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.
Psystar Files Appeal in Apple Lawsuit Over Unauthorized Mac Clones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If I rent you an apartment, can I specify no dogs? Can I specify no overnight guests? Can I specify that you cannot remove the furnishings I provide, even temporarily, and use them in another apartment? Can I specify that you cannot operate a business in the apartment?
If I license you the rights to my song for use in a movie, can I specify that you cannot use it as background during overtly sexual or violent scenes? Can I specify that you cannot use it in the Canadian release of the movie? Can I specify that you cannot publish it on the soundtrack CD?
If I lease you a car, can I specify that you cannot drive it to Mexico? That you cannot take the engine apart? That you must use a repairman of my choosing?
If I loan you a book, can I specify that you cannot loan it to someone else? That you cannot read it in the bathroom?
Is the only bundle of rights that you insist must be kept whole the bundle associated with licensing of operating systems?
You "buy" only the physical media. You use the software subject to license - you don't buy it.
No dogs etc - yes but discrimination on the grounds of race for example would be wrong.
No problems with the song.
The car and book seems to me unreasonble restrictions.
"buy" - the issue is whether the rights are unreasonable.
Good examples.
No dogs etc - yes but discrimination on the grounds of race for example would be wrong.
No problems with the song.
The car and book seems to me unreasonble restrictions.
"buy" - the issue is whether the rights are unreasonable.
Good examples.
I struggle to find any consistent moral position in your answers.
Ok - are you saying they are all ok to you or? Pick one. Then we can argue the specific case and I'll try and pinpoint the moral issue.
What if the car's insurance does not cover it in Mexico? Still unreasonable? What if the book is an antique and the owner doesn't want you to chance getting it wet in the bathroom? Still unreasonable?
The issue is not whether you consider them unreasonable. The issue is whether that are unreasonable compared to some standard set by society. We call these standards "laws."
And laws are just attempts to make universal rules. They never apply easily in all cases that's why we have judges etc. Old laws can be found to be wrong.
They all seem okay to me, and, as far as I know, all are legally enforceable restrictions.
Here are some more -
A plot of land. In 1882 the land was sold to X, with a restriction that the land could never have a house bigger than 1000 square feet on it, and that if sold, the land must be sold with the same restriction. X sold it to Y. Y sold it to Z. Z sold it to W. W sold it to me. Is it "fair" for the restriction to apply to me?
I leave you my property in my will, on the condition that you marry by age 23, otherwise the property goes to my friend Bob. Is that ok?
I donate money to a university, on the condition that it only be used to teach swimming classes. Is that ok?
They are attempts to set enforceable standards. That is why judges have discretion. Laws can be found to be wrong. The laws in question though have not.
On one side we have decades of laws and court decisions that deal with intellectual property. We have business justifications for Apple's licensing terms. And we have an agreement willingly entered into by two parties. And no evidence of public harm.
On the other side, we have that you think its unreasonable with no explanation as to why.
So a long-dead person with a fear of large spaces can control what I do with my land, which is actually fully purchased and paid for by me, and another dead guy can control when I get married, but an existing business enterprise cannot control what I do with software it licenses me to use?
They "have not" but IMO they "should" have. An analogy is Apple tying their phones to certain carriers that was overturned in the EU.
The Psystar case has been settled for now but I hope something like it will reappear, maybe when Apple gets a greater market share (its increasing).
We aren't going to agree. Good arguments but lets draw a line under this.
You keep saying "it's unfair, it's unfair" and try to justify it as a moral argument. You know what it sounds like to me : A kid crying because he's not getting the toy he wants.
Did you write a single line of code for OS X ? Does any part of the system depend on any work you have done ? No ? Then you are not entitled to it and that is fair. The day you write an OS, you will get to decide how it's used according to your rights under the law.
You can scream, cry, roll on the floor all you want, there's nothing unfair here but your expectations of what the 29.99$ gets you. It gets you a round plastic disc and a usage license. If you don't agree with the license, tough cookies, you bought a 29.99$ plastic disc. You can get your money back.
There's no moral argument. You've failed repeatedly to even make one. "It's unfair" is not a moral argument. The only thing immoral here is your lack of acknowledgement of the work Apple did and your lack of respect for their rights to their own work.
Did you write a single line of code for OS X ? Does any part of the system depend on any work you have done ? No ? Then you are not entitled to it and that is fair. The day you write an OS, you will get to decide how it's used according to your rights under the law.
