Right. Thus, every iPhone jailbreaker is a pirate because once the phone is jailbroken the user is no long entitled to use the software because they've violated the SLA associated with the iPhone's software. They have a copy they are not entitled to; which is, as you say, copyright violation; which in turn is, as you say, piracy. Every iPhone jailbreaker is a pirate.
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 Wins Judgement Against Psystar for Mac OS X Copyright Infringement
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Right. Thus, every iPhone jailbreaker is a pirate because once the phone is jailbroken the user is no long entitled to use the software because they've violated the SLA associated with the iPhone's software. They have a copy they are not entitled to; which is, as you say, copyright violation; which in turn is, as you say, piracy. Every iPhone jailbreaker is a pirate.
That's not quite right. Xenon and Cell are both Power architecture chips. Xenon is based on the Cell research IBM did in fact. They probably share a big portion of their instruction sets.
I modified the post.
The one difference is that the individual jailbreaker doesn't then distribute the fruit from the poisoned tree. There is also a big difference between individuals knowingly breaking the rules (e.g. speeding or jaywalking) and making it your business plan, as I have said before.
i don't see Apple suing individual JBers or Hackintoshers, but if someone started selling large numbers of pre-JBed phones or Hackintoshes, expect the hammer to come down. Probably even some eBay sellers would be big enough to go after.
B
Because this is 2009. No one wants to have to install an OS on a new machine they bought. People going to OEMs for computers want to take the thing out of the box and use it. Plugging in a few wires is as complicated as you can make it.
If you want to claim that a few hobbyist people would have bought them to get a Hackintosh, then I'll say this : Very few people want and have a hackintosh. Of those few people, very few of them would buy from an OEM rather than build it themselves from parts bought off tiger direct or newegg.
You see, the hackintosh by definition is for tinkerers. They like having to go through a HCL, picking and choosing parts, building the box and then installing the software on it. Why would they buy a beige box from Psystar and only have to install OS X on it ? That ruins half the fun.
Rebel EFI is a stolen product. They have taken some of the OSX86 community's GPL'd code, packaged it and renamed it and are now selling it without respecting the GPL license.
I think we can all see a pattern here. Psystar doesn't like licenses and thinks they don't apply to them.
Actually, that's not how the GPL works. The GPL doesn't care about EULAs or their status or if they are deemed void because the GPL is not a EULA. EULAs are there to define extra restrictions placed on top of copyright law. They can and usually limit usage rights of the end-user. OEMs distribute copies using a OEM licensing agreement and the EULA doesn't apply to them.
GPL code is a distribution license (like the OEM licensing agreements). It doesn't restrict your usage of the work at all, essentially going with the "you bought it, do whatever with it" principle that many of the would-be hackintoshers think should be universal (with their inflated sense of entitlement). It does grant distribution rights though, above and beyond what copyright law permits, as long as you follow the rules it sets forth for granting those distribution rights.
No, I ignored your Zino posts because they were ridiculous garbage. Zino is not a competitor to the Mac Mini. Atom or AMD Atom-like CPUs don't rival or compete with Core2Duo. End of story.
And your Studio post was nothing but garbage. I told you exactly what I did to make it equivalent (it still wasn't), the base price I started with. You just splurted out "no, it ain't so". The studio hybrid is in dire need of a refresh, the Mac Mini trounces it on price and features and power.
You lost the argument in a very big way.
Apple is the most innovative company in the world. Other companies should try to be more innovative, not just copy Apple.
Does anyone know if Apple has any legal actions pending towards the makers of EFi-X? I also know EFi-X-USA was voluntarily shut down earlier this year, and I also know EFi-X won't boot Snow Leopard, but they played a very different game than Psystar.
QFT, even though I still find you to be an annoying, arrogant, self-admitted troll.
EDIT: Enough people must have bought Psystars for them to have lasted this long, unless they really are just a front for someone with deep pockets to get involved in litigation with Apple.
B
If I developed special software for machines I built, I don't think I'd want a competitor to be able to buy that software at low prices and then install it on his machines. All my work developing the software and supporting my customers could just be taken by someone else. Also, what about my obligations to people who bought my software and installed it on unsupported machines? If the competitor got enough traction, those people might then call my support centers? In other words, this competitor is taking all my hard work while minimizing his own cost.
