Wi-Fi Sync App Rejected by Apple

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Acceptable to who? You have no idea why they do not choose to implement it, so you make up reasons to justify your viewpoint.

Does it matter 'why' when it there's no technical issue? I only have to (once again) point out my Apple TV units from over three years ago could sync both wired and wirelessly with iTunes. Like I said, there is simply no technological reason why they don't already offer this feature. They could also offer things like AirTunes play (in either direction) and even lyrics in the "remote" App. They're either don't care or they plan to offer these as "future upgrades". It's like leaving out the camera on the iPad. There's a spot for one. I'm sure Steve thought at the last minute, hey, why would anyone want to buy next year's model if we can't enhance it with something it should already have? Yes, I'm speculating, but I'd rather challenge you to come up with one good reason it doesn't have wireless sync as an option already beyond that scope.

if you want to try to justify your antitrust claims, please cite ONE case in which the US has successfully prosecuted a company with less than 20% market share (double what Apple has) for similar antitrust violations. If you do, we can look at the criteria that they used to make that determination.

Once again, your proposal is based on false premise. Apple's OS market isn't relevant to the discussion here because it is the HARDWARE market that Apple is trying to block competition in, not the software market. So tell me what percentage of new machines Apple has in the professional, high-end desktop and notebook markets relative to other companies' market share and you have your starting point, not OS share since Apple is not tying the OS to hardware to increase sales of OSX. That is entirely backwards given the total lack of value for Apple hardware on a dollar to dollar basis with other manufacturers and NO ONE switches operating systems because they like the look of an iMac. If anything, a user would throw Windows on an iMac if they wanted the hardware so badly they're willing to pay through the nose to get it just for looks.

But it is precisely this backwards premise that unravels all your replies, BaldiMac. How can I take your antitrust arguments seriously when you cannot even comprehend something as basic as what is tied to what to increase which sales. I'll give you a hint, though. Apple is a BIG player in over $1000 computer sales and due in no small part to the fact you cannot get a computer PERIOD with OSX on it that is NOT from Apple without doing the Hackintosh thing. I'm sure that's still not significant to you, though.

Copyright law. You have modified Apple's software and created a derivative work without permission. The judge in the Psystar case ruled that replacing
Apple's bootloader and modifying kernel extensions resulted in the creation of a derivative work.

First of all, you were talking about ME in that reference. What have *I* done to break the law? I do not own a Psystar model. I have a stock purchased copy of Snow Leopard installed on my Dell Inspiron. It has not been "hacked" or "modified" in ANY way. It is the retail version of OSX. I have not replaced an "Apple bootloader". It uses an EFI emulator (the equivalent of "Bios" on non-EFI machines). That is not owned or controlled by Apple. In fact, Windows7 will install quite happily on an EFI machine directly as well as various flavors of Linux. If the Dell had EFI on it from the factory, it would not need the emulator layer. Before you go preaching that Apple owns EFI, it DOES NOT. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_Interface )

It was developed by Intel and now managed by the Unified EFI Forum.

So sorry, copyright law does not apply to me. Psystar used this also later on in its production. They lost their case because early on they WERE modifying Apple code to install OSX. It is precisely this faux pas that lost them their court case.

If you admit to having broken the SLA, then contract law as well. No one is going to come and get you. Doesn't change the fact that it is illegal though.

A contract that breaks a law is not enforceable on that point. I realize your faith in one judge is quite awe-inspiring, but I tend to think that judge is just another notch in an already far too corrupt government that places big business concerns ahead of both the common citizen and smaller businesses. Antitrust laws were created in a time of less corruption and so they are rarely enforced these days and often overturned by corrupt judges (e.g. Even Microsoft got out of their original judgment on appeal; money talks and BS walks).

See above to justify antitrust claims. Apple would claim that there SOLE PURPOSE in tying the two product together is to create a superior user experience.

