Slashdot Mirror
Psystar Claims Apple Forgot To Copyright Mac OS
Preedit writes "Mac cloner Psystar is claiming in new court papers that Apple's copyright suit against it should be dismissed, because Apple has never filed for copyright protection on Mac OS X 10.5 with the US Copyright Office. Infoweek is reporting that the claim, if it holds up, could open the door for third-parties to enter the Mac market without fear of legal action from Apple. In its latest set of allegations, Psystar is also accusing Apple of bricking Macs that don't run on genuine Apple hardware." We've been following the Psystar-Apple imbroglio since the beginning.
What
the
fuck
I thought since the US joined the Berne convention in the 80s or 90s, registration with the copyright office is not required...
That's the worst argument I've ever heard. I've got two words for you Psystar: Berne Convention
You'd almost think they were organized just to antagonize Apple. Hmm...
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The United States Copyright Office says otherwise.
IIRC, doesn't the Berne Convention say that all creative works have copyright even if you don't register it?
That argument has surely got no chance of flying. The OSX splash screen says that Apple own the copyrights on the software as does the pretty box the disks come in and all you need to assert copyright ownership is a mark on the product that says so.
That restricting OSX to apple approved hardware is anti-competitive might have a chance but even with a little hat that first snowball ain't gonna last long.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
I wasn't using a Mac during the last time Apple allowed clones, but several people I knew at the time all claimed that their clones were generally faster than the machines Apple sold. So now that I us OS X, I'd like some Intel clones... but not from these clowns. They sound like the SCO of cloners.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The way US copyright law works is that copyright exists automatically, no registration is necessary. However, registration *is* required before filing a lawsuit. If Apple really failed to register before suing Psystar, they might be able to get the suit dismissed. If the judge is particularly nice, they might even get it dismissed with prejudice, meaning it can't be brought again (though I can't see why a judge would do that).
However, that will in no way prevent Apple from registering their copyright and then filing suit against others. Nor will it prevent Apple from suing Psystar over alleged infringements of other copyrights (say, newer versions of OS X).
This is an ordinary bit of legal maneuvering by some attorneys who noticed an apparent procedural oversight by their opponents and who are attempting to capitalize on it to get at least a little delay, and perhaps even more. It's really not a big deal.
(IANAL, and I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express, so the above is likely complete crap.)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The comment on the linked article is correct, copyright is created the moment you write your code. So Apple's covered there.
On the allegations of antitrust that might have some merit.
As a EFi-x user I like my hachintosh even if it's a bit of extra work. I also like my mac book pro even if it's more expensive.
The EFi-x (efi-x.com) device is interesting since they don't modify any of the Mac OS X code at all. They modify the BIOS of the motherboard and likely do some Virtualization Tricks (tm) to make Mac OS X think it's running on apple hardware.
Apple would - in my humble opinion as a NeXT, OpenStep and Mac user since 1985 - be better off opening their os software to third parties. It would be fantastic to see OpenStep 5.0, oh, er, Mac OS X 10.5 whip Vista's butt. Maybe when Steve leaves soon.
I've had my osx86 machine bricked by updates, not to the point of hardware failure, but to the point of unrecoverableness. There's actually a .kext file that they put in called "dont_steal_macosx.kext" or something similar, but I guess that's a risk you have to take with this kind of software
Psystar is also accusing Apple of bricking Macs that don't run on genuine Apple hardware
Since the definition of "Macintosh" is a computer built/branded/sold by Apple, and no-one else, this statement is nonsensical. It could say "Psystar is accusing Apple of bricking generic PCs that are attempting to illegally run OS X", but, like it or not, I would have thought they are entitled to do so.
A few months back I would have never bought conspiracy theory that Psystar was mearly a front for other companies who wanted to bundle OS X (think SCO - MS) but with their tenacity and resources I am starting to wonder who Psystar really is. Oddly even Apple has asserted this claim in court docs. Once this is over we will surely hear some interesting stories.
I'm pretty sure only Apple sells Macs, and I'm also pretty sure Apple is using genuine Apple hardware. Ergo there is no such thing as a Mac with non-genuine Apple hardware. Pystar may sell a computer that can hobble on Mac OS X, but that is not a Mac. What Pystar means to say is:
Of course the bricking claim is also bogus; Apple's firmware updates don't run on any kind of Hack (including Pystar's machines) so nothing can be bricked. At this point Pystar isn't even grasping for straws, it's a Hail Mary attempt when the football game ended an hour ago and everyone has gone home.
Apple is a hardware company that doesn't want their name damaged by people turning out inferior machines on their proprietary OS. This is purely about another company wanting to get in on the Mac name which Apple spent a fortune promoting. They are free to make PCs or Linux machines why is it so critical that they make Macs? Could it be that they are popular.? I got handed a Mac clone from another company, I actually don't know the name of the company, by the company I work with. I was told it was faster than stock Macs. Well it turned out to be much slower than my old Intel Mac 2.0 it was supposed to be replacing and it wasn't stable. I handed it back after a day and went back to my old machine. They finally broke down and got me a proper Mac Pro and it's run like a champ ever since. Lesson, if you want or need a Mac buy a Mac. If you don't buy a PC or Linux system. If you want a cheaper computer there are plenty of cheaper PCs and Linux machines and the PCs will run far more software. I love my Macs but you couldn't give me a clone. My time has value and my experience is they tend to be cheapie knock offs. Macs aren't as over priced as their rep would claim so boasting of a cheaper Mac means it's probably a cheaper machine and more than likely it'll be slower and less stable. Just not worth the hassles. I know some one will rave about their amazing Mac clone but try something heavier duty than word processing or editing the family's vacation video and you might be surprised.
