What is Digg?Sponsored by Guitar Center
When Heavy-handed Hints Fail--Guitar Center Wishlist Posters view!
guitarcenter.com - Cool personalized designs send a friendly reminder that a new Stratocaster would rock, thanks.
376 Comments
- blix01, on 01/13/2009, -62/+278Apple needs to lose this lawsuit
- vizerei, on 01/13/2009, -38/+158Buried at the end of the first thread:
FTA:
The first sale doctrine, which traces its history to a 1908 U.S. Supreme Court decision and was codified by Congress in the Copyright Act of 1976, essentially says that the buyer of a copyrighted work may sell or give away a lawfully-made copy without the copyright holder's permission.
Nuff said! So much for Apple being a nice company. Appears that Apple is no less asinine than Microsoft. SUCK IT fan boys! - duggtodeath, on 01/13/2009, -1/+87A flood will do; we don't need the gate.
- ArthurSucks, on 01/13/2009, -7/+91If Psystar wins this case, you're going to see a floodgate of Apple clones.
- smashingmonkey, on 01/13/2009, -2/+80Exactly, that's why Mac Mall, Mac Connection, CompUSA, Other World Computing, Buy.com, Amazon, and hundreds of other retailers all design and manufacture their own versions of the Mac OS.
- T8erT0T, on 01/13/2009, -6/+79"Hi, I'm a Mac."
"And I'm a PC."
"And I'm Psystar."
"What the ***** did I say about showing your face around here? You want this 7 inch blade in your chest?!" - Carpy, on 01/13/2009, -15/+83Psystar is such a stupid name.
- Kingoftherings, on 01/13/2009, -2/+63A copy of OS X created by Apple.
Psystar legally buys a copyrighted version of OS X, and therefore have permission to sell it to someone else. - ileftfark, on 01/13/2009, -11/+70FTA: "While Psystar complies with Section 117(b) of the Copyright Act, Apple attempts to usurp those limitations by telling Psystar and its customers that Apple -- and Apple alone -- will say 'whether, how or by whom its software is ... distributed or used."
So what if you want to sell your old iMac? What if you have 4 iMacs? 20? At what point after you buy an Apple product does that product actually belong to you? From this case and Apple behavior in general, it would seem like the answer would be "Never" if Apple had its way. - Me1000, on 01/13/2009, -7/+62Apple doesn't care about the Hackintosh platform, the geeks in their rooms making a hackintosh doesn't bother them at all. When someone starts selling that hackintosh and turning a profit they get a little upset.
Not to mention the ass holes at psystar are profiting off the hard work of the hackintosh community that put a lot of hard work into getting OS X running on PCs. - sk8ngame, on 01/13/2009, -14/+61Apple needs to figure out that stopping this company isn't going to stop people from doing this.
They just need to stop being ***** and let people put their software on affordable hardware instead of in a $2000 shiny case. - krahzee, on 01/13/2009, -3/+37Psystar loses even if they win. Apple has the bankroll to litigate them into oblivion. Eventually they either have to stop sell machines with Apple's OS, or go out of business.
Eventually the dollar holds the most value, and Apple has a lot more of them than Psystar. - inactive, on 01/14/2009, -5/+38Psystar's argument is full of crap and this is why. Yes, anyone can walk into a store and buy OS X off the shelf, but that's considered a personal copy. Once you start selling hundred of copies of OS X to third parties you essentially become a reseller and you have to obtain a reseller license from Apple. Microsoft does exactly the same thing. Microsoft has sued people for selling bundles of Windows over the internet without a reseller license.
And even if Psystar wins, two things are likely to happen. Apple will stop selling OS X off the shelf and require you to provide your serial number in order to buy an upgrade or (2) a bunch of other companies like Dell and HP are going to start to sell Mac clones and bury Psystar. Either way, Psystar loses. - mklnz2, on 01/14/2009, -7/+39This is full of crap, If I made my own software to go specifically with my own hardware, what law says I have to share my work and let them use it on their hardware? I have every right to keep my software on my own hardware.
- leamanc, on 01/14/2009, -10/+39Why do they *need* to do this, other than people like yourself wanting them to? Go to an Apple board meeting and explain to the shareholders why they should stop their money-making machine.
I wish Apple would put out an OS X for generic x86 hardware too. But I'm not going to delude myself by saying they "have to do it" or "need to do it." They've got a very profitable business model, and I don't see any end to it. If I really want OS X on my Dell, I can go the Hackintosh route. But I'm not going to pay for a Hackintosh from Pystar (or anyone else). - vizerei, on 01/13/2009, -1/+30EULA is only accepted by the end user...so the reseller is NOT governed in this case. The OEM agreement would be what covers resale by an apple licensed. Barring that, there is no legal reason you cannot sell your license to someone else!
