Psystar Files for Bankruptcy

[-hh]

No, that would either not work, or it would be unnecessary, depending on your point of view. Psystar's argument is that they are not bound by what the license says.

Good point, for which I should clarify:

So either the license is binding, then Psystar can't install MacOS X on their computers, no matter how you put the restriction. Or the license is not binding, then Psystar can install it on their computers anyway because they can ignore the license. Changing the terms of the license doesn't make a difference.

Agreed. My point is that contract law has to be binding in order for Capitalism to exist. This means that Psystar can't pick -n-choose which part(s) of Contract Law are convenient for them - - that is hypocrisy.

Consider what would happen to Psytar if their argument is turned against them? For example, if every mail-order customer who bought a PC from them waited until it was delivered, then called their credit card companies and told them to not pay Psystar the amount due ("I don't agree to that part of the contract").

But lets talk about Microsoft: You can buy a Microsoft Office Family three user license for $149; probably cheaper because I searched for ten seconds only. So what stops my company from buying one Microsoft Office Family three user license for every three employees, at an average of about $50 per employee, if that license restriction (home use only, I didn't actually check the license) isn't binding?

Agreed! If one doesn't intend to abide by the terms of the contract, then one has no right to buy in in the first place.

And FWIW, MS did pull a fast one on this topic around ten years ago: MS-Office used to be one Word, one Excel and one PPT license, which you could legally split amongst different users (particularly since back in the day, if you were in Powerpoint, it was unlikely that you were also running Word, etc, since the PCs didn't have the power). Enterprise used keyserver management software to keep track to stay legal ... but then MS changed the rules of the license: the requirement became a 1:1 ratio of Employee:MSOffice came about. It was a huge financial hit in some organizations, on the order of magnitude of wiping out all PC hardware upgrades/replacements for the next year just to keep one's software 'legal'.


-hh

 

[stevielee]

Except for the DP Mac Pro buyers, of course. In any event, a level-headed rational view is that 'Yes Virginia, There Is An Apple Tax' and its not for the hardware, but that jewel of




IMO, the first valid thing that you've said.

Of course, perhaps if you've done more reading at MR, you would have learned that the local culture is very strong on IP and Anti-Piracy.

Perhaps this has come about because the Mac has traditionally been a domain of 'Creatives' as their customers, so many readers here have significant IP investments, and their livelihood is thus highly dependent upon the continued legal protection of IP. This also would tend to explain why they don't steal IP from others too.

-hh

I'm glad that you take other folks here on MR at their word: that they don't have - or have ever had - someone else's IP content on their "premium" Macs that they haven't actually compensated the IP holder for.

I have worked on hundreds of computers in my line of work (mostly Macs), from people of all professions - including many in IT professions - such as: Developers, Web/Designers, Programers, Photographers, Video/Film professionals.. etc. And in my direct, hands-on experience of working with their computers and other technical equipment - that at least 8 out of 10 of them - have some kind of "unauthorized", or "uncompensated" IP content on their machines, or externals - that is easily identifiable as "pirated" to me. Maybe it's just a little MP3 file that someone gave them, or some Shareware that a buddy, or co-worker "shared" with them, or a SL program that has been "illegally" installed on more than one of their computers (especially OSX itself). But somewhere on their Mac's HD, is what you, and others here would claim as: "stolen" IP content. For me, the great irony is that the ones who are the most vocal and adamant about the immutable sanctity of IP/copywrite laws, are many times also the ones who actually have quite a bit of someone else's "uncompensated" creative IP on their machines.

It is extremely rare ( probably less than 20%) that I work on a clients computer and not come across some kind of "illegal" IP/copywrited content.
Now, you may well be one of a very tiny group of technology users that strictly adhere to total IP/copywrite compliance. But do not make the mistake of assuming that there are many others with the your high standards - even if they profess the same positions as you - but in private - practice another.

If you literally take others here on MR - or anywhere else - solely on their "word" that that do not currently have - or have ever had - another persons "uncompensated", or "unauthorized" IP content, then I've got some cheap sub-prime property that I'd like you to consider buying from me.

 

[pdjudd]

Agreed! If one doesn't intend to abide by the terms of the contract, then one has no right to buy in in the first place.