There's an exception. You get a few months after "publishing" your work in which you can register your copyright *after* the offense and still sue for punative damages. I think it's like a 3 month window. So.. technically if OSX was released 3 months ago Apple could correct their mistake and still sue for punative damages.
I believe, but can't cite the law, that you can actually register up to the time of filing a lawsuit, to get statutory damages.
Sure they might be taking a desperate route to defend themselves, and sure they probably have backing from one or more of Apple's competitors, but I don't see why Mac clones wouldn't be good for OS X in the long run. Look at what happened in the 80s with IBM-compatibles (clones). That basically forged the way for Intel-based architecture to be mainstream that even Apple uses now, and basically made Windows the dominant force on the desktop from the 90s to today, even though Vista was a functional and PR nightmare. I use OS X at work and I'd love to use it at home but I just can't afford a Mac so I'm stuck with XP and Vista. I came close to buying a Psystar, but until there are more "Mac clones" and they become more mainsteam or at least not litigated against, I won't buy one. I hope that within a year or two that will change (but I'm not holding my breath).
Apple was complaining that there were parties unknown behind the scenes running Psystar because they could not have been able to challenge and sue Apple with such impugnity otherwise.
At least now we know it's SCO.
The way US copyright law works is that copyright exists automatically, no registration is necessary. However, registration *is* required before filing a lawsuit.
But the important thing to remember is that, even if you haven't registered, if someone infringes you can register and then file a lawsuit. You might not get the full advantages of registering before someone infringed, but having failed to register so far won't stop you. It can be done retroactively.
Breakfast served all day!
Another poster provided information that contradicted me, so I am pointing out that I am wrong 8-).
Mac OS X Leopard Version 10.5.
Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: TX0006849489 / 2008-01-24
Application Title: Mac OS X Leopard Version 10.5.
Title: Mac OS X Leopard Version 10.5.
Description: Print material + CD-ROMs.
Copyright Claimant: Apple Inc.. Address: 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014
Date of Creation: 2007
Date of Publication: 2007-10-26
Nation of First Publication: United States
Authorship on Application: Apple Inc., employer for hire; Domicile: United States. Authorship: new and revised text, illustrations and compilation; new and revised computer program.
Previous Registration: 2006, TX-6-325-148.
Pre-existing Material: Previous versions of "Mac OS" and "Mac OS X" operating system software code.
Basis of Claim: new and revised text, illustrations and compilation; new and revised computer program.
Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence.
ha, it would be really funny if their actually WERE a number of powerful/large companies that were behind this, and prystar is actually backed by this legal powerhouse that found this 'problem' with OS X's copyright or whatever. I want some technology-base-corporation-scandals (between the corporations and not the consumers.. for once...)
Blow up my plane? Nuke ten of your airports.
spend its money on developing a Mac OS X clone instead of on legal battles with Apple.
Some of the bits and pieces are already publicly available, that would of been a much wiser way to compete with Apple.
I personally would love for the Mac OS to remain exclusively on Apple's own hardware.
GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
"No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright.
If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.
If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.
If the work is an unpublished or published computer program, the deposit requirement is one visually perceptible copy in source code of the first 25 and last 25 pages of the program. For a program of fewer than 50 pages, the deposit is a copy of the entire program.
If the work is in a CD-ROM format, the deposit requirement is one complete copy of the material, that is, the CD-ROM, the operating software, and any manual(s) accompanying it. If registration is sought for the computer program on the CD-ROM, the deposit should also include a printout of the first 25 and last 25 pages of source code for the program." Copyright Office Basics
In fact, you can't sue in a US court unless you've registered your copyright. The principles of the Berne Convention do indeed automatically grant copyright from the moment a work is placed in fixed form, but in the US, only copyright owners who register their works can sue for damages. Psystar is correct in this claim (assuming Apple did not in fact register the copyright).
Macs that don't run on genuine Apple hardware.
If it's not Apple hardware, it's not a Mac.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
What the law boils down to is a procedural requirement that you register before you sue. The logic is that registration doesn't grant you copyright; it is nothing more than a public claim that you hold the copyright to a certain work. Unless you're contractually required to surrender it, you automatically have copyright over every work that you create.
So basically, the law requires you to make a formal, public claim of copyright over your work before you can sue somebody over infringements. I.e., you have some paperwork to do before going to court.
Are you adequate?
I have known it. Apple is afraid that if people put Mac OS on non-apple computers and upgrade their hardware as they please, that people will be happy and everything will...'just work.'
Faster machine and space heating for the winter FTW!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
You don't need to file with the copyright office to have a copyright. Simply claiming copyright is enough.
I find this whole conversation funny. Why? If it were Micro$oft suing Pystar, everyone would be lining up to defend them, not the other way around. What makes it so different? Individuals have been trained like Pavlov's Dogs to growl and show hate whenever the word Micro$oft or Winders is mentioned. I do not personally like Winders (I use Linux for everything but gaming), but I do believe it did play a role in standardizing computers. Have we become "toys" for slick marketing to not apply the same standard to both companies? Thank You (He steps down from his soapbox and hangs his head in shame. He defended the Antichrist after all)
This is just an editor rant. I'm sorry, kdawson is just a horrible editor. First he posts "google is horrible they're not giving bonuses and feeding the masses dogfood; P.S. use linux" Then he posts this article which dozens of people have immediately spotted as B.S. I want my 7 minutes of reading Slashdot back.
However, registration *is* required before filing a lawsuit.
I thought it was only required in order to have a certain type of damages awarded (which may make it economically infeasible to sue without have filed, but strictly speaking not necessary).