And Shadoblak, you certainly are no expert, you are legally allowed to sell software provided it is not restricted under distribution laws (piracy, academic edition, site licensed, etc). However, in most of the exception cases you can still sell it...except piracy :)
FTA:
The first sale doctrine, which traces its history to a 1908 U.S. Supreme Court decision and was codified by Congress in the Copyright Act of 1976, essentially says that the buyer of a copyrighted work may sell or give away a lawfully-made copy without the copyright holder's permission. - nullcodes, on 01/13/2009, -5/+31If I buy a bicycle, then add a few basic custom mods to it .. can't I still sell it?
Good, we have agreement. - vtnerd, on 01/13/2009, -0/+23If this succeeds, you're going to see the capability of running virtual machines with OS X without any modification or tweaks or work arounds.
- inactive, on 01/14/2009, -2/+22This lawsuit will be over soon enough... and I predict Apple winning.
- danielsan1701, on 01/13/2009, -3/+19What constitutes a "lawfully-made" copy?
- mrBitch, on 01/14/2009, -2/+18@ Tomholius RE: " Apple cant tell me what to do with there ***** product after I purchased it."
You are making the same mistake as many others posting the same comments.
Apple DOES NOT CARE if you install OSX on your own Hackintosh PC.
There are NO legal actions being taken by Apple against the Hackintosh community.
Where Apple DOES CARE is when you then decide to start up a business selling your Hackintosh PCs to others.
Even the Hackintosh community are pissed off at Psystar due to Psystar using the efforts of those who have contributed their efforts for FREE and then selling the results of those efforts as if Psystar had a right to sell those efforts without prior permission...
As Me1000 stated :
"Apple doesn't care about the Hackintosh platform, the geeks in their rooms making a hackintosh doesn't bother them at all. When someone starts selling that hackintosh and turning a profit they get a little upset.
Not to mention the ass holes at psystar are profiting off the hard work of the hackintosh community that put a lot of hard work into getting OS X running on PCs." - EarlOfLade, on 01/14/2009, -2/+17'I'm no expert"
Damn right! Buried! - burrgrinder, on 01/14/2009, -0/+15Are you provided the contract agreements prior to purchase? No.
Did you sign a legally enforceable contract? No.
Can you reasonably return the product if you disagree with the terms? No, opened software usually can't be returned from the place of purchase, you have to contact the author.
Does Psystar constitute an end user?
I'm not a lawyer, but I've never seen an EULA enforced in court in my years of Slashdot reading. - Matt2k, on 01/14/2009, -2/+17The reseller is not agreeing to the EULA, and it's debatable if even the consumer is restricted by that piece of nonsense.
- Darkicewolf, on 01/14/2009, -3/+17I don't think the argument is that they must put Apple OSX on generic hardware.
The question is, is it with in Apples right to enforce how one uses there product. Right now apple seem to be asserting such a power which under any other context would seem extremely absurd.
I.e. you buy a car but are force to only park in designate special parking lots that the car company owns. All with out the aid of a real legal contract.
legally maybe they can get away with this, But ethically for whats that worth now days it seems wrong. Almost like corporate totalitarianism.
- inactive, on 01/14/2009, -5/+19Great, so they're essentially forcing Apple to add more copy protection into each subsequent OS. One of the nice things about OS X is no mucking with activations. You need a Mac to use OSX, thats all the copy protection they've needed thus far. Perhaps there really is Microsoft money behind this...
- roxgod666, on 01/13/2009, -2/+16"Yo, Smith Goldberg, i got a new computer"
"Oh yeah, what kind is it?"
"A psystar"
"Is that some stupid battlestar galactica joke?" - jermm, on 01/14/2009, -0/+13Why Psystar will lose:
Their legal budget is the same as what Apple's lawyers spend every day for lunch. - Tomholius, on 01/14/2009, -4/+17Apple cant tell me what to do with there ***** product after I purchased it.
- EarlOfLade, on 01/14/2009, -4/+17Of course we only have your words for this and we do not know how you behaved toward the Psystar person either, so this is a completely useless statement.
I am always very skeptical when I read comments like yours due to over 25 years in the business. - InspectorGadget, on 01/14/2009, -3/+15PSA: Everyone that doesn't actually know anything about copyright law or contractual enforcement should shut the ***** up and stop with the worthless, ignorant conjecture.
- sitryd, on 01/14/2009, -3/+15Section 117 only apples to a product subject to a valid sale. The software here was conveyed under license, not sale (which has a specific legal meaning).... The license specifically limits the rights given to the user, notably that it can only be installed on an Apple branded machine. Since the use exceeds the license, they're guilty of infringement of the underlying copyright. The fact they "bought" a license is not relevant. See DSC Communications v. Pulse Communcations (finding that restrictions on resale granted less than full ownership rights, and made ยง 117 inapplicable).