Or use the items being discussed in said contract for that matter. I cannot go to a judge when I break into my neighbors house and say "I never agreed to not go in there" or "I was never told that I had to ask permission to enter" or "I don't agree to that 'No Trespassing' sign" and I believe it not to be valid since it impinges on my god-given right to go where I wish to go." Well I could - the judge would not be very amused at my flimsy arguments.

If you don't agree to any terms on some element, you don't get to exploit that element.

 

[Ansuz]

I'm glad that you take other folks here on MR at their word: that they don't have - or have ever had - someone else's IP content on their "premium" Macs that they haven't actually compensated the IP holder for.

I have worked on hundreds of computers in my line of work (mostly Macs), from people of all professions - including many in IT professions - such as: Developers, Web/Designers, Programers, Photographers, Video/Film professionals.. etc. And in my direct, hands-on experience of working with their computers, I can plainly and truthfully attest to the fact - that at least 8 out of 10 of them - have some kind of "unauthorized", or "uncompensated" IP content on their machines - or externals. Maybe it's just a little MP3 file that someone gave them, or some Shareware that a buddy, or co-worker "shared" with them, or a SL program that has been "illegally" installed on more than one of their computers (especially OSX itself) - but somewhere on their Mac's HD is what you, and others here would claim as: "stolen" IP content. For me, the great irony is that the ones who are the most vocal and adamant about the immutable sanctity of IP/copywrite laws, are many times also the ones who actually have quite a bit of someone else's "uncompensated" creative IP on their machines.

It is extremely rare ( probably less than 20%) that I work on a clients computer and not come across some kind of "illegal" IP/copywrited content.
Now, you may well be one of a very tiny group of technology users that really do strictly adhere to total IP/copywrite compliance, but do not make the mistake of assuming that there are many others with the your high standards - even if they profess the same positions as you - but in private - practice another.

If you literally take others here on MR - or anywhere else - solely on their "word" that that do not currently have - or have ever had - another persons "uncompensated", or "unauthorized" IP content, then I've got some cheap sub-prime mortgages that I like you to consider.

Assuming this is true (which I have no reason to believe that it isn't) I wasn't aware that the fact that nearly everyone is comitting some form of IP piracy made IP piracy an acceptable practice.

I work for a music store currently and a very large portion of my customer base (and employee base for that matter) engages in recreational drug use. I suppose that the wide spread use means its not illegal, right?

 

[stevielee]

Assuming this is true (which I have no reason to believe that it isn't) I wasn't aware that the fact that nearly everyone is comitting some form of IP piracy made IP piracy an acceptable practice.

I work for a music store currently and a very large portion of my customer base (and employee base for that matter) engages in recreational drug use. I suppose that the wide spread use means its not illegal, right?

Your drug question is a red herring - since I am not here to moralize, or condemn in any way "recreational drug use" - as most here are doing concerning what you see as violations of sacrosanct IP/Copywrite laws. My post was about the hypocrisy I see with the IP moralist when it come to their selective application and their personal failure to uphold total adherence of the IP/copywrite laws.

I'm more interested in the question of whether any of your "customers" or your fellow "employee base" "illegally" acquires any of the product (music) that you do "legally" sell?
Ever bring any of your "work" home?

 

[petedskier]

Psystar isn't denying that they have committed piracy ("unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material"). They are simply trying to justify copying and distributing OS X without authorization.

no, they passed on a copy of the software they can't prove they bought, after violating standing laws to circumvent the copyrights.

Okay, so I am no lawyer. I have to look up these issues. I am interpreting this statement as, "Hey, they can't prove they bought it, therefore they must have made a counterfeit copy." Otherwise, of what importance would it have except they are not good business men?

Let me amend my statement. This will bring it into agreement with the legal descriptions in US copyright code under Title 17.

If Psystar charged customers for counterfeit copies of OS X, that would be fraud. To accuse someone of fraud would be libelous.

If Psystar made counterfeit copies OS X, that would violate Apple's copyright. To allege that Psystar has been involved in making counterfeit copies would also be libelous. It would also make Psystar guilty of criminal infringement which would subject them to criminal prosecution. (Evidence.— For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.)

If indeed Psystar were guilty of criminal infringement, I am stunned that Judge Alsop did not grant Apple a cease and desist order.