Is anyone who is not a Mac Fanboi protesting that "Psystar is bad and Apple is good?"
Mac OS X runs just fine on a Gigabyte GA-EP45-DQ6 with the EFix (efi-x.com) gizmo and YES IT is still Mac OS X. Can't tell the difference! 4 core processor, 8GB RAM... lots of disk (up to ten 1.5 tera byte drives for that motherboard). NVidia graphics board with 30" Samsung display (so gorgeous I have two, one on my mac book pro and will never go back to the smaller displays for my machines).
So yes, Mac OS X is just the same on "generic" hardware.
Apple could specify supported configurations and keep the drivers open. NeXT did this very successfully with OpenStep 4.3 years ago. In fact many years after NeXT was purchased by and took over Apple people were still writing drivers for OpenStep!
It can work. They've proven it before.
Microsoft needs to be whipped by a better system. Unleash the beast Apple. Unleash it for the good fight against Microcrap.
These companies don't seem to get it. You can't just slap OS X on generic parts and call it the same as Apple. With Apple you're also paying for support, for prestige, for lots of intangibles that people value.
-- http://ninthagenda.com/
Is it Firefox, or does InformationWeek really have an amazingly crappy looking website? I only see plain text on a white background.
-- Cheers!
I believe you can sue without having registered. However, you can only sue for actual damages, not punitive damages. For someone who writes an OSS app, typically the actual damages are zero, since the product isn't being sold for money. That's why the EFF encourages programmers to register and transfer their copyrights on OSS to them; a lawyer isn't going to take such a case on a contingent fee basis if the only damages possible are the (zero) actual damages. But Apple is selling MacOS X as a commercial product, and would have actual damages.
There was a time when you could lose copyright protection completely by not following the formalities. E.g., the famous horror movie Night of the Living Dead is now in the public domain because the distributor inadvertently messed up and omitted the copyright notice from the film. But that hasn't been the case for a long time.
Find free books.
Here's the copyright filing from government records, 1/24/08...
You can't "forget to copyright" something because copyright is not a verb. By creating an independent work you gain copyright on it. There is no independent act of "copyrighting". Trying to think in terms of copyright being a verb just leads to muddled thinking from the get-go.
You can register a copyright, and in some countries need to do that as a formality prior to taking someone to court for infringing said copyright. But registration is not required for having copyright protection on a work.
Any noun can be verbed - except copyright.
Technically, it may work. Financially, it's a loser for Apple. It also dilutes their brand.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
..."fixed in a tangible medium of expression".
According to my copyright law classes I took in college the instant any creative idea was fixed into a tangible medium of expression it was copyrighted. Registering it just allowed for extra protections such as statutory damages and court costs + attorneys fees. If you don't register your copyright and have to sue to protect it, you are only able to get injunctions, and actual damages.
Libertas in infinitum
Of course, Apple holds the copyright for OS X. The real question is what right they have to impose restrictions on how you use it. Any attempts for Apple to regulate its usage would have to be based that loading OS X requires making another "copy", but that's really stretching copyright too thin. The obvious application of copyright to OS X is that if you buy a copy, you own a copy and can run it on whatever hardware you choose. You should even be able to re-sell it.
Left satisfied.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
As long as they want to keep their hip turtle neck wearing image
This "Apple==hip" thing is getting ridiculous.
iPods might be hip, but iMacs, Apple TV, OS X, iLife, iWork, Airport Extreme, Time Capsule, etc?
Have you ever used them? One's a fscking operating system, and the others don't leave your house. In fact, many sit next to your fancy TV, stereo system, entertainment center, whatever, and generally just blend in. None of those, other than maybe the iMac is at all stylish. A better way to describe Apple's designs is "not fugly". You have to admit, "not be an eyesore" isn't a design requirement for traditional PC's, network equipment, set-top-boxes, etc.
Believe it or not, Apple actually makes some very good products that people buy for completely non-aesthetic reasons.
No I am not bashing Apple or its users.
I figured you mean well, but where do you get this "turtle neck wearing image" BS from? If you can explain that to me, then carry on. Spotting macs in a coffee shop doesn't make us all hipsters.
If you build a computer with the EXACT same hardware as Apple then YES you will get the same "Apple Experience".
I'm talking about my AMD Athlon XP 2600+. Which doesn't even have SSE3. Vista runs great on it (with 4GB of Ram). I would love to see you get OSX running smoothly on it. How about my Geforce 6600GT? How about my dell wireless keyboard? How about my onboard 7.1 audio?
I would like to see OSX run on my tablet PC.
A vast amount of instability comes from shoddy drivers. Apple is picky in what drivers are allowed into its walled garden. You start letting in the riffraff and you get Vista's release video card instability snafus x100.
You can't "forget to copyright" something because copyright is not a verb. ...
copyright
noun
the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same.
verb [ trans. ]
secure copyright for (such material).
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
They are not claiming that "Apple Forgot To Copyright Mac OS."
They are claiming that Apple forgot to file the official copyright registration at the USPTO, which is a prerequisite for court actions.
Yes. The real reason Apple doesn't do it is that they aren't just selling hardware, they're selling cool. But they can't say that, because people will only buy cool if you make it seem like they're buying something else. Thus, their unending stream of bullshit on this topic.
I would imagine that trying to run OSX on non-64-bit hardware would be a recipe for disappointment.
We have a winner!
So far Pystar is sounding more like Darl McBride than McBride does! Throw out a pile of wild claims, follow them up with even wilder ones, all the while reinterpreting the law to mean all everyone else's work belong to them.
