And according to the law, that doesn't matter one bit. Of course making a profit is worse for the infringer, but not making a profit does not make you immune. Robin Hood was still guilty even though he gave the money he stole to the poor. Doesn't change the fact that he was still a thief.
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 to Change Tactics and Sell Mac OS X-Ready Computers?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And according to the law, that doesn't matter one bit. Of course making a profit is worse for the infringer, but not making a profit does not make you immune. Robin Hood was still guilty even though he gave the money he stole to the poor. Doesn't change the fact that he was still a thief.
+1.
Profit matters only in determining the amount of damages to be paid, and, in certain situations, profit (broadly defined) can raise certain criminal penalties.
It's a common misunderstanding that one has to profit from copying in order to be held liable - this is not true.
And you can't play Zelda on a Playstation 3, Halo on a Wii, or Uncharted on an Xbox 360. OS X isn't licesned to play on any computer, that's Apple's decision, while Windows is, which was always Microsoft's decision.
Not like I'd stop anyone from building a hackintosh (or flashing a video card, especially) but I don't see how there's any uncertainty about this, legally.
I mean, what's next, Valve gets legally forced to port their games to OS X?
quote:>>With Apple having already won a judgment against Psystar for copyright infringement, Psystar's tactic of shifting the burden of OS X installation to the customer appears to be its new primary strategy for attempting to remain in business.
LOL!
LOL!
Why would Apple care about Psystar's investors? Heck, even if it was someone like Intel (which wouldn't make any sense), why would Intel be mad at Apple - and what could they do about it if they were?
Alsup's decision is going to put Psystar out of business. Why should Apple worry about anyone else taking care of it.
Actually, it's even better if you look at the Mini server. $999 - including unlimited client version of OS X. How much is the unlimited client version of Windows Server - even if the hardware were FREE? A lot more than $999.
Oh, good. Then why don't you show a copy of that written agreement?
Fact is that it doesn't exist. Even Psystar doesn't claim that there's a complete agreement. AT BEST, there's a partial agreement (for all we know, the only thing that they've agreed to is that Apple sued Psystar). Until we see a signed agreement or a court order, there's no reason to believe this is any more than more Psystar delusion.
PLEASE read the court order. You're just plain wrong. First, the court order specifically says that it's a DMCA violation - which is a criminal offense. Second, the process of copying the information onto the DVD onto the hard disk falls within the user's copyright rights ONLY IF the software is unchanged. Since Rebel modifies the software before installing it onto the hard disk, it's a copyright violation. This was all spelled out in the court order.
pearc.de for instance. And Apple didn't do so well in that law suit.
Please tell us which law suit you're talking about and what the results were. I'm not sure Apple has even filed suit against pearc and I'm sure that there has not been a decision even if the suit was filed.
Apple knows that? Based on what evidence? You're simply making things up-especially since the court just ruled that the EULA is perfectly enforceable and that even if Psystar simply helped customers to install OS X on their computers that they'd be guilty of copyright violations and DMCA violations.
And Apple would not be protecting its intellectual property if they agreed to what Psystar said.
Wrong. Profit is irrelevant. PLEASE do yourself a favor and read Alsup's decision. You clearly haven't read it because it addresses that issue.
I love people who try and make analogies of two completely different technologies and industries.
Little do most people know, most car equipment is manufactured or designed by the same outsourced company...
Case in point
YAMAHA developed the 2ZZ-GE engine for TOYOTA...
This engine is used in the TOYOTA Celica, Matrix, and Corolla-S, PONTIAC Vibe, and LOTUS Elise and Exige.
Most of the fuel injection systems are developed by DENSO and a lot of the wheels of the higher end cars by Rays Engineering or BBS.
Your transmission analogy simply will not work here. Oh and if I wanted I could put any engine in any car without fearing being sued. Example, my friend has a 5.0 Ford Powered Miata that runs 10's. I own an MR2 with a 2ZZ from a Lotus Elise. Bugs powered by Porsche engines... you see where I am going with this?