Now, if everyone bringing up this lack of records actually means, "Hey, these guys aren't good record keepers!" then I stand corrected.

 

[Ansuz]

Your drug question is a red herring - since I am not here to moralize, or condemn in any way "recreational drug use" - as most here are doing concerning what you see as violations of sacrosanct IP/Copywrite laws. My post was about the hypocrisy I see with the IP moralist when it come to their own failure to the absolute adherence and selective application of the IP/copywrite laws.

I'm more interested in the question of whether any of your "customers" or your fellow "employee base" "illegally" acquires any of the product (music) that you do "legally" sell?
Ever bring any of your "work" home?

No, I never do. I do not own a single piece of pirated IP. I can't speak for my customers or employees but I would hope that didn't either.

Am I allowed to be upset with Psystar now?

Okay, so I am no lawyer. I have to look up these issues. I am interpreting this statement as, "Hey, they can't prove they bought it, therefore they must have made a counterfeit copy." Otherwise, of what importance would it have except they are not good business men?

Thats pretty much what people are getting at when they make the statements. Since Psystar is a distributor of copyrighted content, they are held to a higher standard of record keeping than most casual users. They must be able to prove that each copy they sold was a legitimate, licenced copy or face severe penalties.

If indeed Psystar were guilty of criminal infringement, I am stunned that Judge Alsop did not grant Apple a cease and desist order.

If my knowledge of the trial is accurate, I'm pretty sure they were requesting the records to prove/disprove just that point when Psystar was unable to produce any financials. This current bankrupsy filing is happening before a determination of piracy/criminal infringment was reached and will further delay that decsion.

 

[stevielee]

No, I never do. I do not own a single piece of pirated IP. I can't speak for my customers or employees but I would hope that didn't either.

Am I allowed to be upset with Psystar now?

Why just be "upset with Psystar". Why not rail against the vast majority of the world's population with access to technology - who flagrantly violates IP/copywrite laws - starting with Apple Inc. themselves?

 

[Ansuz]

Why just be "upset with Psystar". Why not rail against the majority of the population in modern world - who flagrantly violate IP/copywrite laws - starting with Apple Inc. themselves?

I do, to an extent. I am quite vocal about my anti-piracy beliefs. If you look up my user name in the Apple Support forums, my posts have a history of supporting this point. I accept, however, that there isn't anything I can do to stop it, aside from not do it myself and advise others not to.

As for Apple doing it, I have agreed with the people who have sued them and won for IP infringment claims. No one should be allowed to steal the work of someone else, regardless of whether or not they profit from it. I also accept, however, that its a slightly greyer area when you get to the level Apple and other major businesses are on. It is entirly possible do develop something, completely independently and have it infringe on a copyright or patent. It is also possible to belive your design is different enough and have a court decide it wasn't.

Stealing an MP3 or .dmg file is more black and white and what Psystar allegedly did is even more black and white. I dislike people who steal music or software, but people who bootleg music or software deserve jail time. Period.

 

[pdjudd]

Why just be "upset with Psystar". Why not rail against the majority of the population in modern world - who flagrantly violate IP/copywrite laws - starting with Apple Inc. themselves?

Probably because most people do not make a business out of stealing other people's intellectual property without getting sued by their owners? By the by, what IP is Apple currently selling that they stole? (I am actually talking about current products that a Judge has ruled as stolen/infringed and must be pulled from market)

Ever bring any of your "work" home?

If I am allowed to by my employer, yes I do sometimes. When you are talking about programs though, the answer is "No" Not only would they not operate at my home, I am not licensed to use them at home, and also because I have access to hosted applications that I am licensed to use.

I know you are not asking that to me directly, but I cannot answer for Azsus, {ETA: Un-necessary)

 

[awmazz]

Good point, for which I should clarify:

Agreed. My point is that contract law has to be binding in order for Capitalism to exist. This means that Psystar can't pick -n-choose which part(s) of Contract Law are convenient for them - - that is hypocrisy.

Consider what would happen to Psytar if their argument is turned against them? For example, if every mail-order customer who bought a PC from them waited until it was delivered, then called their credit card companies and told them to not pay Psystar the amount due ("I don't agree to that part of the contract").