And they have to have already spent more than they ever made, so who IS footing the bill?
Well sure, you can say like let's put OS X on my 8bit 1 Mhz 6502 if you like but it won't work. Get real. OS X works great on the latest hardware and it's indistinguishable from it running on mac hardware. What you don't realize and seem unwilling to admit is that Mac OS X is SOFTWARE! The hardware is essentially irrelevant as long as it meets the minimum requirements, whatever those are on any given day. I'll repeat for those who are slow, Mac OS X is just SOFTWARE and it will hum on any hardware that meets it's minimum requirements no matter who makes that hardware. Period. That's reality. Get used to it. Now if Apple would take microcrap on and slap them down to the mat once and for all that would be really nice.
this is pathetic.
You do not have to register with the copyright office to have a copyright in the US.
It makes it easier to defend in court as proof you created it, but I think Apple has all the proof it needs.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Your points are all correct... but regarding a Dell wireless keyboard, I use one with my iMac right now... Should've just stuck with the other examples.
Honda would love to sell me their engines. Car makers love to sell one another their engines. I have a Mitsubishi car with a state of the art Mercedes engine, and a boat with a Mitsubishi engine. Honda make generators, but happily sell their engines to other generator makers. The auto industry takes in one another's washing like you wouldn't believe. Mitsubishi designs off-road chassis for Peugeot Citroen. Daihatsu sells its little 3-cylinder engine to anybody who wants to make an ultra-compact car, including Toyota.
The reasons are simple: economy of scale and security. Daihatsu is a small manufacturer, but selling its little engine all over allows it to spend more money on R&D and advanced production equipment, therefore making it cheaper for them to put in their own cars. Mercedes, which is a moderate volume manufacturer, can sell its engines into lots of different market segments. Mitsubishi can sell their chassis knowledge and make money in markets which won't buy a Japanese car.
The logic for Apple is unassailable, but they won't buy it. They should fork Mac OS X. They should make a very clear brand distinction between the in-house version and the public version, and warn that motherboard etc. compliance is entirely up to the OEMs that use it, just as the warranty on my marine engine is with Thornycroft, not Mitsubishi. It would have to be sold as something like "Dell OS powered by Darwin".
Why won't they? My suspicion, as I type this on a high-spec non-Apple notebook from a large manufacturer, is that a Dell or a Lenovo would rapidly surpass Apple in performance.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Infoweek is reporting that the claim, if it holds up, could open the door for third-parties to enter the Mac market without fear of legal action from Apple
I have a claim for Infoweek: The sun won't come up tomorrow. My claim, if it holds up, could open the door to a new ice age, folks!!!
PSYSTAR is just selling what the market wants. Attempting to make money filling a consumer need.
This is yet another time for those morons at MS to steal the day.... Microsoft X. BSD with a MS custom window manager.... OSX is screaming to be duplicated, cloned, stolen. It's decades ahead of UBUNTU and MS is the corporation that can do it. Yo Gates! Balmer! Wake up and steal this Idea already.... You have the funds to take this long term and out Apple Apple.
I switched to Macs mid year and it the best UNIX OS I've ever owned. I ain't never going back! With BSD under the hood it is UNIX, not just a work-a-like (no offense Linus). Yet it blows me away that Microsluts hasn't jumped in, re-written history and claimed OSX was there idea all along. I guess the MS Aircraft Carrier is to big to turn quickly. Bunch of marketing morons must still run that company.
This is America, We're all about cashing in on the other guys dreams.
-DML
Bah! Humbug! Get back to work you SLACKERS!!!!
Psystar is a made up brand by a con artist that is using these accusations to sell product that doesn't exist.
It has been said before in this thread, but I think not clearly enough. Just because Psystar makes some outlandish claim (and how likely is it that Apple forgot to register copyrights on MacOS X ?), doesn't mean it is true. In this case, the fact is that Apple has registered the copyright on MacOS X Version 10.5 Leopard on 24/Jan/2008 under the registration number TX0006849489. You caln follow the link below, which will time out again; when it is timed out do a search for "Mac OS X Leopard" which finds Apple's copyright and three copyrights for books. http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=4&ti=1,4&Search_Arg=Mac%20OS%20X%20Leopard&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=wRSriYVKQl7vglCfQyV3qoEcDM4&SEQ=20081223043158&SID=3 What a waste of time this Psystar company is. Psystar also claims that Apple has code in MacOS X that prevents it from running on non-Apple computers and therefore is evil, but somehow this code isn't copy protection because Psystar would never, never circumvent copy protection and violate the DMCA act.
Gizmodo insight!
For someone who writes an OSS app, typically the actual damages are zero, since the product isn't being sold for money.
That is blatantly wrong. The product isn't licensed for money, but for behaviour in a way that advances Open Source software. Therefore, distributing Open Source software without source code causes massive damages.
As an example: Apple itself distributes the gcc compiler suite. As a result, Apple has to follow the terms of the GPL for the gcc compiler. Apple could instead have contacted the FSF and asked for a license to distribute gcc without the GPL. If we assumed that the FSF would make such a decision on purely commercial grounds (which they wouldn't, but that is irrelevant here), they would probably ask at least for something around $10,000,000. The actual damages are _at least_ what a reasonable commercial enterprise would have charged for the software.
