Psystar Files Appeal in Apple Lawsuit Over Unauthorized Mac Clones

[englishman]

1) Companies can do what they like - agree or disagree.

2) If companies can't do what they like when is it reasonable to limit them

3) monopoly situations (we are not really there with Apple so lets forget arguing over monopolies)

3) In what circumstances do we limit what they do?

4) Sales of goods act, fit for purpose etc.

5) Things that just don't make sense or are just plain bad. There would be an uproar.

6) apple has a significant market share and existing body of users that they simply cannot be allowed to do what they like. There are only 2 main consumer OS and Apple is a significant player.

I actually don't particularly care about the existing law - maybe it doesn't cover the case. Its the morality and logic which would mean Psystar is right and Apple wrong and then hopefully the law would get amended/added. I am no lawyer.

 

[englishman]

First, your post wasn't about market share and monopolies, it was about mergers. It didn't show anything.

Second every country has a quantified legal threshold of what constitutes market dominance and allows a company to be considered a monopoly. Under EU Law, chances are that no company with under 40% market share will be considered market dominant. Meanwhile, you're arguing that a company with 5% market share is market dominant and should be curbed.

It wasn't about mergers - the example was about mergers. It was using the example of mergers in establishing a principle that a company doesn't have to be a monopoly for the Govt to want to intervene.

 

[BaldiMac]

I actually don't particularly care about the existing law - maybe it doesn't cover the case. Its the morality and logic which would mean Psystar is right and Apple wrong and then hopefully the law would get amended/added. I am no lawyer.

What is your moral justification to steal someone's property and sell it for profit? What are the moral benefits to society?

This issue isn't a moral one. The issue is that you think a minority of people should be able to force Apple to do something simply because they want them to.

 

[englishman]

What is your moral justification to steal someone's property and sell it for profit? What are the moral benefits to society?

This issue isn't a moral one. The issue is that you think a minority of people should be able to force Apple to do something simply because they want them to.

I don't see how Psystar paying for sw is stealing?

Not because they want to, its because its reasonable. And Apple aren't being asked to "do" anything, just not unfairly limit in their T&C reasonable use of their sw.

 

[BaldiMac]

I don't see how Psystar paying for sw is stealing?

Psystar is not paying for the software. They are paying for the right to make copies of that software.

You have to acknowledge that the value of the software is directly related to it's licensing terms. A license for three users is worth more than a license for one. If you make three copies of the software when you paid for one, you are stealing. The same logic applies to other licensing terms. If you don't agree to a licensing term, don't buy the software. You don't get to agree to a contract and then say, "I find that one term unreasonable, so I'm going to ignore it."

Not because they want to, its because its reasonable.

Reasonable? If would be reasonable to buy your house and everything in it at it's current value. Does that mean that I should be able to force you to do that?

And, again, what is the moral benefit to society that would result from Apple being forced to license its software to Psystar?

And Apple aren't being asked to "do" anything, just not unfairly limit in their T&C reasonable use of their sw.

What's unfair? Apple doesn't want to sell you their product unless you agree to their license. Why should the be forced to sell their property?

 

[Liquorpuki]

It wasn't about mergers - the example was about mergers. It was using the example of mergers in establishing a principle that a company doesn't have to be a monopoly for the Govt to want to intervene.

There are a ton of reasons the government will intervene that are competition related but don't require the company to be a monopoly - price fixing, product tying, etc

And just like mergers, they have nothing to do with this lawsuit

 

[englishman]

If I remember correctly Apple had problems in the EU with tying their phones into certain phone contract suppliers. That was also unfair.

We just aren't going to agree on this.

Pity. There would be a lot of happy bunnies if this were possible...

"Available now with your choice of 7 or OSX for $249..."

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellst...ua1&c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&kc=inspiron-zino-hd

 

[cmaier]

If I remember correctly Apple had problems in the EU with tying their phones into certain phone contract suppliers. That was also unfair.

We just aren't going to agree on this.

Pity. There would be a lot of happy bunnies if this were possible...

"Available now with your choice of 7 or OSX for $249..."

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellst...ua1&c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&kc=inspiron-zino-hd

But that's the very point, isn't it? If Dell were selling that with OSX for $249, how much of that $249 goes to Apple? Not very much. And how is Apple, a hardware company, supposed to sustain itself on a $25 license? In order for Apple to not go out of business, it would have to sell the license to dell for much more. So you're more likely to see "Available now with your choice of Windows 7 for $249, or Mac OS X for $375." Who's buying the latter?

What you are doing is essentially mandating that Apple be forced to adopt Microsoft's business model and become a pure software company so that it can afford to sell software as cheaply as microsoft. That won't work for anyone.