Agreed! If one doesn't intend to abide by the terms of the contract, then one has no right to buy in in the first place.

-hh

An End User Licence Agreement is an agreement not a contract, otherwise it would be called an End User Licence Contract. It's a written agreement (and even named as one), which carries no more legal weight than a verbal agreement.

I don't know the law in the USA, but here in Australia ask anyone who's been 'gazumped' on a real estate deal when they had a verbal or written agreement but hadn't signed the actual legal contract yet and they can tell you first hand the true legally enforceable value (or complete lack of it) of an agreement.

 

[Mal]

To accuse someone of fraud would be libelous.

You're missing one little detail. It's only libelous to accuse someone of fraud if they are not actually guilty of fraud. (In this case, since they cannot prove they are not guilty when requested by a court to do so, it's safe to consider them guilty until they do so.) None of the claims made so far, at least not that I've noticed your responding to, are false, or at least at this point they cannot be proven false. In addition, libel requires an intent to defame the person or company. That, perhaps, could be said of some here, but the burden of proof would then be on you to prove that was the intention.

Basically, quit tossing around words that imply wrongdoing on the part of the person you're arguing with until you can get them right.

jW

 

[BaldiMac]

Okay, so I am no lawyer. I have to look up these issues. I am interpreting this statement as, "Hey, they can't prove they bought it, therefore they must have made a counterfeit copy." Otherwise, of what importance would it have except they are not good business men?

Let me amend my statement. This will bring it into agreement with the legal descriptions in US copyright code under Title 17.

If Psystar charged customers for counterfeit copies of OS X, that would be fraud. To accuse someone of fraud would be libelous.

If Psystar made counterfeit copies OS X, that would violate Apple's copyright. To allege that Psystar has been involved in making counterfeit copies would also be libelous. It would also make Psystar guilty of criminal infringement which would subject them to criminal prosecution. (Evidence.— For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.)

If indeed Psystar were guilty of criminal infringement, I am stunned that Judge Alsop did not grant Apple a cease and desist order.

Now, if everyone bringing up this lack of records actually means, "Hey, these guys aren't good record keepers!" then I stand corrected.

You seem to be the only one bringing up "counterfeit copies" of OS X, so I'm not sure what you are going at here.

Psystar ships a unopened retail OS X box with each computer that they ship installed with OS X. Some people in this thread are implying that they may stolen these boxes based on the fact that they can't come up with any proof of purchase. I, myself, do not believe that this implication is likely.

They are committing piracy or copyright infringement by distributing additional copies installed on the computers that they sell without authorization.

There are also issues involving trademarks and modification of OS X that are in question.

 

[Ansuz]

An End User Licence Agreement is an agreement not a contract, otherwise it would be called an End User Licence Contract. It's a written agreement (and even named as one), which carries no more legal weight than a verbal agreement.

I don't know the law in the USA, but here in Australia ask anyone who's been 'gazumped' on a real estate deal when they had a verbal or written agreement but hadn't signed the actual legal contract yet and they can tell you first hand the true legally enforceable value (or complete lack of it) of an agreement.

It varies from case to case but in the US verbal agreements have been found to be legally binding, depending on the situation. Its also important to note that "agreement" and "contract" are the same in the world of law; a written agreement is just as binding as a written contract.

Even so, the SL agreement has certian stipulations for the end user in exchange for certian privilages. For abiding by these stipulations, the IP copyright holder grants the user the right to use the software. Should the user not uphold their end of the agreement, the IP copyrightholder has the right to deny further use of the software. Just as in your real estate example, should the purchaser decide to not uphold the agreement then they are not required to pay the seller for the property AND the seller is not required to transfer the property.

 

[stevielee]

I do, to an extent. I am quite vocal about my anti-piracy beliefs. If you look up my user name in the Apple Support forums, my posts have a history of supporting this point. I accept, however, that there isn't anything I can do to stop it, aside from not do it myself and advise others not to.

As for Apple doing it, I have agreed with the people who have sued them and won for IP infringment claims. No one should be allowed to steal the work of someone else, regardless of whether or not they profit from it. I also accept, however, that its a slightly greyer area when you get to the level Apple and other major businesses are on. It is entirly possible do develop something, completely independently and have it infringe on a copyright or patent. It is also possible to belive your design is different enough and have a court decide it wasn't. Stealing an MP3 or .dmg file is more black and white.