Actually, your example is also counter-intuitive, because the ML is not a real Mercedes. It has a Merc engine and gearbox but the rest of it is thrown together by the US auto industry. It's well known in Europe to be below Merc standards. But that doesn't stop people buying real (i.e. Stuttgart) Mercs.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
#1: Microsoft has routinely and repeatedly crippled their own products less even versions of OSes they designed and that are based on the Windows design (like Windows CE) steal market share from their crown jewel. They dumped Xenix ... arguably the best small-business OS at the time ... like a hot potato. They spent years and millions of man-hours converting Hotmail from FreeBSD to Windows. They've got a nasty addiction to MS-DOS and Windows they couldn't even kick when they were handed a free prescription for methadone.
#2: They don't have the business model to duplicate OS X. It's not just "BSD with a new window manager". It's the whole NeXT API and uniform design and a ruthless approach to culling old APIs. Microsoft can't even dump their *own* old APIs, let alone all the X11 based ones they'd have to rewrite. They have no won't-power.
Any attempts for Apple to regulate its usage would have to be based that loading OS X requires making another "copy", but that's really stretching copyright too thin.
In the US, before the DMCA, that would be true, but even then that legal theory has been used successfully in the US.
It can work. They've proven it before.
Quite the reverse, actually. They've proven it can't work before and cancelled such a programme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_clone#Jobs_ends_the_official_program
17 USC Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 :
(a) Relationship with Domestic Law.--The provisions of the Berne Convention--
(1) shall be given effect under title 17, as amended by this Act, and any other relevant provision of Federal or State law, including the common law; and
(2) shall not be enforceable in any action brought pursuant to the provisions of the Berne Convention itself.
Since 1988, therefore, you have not needed to register works to have them copyrighted under US Law. Whether this is a good thing or not is debatable, but it is US Law, so Apple did not have to register OS X. (Note : IANAL and this is not legal advice.)
I couldn't agree more.
On the desktop, Microsoft has no competition. The only possible competitor is Apple.
Apple does not need to support every piece of hardware under the Sun. They could support specific configurations with components from major hardware vendors.
Apple has something truly invaluable in their hands, their operating system. Software is worth many times more than hardware. the value of OS X is in the billion dollars category. This is because software runs the world.
I Am Not A Lawyer But I Had Some Lawyer Ass When I Toured France ???
WTF???
I Am Not A Lawyer But I Have Studied Law And Witheld Incidentally Tons of Facts?
That made me giggle. If Apple was losing $100 on every sale of OSX, then in terms of 'actual' damages, if you pirate it does Apple have to pay you?
I know it doesn't work that way, the 'loss' in question here is basically just income from software sales vs costs of development, so what I've said above is rubbish, but I still thought it was a curious concept :)
The reason Microsoft got into trouble with Vista was largely in part due to pressure from system builders pressuring them to include hardware that wasn't actually capable of running Vista smoothly, or had inadequate driver support.
I think you missed the point here. No one claimed that OS X couldn't run on some generic hardware, the claim was that it won't run on all generic hardware. If/when OS X is put on a system that cannot handle it Apple's marketing platform will start to crumble.
It wouldn't be. The OS X kernel isn't even 64-bit yet; it's 32-bit with the ability to run 64-bit processes. Snow Leopard will have the first 64-bit kernel.
Yeah, because it's not like they sold any Core Duo Minis, iMacs, Macbooks, etc (which unlike Core2, were not 64 bit capable)...
"The more corrupt a society, the more numerous are its laws." -Tacticus
Registration is not required to secure a copyright on a work. Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created. So the very fact that Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard exists is a copyright.
However, Apple must have registered their copyright on Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard before they can file suit for infringement on this copyright.
Read about all that at copyright.gov:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
This would all seem to be moot though. According to copyright.gov, Apple registered their copyright on Mac OS X Leopard Version 10.5 on January 24, 2008, Registration Number: TX0006849489.
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=4&ti=1,4&Search_Arg=Mac%20OS%20X%20Leopard&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=-H_wcyyigtEZ3UT-QtRpXsTJUefv&SEQ=20081222171112&SID=1
I have no doubt that there is something we're missing here, as it seems unlikely that Psystar's Lawyers couldn't do a simple search at copyright.gov for "Mac OS X Leopard". But this article offers little more than an announcement that Psystar has responded to Apple's copyright suit.
So now it's official: kdawson is the new katz!
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
I really want to read your comment, but I can't get past the third sentence, because as soon as I do, all I can hear in my head is this:
"From my parents basement in Wyoming I stab at thee!"
The notion that somebody can prohibit me from installing software I bought on hardware I also bought is ridiculous. This is only possible due to overreaching scope of the government-granted artificial monopoly that is copyright. Therefore copyright should be limited at least in the following way:
- Copyright owner may not prohibit and/or limit any actions with a lawfully acquired copy of a copyrighted work whose intention is not to increase the number of users of the work beyond the number that the license was given for. Any license provisions aiming to establish such prohibitions and/or limitations are null and void.
It just exists. You write something. BANG... it's copyrighted. Now there are better ways to ascertain the copyright, specially when it's needed to prove the date. Publication date is a good start to ascertain that date, another is to pre-register it with several organizations specialized on such. So i don't even know how this argument can be made in the first place. By default the Berna convention ascertains the rights of the rightful authors... And about 99% of the world has signed it... Alas...
Your computer is old. If you had SSE3, you might be able to run OS X:
OS X supports USB tablets; the USB bus is commonly used to connect digitizers in tablet PCs.
Vista's release video card instability? Perhaps ATI and/or nVidia's drivers were unstable, but I used Intel integrated graphics (with Aero) at Vista's release with no stabilitiy issues.
OS X isn't immune from driver issues in its current state. I have an ATI GPU (HD 2600) in a Mac from August 2007 and I've seen kernel panics caused by the graphics driver as recently as 10.5.4 and graphics corruption in 10.5.5.
