Obviously, he's not using a Mac he he...I disagree with the rampant misspelling of the word "judgment"
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
idiots
anyone should be able to go out and buy any software and install it on the machine of thier choice apple will go down one day again and it wiill be because of thier stupidity as someone who has an iphone a 27 inch imac i also have an hackintosh i built it i installed it i paid for the software i use it as i feel freedom to the people
anyone should be able to go out and buy any software and install it on the machine of thier choice apple will go down one day again and it wiill be because of thier stupidity as someone who has an iphone a 27 inch imac i also have an hackintosh i built it i installed it i paid for the software i use it as i feel freedom to the people
This is both a utilitarian argument, and an argument from consequence. As it turns out, I'm not a utilitarian and as such, I do not consider something justified because it is purported to have a favorable outcome.
And even if I was a utilitarian, there's absolutely no evidence to support that intellectual property rights are the only basis for people investing in research and development. As it turns out, Google invests billions of dollars in R&D and licenses out most of it's work under open source licenses (Google Chrome, Android, etc.). Red Hat, IBM, and Oracle invest hundreds of millions into the development of Linux, and yet claim no exclusive rights over their contributions.
So upon summary investigation of the veracity of your claim, we encounter poignant examples of billions of R&D dollars being spent without guarantee of intellectual property rights. Which means, not only do I reject utilitarianism as a basis for making government policy, but I also reject your argument from within a utilitarian framework, to boot.
Now you're begging the question, and appealing to emotion. "You don't think"? No. I don't. That's why I said what I said.
People who work on assembly lines at manufacturing plants put in lots of hard work too, but they do not and cannot claim any property rights over the output of their labor. So "hard work" is neither a necessary or sufficient condition for the establishment of property rights. Nor should it be.
No it isn't. The concept of intellectual property rights is enforced only by power of the state. In this sense, the paperwork is the principle justification. As I've already demonstrated, there's no natural, moral justification for the protection of intellectual property rights other than that applied in a utilitarian context, by the power of the state, acting as agents for those who wish to monopolize their ideas.
This is the most defensible point that can be made, and that it can be considered a contractual relationship between the content producer and the consumer, not to copy the book as a condition of sale. And perhaps it's appropriate to be able to take civil action against those who violate this contract. However, any such contract would have to govern third-parties, who have not voluntarily entered the contract. In this sense, intellectual property rights violate other property rights.
For example: a process patent can restrict a particular gold mining technique. So, if you own a gold mine, you can be prevented from employing someone else's patented technique for removing the gold you own, from the property you own. In this sense, intellectual property rights trump physical property rights, and since I consider physical property rights more important to human liberty, I am going to go out on a limb and proclaim that intellectual property is a limit on individual liberty, and therefore unlibertarian and unacceptable.
What specific philosophical principle are you invoking that gives a content producer the right to control what I do with my property? If we apply the principle of "hard work" than you need to accept that people working on assembly lines own part of what they make, and therefore should be able to project control over that, since that's what property rights are: the right to control the usage and disposal of a finite resource.
Idiots
Also, anyone should be able to go out and buy a Shift key and a Period key for their keyboard and install in on the machine of their choice.
Except for that pesky thing called Intellectual Property law . . . and punctuation.
Quite some manifesto. I invoke no "specific philosophical principle." I am simply telling you the law and the rationale behind it.
In no particular order:
1) the first to file paperwork is immaterial, despite your "The concept of intellectual property rights is enforced only by power of the state. In this sense, the paperwork is the principle justification. As I've already demonstrated, there's no natural, moral justification for the protection of intellectual property rights other than that applied in a utilitarian context, by the power of the state, acting as agents for those who wish to monopolize their ideas. "
The first to invent is all that matters in U.S. patent law. If I am first to invent, whether I file a patent or not, YOU cannot have a patent on my invention. Period. I don't have to file a single piece of paperwork.