QFT, even though I still find you to be an annoying, arrogant, self-admitted troll.
Except the part where I don't troll this forum
. You need to have the irony part of your brain checked for defects.(yes, incidentally, this post was a troll).
I didn't say there was a section Statement of Law. And I did quote the language upholding the EULA.
The judge clearly interprete the facts proffered by psystar ad irrelevant as a matter of law, because apple is permitted to draft the eula in the way it did. I gave you two actual quotes from the order.
Time have sure changed
When Apple sued Microsoft years ago the courts looked at it as yes there was copyright violation but they also looked at it as been something good for society, how times have changed, courts I would say now don't really care or look anymore more to see if its something that impacts society.
Let money and power be all we strive for from now on, long live Greed.
When Apple sued Microsoft years ago the courts looked at it as yes there was copyright violation but they also looked at it as been something good for society, how times have changed, courts I would say now don't really care or look anymore more to see if its something that impacts society.
Let money and power be all we strive for from now on, long live Greed.
This is not an argument, this is American insanity. But I'm sure that most Americans with that mindset would also find it okay if their water company would forbid them to cook pasta with their water or if Shell told them that they were only allowed to fuel British cars with Shell gas.
When Apple sued Microsoft years ago the courts looked at it as yes there was copyright violation but they also looked at it as been something good for society, how times have changed, courts I would say now don't really care or look anymore more to see if its something that impacts society.
Let money and power be all we strive for from now on, long live Greed.
You have no understanding of what happened in the "Look and Feel" lawsuit of the late 80s early 90s and this lawsuit if this is really what you think.
There is nothing in the law about "look and feel" and copyright doesn't apply to it. That's basically the decision in Apple vs Microsoft. This here is not a "look and feel" lawsuit, Psystar is not selling a product that "looks and feel" like OS X, they are reselling OS X copies they have no right to.
Nothing about greed here, except to the uninformed Apple haters.
No. The box says that using the software requires agreement to licensing (or similar - I dont have a box) and refers you to Apple.com/legal
MS does the same thing on their packaging in essence simply because it is impractical to print the whole thing. The license is clearly and easily available without breaking a seal on the box by going to a simple website. Apples packaging even tells you exactly where and warns you that you have to agree to licensing.
That would be because as utility companies, they cannot dictate unrelated terms of usage to those products and also that water is not a product you can license - there is no ownership. The utility companies charge for access, not for the product itself. OSX on the other hand is owned intellectual property that requires harder to operate. The comparisons are miles apart.
WTF r u talking about? MS is a software company. They make their money from selling software for other peoples hardware. Apple is a HARDWARE company they make money from selling their hardware. The software the create is to support their hardware sales. Also MS doesn't support Apples hardware directly or many other platforms, so the comparison is dubious at best. The funny part is no one seems to remember, Apple fell pray to this idea of yours before. Then clones destroyed Apples sales by competing directly with them, offering poor quality products that still reflected poorly on Apple because they were known for hardware and the nearly went out of business. If Steve had not immediately killed this program when he returned. You would not be making this statement because you would have not option to buy Apple products. They would be gone!
Doing what is legal isn't always what is nice for the general public. Sure if Psystar won we will be able to choose a nice range of OS X installed PC's however... It invalidates allowing people to choose what to do with their own product. Apple in the past tried licensing their OS to 3rd party company, in order to attempt to follow Microsofts model. This almost killed Apple. So if Psystar won Apple could be in a case of some serious hurting. As they will no longer be competing with mostly Dell and the PC manufactures they will be competing against Microsoft directly. For the most part Apple competition with Microsoft has been indirect. Sure they will make fun of their OS but only in an attempt to make other PC's seem inferior.
Some how I bet the GOV wouldn't let Microsoft lock their software to certain computers.
Why is it OK for Apple to be a Monopoly but not Microsoft?
Microsoft has already been sued for including certain software with their OS but Apple can include whatever they want with theirs.
Why is it OK for Apple to be a Monopoly but not Microsoft?
Microsoft has already been sued for including certain software with their OS but Apple can include whatever they want with theirs.