Modern desktop systems don't have a whole lot of variation, either. They use a chipset (nVidia, Intel, or AMD) with a CPU (Intel or AMD) and GPU (nVidia, Intel, or AMD/ATI). Lots of functionality is integrated into the chipset; a few drivers would cover power management and graphics for a wide variety of sysetms. Audio is often HD Audio, so one base driver can handle the basic needs of many different codecs. USB, Bluetooth, FireWire, and even SATA (AHCI) all have a common interface that results in one driver supporting hardware from any vendor.
It seems that modern systems vary more in the built-in network chip or wireless card they use. And this seems to be one of the major struggles in getting OS X working on third-party hardware; the interface to write wireless drivers in OS X isn't open, so any third-party wireless drivers must be implemented as Ethernet devices and reimplement wireless configuration & security themselves (much like wireless drivers on Windows 2000 and XP before SP1.)
Any ever consider that maybe drawing apple into a long court battle over their stuff has a few parrellels to SCO? Right now Linux is in no way a challenger on the desktop (only 2%). Its Apple that has been making the gains and a diluted apple market could hold them back allowing Vista and Windows 7 to recover.
This is going to get about as far as the legal attempts to decertify Obama's election by attacking his citzenship status. Mac OS is not only protected by copyright, it's also a registered trademark, has a boatload of patented code inside. I'm not exactly sure what they hope to gain with this. Apple has the lawyers and has the financial war chest so trying to outlast them in court isn't going to go anywhere.
mods wake up... + 5 for informative. all other posts are moot!
News at 11... Lame hardware vendors are trying to steal someone else's operating system thereby avoiding the cost of software developers and advertising.
If a hardware vendor wanted something similar to MacOSX for their hardware...
Step 1) Hire BSD (or Linux) developers,
Step 2) Hire graphic artists, and
Step 3) Hire a good advertising team.
Until then, the best a hardware vendor can do is pay Microsoft, RedHat, Novell, or some other 3rd party OS business for support and customization.
And yours as well.
You're displaying your jealousy and mediocre mentality by making comments like those.
Here's some advice: Get a real job so you can afford a Mac, then seek counseling for your inferiority complex since you base your self-esteem on what computer someone uses.
This video clearly demonstrates what would happen to Vista/XP/Windows-7-8-9-0 when confronted by an army of Mac OS X systems. Having Generic PC's running the Mac OS X VIRUS helps with the take over of the PC universe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLbJ8YPHwXM
I thought we all hated EULAs...or is that only when microsoft writes them.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself; What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
never underestimate the power of stupid people in groups.
That was Steve's MONOPOLISTIC ANTI COMPETITIVE POLITICAL decision not a technical one. I know a Mac hardware dealer who sold many authorized Mac Clones from that period and he did very well till Apple pulled the rug out from under him. He was doing very very well in fact. He even had his own customized Mac laptop prototype built and had huge interest for it when the plug was pulled. Fortunately for him Apple paid out his supplier so the burn to his business was limited by this MONOPOLISTIC ANTI COMPETITIVE POLITICAL decision.
When it comes to the technical and political decision to compete openly NeXT had the model worked out very well with an extensive open source driver program. Lot's of drivers were written by others and not just NeXT! So it can work. With Apple's fan base and the horrified tens of millions running Windows it can work spectacularly so that Microcrap won't know what hit them! Apple need not fear their the continued success of their own hardware in such a scenario for the die hards will always buy Mac hardware as we've seen in these comment replies.
For the rest of us please Apple unleash the Mac OS X vista killer virus on generic high quality PC Hardware! Please!!! Take Apple to the NeXT level and crush Microcrap!
From the admittedly brief IP law course that we had in engineering emplacing a valid copyright annotation to a work is sufficient to claim copyright protection in court. All that was needed was the valid copyright, copr. or C in a circle, year(date) and by XYZ. Of course the version of copyright that I learned also expressly stated that it merely protected the particular expression of an idea and NOT the idea/work itself, and was limited to a reasonable length of time so as not to inhibit innovation unlike today's nearly permanent copyrights and incredibly looser definitions making them almost into unlimited patents.
Patents and trademarks are treated differently.
Back then a computer was $4000
Um ... no. Not unless you're comparing high end 10 years ago to low end today.
A starter name-brand desktop system complete with monitor and keyboard in the mid-'90s would generally hover just below $2000 and sometimes break above it: this was true for both Mac and PC. Nowadays they tend to hover just above $1000, sometimes breaking into the $1500 range. A significant change, but not nearly as radical as you suggest.
The last time I can remember hearing about typical 'average' (non-pro) Mac users spending $4000 on their systems was in 1984. From there until the 1990 it was more like $3000 as an upper range. After 1990 (but still well before the clone era) prices precipitously dropped to around to $2000 level for starter systems. And after 2000 they have been dipping toward that magic $1000 mark and sometimes with the odd product even hitting it, like with the eMac and the very lowest end iMacs. (The Mac mini crossed it like many bargain basement PC vendors, but that also depends on what you do for a monitor and a keyboard.)
Things changed much more before the Mac cloning era than they have since.
Yes, it's clearly not a big deal, because even if correct, it applies only to that version of the OS. Apple will soon be releasing a new version of their OS, and who wants to buy a computer that will not be eligible for upgrades?
It sounds like Psystar is expecting to lose and is trying to limit the damages that Apple will receive.
A real question is whether Psystar ever expected to get away with this. Perhaps they are working on a homegrown Apple-like OS, and the whole thing is just a publicity stunt.
...NeXT did this very successfully with OpenStep 4.3 years ago...