Sure. You're attempting to prove that you don't have a clue about intellectual property rights.
If you must use a car analogy, what Psystar is doing is the equivalent of buying up BMW badges and then placing them on their own home-built car - and telling people it's the same as a BMW but at lower cost. (Even that's not right because it ignores the EULA and DMCA issues, but it's closer than the transmission analogy).
Or, you rent a car from Avis with an agreement that says you can drive it 300 miles and will have it for 3 days but you must not leave the country - and then you return it 2 months later with 20,000 miles on the odometer and traveled all over North and South America.
Jesus, I didn't even WANT to compare them. You're debating something that I'm not. I think you're just confused by what I posted. I don't actually want to buy windows, a mac mini, or that crappy dell mini "thing".
By an affordable headless mac, I did not mean the mini, I was hoping for an affordable tower.
If PsyStar can sell computers (overclocked i7, baby!) that run mac software and hit that sweet spot missing in Apple's line, I would consider it over a $2200 iMac or $3500 tower.
just to play devil's advocate here- I'd compare psystar to selling cars that have the same mechanical parts and performance (intel chips are basically the same), they are just selling them with a cheaper corolla frame and without the BMW badge on the outside.
But they keep the plush interior of the luxury BMW (Mac OS X), then sell the whole thing at the cost of a toyota! it drives as fast as a BMW, feels like BMW on the inside, but on the outside it looks like an economy car, and costs similar to an economy car.
Analogies are fun, let's do more!
p.s.- I don't care about licensing, I just want a cheaper mac! :b
Well, according to Judge Allsup, they probably cannot do that without violating Apple's copyrights.
As an addendum:
From Groklaw...
Basically it's a response to the request from Apple for the injunction and PJ is not buying it for a minute.
just to play devil's advocate here- I'd compare psystar to selling cars that have the same mechanical parts and performance (intel chips are basically the same), they are just selling them with a cheaper corolla frame and without the BMW badge on the outside.
But they keep the plush interior of the luxury BMW (Mac OS X), then sell the whole thing at the cost of a toyota! it drives as fast as a BMW, feels like BMW on the inside, but on the outside it looks like an economy car, and costs similar to an economy car.
Analogies are fun, let's do more!
Analogies are only useful if they have some bearing on the issue in question. Yours doesn't.
There's nothing wrong with wishing for a cheaper Mac. Breaking the law and violating Apple's copyrights to get it isn't legitimate, though.
I had this same thought. The publicity is all for Apple. The settlement is for $1.00 USD. It sets a preemptive precedence in the court for anyone trying to do the same in the future.
But seriously, has anyone actually bought, or know someone who bought, one of these Psystar computers? Or the EFI Rebel thing?
And do you buy watches from people in back alleys? Aside from the notion of trying to do what's right, what ever happened to the practical benefits of buying from a reputable company? You know, stuff like honoring a guarantee, or providing customer service.
The people who build their own machines, and hack the os themselves, are, in my eyes, different. I see them as admirable. But the legal system doesn't, I think.
Why do you hate affordable computers? Were they taking market share from Apple?
They sold less than a thousand computers this year. It always makes me laugh when you try to claim that only the Ultimate edition of Windows is equivalent to OSX. Not only that, you are pricing a second hand Mac against a copy of Windows that isn't pre-installed. With that Mac Mini you forgot to include the price of an adapter to connect to a monitor, the price of an Apple keyboard (because OSX does not properly support PC keyboards) and a mouse. Then it's necessary to consider the limited availability of refurbished items. Mac Minis are especially rare and may be an older model if the line has just been refreshed.
It's funny how easy it is to tell when people don't know what they're talking about. The above is a great example.
You can plug virtually any keyboard into a Mac and it will work fine. Other than the issue of whether you want an apple on the command key or 'cmd', there is very little difference.