 

[KnightWRX]

I don't see how Psystar paying for sw is stealing?

Hum, you do know that Psystar never paid for their OS X license right ? They never could find any proof that money had ever gone to Apple. They basically had 1 copy which they stored on an image server and pushed out to PCs.

This was all covered in the case. On top of breaking the EULA, breaking the DMCA by circumventing Apple's protection mecanisms, they were found guilty of copyright infringment for not even having paid for the copies they were selling.

You're all over the place, you don't even have an argument. Apple is within their right. If you find it unreasonable, go spend your money on something reasonable.

I actually don't particularly care about the existing law

That much is obvious, seeing how you always come back with "but I don't agree" after being told you are wrong about the law.

Its the morality and logic which would mean Psystar is right and Apple wrong and then hopefully the law would get amended/added. I am no lawyer.

Hopefully, most people are sensible enough to realise that it is the other way around. You can't force a company to sell their product on your terms if they aren't in breach of any consumer/business laws. Apple isn't in breach of any laws, as such, they can "do whatever they want". Same as you think you can do "whatever you want", except you ignore the laws which prevent you from doing some of the stuff.

Again, OS X is unreasonable ? Use something else.

 

[englishman]

But that's the very point, isn't it? If Dell were selling that with OSX for $249, how much of that $249 goes to Apple? Not very much. And how is Apple, a hardware company, supposed to sustain itself on a $25 license? In order for Apple to not go out of business, it would have to sell the license to dell for much more. So you're more likely to see "Available now with your choice of Windows 7 for $249, or Mac OS X for $375." Who's buying the latter?

What you are doing is essentially mandating that Apple be forced to adopt Microsoft's business model and become a pure software company so that it can afford to sell software as cheaply as microsoft. That won't work for anyone.

So you are saying that Apple HW is inferior and couldn't stand on its own?

 

[englishman]

Hum, you do know that Psystar never paid for their OS X license right ? They never could find any proof that money had ever gone to Apple. They basically had 1 copy which they stored on an image server and pushed out to PCs.

This was all covered in the case. On top of breaking the EULA, breaking the DMCA by circumventing Apple's protection mecanisms, they were found guilty of copyright infringment for not even having paid for the copies they were selling.

You're all over the place, you don't even have an argument. Apple is within their right. If you find it unreasonable, go spend your money on something reasonable.

That much is obvious, seeing how you always come back with "but I don't agree" after being told you are wrong about the law.

Hopefully, most people are sensible enough to realise that it is the other way around. You can't force a company to sell their product on your terms if they aren't in breach of any consumer/business laws. Apple isn't in breach of any laws, as such, they can "do whatever they want". Same as you think you can do "whatever you want", except you ignore the laws which prevent you from doing some of the stuff.

Again, OS X is unreasonable ? Use something else.

I am not ignoring any laws - I have a MP?

Psystar paying is another issue. I guess if they knew they would be prosecuted. The issue is a moral one as I've said and if no laws are being broken the law needs to be changed IMO.

 

[BaldiMac]

Psystar paying is another issue. I guess if they knew they would be prosecuted. The issue is a moral one as I've said and if no laws are being broken the law needs to be changed IMO.

You keep saying that it's a moral issue, but you have yet to make a moral argument.

 

[gnasher729]

I am not ignoring any laws - I have a MP?

Psystar paying is another issue. I guess if they knew they would be prosecuted. The issue is a moral one as I've said and if no laws are being broken the law needs to be changed IMO.

For heavens sake, they _have_ been prosecuted. They have been fined for blatant copyright infringement to the tune of $30,000, but more importantly they have been fined for DMCA violations at $2,500 _per copy of MacOS X_ installed on their computers, for a total of $2,000,000. "More importantly" because there would have been ways to move the copyright infringement part to their customer, but the DMCA violation was unavoidable with their business model.

And what do you mean by "if no laws are being broken the law needs to be changed"? Psystar _did_ break the law, no need for any law changes.

So you are saying that Apple HW is inferior and couldn't stand on its own?

Nice attempt. What he is saying is that Apple has spent a good billion dollars on developing MacOS X, and they can charge top dollar for their hardware because it ships together with the worlds best operating system. About $200 more per computer in my opinion. I always thought Dell had spent a similar amount on ways to figure out how to build computers at the lowest possible price, until it turned out that their "profits" were just illegal bribes from Intel to stop them buying AMD chips. "Couldn't stand on its own" is nonsense, and you know that, but yes, if Apple shared one of its greatest advantages with its competitors, the competitors would do better as a result. Which is exactly what this is about: We want competition, and competition means that no competitor can be forced to give away their competitive advantages.

 

[englishman]

You keep saying that it's a moral issue, but you have yet to make a moral argument.