Really? Hmmm... Seems like NeXT was on it's way down when Apple brought it. In fact, if Apple would have gone with another OS then NeXT would have taken the same road as BeOS.
What I was thinking is Apple could expand its market share easily by selling OS X without guarantee - a kind of "buy at your own peril". If you want OS X in a guaranteed to work system, then buy it from Apple.
This wold incentivise other system builders (such as Dell, HP, Lenovo, sony, Panasonic, etc. etc.) to build systems that are "OS X friendly", that perhaps even have it pre-installed, a la Psystar. All they would have to do is test the machines fairly thoroughly - there's practically no difference between Apple and non-Apple hardware anyway, so this would be a significant start up expense, but would become trivial over time, and a way for HP, Dell, et al to ride the "new crest" of computers, where you buy a computer and use the OS you want.
I could easily see in 5 years time buying a Panasonic toughbook that is able to boot in OS X, Windows version whatever, and Linux right out of the box. THAT would totally kick major butt. I would use OS X most of the time, (I work in education for "creative industries"), flip it into windows for Office bullshit, and then use OpenOffice et al in Linux when I am home.
I think that would work - it's all jut a matter of will and how long can apple continue to pull margin out of its hardware. Once that margin gets thin enough they will have to look for exterior sales to remain profitable.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
I don't think any of you really know what you are talking about. You are talking in terms of your own interpretation of the laws when in reality, the justice system does the interpreting. I think this thread is just as bad as the threads on Macrumors.com, based on partial information. You should leave it up to the courts to decide instead of reciting your hawt xross bun5 interpretation of the copyright system. I think it's funny to see all of the macfanboys arguing with every stone they can find to protect their OS. According to the respective demographics people are not really interested in the mac operating systems at this point in time. Windows still dominates the market and if you want to be "accepted by your college buddies" and fit the "accepted stereotype" then buy a Macintosh. I think the majority of the people that want OSX to be run on their machines for hobbies sake already do it and contribute to the osx86 community. The precident that really needs to be set is whether or not EULA's are enforceable. This is what I care most about. Everytime I accepted that EULA which said "Your sole will become the property of EA Games upon acceptance of the EULA" I was hoping that in reality EA would be fucked because 1)EULA are not enforceable or 2)They would not be able to define a soul.
All new revenue models that Apple had in addition to the standard desktop/os. -N
First off, I would like to state that I do not own a Mac and have never owned a Mac. I don't understand why there is so much fuss about wanting to run OS X on non Apple Machines. Apple owns such a small piece of the market, and all of these people want to become a part of it like its the new wave of being accepted by your peers. Frankly, advertising has done a great job for Apple as it has instilled instrumental values in people. If you want Leopard, go buy a Mac. I have been building computers for people for years and every single one of them wanted 100 compatibility with the lowest price possible and guranteed satisfaction. If Apple is forced to give up OS X, can you image all of the people demanding compatibility with their hardware? Apple could set limitations but even then, if something bad happens to someones computer hardware due to interopability, and say causes a fire and burns their house down then Apple has just commited a tort. There are so many alternatives to OS X that arguing that they have a monopoly on OS X IS HILARIOUS. You are shooting yourself in the foot with that argument. If you feel that you are being forced into Windows try Ubuntu. As a consumer you always have the choice to not buy what you do not want. Clearly what is presented before us is the case of the forbidden apple. Only this time, the apple is not just a metaphor and it's protected by the tree of constitution. P.S. EA can have my soul, because I can see in the future that their stocks will plummet so low that a 51% majority shareholder will have made 183% of return on his souls instrinsic value.
I thought Pystar had some new clever angle for demonstrating a (rather obvious, IMHO) principle: that parties that don't have any sort of direct transactions with one another, much less an actual contractual agreement as any laymen would know it, should not be magically bound by someone else's contract.
To find out that their actions are based on something as empty as a deep misunderstanding of copyright, is very disappointing.
A reasonable suspicion at first, but surely this no-copyright claim put to rest any theories of some clever grand strategist working behind the scenes. Even Microsoft-backed SCO wasn't this stupi-- well, ok, I guess there's precedent.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If I were at the helm at Apple, here's what I'd do. (Hey Apple board, if Steve has to retire, call me, I have CEO experience.)
I would have a strategy to allow our software to be installed on generic hardware when the time is right.
To do this, we would need to be competitive on a hardware level. To do that, we need scale, and to get that, we need commodity hardware (got it) and market share (getting there).
As our volume grows, our cost to build a machine will continue to get closer to that of a Dell, HP, Sony, etc.
Eventually, the potential revenue from "unbundled" software sales will be greater than the opportunity cost of not selling the hardware.
While all this is happening, people are working furiously to port drivers over to OS X to add to the ever-growing list of hardware that works with OS X.
On that magic day that we release OS X for PC (you can already imagine the ads) there would be a Hardware Compatibility List, a DVD that boots on standard PCs, and potentially, deals with major PC vendors to release Mac versions of their hardware.
Which brings me to Psystar. Stretch out the battle with Psystar as long as possible, to one of two eventual conclusions: Beat 'em or join 'em (by purchasing them).
Hmm. I guess I'm not the first to notice this, but an anagram of masochist is:
mac os shit
Note that this is not my view. Perhaps we should use the term viatschist instead of masochist?
fnord
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.
The case of Apple vs Microsoft comes to mind. It lasted ten years until Apple decided to accept a settlement for an undisclosed amount. That was during the time Microsoft was at its peak. What is Psystar really trying to do? Do they think they have snowball chance in hell of some success? Are there any lawyers in the house, cause this topic is too far fetched to be believable.
apple has more then one way of breaking interoperability.
