
I think it's completely on point.
I interpret section 117 as meaning that you don't need Apple's permission to run the software on any particular machine - that, as I stated, the copyright holder's exclusive rights do not include the ability to restrict the owner of a copy of a piece of software from taking the steps of duplication and modification necessary to install and run that software on any particular machine at all.
You don't *need* to agree to Apple's EULA, and you can still lawfully take those steps, and therefore any software which requires you to agree to an EULA which would prevent you from taking those steps on the computer of your choice is unlawfully restrictive.
FYI, right now I'm pretty much convinced that Psystar is screwed because they have been accused of much more than this - such as distribution of unauthorized duplications of Apple's downloadable software updates. I'm just speculating that an end user building up their own hackintosh for private use probably wouldn't be a likely target of Apple's wrath.
The thing to remember about section 117 is that it was written to exempt computer users from some of the provisions enacted in section 106 of the 1976 copyright act. Section 106 gave the exclusive rights to reproduce and create derivative works to the copyright holder. 117 is a way of extending and clarifying the fair use clauses as they apply to computer software. It is mostly concerned with the end users ability to continue using the software they've purchased.
There's a really good treatment of the adaptation clause of 117 here.
Section 117 is pretty terse and congress never bothered to define what they meant by 'adaptation' or clarify the phrase 'an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner', so the courts have relied on the CONTU report, a study commissioned by congress on the subject.
One big clue as to how the courts interpret 117 is the quote from CONTU in the 2nd circuits decision of krause v titleserv:
Titleserv had hired krause to write a program to track the status of client requests, there was a falling out after it was done and kraus maintained that Titleserv could continue to use the program but not make any alterations to the source.
The court found that bugfixes, updates to allow the program to run on newer hardware and integrating it into their Windows systems didn't violate kraus's copyright because that was within the original intent of the program and that it did not do harm to kraus's interests.
The way I interpret that is the court really focuses on the original intention of the copyright holder when the program was created/sold.
In relation to the psystar case, Apple has always been very clear that they make OSX to sell their hardware, that's its entire purpose and it would be hard for psystar to claim it didn't know that.
The link above has a lot more info on 117 and it's interpretations, I'd be interested to hear others thoughts on it.
Take your time, this case is gonna drag on for years
Looks like a second cloner is setting up shop: Open Tech.
Unlike Psystar, they support Windows and Linux, as well, and do not appear to offer the OS as part of the sale - you add it yourself afterwards.
Engadget doesn't think too highly of them, nor their chances of not being sued by Apple on many of the same grounds they are going after Psystar.
Unlike Psystar, they support Windows and Linux, as well, and do not appear to offer the OS as part of the sale - you add it yourself afterwards.
Engadget doesn't think too highly of them, nor their chances of not being sued by Apple on many of the same grounds they are going after Psystar.