How generous of you to bestow onto big corporations like Apple Inc. a nice, big, fuzzy "grey" "level" to do business on. I guess on Apple's "level" of operating, "stealing" isn't actually "stealing". It's a hazy kind of 'inadvertent infringement', or an 'honest legal misunderstanding'.

But for the rest of the common consumers: it's harsh, "black & white" "stealing".

Isn't that the very same kind of mumbo-jumbo doublespeak that the big financial institutions are using to justify their wholesale theft of hard working folk's money - all the while insisting that if any any of these hardworking folks were then try and steal their money back from the same financial institutions that defrauded them in the first place..well, they would be charged as straight-up, violent criminals and treated as such by the law.

As we are seeing much more clearly these days: there is one set of laws that the "little people" are always subject to - and then there are special, flexible, interpretive "grey areas" of legal compliance and enforcement of the very same laws - as they apply to corporations and any other powerful entities that are deemed "too big to fail".

Black and white Indeed!

 

[Ansuz]

How generous of you to bestow onto big corporations like Apple Inc. a nice, big, fuzzy "grey" "level" to do business on. I guess on Apple's "level" of operating, "stealing" isn't actually "stealing". It's a hazy kind of 'inadvertent infringement', or an 'honest legal misunderstanding'.

But for the rest of the common consumers, it's "black & white" "stealing".

Isn't that the very same kind of mumbo-jumbo doublespeak that the big financial institutions are using to justify their wholesale theft of hard working folk's money - all the while insisting that if any any of these hardworking folks were then try and steal their money back from the same financial institutions that defrauded them out of their money in the first place..well they would be considered a straight-up criminals and treated as such.

As we are seeing much more clearly these days: there is one set of laws that the "little people" are always subject to - and then there are special, flexible, interpretive "grey areas" of legal compliance and enforcement of the very same laws - as they apply to corporations that are deemed "too big to fail".

Black and white Indeed!

I don't see it that way at all. There is no grey area when you download an MP3 or a program; you know that you should be paying for this product and you are making a decision to aquire it by other means. It wasn't an "honest mistake." In the world of product creation its not always that easy to define.

Currently, there are tens of millions of registered patents in the US. Given that very large number, it is very possible that a person or company could develop a product completely independetly, believing their creation to be original and unique, only to find out after deployment that it was in fact something that another party held a patent to. This isn't to say that there aren't cases where companies do out right steal ideas as I know this does happen. I simply accept that there can be situations where the "theft" was unintentional and unknown.

If you read what I said before, I mentioned that I agreed with the people who have won their IP suits against Apple. Even if Apple made an honest mistake they are still liable to pay restitution to the patent holder because that is the way the IP laws in this country are. Its necessary to punish the honest mistakes in order to protect the rights of the people who create. I just realize that its not always a malicious act to screw people out of their creations when you get to the types of suits Apple and other deal with - stealing music and software always is.

 

[stevielee]

. I just realize that its not always a malicious act to screw people out of their creations when you get to the types of suits Apple and other deal with - stealing music and software always is.

So by your statement - and apparent moral standards - the vast majority of the worlds population who interact with technology and have already "acquired" digital content that they did not fully compensate the legally recognized IP holder for - are by your description: "malicious" "thieves", who "screw people out of their creations" by "stealing music and software".

Okay...seems you've got some pretty harsh feelings against a very large majority of your own species. Must be quite the rarified air that you and your tiny band of IP purist breath.

You breezily glossed over the inconvenient fact of how most big corporations like Apple, do purposely, blatantly and strategically factor in strategic "illegality", and "IP infringement" as a very profitable, and commonly practiced business tactic. These big corporations are quite willing to pay any financial and/or legal penalties accrued from such practices - well after the fact of having already amassed hefty profits from their very intentional "IP infringement" - that dwarf any financial "settlement" against them by many times over. And if you have deep enough pockets, and are as persistent and litigious as Apple is, you just may not have to pay any aggrieved IP holder a single penny. You also have the option of buying them out once you've bankrupted them into submission. But hey...the little still people are dirty, greedy, contemptible IP thieves. On the top end - just business....