And you and I both know that is a load of horse fecis. Their hardware is NOTHING SPECIAL period and that is easily proven by the fact I can install their OS on a computer for $1200 that will run literal CIRCLES around a Mac Pro that costs $3000 for most user applications.

I'm neither a fanatic or a drone. If you claim to not know the differences between a fan and a drone, you are simply being willfully ignorant.

The only difference is that a drone repeats everything Apple says out of programming while a fanatic repeats it out of love. The two can otherwise be easily juxtaposed as the functional difference is irrelevant. Both agree with Apple without thinking. Really, I don't care. I'm just sick of writing "fanboy" or "fanatic" all the time, but sadly the overgeneralized arguments of "Apple is right" on here gets nauseating. If you really do think for yourself, congratulations. I've seen little evidence of it in this thread, at least as I see the same tired "Apple is right" arguments I've seen elsewhere. Where has even ONE of your arguments not amounted to that? You've told me Apple doesn't have to offer anything or do anything it doesn't want to no matter what. You've told me Apple won its lawsuits because they're right. You've told me that Apple aren't patent trolls despite filing tons of questionable patents and despite filing lawsuits to protect their hold on the market (e.g. the Android suit).

Apple is a corporation. By nature, they are greed personified (literally if you believe the Supreme Court). To add insult to injury, Apple is run by a control freak with a god complex. In essence, those two descriptions of Apple explain EVERYTHING you need to know about why I think Apple as a company are not worthy of my respect. Bill Gates was more of a dirty businessman type who offered inferior products, but enforced them with dirty business deals. Apple is more introverted. I suppose in a way they are less evil in the sense that what Microsoft did screwed over a LOT of companies worldwide whereas Apple is more like Lex Luthor in Superman II where he apparently just wants to own and control Australia. Here nothing and no one is allowed in 'Appstralia' without Apple's consent and 30% of their money.

Can you name two patent lawsuits that they have initiated in the last decade?

Notice the word "initiated." They have responded to being sued for patent infringement with their own patent suits as a defensive strategy. I'm not including these cases.

I don't generally memorize these things and I honestly don't believe naming even a dozen would change your mind about ANYTHING so what's the point? Oh well, it's so pretty easy to look up a few, why not?

http://blogs.computerworld.com/15684/apple_files_patent_lawsuit_against_htc

This one is amusing related to that one (http://blogs.computerworld.com/15723/ex_sun_ceo_dishes_dirt_steve_jobs_as_apple_patent_troll )

http://www.informationweek.com/news...cle.jhtml?articleID=221901168&subSection=News

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...it_in_defense_of_made_for_ipod_licensing.html

Technically, this one involved countersuits, but I like it anyway because Apple LOST big time for once (I guess Creative weren't pushovers like Psystar) http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1365846.html

 

[BaldiMac]

Does it matter 'why' when it there's no technical issue?

There are technical issues. Unlike an AppleTV, an iPhone can move around and has power concerns. There is a reason that Microsoft required the Zune to be plugged in during wireless sync.

But technical issues are not required. Apple is under no obligation to offer features just because they can. Maybe they just think its better.

Once again, your proposal is based on false premise. Apple's OS market isn't relevant to the discussion... SNIP MORE BASELESS ANTITRUST RANTS

I never mentioned OS market share. Apple's market share in the personal computer market in the US is less than 10%. Show me a successful antitrust prosecution in the US with a market share under 20%.

First of all, you were talking about ME in that reference. What have *I* done to break the law? I do not own a Psystar model. I have a stock purchased copy of Snow Leopard installed on my Dell Inspiron. It has not been "hacked" or "modified" in ANY way. It is the retail version of OSX. I have not replaced an "Apple bootloader". It uses an EFI emulator (the equivalent of "Bios" on non-EFI machines). That is not owned or controlled by Apple. In fact, Windows7 will install quite happily on an EFI machine directly as well as various flavors of Linux. If the Dell had EFI on it from the factory, it would not need the emulator layer. Before you go preaching that Apple owns EFI, it DOES NOT. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_Interface )

It was developed by Intel and now managed by the Unified EFI Forum.

