Not to mention Firefox does have crash recovery. When it crashes, it always comes back up right where it left off, all tabs intact.
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.
Reports of Psystar's Demise Appear Premature
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not to mention Firefox does have crash recovery. When it crashes, it always comes back up right where it left off, all tabs intact.
IE is stable - tab isolation is to protect the browser from plug-in crashes.
Thanks for correcting me on that one.
The agrument is similar to the Microkernel Minix argument. Lots of talk but its never actually been proved to be needed.
I thought you said you didnt use flash.
I'm not talking about plugins, silly.
cmaier said:
My Fault
Oh, look who's back ... you've got to wonder who the hell is funding this mob considering the way they just won't disappear.
People who are "for" Psystar are just as delusional as the company itself.
Mac OS X is Apple's product, they own it. Psystar have no right, legal or otherwise, to crack it or develop code which allows non-Macintosh hardware to run it. It's not rocket science for Christ sake, but some people are beyond a telling.
Some on here in the Psystar Supporters Club have used the example of Apple developing Boot Camp to allow Windows to be installed on Intel Macs, saying that it's no different to Psystar offering a program to install OS X on PC's.
Are people really that stupid to believe that Apple didn't, a) inform Microsoft of their plan to develop Boot Camp, b) gain permission to allow Windows installation on a "rival" platform, and c) maybe even seek advice from Microsoft on how best to utilise Windows via Boot Camp with drivers, etc.
Common sense is free, but some folk act like it's an expense too far.
People who are "for" Psystar are just as delusional as the company itself.
Mac OS X is Apple's product, they own it. Psystar have no right, legal or otherwise, to crack it or develop code which allows non-Macintosh hardware to run it. It's not rocket science for Christ sake, but some people are beyond a telling.
Some on here in the Psystar Supporters Club have used the example of Apple developing Boot Camp to allow Windows to be installed on Intel Macs, saying that it's no different to Psystar offering a program to install OS X on PC's.
Are people really that stupid to believe that Apple didn't, a) inform Microsoft of their plan to develop Boot Camp, b) gain permission to allow Windows installation on a "rival" platform, and c) maybe even seek advice from Microsoft on how best to utilise Windows via Boot Camp with drivers, etc.
Common sense is free, but some folk act like it's an expense too far.
No, it isn't. Apple was spinning it that way but it's bull. At the time they started making that argument, I searched through the EULA, documentation and marketing material for Tiger and Leopard and neither of them said anything about it being an upgrade. That's Apple revising history.
If it's an upgrade, then you must accept this ridiculous scenario....
Someone buys a used Mac off eBay or from a Mac seller where the original install media isn't available (and go take a look because you'll see hundreds of them for sale that way) then it's technically illegal to buy OS X off-the-shelf and install it. If you don't own the installer disks, then you don't own the software license and you can't legally upgrade.
That whole "off-the-shelf OS X is an upgrade" argument is nonsense. If Apple really meant that, they'd be verifying it before allowing people to use it and they would have long ago gone after the Hackintosh crowd.
Very good. That means you're forfeiting control of your own opinion to the very people you despise and are therefore behaving in just as knee-jerk a manner as they are.
Probably none of those things are true. Microsoft licenses Windows for installation on any computer. Apple doesn't need Microsoft's permission beyond the permission that Microsoft has already given in its license agreement.
Not to mention that the analogy is flawed in that Apple doesn't sell Macs with Windows pre-installed. (Again - even if Apple did so, as long as it abided by Microsoft's OEM license it would be free to do so.)
You are making a strawman argument. He said "essentially." His point was that Mac OS X is not sold for installation on naked iron. It's for sale only for use on machines that were sold by Apple with Mac OS installed on them.
Also, you own the license whether or not you own the installer disks. Not sure where you got that idea from.
P.S.: and apple's not revising history, because apple never made the argument.
and the fact that apple trusts people to not abuse its software license doesn't mean it doesn't think it's software license is invalid.
I thought you said you didnt use flash.
I've said that I normally have Flash disabled, and only enable it when I want/need the Flash content.
Then you're "talking silly", since IE8 is not unstable. You must be thinking of Safari.
Yes, because fighting the unwinnable "copy protection" war is really a good investment of ressources.
The lack of copy protection does not mean that you can do as you please with the software, only that the vendor trusts its users enough to do the right thing. If it should or shouldn't is not any legal indication of copyright or license forfeiture.
I wish someone would explain to my what Psystar is doing that is illegal.
I'm not rooting for these guys, but I have yet to understand where the illegal part is in all this. Point it out for me...
* Build a generic PC box
* Sell the customer an off-the-shelf copy of OS X
* Install software that allows OS X to be installed
* Install an unaltered copy of OS X at the request of the customer
* Ship the product
What part of that is illegal?
And remember, when you answer, the EULA has a spotty history as being a legally enforceable contract between buyer and seller. Historically, it has the most teeth when used to combat piracy and there's no piracy happening here. And even if it were legally enforceable, the buyer in the above scenario is NOT Psystar so how the EULA applies to them is a whole other argument.