 

[macUser2007]

...
Psystar ships a unopened retail OS X box with each computer that they ship installed with OS X. ...

They are committing piracy or copyright infringement by distributing additional copies installed on the computers that they sell without authorization.
...

Doesn't Apple ship OS X discs, in addition to the OS installed on the computer? Doesn't virtually EVERY other PC retailer ship discs of the OS which is installed on the PCs they sell?

If Apple got paid for the OS X disc, what is the problem, exactly?

And if Psystar is selling their products so cheaply, that they can't make money, how is this Apple's concern, unless they can show, that there is dumping?

And maybe Psystar had purchased OS X discs from third parties, who do not want to be identified, so that Apple doesn't refuse to sell to them in the future, and ruin their business.

Anyway, as I said before: If XEROX was as litigation-happy back in the '80s, as Apple is currently, there wouldn't be Apple today.

 

[Ansuz]

So by your statement - and apparent moral standards - the vast majority of the worlds population who interact with technology and have already "acquired" digital content that they did not fully compensate the legally recognized IP holder for - are by your description: "malicious" "thieves", who "screw people out of their creations" by "stealing music and software".

Okay...seems you've got some pretty harsh feelings against a very large majority of your own species. Must be quite the rarified air that you and your tiny band of IP purist breath.

I think that is the first time in my life I have ever been chastised for wanting to follow the law and give people what payment they are owed.

If thats how you really feel about people who choose to respect the fact that those in our society gifted enough to be able to create the things which we enjoy using/consuming should be allowed to make a living creating those things then I honestly don't really respect your opinion on these matters, so this will be my last response to you on the topic. Stealing music and software rather than paying for it is theft and it is wrong. There is no justification for it, regardless of how popular said practice might be. Iif I were the only person on the planet who didn't engage in the practice I would still feel this way.

You breezily glossed over the inconvenient fact of how most big corporations like Apple, do purposely, blatantly and strategically factor in strategic "illegality", and "IP infringement" as a very profitable, and commonly practiced business tactic. These big corporations are quite willing to pay any financial and/or legal penalties accrued from such practices - well after the fact of having already amassed hefty profits from their very intentional "IP infringement" - that dwarf any financial "settlement" against them by many times over.

Unless you can bring up a single verified example where Apple has attempted to steal IP
in a malicious way that can't simply be chalked up to an honest mistake then your statement is nothing more than opinion. Please feel free to cite this example when you have the time.

If Apple got paid for the OS X disc, what is the problem, exactly?

The DMCA as well as contract, copyright and trademark law. The entire point of the trial was to determine if Psystar's tatics violated these various laws, which most legal scholars believe they did.

And maybe Psystar had purchased OS X discs from third parties, who do not want to be identified, so that Apple doesn't refuse to sell to them in the future, and ruin their business.

The second the court asked for the information about these parties, Psystar lost the right to refuse to identify them, regardless of their reasoning behind that decision. If those companies were in danger of loosing their distribution rights by selling to Psystar then they should have opted not to sell to them in the first place.

 

[pdjudd]

Doesn't Apple ship OS X discs, in addition to the OS installed on the computer? Doesn't virtually EVERY other PC retailer ship discs of the OS which is installed on the PCs they sell?

Yes, they do so with the permission of the copyright holder. Psystar is not doing this since they have no such permission. Apple is the exception however they do not require permission - they possess the copyright.

If Apple got paid for the OS X disc, what is the problem, exactly?

Throwing money at someone does not equal ownership or permission of usage. Software is licensed by a contact. You have to agree to that contract or not use the product. And again, it is not about the disk that they may or may not have legally purchased (Psystar has yet to prove that they were) but the one that is installed on the darned computer.

And if Psystar is selling their products so cheaply, that they can't make money, how is this Apple's concern, unless they can show, that there is dumping?

Irrelevant. Psystar does not have permission to resell OSX in the matter that they are (or did now). Permission from the copyright holder must be obtained. Psystar does not have such permission. Once again, a purchase of intellectual property does not constitute absolute ownership.

And maybe Psystar had purchased OS X discs from third parties, who do not want to be identified, so that Apple doesn't refuse to sell to them in the future, and ruin their business.

