pcworld.com— Mac clone maker Psystar was dealt a crushing blow by a federal judge that ruled the Florida company violated Apple's copyright as well as the DMCA.
Nov 15, 2009View in Crawl 4
RE: " .. People here seem to have a problem grasping exactly how "educated" the "average consumer" is...the answer is not very."Agree, and slapping Apple logos over all the accompanying documentation didn't help Psystar's case...
Err no it doesn't. It relies on the fact that Psystar modifed OSX (in the process breaching the DMCA) and sold the derivitative work (which isn't allowed under copyright law with the copyright holder's permission).Nothing to do with the EULA. Perhaps you should read the article before posting made-up facts?
As Apple's lawyers pointed out to the court, Psystar also had free, open source operating systems to choose from as well:- FreeBSD- Apple's own Darwin- etc. (I think the Yellow Dog Linux distro runs on Macs, or at least used to and probably others do too)And, Psystar, a commercial company, could do what Apple did and write their own OS, if they just had to go with a proprietary/commercial OS instead of a FOSS OS. That is what Apple did for Apple II system ROMs + Apple DOS, the Apple 3 SOS, Mac OS 1-9, and Mac OS X.Psystar's illegality could not be any plainer if their corporate headquarters was a ship, and their HQ flew a black flag with skull and crossbones flying above it. It was probably one of the easiest cases for the judge to try in a while.
Dugg down for SPAM. Those do not link directly to pages that simply cover the referred to license or allegations thereof. They link to sites that exist to propagate an illegal DMCA circumvention software device.Essentially, the same type of illegality that Psystar was found to engage in at the hearing where Apple won summary judgments and Psystar lost summary judgments. Your links seem more abetting than informative.
Uh, no - making a legal copy is established practice. This case was about making an illegal copy that was banned by US law, and then selling the banned product in the US - plus implying to customers it was a legal copy.Basically, iti sounds like they ripped off Apple and their customers alike. I read somewhere that Apple is requesting that Psystar be required to recall the products and this request does not seem out of line with the facts that have come to light regarding this case.So, uh, no - dugg down for equating "priacy" (illegal) to "disk imaging".
mrbitchNov 16, 2009
RE: " .. People here seem to have a problem grasping exactly how "educated" the "average consumer" is...the answer is not very."Agree, and slapping Apple logos over all the accompanying documentation didn't help Psystar's case...
countbrassNov 16, 2009
Err no it doesn't. It relies on the fact that Psystar modifed OSX (in the process breaching the DMCA) and sold the derivitative work (which isn't allowed under copyright law with the copyright holder's permission).Nothing to do with the EULA. Perhaps you should read the article before posting made-up facts?
esc27Nov 16, 2009
Not that I'm a big fan of Psystar, but disk imaging is fairly well established in the industry.
johnnysoftwareNov 19, 2009
As Apple's lawyers pointed out to the court, Psystar also had free, open source operating systems to choose from as well:- FreeBSD- Apple's own Darwin- etc. (I think the Yellow Dog Linux distro runs on Macs, or at least used to and probably others do too)And, Psystar, a commercial company, could do what Apple did and write their own OS, if they just had to go with a proprietary/commercial OS instead of a FOSS OS. That is what Apple did for Apple II system ROMs + Apple DOS, the Apple 3 SOS, Mac OS 1-9, and Mac OS X.Psystar's illegality could not be any plainer if their corporate headquarters was a ship, and their HQ flew a black flag with skull and crossbones flying above it. It was probably one of the easiest cases for the judge to try in a while.
johnnysoftwareNov 19, 2009
Dugg down for SPAM. Those do not link directly to pages that simply cover the referred to license or allegations thereof. They link to sites that exist to propagate an illegal DMCA circumvention software device.Essentially, the same type of illegality that Psystar was found to engage in at the hearing where Apple won summary judgments and Psystar lost summary judgments. Your links seem more abetting than informative.
johnnysoftwareNov 19, 2009
The protective mechanism obviously was not in the Darwin (open source) kernel itself.
johnnysoftwareNov 19, 2009
Uh, no - making a legal copy is established practice. This case was about making an illegal copy that was banned by US law, and then selling the banned product in the US - plus implying to customers it was a legal copy.Basically, iti sounds like they ripped off Apple and their customers alike. I read somewhere that Apple is requesting that Psystar be required to recall the products and this request does not seem out of line with the facts that have come to light regarding this case.So, uh, no - dugg down for equating "priacy" (illegal) to "disk imaging".