1. PCI ID locks of video cards that lock out some video cards that will work if you add there pci id to the driver file.
2. Boot loader locks
3. Intel cpu only locks that lock out amd cpus that you the SAME X86-64 code base.
4. Video card bios lock out that make you reflash video cards to work in a mac system.
Do they need to copyright the patches as well? That is the only logical explanation I can come up with.
There would be a big demand for the ability to run OS X and apple stuff on PC's. I understand there are ramifications like maybe an upgrade breaking things, but there still is opportunity here as well where Apple could gain from.
www.Migrainesoft.com - Computer giving you a headache? We can fix that!
that a Ford 289 cubic-inch OHV motor be used in a 1967 Ford GT40 Mark IV.
You can use any oil you want however.
Since Apple doesn't sell its hardware WITHOUT an OS of some kind, Psystar doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Maybe they could work out some kind of deal for obsolesced OSs (like 10.1 or 10.2) but I doubt they'd have many sales then.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Muhahahahaha!!!!!! The only OS creator/distr I hate more than Apple is Microslop. I hate Apple due to their 1980's proprietary sense of marketing their products.
The fact that they now use all NON-Apple hardware "minus the bios code" is funny. But itâ(TM)s totally hilarious if they didn't properly copyright their own O/S.. This leaves them with nothing.. NOTHING.. no "proprietary hardware" , no proprietary copyrighted O/S -on the âoesoftware/hardware platform department that is to say.
I guess PC/Apple apps & gadgets like Ipods & Iphones is the only way for them to go now... It's where they make their most money anyhow. And itâ(TM)s where they are most respected majority wise. âoeApple lovers/geeks excludedâ Exit Apple, enter Apple Apps. Lets just hope their apples apps aren't rotten to the "core". One bad Apple spoils the barrel yah know?
It has been made perfectly clear that any action taken by a manufacturer to deliberately break interoperability with competing products is illegal.
Then what lets the lockout chip business model continue in the market for set-top video game players? Say Nintendo makes a video game console called Wii, but all software for Wii must be digitally signed by Nintendo in order to run, and such signatures aren't made available to microISVs. Then I develop and self-publish a GPL game called "Lockjaw", which competes with a game called Tetris that's licensed by Nintendo. Lockjaw requires an additional piece of software called Twilight Hack in order to work around the signature verification. Nintendo has released two updates to the Wii system software that specifically detect Twilight Hack and block it from running. Wouldn't your interpretation make these system software updates illegal?
"No, it's an upgrade without any irritating copy protection"
If it's installed on a blank hard drive, WTF are you upgrading from?
Oh right, nothing. Sucks for you that you're completely wrong, and seem to have no fucking idea what "upgrade" means.
"Any copy of OS X other than the one that came with your Mac, whether it checks or not, is an upgrade copy because there is no way to use it without a) already owning a copy of OS X (and a Mac), or b) violating the license."
BZZZT! Sorry no part of "violating the license" makes it an upgrade fanboi, you're creating a criteria out of thin air because you know you're wrong.
How do you people delude yourselves so thoroughly?
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
I never made a claim that it would run on ALL generic pc hardware!
I believe you can sue without having registered. However, you can only sue for actual damages, not punitive damages. For someone who writes an OSS app, typically the actual damages are zero, since the product isn't being sold for money.
In order to collect actual damages, you have to prove actual damages. Punitive damages are just made up. That's the REAL reason that none of these guys are interested in actual damages. There are none, or they are less than the cost of bringing the lawsuit with its attendant public relations campaign.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This doesn't seem to be a registration issue per se. The link below will give you a copy of Psystar's brief:
http://news.cnet.com/i/ne/pg/fd_2008/show_temp_4.pl.pdf
Basically, Psystar appears to be arguing that Apple has misused its copyright--therefore, Apple no longer should have rights to assert its copyright. This is an analogue of the "unclean hands" defense in patent law.
That is just the most ridicilous thing i ever heard.
a company gets its advice from one of those IANAL guys.
Try again......
Using the purple ports on that board... that are run by silicon image port multipliers that are themselves slaved off of a Jmicron chip..... WILL cause crashes above 3 gigs of ram....... the Jmicron drivers are 32 bit drivers, and you WILL get kernel panics and data corruption above 3 gigs of ram using the purple ports. Also, you won't have SMART status reporting in disk utility, you'll have to load the silicon image port multiplier monitor.
Furthermore, EFi-X infringes on the rights of some of the developers that coded some of the stuff for the OSX86 community........ but who expected someone that willfully violates apple's rights to care about the rights of the developers making OSX86 even possible.
So NO, OSX isn't quite the same on generic hardware.... ESPECIALLY since you're buying a gizmo to do it.... last I heard EFIX wasn't generic.
Now, my supermicro board with a quad core, 3 graphics cards, 5 monitors, SATA RAID, SCSI RAID, etc..... nice rig, runs 10.5 great. BUT I only have 2 gigs of ram in it. Anything above 3 and I would experience problems with my PCI-X SATA RAID card, and would need to do software RAID0 on those drives instead of hardware RAID0.
Anon for convenience... anyone who wants to find me shouldn't have problems, and yeah, drop me a PM on IRC if you've got a question.
Psystar is starting to sound about Mac OSX a little like SCO sounded with Linux. This is definitely throwing in the kitchen sink. Next will be the toilet.
yip... just setup parental controls on my nephew's computer... and to my surprise, the "psystar" website is not allowed. I'm scratching my head wondering how the hell would that affect my nephew? This whole licensing issue. Geez Apple, ur a dumbass.