Say what you want about Apple's licensing scheme, but Pystar is wasting the paper this argument is written on. - ThanatosST, on 01/14/2009, -1/+13You know, I hadn't heard about OS X only being available for sale as an upgrade, so I went and checked out apple's online store. After reading everything listed on the description and features for it, I still have found absolutely nothing about it being 'an upgrade only'.
That is, unless you define installing a brand new OS as 'just an upgrade' - sirbeta, on 01/13/2009, -0/+11Um, you can buy OEM copies of Windows and load it on anything you like.
- swmbuk, on 03/30/2009, -12/+23At the end of the day if you create something you should be able to choose how its used, especially if its for commercial purposes, end of ***** story no matter how much you hate Apple......
- dOOBiEx213, on 01/13/2009, -19/+30Oh Apple, how I loathe thee. Your continued schemes to purposely hold back on features (which would not be very costly to include) only to introduce them in the later generations is despicable. When will your over-pricing end? Your greed is unfathomable... but damnit, you make such awesome *****.
- Harabeck, on 01/13/2009, -2/+12It is the same as a purchased copy. Psystar PURCHASED those copies. They can do whatever hell they want as long as they don't make illegal copies from the legal ones.
- roguewriter, on 01/13/2009, -18/+28I really don't care if Psystar survives the lawsuit or not. I had an email conversation with one of their sales people that left me with an extremely bad opinion of the company. In short, the salesperson was deliberately vague over specific questions, barely respectful at times, almost hostile at others, and showed absolutely no enthusiasm for the product whatsoever.
If this is how Psystar does business all the time, then perhaps they deserve to go under. - saikyan, on 01/14/2009, -0/+10I think you're jumping to conclusions.
If they win, how do you know Apple won't just modify their software in such a way that it prevents non-Apple computers from running it, thus effectively killing Psystar's business and annihilating the OSX86 community all at once?
Apple is currently tolerant of hobbyists, doing nothing to help or hinder them. A victory for Psystar could just as easily give them a reason to change this position. - clickmyface, on 01/14/2009, -4/+14Modifying and reselling copyrighted material is precisely not legal.
If you copy the the book "The DaVinci Code" for example, rewrite the ending, and then resell it commercially, you are in direct violation of the Copyright Act of 1976. If you purchase, modify, and resell a copyrighted software, you are committing the same violation.
If you sell your copy of "The Davinci Code" unmodified, you are within your rights.
FYI, i'm sitting at my desk at the copyright office I work for. Just to the right of my monitor is an enlarged version of "17 U.S.C 107: Fair Use" from the Copyright Act of 1976.
Yeah. - RomeyRome, on 01/13/2009, -2/+12But aren't they also modifying the OS to a small extent to make it run on a PC, and bypassing hardware checks?
- daschmidty, on 01/14/2009, -1/+11They are not modifying the OS itself. To extend the Da Vinci Code analogy, consider someone who has poor vision and can read only, say, Latin. Psystar's approach here is not to buy the Da Vinci Code and translate it into Latin and resell, but rather to package it with a magnifier and an English-to-Latin dictionary as tools for the end user. They have not modified the base code of OSX in any way. They have installed their own custom extensions (tools) on top of the vanilla product so it can run on their hardware. The OSX Code, ie that which is protected under copyright, is still 100% intact.
- ironhide, on 01/13/2009, -0/+9For the most part, Microsoft doesn't tell you what you can and can't load it on.
- SeanRoss, on 01/13/2009, -8/+17Nice... Apple can suck it. Although I do like their products, their business practices sometimes suck.
- Murdats, on 01/13/2009, -5/+13aren't you allowed to install programs on computers any more?
- Wetzilla, on 01/14/2009, -1/+9No, I believe it is a hardware work around that makes the software think it is being installed on official Apple hardware.
- l0tharnt, on 01/14/2009, -0/+7Thats not the market they are aiming for. I've heard many a times that Macs are for stupid people. Its a joke yes, but in reality, people that want super simple...Macs pretty simple. Having to be told well you buy this hardware then this software and you get to install it yourself...just isn't the ideal marketing.
- ClevelandBrown, on 01/13/2009, -8/+15Agreed.
- Myonosken, on 01/13/2009, -4/+11Except he doesn't need to as the EULA only applies to the end-user.
- mesostinky, on 01/14/2009, -2/+9Not if you sell the software on the open market. If apple only sold OS X as part of the hardware then you'd have a point. But that's not the case.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 381 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is