2) "People who work on assembly lines at manufacturing plants put in lots of hard work too, but they do not and cannot claim any property rights over the output of their labor. So "hard work" is neither a necessary or sufficient condition for the establishment of property rights. Nor should it be. "
Wrong. If I create something in an assembly line, using my own materials and my own equipment, I would own it absent contractual relationship with my employer, or by act of law. Such laws and contractual relationships do exist. More importantly, however, I am not building things with my own capital. i supply only labor. Hence not all of the ingredients into the widget are mine, and I can certainly not claim full ownership of the widget. Of course this is all immaterial, but I couldn't just let you spew your babble unanswered.
3) " Red Hat, IBM, and Oracle invest hundreds of millions into the development of Linux, and yet claim no exclusive rights over their contributions. "
Nonsense. These companies have tons of patents, file tons of copyright applications, and tons of trademark applications, for lots of products (but not all of their products, of course). Do you think that when IBM sells a linux box it won't assert patents over other components of the box, aside from linux? The fact that companies give some of their intellectual property away doesn't change the fact that most companies can't afford to give all their intellectual property away. You cite IBM which, each year, files more patents than any other company in the world. Give me a break.
4) "For example: a process patent can restrict a particular gold mining technique. So, if you own a gold mine, you can be prevented from employing someone else's patented technique for removing the gold you own, from the property you own. In this sense, intellectual property rights trump physical property rights, and since I consider physical property rights more important to human liberty, I am going to go out on a limb and proclaim that intellectual property is a limit on individual liberty, and therefore unlibertarian and unacceptable."
More gibberish. The fact that something is a limit on indivudal liberty doesn't make it unlibertarian. And the fact that something is "unlibertarian" doesn't make it unacceptable. You can't go murdering people. Your individual liberty is therefore limited. The fact that you have physical property rights is equally "unlibertarian." You can't step on my front lawn or you've trespassed. Unacceptable by your argument.
And, in your example, you can't use MY patented technique for removing the gold, unless I let you. Pay me, and I'll let you. And if you don't want to pay me, go get someone else's technique. And if there are none ,think of your own. But don't free ride on my hard work.
Well, what is? I see a few possibilities:
1. Armed force. Apple sends a few guys to the Psystar offices and we see who is better armed. No wonder that Psystar tried to hide their address. Some people might not disagree with this solution.
2. DRM. Instead of the existing DRM, Apple could build something that is really, really hard to crack. Never mind that this adds costs which Apple will pass on to its legitimate customers. Never mind that you will have problems upgrading your hard drive or other parts of your computer. Never mind that it will be just a challenge for hackers to get around it.
3. Some different law. In Germany, what Psystar did would have fallen under "unfair competition" in the '80s, before copyright on software was introduced. Quite simple really: If Apple spent a billion dollar on writing MacOS X, and Psystar spent zero dollars, and Psystar uses MacOS X without paying Apple, that is unfair competition.
Any other ideas? I think copyright is very straightforward and very naturally: I wrote it, it was my time and my money that paid for it, so it's mine. You are free to write something very similar yourself, at your own expense of time and money. My copyright doesn't take away any of your rights: Anyone in the world is free to do exactly what they could have done if Apple had never written MacOS X.
Well, what is? I see a few possibilities:
1. Armed force. Apple sends a few guys to the Psystar offices and we see who is better armed. No wonder that Psystar tried to hide their address. Some people might not disagree with this solution.
2. DRM. Instead of the existing DRM, Apple could build something that is really, really hard to crack. Never mind that this adds costs which Apple will pass on to its legitimate customers. Never mind that you will have problems upgrading your hard drive or other parts of your computer. Never mind that it will be just a challenge for hackers to get around it.
3. Some different law. In Germany, what Apple did would have fallen under "unfair competition" in the '80s, before copyright on software was introduced. Quite simple really: If Apple spent a billion dollar on writing MacOS X, and Psystar spent zero dollars, and Psystar uses MacOS X without paying Apple, that is unfair competition.
Any other ideas? I think copyright is very straightforward and very naturally: I wrote it, it was my time and my money that paid for it, so it's mine. You are free to write something very similar yourself, at your own expense of time and money. My copyright doesn't take away any of your rights: Anyone in the world is free to do exactly what they could have done if Apple had never written MacOS X.