Irrelevant. The courts mandated that they show the details per a discovery phase. As a business they are obligated to maintain this information and provide it as needed. You cannot disobey a court order because you don't want to. It matters not who is backing Psystar. As Ansuz points out, If they are scared of doing business with Psystar, then they should not have opted to to business with them in the first place. Once discovery begins, they are required to comply. Asserting that the opposite is true is ludicrous and would undermine the whole purpose of discover. Any civil action could be avoided by the defense by them asserting that the information is "private" and "could harm others". Too bad


THis has been covered before and is not difficult to understand. Intellectual property is licenced via a contract that (unless it allready violates local laws) is generally considered to be a valis contract. Apple owns OSX and can licesnse it as it sees fit. The courts have allready agreed with this.

 

[BaldiMac]

Doesn't Apple ship OS X discs, in addition to the OS installed on the computer? Doesn't virtually EVERY other PC retailer ship discs of the OS which is installed on the PCs they sell?

Yes, but they are authorized to do that through a license from the copyright holder.

If Apple got paid for the OS X disc, what is the problem, exactly?

There is no problem with distributing the disc. It is the installed copy that is the problem.

And if Psystar is selling their products so cheaply, that they can't make money, how is this Apple's concern, unless they can show, that there is dumping?

I don't think it is Apple's concern how cheaply Psystar sells their products. They could even give them away for free. It wouldn't change anything related to this court case.

And maybe Psystar had purchased OS X discs from third parties, who do not want to be identified, so that Apple doesn't refuse to sell to them in the future, and ruin their business.

The fact that they want to protect third parties is irrelevant. There is no "purchaser-supplier privilege". They were ordered to turn the records over by the court.

Anyway, as I said before: If XEROX was as litigation-happy back in the '80s, as Apple is currently, there wouldn't be Apple today.

Maybe, maybe not. But I bet most people would be litigious if someone tried to steal the most valuable thing that they owned.

 

[mags631]

It is extremely rare ( probably less than 20%) that I work on a clients computer and not come across some kind of "illegal" IP/copywrited content.
Now, you may well be one of a very tiny group of technology users that strictly adhere to total IP/copywrite compliance. But do not make the mistake of assuming that there are many others with the your high standards - even if they profess the same positions as you - but in private - practice another.

If you literally take others here on MR - or anywhere else - solely on their "word" that that do not currently have - or have ever had - another persons "uncompensated", or "unauthorized" IP content, then I've got some cheap sub-prime property that I'd like you to consider buying from me.

Nice try. But no, this does not offer any strength to your position. I suggest that this is merely a smoke-screen in an attempt to legitimize unethical behavior. Hypothetically, if a large majority of people are doing something illegal, couldn't they just change the laws to legalize that behavior? Why wouldn't they?

What is the real harm to a consumer for a business to decide what scope of use is appropriate for its products? Buying Mac OS X is not a necessity in of itself, so why must Apple be prevented from determining the scope of the license that best suits its business goals, and let the buyers decide for themselves if it is a "good deal"?

On the other hand, not allowing businesses to define the scope of license rights that they offer may harm those businesses through decreased revenues and increased costs. It seems unnecessary to limit their behavior in this way unless there is something harmful in their actions, in which case I could see an argument for prioritizing the rights of the individual citizen over that of a corporate entity.

 

[awmazz]

Yes, but they are authorized to do that through a license from the copyright holder.

I'm curious about the actual question of copyright itself. Copyright is the protection of literary or artistic work. Is code a literary work? Who actually buys software to read through reams of what is actually gibberish to the buyer? So a question - can you even legally copyright as a literary work something written in a language no human actually converses in? Can you copyright other non-spoken languages like mathematics or physics? Does Einstein own the copyright to E=mc2? Under Australian law, copyright is automatically granted to the originator, so am I breaching copyright every time I write E=mc2 in public, like now, without his descendants' permission?

Or is the copyright claim actually on the artistic or literary work of the end product the code creates? The code is a method of production to create a copyrightable work? Do you copyright the html code of a webpage, or do you copyright how the webpage looks? If it's the code, it shouldn't be copyright at all but falls under Trademark like Technicolor or Dolby in creating copyrightable movies etc.