When Apple sued Microsoft years ago the courts looked at it as yes there was copyright violation but they also looked at it as been something good for society, how times have changed, courts I would say now don't really care or look anymore more to see if its something that impacts society.
Let money and power be all we strive for from now on, long live Greed.
There was one different element in that case. A licensing agreement. Apple foolishly licensed the look and feel elements of their OS to MS for Word. The problem came from it being a very poorly written license that failed to limit them by time or product, signed by Apple during Jobs absence and under a MS threat to end development on Word and other software. This is why Apple doesn't do these types of licenses at all any more. They have been screwed in the past by them. The smart road is to keep your rights to yourself, and fight anyone who tries to use your work for free.
This way the courts can't later come back and say that because they allowed it by non action the damage must be minimum and now there is a consumer expectation. If you want to see OS-X development come to a grinding halt, force Apple to support sales of other their competitors hardware.
Some will say, MS has to make their software accessible. The difference is MS doesn't make the computer. They make the underlying software that makes PC run. They used the fact that without them the manufactures who
sold these systems couldn't survive without them to keep them from supporting any competitors software on their own computer products. Threats of stop orders or increased pricing meant that MS could put them out of business at any moment for something as simple as installing a competing browser. Even though the other browser companies created the concept and MS had only just jumped in the market.
Anyone in SF read the article about the Psystar brothers?
A San Francisco paper (can't remember the name) had an excellent article about the brothers behind Psystar. Recounted their childhood and parents' lives, one brother went to college the other dropped out of HS but was insanely gifted at coding and such. Psystar really took off after one of the brothers was hit by drunk driver. The article kind of made me pull for these guys just from their personal story. Obviously I don't think they really had a leg to stand on for their argument, but their story reminded me of the Jobs/Wozniak hacking-beginning. I love Macs like everyone else (family's first computer was Apple IIGs) and would not have ever purchased a Psystar CPU but really enjoyed that story.
Anyone else read it?
A San Francisco paper (can't remember the name) had an excellent article about the brothers behind Psystar. Recounted their childhood and parents' lives, one brother went to college the other dropped out of HS but was insanely gifted at coding and such. Psystar really took off after one of the brothers was hit by drunk driver. The article kind of made me pull for these guys just from their personal story. Obviously I don't think they really had a leg to stand on for their argument, but their story reminded me of the Jobs/Wozniak hacking-beginning. I love Macs like everyone else (family's first computer was Apple IIGs) and would not have ever purchased a Psystar CPU but really enjoyed that story.
Anyone else read it?
Except that I believe Woz admitted what they were doing at the time was illegal and they never tried to commercialize what they were doing. They never got arrested for it either but they arent trying to convince the public that they were do-gooders or anything. What Woz did back then was very minor and he admits it.
Do not get stuck in the trap for rooting people for no reason because of tragedy. Its no excuse for breaking the law.
You won't get....
...killed. Just those who diagree. As for opening the OSX platform and follow the MS model. I think not. Apple is all about the user experience. I think to follow a model like MS would lead to the dissatisfaction lots of their consumers experience. You just have to look at Windows 7 and you can see the influence that Apple has had. To allow other companies to come in and make cheaper options cheapens the brand name and leads to issues with trying to resolve issues that arise. An example is the MS model where the consumer has to go to the manufacturer who then says no it's the software and so begins the cycle that's synonymous with this particular model.
I think it's the right judgement and do not disagree even though I'm not rolling in cash.
...killed. Just those who diagree. As for opening the OSX platform and follow the MS model. I think not. Apple is all about the user experience. I think to follow a model like MS would lead to the dissatisfaction lots of their consumers experience. You just have to look at Windows 7 and you can see the influence that Apple has had. To allow other companies to come in and make cheaper options cheapens the brand name and leads to issues with trying to resolve issues that arise. An example is the MS model where the consumer has to go to the manufacturer who then says no it's the software and so begins the cycle that's synonymous with this particular model.
I think it's the right judgement and do not disagree even though I'm not rolling in cash.
huh?
Courts do look at harm or benefit to society, and it is a built-in element to certain questions (e.g.: certain types of equitable questions such as injunctions), but the court in the "look and feel" case didn't use it for anything.