So sorry, copyright law does not apply to me. Psystar used this also later on in its production. They lost their case because early on they WERE modifying Apple code to install OSX. It is precisely this faux pas that lost them their court case.

I was talking about you. OS X will not run on a non-Mac simply by using an EFI emulator. Either you or the EFI emulator or some other hardware or software must replace the bootloader and the SMC kext (which accesses the hardware SMC that contains a decryption key for the OS kernel.)

A contract that breaks a law is not enforceable on that point. I realize your faith in one judge is quite awe-inspiring,... SNIP CONSPIRACY THEORY.

And your faith in no judges is even better. Again, if you believe that the contract is illegal due to antitrust law, show me the case requested earlier.

I'm just sick of writing "fanboy" or "fanatic" all the time, but sadly the overgeneralized arguments of "Apple is right" on here gets nauseating.

How about this solution? Don't write "fanboy" or "fanatic" all the time. It's against forum rules. It doesn't add to the discussion. It's an ad hominem argument.

MORE CONSPIRACY THEORY

I don't generally memorize these things and I honestly don't believe naming even a dozen would change your mind about ANYTHING so what's the point? Oh well, it's so pretty easy to look up a few, why not?

http://blogs.computerworld.com/15684/apple_files_patent_lawsuit_against_htc

This one is amusing related to that one (http://blogs.computerworld.com/15723/ex_sun_ceo_dishes_dirt_steve_jobs_as_apple_patent_troll )

http://www.informationweek.com/news...cle.jhtml?articleID=221901168&subSection=News

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...it_in_defense_of_made_for_ipod_licensing.html

Technically, this one involved countersuits, but I like it anyway because Apple LOST big time for once (I guess Creative weren't pushovers like Psystar) http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1365846.html

So, you brought up the HTC case (twice) that I already mentioned and a minor licensing dispute that was dismissed at Apple's request after a few months. I'm embarrassed to have missed that second one.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Well, it's been fun, BaldiMac, but as I alluded to earlier, it's a waste of time having a "discussion" with an informal representative of Apple and I've wasted enough already. I see the same "Apple can do whatever it wants" replies which I've seen a thousand times before. BTW, "replacing" a part of the OS is NOT the same as MODIFYING it. Ms-Dos wouldn't even exist if they modified CPM as that would be a copyright issue. Reverse engineering or writing your own code is not illegal the last time I checked.

 

[BaldiMac]

Well, it's been fun, BaldiMac, but as I alluded to earlier, it's a waste of time having a "discussion" with an informal representative of Apple and I've wasted enough already.

Farewell, too bad you can't get past the name calling.

I see the same "Apple can do whatever it wants" replies which I've seen a thousand times before.

I never suggested anything of the sort. It must be fun to be able to hold both sides of the argument in your own head.

BTW, "replacing" a part of the OS is NOT the same as MODIFYING it.

As I pointed out, The judge in the Psystar case ruled that replacing the bootloader and SMC kext resulted in a derivative work. Which Apple has exclusive rights to under copyright law with specific limitations.

 

[WeegieMac]

As others have said, Apple refused this app simply because wireless syncing is a feature they will leave for a future model of the iPhone.

Oddly enough though, it'll be a feature that will work easily on every model of the iPhone because the device has WiFi/Bluetooth, but Apple will only allow it on the newest model to force users into upgrading.

Usual stuff really.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Farewell, too bad you can't get past the name calling.

If that's what you want to call it. I call it being descriptive about a personalty profile. Calling me arrogant isn't name calling, for example. But like everything in your arguments, you seem to see it through pink (Apple? ) tinted lenses.

As I pointed out, The judge in the Psystar case ruled that replacing the bootloader and SMC kext resulted in a derivative work. Which Apple has exclusive rights to under copyright law with specific limitations.

