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?"
Someone wants to make a buck off of OS X without paying the Apple tax and Apple is upset. Is anyone really surprised?
Yet if MS tried the same tactic of requiring MS branded hardware, the whole world would cry foul. Sounds like monopolistic tendencies in the EULA.
Memo to Apple: build a machine that has a price point between the Mac mini and Mac Pro, that isn't an all-in-one machine, and is internally expandable, and people will buy that machine from YOU rather than buy a PC and make a Hackintosh
Memo to the geek:
The Hackintosh desktop is a hack - an expensive - crappy - DIY project for the technically inclined hobbyist.
There aren't as many of those on the ground these days as there used to be - and not as much interest in the desktop either.
Apple doesn't need you need you. Apple doesn't want you.
It's sole interest in Pystar is in keeping the clone product off retail shelves.
If the trend continues, Apple doesn't need this to break Microsoft's "strangehold on the PC market". It's happening anyway. Albeit slowly.
...the trusty Mac Fanboy standard: accuse someone of being a pirate just because they do something a little unusual.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Your post is full of shit, you're not a lawyer what do you know. http://www.apple.com/legal/terms/
Jonathanjk.com
You said that "I Anal", I'd rather not look it up myself.
Courts also ruled that tomatoes are a fruit, my point is courts can be really stupid.
Respect the Constitution
Trying to pretend that information stored in your head by means electro-chemical is somehow qualitatively different than modulation of magnetic fields, laser beams or electrons in silicone or ink on paper is simply mendacious sophistry.
Given that you are claiming that a CD is indistinguishable from a flash drive is indistinguishable from a human brain, I would be careful about bandying about terms like "mendacious sophistry".
Should it be any different
Yes, it should. Most humans have no difficulty in seeing the difference in making a photocopy of a book and reading a book.
But I tell you what. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're not the complete idiot your posts have implied. By all means, take your argument into a legal setting--a great way might be to write a book, then sue people for reading it. Once you've triumphed, I'll accept your notion that copies in a computer needing to be authorized that it "must logically lead to convictions for 'unauthorized copies' in your mind".
I look forward to reading of your success in the matter.
Yes, it should. Most humans have no difficulty in seeing the difference in making a photocopy of a book and reading a book.
Give it a few years, and I guaranteee there will be lawyers arguing IM's position. "Most humans" and "lawyers trying to prove a case" have no relation to each other."
Put identity in the browser.