"I wrote it" is the trick. I didn't "write it" in the sense I write a book. I "engineered it." Copyright was designed to protect books and records, and things that have some non-zero marginal cost to copy. I drew my cogs on the sheet metal before I cut them out. Why is THAT not copyrightable? Because it's utilitarian and lacks the "creativity" required for copyright. Just like software. (Not that software isn't creative - my point is only that it is no more creative than when leonardo cut his cogs to make the automaton move around - one is copyrightable, one is not. Why?)
A new set of laws that states quite clearly what the user is allowed to do with software, and under what conditions those rights can be changed, would eliminate all of this confusion. No more questions of "is this a license or do I own it? Is the EULA valid or not? Can I crack the protection to install it on another device? Can I crack the protection to make a backup? can i crack the protection if the DRM doesn't work anymore because the supplier went out of business? can the provider terminate the license without cause? can i tie the software to hardware?"
I'm not saying protection isn't required - far from it. I'm saying we should stop trying to shoehorn it into a law intended for quite a different purpose.
But your argument is nothing more than an argumentum ad antiquitatem. (I note that you try to essentially dismiss my argument below on similar grounds, which I will refute below.)
The fact that something is codified in law does not make it right. The first to invent an idea being the one who holds exclusive patent was developed, not for the purpose of rewarding the inventor, but to encourage inventors to document their inventions, so the information would not die with them. That was quite simply Thomas Edison's motivation and the motivating force for the creation of the US Patent Office. It was never based on any principle of first-come/first-own. The temporary monopoly over the idea was an exchange for the publication of the idea, hence the public display of the patent, and the time limit on the patent itself.
Your justification is a completely different. It's actually an emotional one. It's a selfish argument, that says: if it's my idea: it's MINE and only MINE! But if you do any research, you'll come to realize very quickly, that Thomas Edison, in fact, did not endorse the concept of intellectual property for any such reasoning.
It seems people have subsequently come to this reasoning, in large part because of a hundred years of lobbying and "public education" on the part of the movie and record industry--specifically for copyright, not patents, but the general reasoning is applied to both.
And you admit that you are defending an arbitrary point of contention, not one built on any principle --in your opening sentence. So really, you are doing nothing but argue for the status quo, which isn't really an argument at all.
I don't think you read the last four words of my paragraph, but in any case you seem to miss the incongruity in your own logic. You used the "hard work" justification in your previous statements, but now reject it being applied in general. That's fine. But it just plays to the general theme that you're not applying logic, but just standing up for arbitrary principles that have no common justification.
You don't have any choice but to file patents. Red Hat, for example, must file patents defensively, so it can use it's patents as bargaining chips against other companies who might try to sue Red Hat for patent infringement.
It's called defensive patenting, and all companies are essentially forced to blackmail each other on a continuous basis, in order to avoid lawsuit anarchy.
Red Hat, for it's part, never uses it's patents unless someone comes after them for patent infringement. At which point, Red Hat will reach into it's bucket of patents, find someone that the suing company is infringing on, and use it to get them to back off.
But that just proves that the patent system is broken.
It's obvious why a libertarian cannot kill someone else, because individual rights are mutual and universal. The right to life precludes murder, self-consistently. But intellectual property rights are not self-consistent within a framework of liberty, because they are subject to the subjective enforcement of the state.
I can own materials to build a car, and therefore own my car. But if an idea pops into my head, do I own that idea? What if that idea pops into someone elses head on the other side of the planet independently? According to you, they are infringing on my property. But that's just nonsense. It's arbitrary, and it's morally dubious.
You're simply just asserting this right to own your idea. And you've essentially more or less said that you don't have to justify it. It's worth noting that most process patent infringements (do a little research) do not "free ride" on other people's hard work, but are rather accidental and unintended infringements.
If more than one person comes up with the same idea, independently, then how can that person be "free riding" on anything? They're riding on their own evolutionary work.
Patents have now reached the point of going against what Thomas Edison was trying to foster. Today, companies have to fret with lawyers that any and every new feature they add to their application may violate any one of the millions of software patents. And that's just stupid.
RE: "Originally Posted by gnasher729
I asked you before and I ask you again: What are you ranting on about? Unless you are a Psystar employee and the "we" in "we're all criminals" means you and your colleagues, in which case you obviously know something that we don't."