To be derivative (even by definition), they would have had to modify existing code, which would explain the copyright violation. If they did not modify existing code, but wrote their own or reverse engineered it, then the judge would be ignoring precedent (of Microsoft no less and it doesn't get any bigger than that) regarding reverse engineering. You could argue the various code out there being used for Hackintoshes is code modification, but I could argue Microsoft stole CPM as well. It's funny how the winners in history are also usually the ones writing history.

This is never more true than when fallible people are called to "judge" something without their inherent human bias. As I said, even cases going to the Supreme Court are often 4:5 type decisions and these are supposedly the best qualified humans we have to judge. Then there's the matter of whether the laws themselves are Constitutional (many say the DMCA is not, but until it's challenged in a case that really pushes the issue, it's all pretty abstract and vague). And for whom were laws like the DMCA and Copyright written for? The general public (i.e. the vast majority of Americans) or the tiny percentage of Corporations ever pushing for more ways to rid you of your excess wealth? I can borrow a DVD from my library and it's not illegal, but if I download it and watch it and then delete it, it IS illegal. Either way I the experience is the same (I watch the movie) so to me that implies the laws are out of date and/or illogical. I should be able to check out a movie from an online library and that solves the problem. But the Corporate World would probably like to get rid of all libraries too. The problem is they predate their greedy laws. Fair use should cover digital too, but the Corporate big whigs say no way, even when it's destructive encoding like MP3 or JPEG. That is not only illogical, it's ethically WRONG, IMO. But then like all of this I'm writing, it's either my opinion or comes from my POV.

Have a nice day.

 

[BaldiMac]

To be derivative (even by definition), they would have had to modify existing code, which would explain the copyright violation.

OS X is considered a single work. By replacing part of the code (bootloader and kext files), a derivative work is created.

http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091114101637997
See the section labeled "C. Right to Create Derivative Works."

 

[macsmurf]

First of all, you were talking about ME in that reference. What have *I* done to break the law? I do not own a Psystar model. I have a stock purchased copy of Snow Leopard installed on my Dell Inspiron. It has not been "hacked" or "modified" in ANY way. It is the retail version of OSX. I have not replaced an "Apple bootloader". It uses an EFI emulator (the equivalent of "Bios" on non-EFI machines). That is not owned or controlled by Apple. In fact, Windows7 will install quite happily on an EFI machine directly as well as various flavors of Linux. If the Dell had EFI on it from the factory, it would not need the emulator layer. Before you go preaching that Apple owns EFI, it DOES NOT. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_Interface )

You're using a kernel extension, FakeSMC, that circumvents the copy protection in OS X, thereby violating the Digital Millenium Act.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

OS X is considered a single work. By replacing part of the code (bootloader and kext files), a derivative work is created.

http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091114101637997
See the section labeled "C. Right to Create Derivative Works."

A single work, eh? On what planet is a library based OS which is based largely on open source code a single work? The open source code alone is separate in every sense of the word (oh, but you meant in a "legal sense" (in other words, nonsensical lawyer BS). I guess all IBM had to do to stop Microsoft from spreading MS-Dos to clones worldwide was call it a "single work". I guess the U.S. must operate in retardo-mode these days if they're accepting that kind of nonsense. But that's right. Clayton doesn't apply because big business says they want to do whatever they want to do, but companies like Apple can just make crap up and it's the law.

You're using a kernel extension, FakeSMC, that circumvents the copy protection in OS X, thereby violating the Digital Millenium Act.

Perhaps you should learn to spell Millennium before you try to talk about it. And it's the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, for that matter, else it would be DMA, not DMCA.

In any case, that's another law that not only needs to be repealed, but it's being used wholesale to circumvent previous court decisions like fair use, as if "digital" is somehow different than analog when it comes to media playback in a fundamental sense of use.

