Slashdot Mirror
Apple Says Booting OS X Makes an Unauthorized Copy
recoiledsnake writes "Groklaw has an extensive look at the latest developments in the Psystar vs. Apple story. There's a nice picture illustrating the accusation by Apple that Psystar makes three unauthorized copies of OS X. The most interesting, however, is the last copy. From Apple's brief: 'Finally, every time Psystar turns on any of the Psystar computers running Mac OS X, which it does before shipping each computer, Psystar necessarily makes a separate modified copy of Mac OS X in Random Access Memory, or RAM. This is the third unlawful copy.' Psystar's response: 'Copying a computer program into RAM as a result of installing and running that program is precisely the copying that Section 117 provides does not constitute copyright infringement for an owner of a computer program. As the Ninth Circuit explained, permitting copies like this was Section 117's purpose.' Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?"
Apple quality? Last time I was inside an apple they were still using leaky electrolytic caps and even worse hardware than low end PCs.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Where is apples desktop tower at $1000-$1500 that is not a AIO.
The imac are nice but not that good of a buy $1200 for a dual core + 9400m video? $1500 for only a duel core with 4670 256? 2k for core i5 and 4850 512? Core i7 $200 more? and only room for 1 HD that takes a lot work to get to?
mac pro at $2500 with only 3gb ram and a weak gt120? The new imac has more ram, bigger HD and better video card for about $300-$500 less.
The mini needs to have a real video card + desktop cpus and a easier to open case.
if apple had better hardware pricing and more choice pystar will be dead but apple wants to play if you can't compete go to court.
There are plenty of things you can't do with a book.
You couldn't read it all in front of the public. You couldn't start making copies and sell them.
Even with a book you are restricted.
Oh come on, use your imagination a little, I know they will! This clearly falls under the DMCA because in this scenario the cd player is a copyright protection circumvention device!
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
You (Dangitman) are arguing about developer freedom, while Mixmatch is arguing about user freedom. Don't conflate the two and you won't be arguing. (At the least, you'll be arguing philosophy instead of the definition of a word.)
Put identity in the browser.
and, yes, even Linux are licensed to you, with restrictions.
If you are talking about the GPL, you are not bound by it unless you distribute. Repeat: you are not bound by a license as a Linux user.
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
Put identity in the browser.