The EULA makes any hacking or unapproved installation technically illegal.
I already posted some comments of MacOS X installations I've done that technically violate the EULA.
Most people on this site have violated the EULA in some way, form, or fashion I would bet.
I simply think this is anti-consumer and sets a bad precedent.
But the Fanbois will always support Apple because they have no minds of their own. I'm not even a big fan of Psystar, but I am a big fan of competition keeping companies honest and Apple winning on all counts will ultimately be bad for the Mac community in my opinion. Obviously the Fanbois disagree because they are lemmings.
I think it's an ironic twist of fate that Apple did a TV commercial many many years ago of PC people all standing in a line walking off a cliff and now the tables are sort of turned.
PC people are more and more likely to "Think Different" and switch to a Mac, yet the Mac faithful, i.e.: the Fanbois, more and more look like Apple drones as if they are robots controlled by Steve Jobs himself! LOL
I asked you before and I ask you again: What are you ranting on about? Unless you are a Psystar employee and the "we" in "we're all criminals" means you and your colleagues, in which case you obviously know something that we don't."
The EULA makes any hacking or unapproved installation technically illegal.
I already posted some comments of MacOS X installations I've done that technically violate the EULA.
Most people on this site have violated the EULA in some way, form, or fashion I would bet.
I simply think this is anti-consumer and sets a bad precedent.
But the Fanbois will always support Apple because they have no minds of their own. I'm not even a big fan of Psystar, but I am a big fan of competition keeping companies honest and Apple winning on all counts will ultimately be bad for the Mac community in my opinion. Obviously the Fanbois disagree because they are lemmings.
I think it's an ironic twist of fate that Apple did a TV commercial many many years ago of PC people all standing in a line walking off a cliff and now the tables are sort of turned.
PC people are more and more likely to "Think Different" and switch to a Mac, yet the Mac faithful, i.e.: the Fanbois, more and more look like Apple drones as if they are robots controlled by Steve Jobs himself! LOL
About the hackintosh community, isn't there legal precedence about defending your copyright? Isn't Apple obligated to go after the hackintosh community in order to preserve it's rights for OSX?
I seem to be under the impression that there were cases in which companies lost their copyright lawsuits because they didn't defend their copyrights in all cases. Would this happen here?
I'm sure they wouldn't go after individual infractions, but I think they could take this ruling (especially the DMCA part) and have sites like OSX86 project be shut down.
I seem to be under the impression that there were cases in which companies lost their copyright lawsuits because they didn't defend their copyrights in all cases. Would this happen here?
I'm sure they wouldn't go after individual infractions, but I think they could take this ruling (especially the DMCA part) and have sites like OSX86 project be shut down.
Apple's guilt lies in the Clayton Anti-Trust Act that prohibits tying different markets with the intent to prevent competition for one of those markets. In this case, the markets are hardware and software and it's something Apple is guilty of for OSX with the Mac (using software to eliminate hardware competition) and the App store for the iPhone and iPod Touch (not allowing any other method of software distribution and taking 30% of the top to boot), although that is a separate matter from Psystar actually hacking OSX to install it on a given computer (certainly no longer necessary with EFI emulators). This judgment clearly seems to only deal with Psystar's early hacking and not the later emulation and so it does not appear to deal with Apple's general bad behavior in that regard. Psystar was stupid to ever touch one line of code in OSX when it clearly wasn't necessary and hurt their case (or rather seemed to avoid it entirely). The real case against Apple needs to be made by the Federal government in an anti-trust lawsuit.
No, those charges were dismissed well over a year ago. They are not guilty of that and no anti-trust case will be raised by anybody because Apple lacks a legal declaration of monopoly (which it legally cannot have within it's own products).
Try again.
Psystar tried that argument in their initial counterclaim. It was dismissed.
You still have to hack OS X even with EFI emulators. The bootloader must be replaced and the SMC kext must be replaced. The judge ruled that doing so creates a derivative work.
There is currently no way to run OS X on a non-Mac without touching Apple's code.