In any case, it doesn't matter. If the code is being utilized solely to protect a right the company doesn't have (i.e. to force people to buy Apple hardware instead of whatever hardware they want to buy), it's invalid. Besides, how can you have "copy protection" on a retail software install? I mean its function is not to prevent copying (OSX isn't protected from being "copied" AT ALL), but rather to try and force you to buy Apple hardware. That has NOTHING to do with "copy protection" so I fail to see how the DMCA applies at all. I'm not "copying" hardware (not Apple's property) and I installed the retail OS so I didn't copy it either.

 

[BaldiMac]

A single work, eh? On what planet is a library based OS which is based largely on open source code a single work? The open source code alone is separate in every sense of the word (oh, but you meant in a "legal sense"... SNIP CONSPIRACY THEORIES

We were discussing whether or not something is illegal. The "legal sense" seems like the most appropriate way to discuss it.

SNIP SEMANTIC NONSENSE

In any case, that's another law that not only needs to be repealed, but it's being used wholesale to circumvent previous court decisions like fair use, as if "digital" is somehow different than analog when it comes to media playback in a fundamental sense of use.

We agree!

In any case, it doesn't matter. If the code is being utilized solely to protect a right the company doesn't have (i.e. to force people to buy Apple hardware instead of whatever hardware they want to buy), it's invalid. Besides, how can you have "copy protection" on a retail software install? I mean its function is not to prevent copying (OSX isn't protected from being "copied" AT ALL), but rather to try and force you to buy Apple hardware. That has NOTHING to do with "copy protection" so I fail to see how the DMCA applies at all. I'm not "copying" hardware (not Apple's property)

Apple does have the right to limit installation of OS X to its own hardware as affirmed in the Psystar case.

and I installed the retail OS so I didn't copy it either.

Installing software does involve creating a copy.

 

[macsmurf]

Perhaps you should learn to spell Millennium before you try to talk about it. And it's the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, for that matter, else it would be DMA, not DMCA.

English is not my native tongue and I make spelling errors occasionally. What's your excuse? If you prefer, we can continue the discussion in danish.

In any case, that's another law that not only needs to be repealed, but it's being used wholesale to circumvent previous court decisions like fair use, as if "digital" is somehow different than analog when it comes to media playback in a fundamental sense of use.

In any case, it doesn't matter. If the code is being utilized solely to protect a right the company doesn't have (i.e. to force people to buy Apple hardware instead of whatever hardware they want to buy), it's invalid. Besides, how can you have "copy protection" on a retail software install? I mean its function is not to prevent copying (OSX isn't protected from being "copied" AT ALL), but rather to try and force you to buy Apple hardware. That has NOTHING to do with "copy protection" so I fail to see how the DMCA applies at all. I'm not "copying" hardware (not Apple's property) and I installed the retail OS so I didn't copy it either.

I don't really care about the law. I don't live in the US. OS X has protection against what Apple considers illicit use via the SMC chip. You're (or rather Netkas is) simulating the SMC chip which holds the encryption keys. You choose to ignore that you're probably breaking the law which I take issue with. At least own up to it.

Incidentally, I'm writing this on a Hackintosh. There are different laws in my country but I won't rule out that it isn't legal. As long as I've bought my copy and it hasn't been tried in court I'm ok with that.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

We were discussing whether or not something is illegal. The "legal sense" seems like the most appropriate way to discuss it.

The problem is you seem to base your idea on one case out of context that wasn't even heard in court and then everything else around it (i.e. contract law that may not be legal in the first place). Obviously, we'll never have any kind of agreement. But then my opinion of bad laws is one of civil disobedience anyway. You can't repeal bad laws easily if you don't challenge them.

Apple does have the right to limit installation of OS X to its own hardware as affirmed in the Psystar case.

You can keep saying it. I still won't agree.

Installing software does involve creating a copy.

I believe that has already been ruled not a form of "copying" since the software will not function if not installed (i.e. it's NOT in its executable form). Call this a consequence of the hard drive age, but regardless, it is not "copying" in the legal sense, which is what you seem to want to argue from.