I think its unfair to limit use in that way.

 

[englishman]

For heavens sake, they _have_ been prosecuted. They have been fined for blatant copyright infringement to the tune of $30,000, but more importantly they have been fined for DMCA violations at $2,500 _per copy of MacOS X_ installed on their computers, for a total of $2,000,000.

And what do you mean by "if no laws are being broken the law needs to be changed"? Psystar _did_ break the law, no need for any law changes.

Their prosecution was unfair, these are unfair laws in this case and need to be changed.

 

[englishman]

Apple also limit App store whereas Android is much freer.

 

[cmaier]

So you are saying that Apple HW is inferior and couldn't stand on its own?

Strawman. The point is that Apple sells a complete product, and divides up the revenue so that it earns it from the hardware, not the OS "sales." As I've pointed out before, Apple generally charges nominal upgrade fees and never enforces any kind of activation or copy protection mechanisms - they don't care if you copy the OS, because you'll be running it on hardware they sell, and they've priced that into the hardware.

Once again, we don't have to speculate on this. There WERE multiple apple clonemakers in the 1990's, including power computing, umax, etc. The result was that apple came within a couple months of bankruptcy.

What I am saying (indeed, what I specifically already said) is that if Apple allows its OS to be installed on other machines, it will need to raise the cost of the OS because it can't be guaranteed to earn the money from the hardware sales. It is then forced to compete as a software company. And it cannot compete on price as a software company against MS, which can afford to break even on the OS because it sells services, servers, office suites, etc. at high price due to its monopoly status.

 

[BaldiMac]

I think its unfair to limit use in that way.

So? How is that a moral argument? It's just your opinion. I think it's unfair that professional baseball players make more money than me. Should we adjust the laws to deal with that as well?

Their prosecution was unfair, these are unfair laws in this case and need to be changed.

There was no prosecution. How are the laws unfair?

 

[KnightWRX]

Psystar paying is another issue. I guess if they knew they would be prosecuted. The issue is a moral one as I've said and if no laws are being broken the law needs to be changed IMO.

There is nothing immoral going on here, get that out of your head. This is not a question of morality.

I think its unfair to limit use in that way.

And Apple thinks you're being unfair in forcing them to sell their products in a way they don't want to. Fair/Unfair is not a question of morality.

Their prosecution was unfair, these are unfair laws in this case and need to be changed.

Hum, again, they never paid for OS X. They were profiting without giving Apple a cent, never paid any programmers to work on OS X, and you're saying them getting fined is unfair ? I think they were being unfair to Apple. If Psystar really wanted to compete, they would have made their own OS or used one legitimately acquired.

 

[englishman]

Just not convinced by any of the arguments - and you guys aren't convinced by mine.

If Apple want to cross subsidize products that's up to them.

Morality is about oughts. Apple ought not to be able to artificially (IMO) limit use of things that people have bought but with some weird clause saying you can only use this on xyz. That's the way I see it.

We just have to agree to differ.

 

[BaldiMac]

Just not convinced by any of the arguments - and you guys aren't convinced by mine.

Because you haven't made any. You've just stated your opinion.

If Apple want to cross subsidize products that's up to them.

Yep.

Morality is about oughts.

Sure. But moral arguments are about weighing the benefits and harm of different actions. You haven't done that at all. You just keep stating your opinion without any justification.

Apple ought not to be able to artificially (IMO) limit use of things that people have bought but with some weird clause saying you can only use this on xyz. That's the way I see it.

We just have to agree to differ.

How would the software industry exist without the ability to "artificially limit use of" software? What would natural limits be?

 

[englishman]

Sure. But moral arguments are about weighing the benefits and harm of different actions. You haven't done that at all. You just keep stating your opinion without any justification.

How would the software industry exist without the ability to "artificially limit use of" software? What would natural limits be?

We went through the oughts by using analogies earlier in the thread.

I don't see where SW could legitimately be limited as long as its a legal copy.

 

[BaldiMac]

I don't see where SW could legitimately be limited as long as its a legal copy.

If it's a copy made in violation of the license that you agreed to it's not a legal copy (with the exception of copies made in accordance with the limitations of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, of course.)

 

[cmaier]

We went through the oughts by using analogies earlier in the thread.

I don't see where SW could legitimately be limited as long as its a legal copy.

So you don't believe, in principle, in the concept of a license agreement? If I have a bundle of rights to something, I can only license to you the entire bundle, not just parts?

 

[englishman]

So you don't believe, in principle, in the concept of a license agreement? If I have a bundle of rights to something, I can only license to you the entire bundle, not just parts?

I would have to look at each case to decide. In my view its wrong here so maybe there are other cases. Not to say many or most are entirely kosher.