Why don't you go read Alsup's summary judgement and find out for yourself ? Why should it be explained again ? But just to humor you, here it is :
- They are guilty of copyright infrigment for having modified Apple's base image of OS X and then distributed this derivative work using an image server to the machines it was building without a proper license to make such a derivative work and to distribute the result from Apple.
- They are guilty of circumventing protections put in place by Apple that makes sure that OS X is only installed on proper Apple branded hardware (the Dont Steal Mac OSX kext...) which is against provisions of the DMCA.
- Finally, they are in breach of the EULA and have afforded Apple no remedy for this breach even though they haven't discontinued use of the product in question.
Reading the injunction should also give you a clue as to what all illegal actions they did and are now prohibited from doing.
Again I never said overpriced. Simply that when they made the switch, a lot of people here were making statemwnts that intel drops the CPU prices all the time but we never eae thoses. Again I never said overpriced.
First, EULA's do not have "a spotty history." They are typically enforced so long as they do not infringe the right of first sale and so long as they can be agreed to prior to the purchase transaction or so long as there is a right of refusal accompanied by a refund.
Second, Psystar did NOT install an unaltered copy of OS X. They altered it, creating a derivative work. Further, they made multiple copies form a single master. Both of these are violations of 17 USC 106.
They also violated the EULA, which meant they had no license to use the software for any purpose, which means that even installing it on a single computer would be a violation of 17 USC 106.
Even if they had not done these things, they would be inducing violations of 17 USC 106 as well as contributing to them, both of which are violations of copyright law.
Read Alsup's opinion.
* Build a generic PC box
That's ok.
* Sell the customer an off-the-shelf copy of OS X
That's ok.
* Install software that allows OS X to be installed
Not ok.
* Install an unaltered copy of OS X at the request of the customer
Not ok.
* Ship the product
Not ok.
The infringement starts around "Install software that allows OS X to be installed" and just snowballs from there.
Wow, just wow. Was this meant as a joke and I missed it? Fox News is by far and large the most bias and radically conservative news service in the entire Unites States. I mean have you see programs featuring Glenn Beck? Speaking of which, why has Glenn Beck still not denied the allegations of raping and murdering a girl back in 1990? Why will he not address the allegations? Why the cover up?
Apple is using the law to protect their profits. Psystar is a threat to Apple's profits, therefore they are breaking the law.
Nonsense. Psystar is performing specific acts that, under federal law, are explicitly defined as copyright infringement. Microsoft is a threat to Apple's profits and they aren't infringing Apple's copyright (so far as we know)
1. Camaras bill for Psystar is presumably zero, because he took the case on a basis of no success / no payment. Since Psystar's previous lawyers are owed $88,000, that didn't make much difference.
2. I don't think that the outcome of this case has anything to do with the quality of Psystar's legal representation, but is completely based on the illegality of their actions. Sure, a law company that was paid (not just billing, but getting paid) by the hour would have made the fight last longer, but they would have never succeeded.
1. Camaras bill for Psystar is presumably zero, because he took the case on a basis of no success / no payment. Since Psystar's previous lawyers are owed $88,000, that didn't make much difference.
2. I don't think that the outcome of this case has anything to do with the quality of Psystar's legal representation, but is completely based on the illegality of their actions. Sure, a law company that was paid (not just billing, but getting paid) by the hour would have made the fight last longer, but they would have never succeeded.
Not pleading 17 USC 117 was a huge mistake. May not (probably not) have made a difference, but it was their best argument.
It's funny that people are still bringing up the same story about Microsoft or Sony making products that tie it to their own hardware. Okay, Microsoft doesn't make computers and it was probably never their intention to do so. They make software and if they started to do it now, thousands and thousands of companies and users that use Windows on a standard PC would be pissed. They make money on software, not hardware. Only the XBOX360 is tied. The same with Sony or the others. They want to sell PC's with Windows, standard TVs, radios, cameras, camcorders not make products that tie hardware with software for the mass market, unless it's the playstation.
The problem with that idea is that the PC market is very cutthroat with razor thin margins. I remember then Zenith had a PC (it didn't last long). The reality is with so many already existing brands Psystar would have quickly gone to the abyss with this model.
1. When a company changes lawyers, the second set of lawyers may be limited by the mistakes of the first lawyers.
2. It is debatable whether this was a mistake or not. If the lawyers believe it didn't make a difference, then why plead it (especially if you don't get paid for it). But to quote Judge Alsup: "At all events, the assertion of Section 117 is so frivolous in the true context of how Psystar has used Mac OS X that a belated attempt to amend the pleadings would not be excused."
"Frivolous" is much worse than "completely without merit". "Frivolous" means it is so completely wasting the courts time that a lawyer making a frivolous pleading will be punished for contempt of court.
That's mere dicta. It wasn't plead, so we'll never know. Still a huge mistake. If I was the one who drafted that complaint I'd be on the horn with loss prevention pretty quick.
Actually, Microsoft settled their case for stealing Apple's Quicktime code, in addition to their UI infringement case, in 1997.