Regardless, this is turning into a massive pointless use of (at least my) time so have the last word if you wish (I gather you'd never stop responding to every last detail until you get it anyway). I'm unsubscribing from the thread.



BTW, don't you find it odd that the justice department is now investigating Apple for a possible antitrust case due to its music download service, which only has around 30% of the music market share? Didn't you tell me earlier in this thread that DOES *NOT* happen because 30% is NOT "significant" in terms of market impact? LOL. I guess it matters if the music industry doesn't like it. Something tells me that if HP, Lenovo, etc. all got together and cried to the justice department that they are being left out of the hardware market for OSX that they might actually listen whereas if consumers or small businesses like Psystar complain, they get shoved out the door with a big middle finger and a ruling against them. It only proves to me further that this country is completely corrupt in terms of bias for large corporations (just look at that Supreme Court ruling making them "people") and against the very "people" that they are SUPPOSED to represent.

 

[BaldiMac]

The problem is you seem to base your idea on one case

And you base your idea on no cases.

out of context

The case was perfectly on point.

that wasn't even heard in court

Why do you keep saying this? It was heard in court. It was dismissed.

and then everything else around it (i.e. contract law that may not be legal in the first place).

I'll assume you mis-typed here.

Obviously, we'll never have any kind of agreement. But then my opinion of bad laws is one of civil disobedience anyway. You can't repeal bad laws easily if you don't challenge them.

The law may be bad in your opinion. Doesn't change the fact that it is the law.

You can keep saying it. I still won't agree.

At least you admit that you can't be swayed by the facts and quotes from experts.

I believe that has already been ruled not a form of "copying" since the software will not function if not installed (i.e. it's NOT in its executable form). Call this a consequence of the hard drive age, but regardless, it is not "copying" in the legal sense, which is what you seem to want to argue from.

You believe incorrectly. It is copying.

There is a limitation to the copyright owners exclusive rights with regards to installation of a computer program (Sec 117). It allows the owner of a copy of a computer program to create an additional copy (installation) as required to utilize that computer program.

However, US courts have maintained, with the notable exception of Verner v Autodesk, the claims by software companies that they license the copy sold on the DVD. Since the limitation only applies to "owners", not licensees, the applicability of the limitation is in a big gray area, especially in light of Verner.

But Sec 117 does not allow for the creation of derivative works as part of the installation. So installation of OS X on a non-Mac is still pretty clearly subject to Apple's exclusive rights.

Regardless, this is turning into a massive pointless use of (at least my) time so have the last word if you wish (I gather you'd never stop responding to every last detail until you get it anyway). I'm unsubscribing from the thread.

Are you taking your ball?

BTW, don't you find it odd that the justice department is now investigating Apple for a possible antitrust case due to its music download service, which only has around 30% of the music market share?

Nope. I agree with the invesigation. But it's only an investigation.

Didn't you tell me earlier in this thread that DOES *NOT* happen because 30% is NOT "significant" in terms of market impact?

Nope, I claimed that 10% wasn't enough. I doubt 30% is enough, but their 70% share of the downloads market is definitely enough. The justice department will have to determine the significance of the impact of the CD market on the downloads market to measure Apple's market power.

LOL. I guess it matters if the music industry doesn't like it. Something tells me that if HP, Lenovo, etc. all got together and cried to the justice department that they are being left out of the hardware market for OSX that they might actually listen whereas if consumers or small businesses like Psystar complain, they get shoved out the door with a big middle finger and a ruling against them. It only proves to me further that this country is completely corrupt in terms of bias for large corporations (just look at that Supreme Court ruling making them "people") and against the very "people" that they are SUPPOSED to represent.

Something may be telling you that, but it's just the voices in your head. There is a difference between controlling your own product (OS X) and trying to control someone else's product (Amazon music downloads).