So you want to argue that a crippled version of windows is equivalent to a full featured OSX? Okay... Windows ultimate has to be compared becasue it's the only version of windows that is full featured! The rest are crippled in some way.
Isn't it just remotely possible that some people are opposed to criminal behavior?
You could just as easily say that the police are opposed to affordable cars because they won't let me break into a Maserati dealer and steal a car.
But XBox, Wii and PS3 have fundamental differences under the hood. The difference between Macs and PCs is very slight, hence the fact that it was possible for a bunch of amateurs in their spare time to make it run on non-Apple branded hardware. It takes entire coding teams to convert a modern game to another format, the cost of which has to be covered by sales on that format. Converting OSX to run on PCs would cost peanuts and could be covered by having a lower price Mac version discounted by hardware sales. The PC version would cost more, support could be eaten by selected OEMS. Apple are no longer reliant entirely on Macs for their profits, they won't be at the mercy of the clone makers. If they truly produce the best OSX PCs then that factor should be the one that decides whether they sell, not the fact that they are the only people allowed to make them. Of course they have the right not to license it, but that just shows how scared they are of competition. They could no longer charge huge markups on hardware if they were faced with any sort of competition in the OSX space.
Instead they'd have to charge huge markups on their software. What would be the point?
Stop this FUD. I use Windows Home Premium and have never ever felt like it is crippled. I don't need to join to a domain, I don't need extra business related backup facilities. I don't even need Bitlocker because I don't have a lot of information that I need to keep secure. Apple have one version of OSX because they have a much narrower range of hardware and customers.
No there is not "very little difference". On a UK keyboard there are certain keys which are not in the correct place if you plug a PC keyboard into a Mac.
The point would be that they would be properly competing with Microsoft in the OS marketplace instead of hiding away in the luxury end of things. Its all very well for Apple to sneer in their adverts when they only support a fraction of the hardware. The fanbois love to bash MS but Apple don't have the balls to come out of their niche.
That's one of the stupidest statements I've ever seen on the Internet - and that's saying a lot.
Apple has invested billions of dollars in R&D. They have not only the right, but also the obligation to their shareholders to maximize the return on that investment. Apple has access to an entire team of market researchers and engineers, so it's safe to assume that they know more about it than you do - and their results over the last decade bear that out.
As soon as you've created a business that's growing at double digit rates and has earned enough to have $35 Billion in the bank, then Apple may be interested in hearing your opinion. Until then, you're just another mouth flapping about something you don't know anything about.
Since by definition is does not have all the components, it is crippled. It lacks features. It's irrelevant that the features that are missing are not missed by you. Mac os only has one version, Windows has multiple versions. Since those versions all have different feature sets with the exception of ultimate (which has them all), we have to look at Windows as an umbrella.
I do not use crippled to mean inferior, I use the term to mean incomplete. Home premium is not the full version of Windows. Period.
You mean like BMW hides from Toyota? Apple has a competive advantage fer cryin' out loud. It would be suicidal to abandon that to go head to head with a convicted monopolist. It's suicidal.
Bollocks. Its not crippled if the feature is unnecessary. There are different versions of Windows for different segments of the market. Just because OSX comes in a one package for all version does not mean that all OSes should. IN fact, should we argue that OSX is crippled because it doesn't include server components? There's a server version of OSX, why doesn't the desktop version come with email and a user database?
Of course it is, so instead of throwing **** around in their adverts, why not just admit that they have a niche product and that PCs are necessary for certain tasks?
Of course it is, so instead of throwing **** around in their adverts, why not just admit that they have a niche product and that PCs are necessary for certain tasks?
For the same reason that Windows doesn't in their consumer products. They are completely different products entirely. This isn't a home/business comparison with the consumer windows versions. Just like with Windows Server they are completely different products that are not marketed toward consumers at all. MS markets all of teh versions of windows from Basic to Ultimate as consumer versions (in fact they are all on the same disc).