You can scream, cry, roll on the floor all you want, there's nothing unfair here but your expectations of what the 29.99$ gets you. It gets you a round plastic disc and a usage license. If you don't agree with the license, tough cookies, you bought a 29.99$ plastic disc. You can get your money back.
There's no moral argument. You've failed repeatedly to even make one. "It's unfair" is not a moral argument. The only thing immoral here is your lack of acknowledgement of the work Apple did and your lack of respect for their rights to their own work.
The apple EULA is not law and I doubt it could be upheld in it's entirety and the delivery method of the EULA is seriously flawed.
A fight with apple is not an issue of "what is law" but who has more money to fight their position.
Apple has attempted to use scare tactics of lawsuits against me on more than one occasion, I wish apple would sue me over the EULA and my blatant disregard for it but it never comes to pass, they think that calling me up as a legal department with threats of legal action will intimidate me into conforming to their wishes but intimidation is insufficient and my pleading to be sued goes unanswered.
This does not mean I do not respect their property rights, what I do not respect is being told how I can use a product I purchased after I have purchased it.
I'm not asking them to support my use of the software and I certainly wont allow them to dictate how I can use it and anyone who states the EULA is the law needs some serious medication to correct their mental defect.
A fight with apple is not an issue of "what is law" but who has more money to fight their position.
Apple has attempted to use scare tactics of lawsuits against me on more than one occasion, I wish apple would sue me over the EULA and my blatant disregard for it but it never comes to pass, they think that calling me up as a legal department with threats of legal action will intimidate me into conforming to their wishes but intimidation is insufficient and my pleading to be sued goes unanswered.
This does not mean I do not respect their property rights, what I do not respect is being told how I can use a product I purchased after I have purchased it.
I'm not asking them to support my use of the software and I certainly wont allow them to dictate how I can use it and anyone who states the EULA is the law needs some serious medication to correct their mental defect.
Wait, Apple Legal doesn't call because you hackintosh in the privacy of your own basement, what is it you've done exactly and why do you think the EULA is the only thing trying to prevent you from doing it ?
You do know about copyrights and anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA right ?
Yes but I also understand that the DMCA has provisions that allow you to circumvent those locks.
I bought the software, then after the sale I receive a license that tells me how I can use this software and how I cannot use the software and I have objections to this.
It looks like I have enabled a legally purchased Mac OS X software to run on specific generic intel hardware that I own by modification of the generic hardware.
What I am not doing is distributing machines with Mac OS X pre-installed.
Sure. But none of those exemptions apply to this issue.
You may have objections, but that doesn't give you the right to ignore parts of a contract. You can either agree to the contract and use the software or not agree to the contract and return the software for a full refund. Assuming this discussion is limited to the US (since we are in a thread about the Psystar case), those are your options. US courts have upheld SLAs, including Apple's, as valid as any other contract.
It may look that way to you. But in the current legal reality you are illegally modifying an unlicensed copy of OS X to run on a non-Mac.
Congratulations!
So the original question remains, what are you doing that has resulted in calls from Apple legal? They don't randomly call people to see if they are running a hackintosh.
Ask the DeCSS folks about them. Non infringing use is hard to prove in court.
You did ? How many millions did you pay ? I bought the Mona Lisa once... Oh wait no, that was just a reproduction poster.
See, that's where you're confused. You bought a license. That is what you received during the sale. Buying a software would include all rights, source code, existing support contracts etc.. You didn't buy the software. You aren't now the rights holder for the work known as OS X, all for a measly 29.99$.
You simply bought a license to use it. The license comes with terms.
Now, as a simple individual, if you use it illicitely, no one is going to come knocking down your door or cease and desist you. If however you begin to distribute a modified version or you distribute tools to aid others in circumvent copy protection mecanisms, you might draw the wrath of legal (but seeing how the hackintosh community doesn't, I don't think you have much to worry about unless you make money off your tools).
Also keep in mind that a much more draconian EULA was just upheld as legal. The provision in autodesk's license preventing resale was upheld.
There should be a term for people who claim EULAs cannot be legal. They are like birthers and those guys who claim the federal income tax is unconstitutional.
There should be a term for people who claim EULAs cannot be legal. They are like birthers and those guys who claim the federal income tax is unconstitutional.