If written code is indeed a literary work (code being regarded as just another language like English), then not even the smallest portions (or phrases) of the code can be 'copied' under copyright. Example - the phrases "It was a dark and stormy night" or "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" can't be copied. But apparently you can copy and repeat many 'phrases' in code and still claim copyright on the entire work. This is actually illegal under copyright law and is known as plagiarism.

 

[pdjudd]

I'm curious about the actual question of copyright itself. .

You might want to look at this wikipedia article regarding intellectual property which is the main thrust behind copyright:

Intellectual property (IP) are legal property rights over creations of the mind, both artistic and commercial, and the corresponding fields of law. Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; ideas, discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets.
The majority of intellectual property rights provide creators of original works economic incentive to develop and share ideas through a form of temporary monopoly.

And

Intellectual property rights are a bundle of exclusive rights over creations of the mind, both artistic and commercial. The former is covered by copyright laws, which protect creative works, such as books, movies, music, paintings, photographs, and software, and give the copyright holder exclusive right to control reproduction or adaptation of such works for a certain period of time.
The second category is collectively known as "industrial properties", as they are typically created and used for industrial or commercial purposes. A patent may be granted for a new, useful, and non-obvious invention and gives the patent holder a right to prevent others from practicing the invention without a license from the inventor for a certain period of time. A trademark is a distinctive sign which is used to prevent confusion among products in the marketplace.
An industrial design right protects the form of appearance, style or design of an industrial object from infringement. A trade secret is an item of non-public information concerning the commercial practices or proprietary knowledge of a business. Public disclosure of trade secrets may sometimes be illegal.
The term intellectual property denotes the specific legal rights described above, and not the intellectual work itself.

Source
Bolding mine. Basically its up to an copyrighting organization to etermine what is and what is not copywritten. Its very hard to describe what copyright is because it is only one component of intellectual property overall.

 

[-hh]

I'm glad that you take other folks here on MR at their word: that they don't have - or have ever had - someone else's IP content on their "premium" Macs that they haven't actually compensated the IP holder for.

I'm glad that you're not putting words into my mouth. Oh wait - - you actually are!

I don't want to point to your Feb 2009 join date, but my point is simply that the issues of IP theft and Piracy have come up at least hundreds of times over the years, and the over-arching theme from the MR Community is that the individual(s) who have advocated thefts have been consistently berated.

You're welcome to draw your own conclusion after you spend a few weeks reading the archives...but do note that because of Moderation policies, those instances where conversations devolved to shouting matches of "You're a bleeping Pirate!" have been deleted by the Moderators (TOS violation). Thus, you had to have had been here in real time to have seen many of them.

I have worked on hundreds of computers in my line of work...And in my direct, hands-on experience of working with their computers and other technical equipment - that at least 8 out of 10 of them - have some kind of "unauthorized", or "uncompensated" IP content on their machines, or externals - that is easily identifiable as "pirated" to me. Maybe it's just a little MP3 file that someone gave them, or some Shareware that a buddy, or co-worker "shared" with them, or a SL program that has been "illegally" installed on more than one of their computers (especially OSX itself). But somewhere on their Mac's HD, is what you, and others here would claim as: "stolen" IP content.

I understand your point, but let's not forget that there's also "Fair Use" instances of IP.

As such, are you really willing to commit to claiming that absolutely every example of IP that you saw absolutely could not have been permissible under "Fair Use" provisions? Especially for a few pictures 'borrowed' off the web for their desktop?

I doubt it. Afterall, Copyright and IP can often be a 'squishy' topic for people to fully grasp.

If you literally take others here on MR - or anywhere else - solely on their "word" that that do not currently have - or have ever had - another persons "uncompensated", or "unauthorized" IP content, then I've got some cheap sub-prime property that I'd like you to consider buying from me.

Thanks, but your "If" doesn't apply:
I didn't literally take anyone on their word, nor never claimed that there couldn't be any duplicity or even IP backsliding.

What I did say is merely just that the professed respect for IP tends to be IMO noticeably higher here than versus what is found in many other communities...and if you don't want to believe me, perhaps after you get to know the MR Community a bit better, you'll be able to make your own informed judgement, and re-assess what I've said. If you don't want to believe me today, that's your loss, not mine.

And finally, insofar as worthless property offers, I already own a lemon of a Timeshare from Divi Resorts...would you consider a trade?


-hh