The thing about the osx86 community is that nobody is taking money for it so its harder to make a case against it. Psystar was making a profit by breaking the eula and copyright laws. The osx86 scene is not making a profit and just breaking the eula for kicks. Its like when TPB got shut down over and over and over again. The community does not exist because of the site, the site exists because of the community. Even if every single server at InsanelyMac was destroyed people would still have hackintoshes.
It's Apple's software, they can do whatever they want with it. The least psystar could have done is asked for permission to use the software. I wouldn't want anyone doing that with my product if I had one.
I want apple to open their software like microsoft but i think it would make the whole experience of using mac less "it just work" since there would be need to support all those hardware combination and third party would have to be in charge of that and an example is how window always have some drivers problem and i dont want to do that all over again. I build computer for a few friends and all i get is trouble.
I gave a perfect example of violating the EULA several pages back...
Installing MacOS X Panther or Tiger on a PowerComputing or Motorola clone technically would violate Apple's EULA as does installing MacOS X Leopard with any Hackintosh installation.
Apple could use this precedent to go after the Hackintosh community.
That's why I think a complete win for Apple is a bad thing overall.
So far, Apple's EULA and possible monopoly implications have not been tested out of very Silicon Valley friendly courts and Psystar obviously screwed up initially in how they went about this, so there's no way Psystar will win the DMCA/copyright battle. But, a complete win by Apple is ultimately bad for competition. I'm not even going to go into how much I despise the DMCA law as that will just rile the Apple fanbois up even more and god knows Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field is hard at work in this thread!
Apple has had enough problems with snow leopard anyway. Guest account bug anyone? ;]
Also, as far as I know, it isn't the Microsoft's job to make sure hardware is compatible with Windows; it's the manufacturer's. They just release APIs and guidelines and all that for companies to follow.
But people will blame it on Windows anyway
*BSODs with an nvidia driver as culprit*
*goes on to blog about how terrible windblows is and never think about how it might just be nvidia who is at fault*
Your claim was "Most people on this site have violated the EULA in some way, form, or fashion I would bet." Most people do not fit any of the examples that you have listed.
Because Apple is not a monopoly in the personal computer or OS markets.
The fact that they lost this judgment has nothing to do with them screwing up how they went about the court case. There is no way for them to win because what they are doing is illegal.
I gave a perfect example of violating the EULA several pages back...
Installing MacOS X Panther or Tiger on a PowerComputing or Motorola clone technically would violate Apple's EULA as does installing MacOS X Leopard with any Hackintosh installation.
Apple could use this precedent to go after the Hackintosh community.
That's why I think a complete win for Apple is a bad thing overall.
So far, Apple's EULA and possible monopoly implications have not been tested out of very Silicon Valley friendly courts and Psystar obviously screwed up initially in how they went about this, so there's no way Psystar will win the DMCA/copyright battle. But, a complete win by Apple is ultimately bad for competition. I'm not even going to go into how much I despise the DMCA law as that will just rile the Apple fanbois up even more and god knows Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field is hard at work in this thread!
Yeah, I'm not quite sure how me running a hackintosh affects legitimate mac users. I'm not crying to apple when something breaks and your mac isn't devalued or anything unless you care THAT much about your "premium" OS.
Unfortunately, first to invent is not that simple.
If someone comes along and patents the formula to Coca-Cola without having any knowledge of Coke's trade secret, there is very little Coke can do about it even though they were first to invent.
There is also a requirement on diligent reduction to practice. You can't come up with an idea, leave it unused in a drawer for 10 years and then come back to say you were first to invent when someone else comes up with the same idea and files a patent application.
Also if you invent a better mousetrap, and reduce it to practice (i.e. manufacture and sell them) without applying for patent, the offer for sale of the better mousetrap becomes a public disclosure of the idea. At that point there is nothing you can do to stop someone else from making and selling a similar mousetrap outside the US. In the US, because of the first to invent system, you have 12 months from that public disclosure to file a patent application (which at that point would only be able to cover make, use or sale in the US), but after that you are done if you did not file any paperwork. The idea becomes free for anyone to practice if it is disclosed without any of the patent paperwork.
All this to say that the paperwork is still important.
B
You running a hackintosh probably doesn't affect legitimate Mac users. As long as it is just you. But at large enough numbers, it would likely have a market impact.