Slashdot Mirror
Apple Asks Judge To Shutter Psystar's Clone Unit
CWmike writes "Apple wants a federal judge to shut down Psystar's Mac clone operation and order the company to pay more than $2.1 million in damages, according to court documents. The move was the first by Apple since US District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that Psystar violated Apple's copyright and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act when it installed Mac OS X on clones it sold. Alsup's Nov. 13 order, which granted Apple's motion for summary judgment and quashed Psystar's similar request, was a crushing blow to the Florida company's legal campaign. In a motion filed Monday, Apple asked Alsup to grant a permanent injunction that would force Psystar to stop selling any computer bundled with Mac OS X; using, selling or even owning software that lets it crack Apple's OS encryption key to trick Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware; and 'inducing, aiding or inducing others in infringing Apple's copyright.'"
Groklaw has summarized Apple's request as well, and noted that Apple has also filed a motion to dismiss Psystar's litigation in Florida (or transfer it to California, where the above injunction was filed).
n/t
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.
Apple sells systems. In the old days, nobody would even think about separating the software and hardware of an Atari, Apple, Amiga or Commodore computer.
The more you guys push to "free" Mac OS X, the more you guys risk of seeing the opposite laws being written, giving HP, Dell, Acer and others the ability to sign exclusive contracts with Microsoft. No more unlocked computers, no more OSS. Be very, very careful what you guys wish for.
Wah wah wah. The copyright laws are fucking ridiculous. Running a program constitutes an infringement since it transfers the data into memory, thus making an illegal copy.
Would a case against me memorizing my favorite book hold up in court? You can't legally force me to have a lobotomy, and I have an illegal copy of your work in my brain.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
Yeah, Apple is Apple and I don't have to like the way they do things. I will however support them if someone is encroaching on the way they want to run their business. Cracking an Apple OS to run on a machine that Apple doesn't want to goes against what Apple wants to do with their OS. Yes, I know, they're still making money on an OS copy sold, so they shouldn't bitch, but if they want to thats their business.
Apple wants everything to stay within their box, and they want to have complete and utter control over that box. As long as Apple isn't trying to control whats outside the box - I don't care, but as I see it, OS X is part of their box. In the long run, their strictly closed box might be their downfall. No skin off my back.
"Running a program constitutes an infringement since it transfers the data into memory, thus making an illegal copy."
Except we already have the exception in the law for that, and it's actually specifically stated.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I wouldn't call them fools if their business strategy makes them alot money.
I don't like the way they do things either, but all in all, they picked a route - stuck to it - and have generally been flawless in its execution.
As you said, the fools are the ones buying the product, but if its what they want, who am I to argue?
I too found that argument incredulous. Reading software into RAM is how programs are accessed. In fact, the software in question causes this action to happen! Apple should be suing themselves on this basis. I can't begin to imagine what was going on in the mind of the judge who ruled in favor of that argument other than being incapable of understanding that copying code into memory is part of how execution of said code is done in EVERY single case of software execution... (please, no comments related to punch cards, ROM or similar technologies. This is about software that is for sale and run on home computers.)
More and more, special exceptions are being made for software. If this were a case of someone buying a hardware device and connecting it to some other hardware device, these proceedings wouldn't be happening. Someone needs to define for once and for all that publishers cannot tell people how they can or should access the copyrighted material that was legally purchased from the publisher.
On the box of nearly ever food product on the shelf of a grocery store is a "serving suggestion." Imagine their being able to enforce that serving suggestion in a court of law.
I can't do whatever I want with a piece of software I legally own?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
The most likely result of memorizing a book, and reproducing it by verbalization, unless said book is a novella, is that you would produce a derivative work (ala the Homeric bards), not a 1:1 copy. But please, for the love of the gods, don't sing Happy Birthday or they'll sue.
This isn't a case where Psystar was making boxes, buying retail copies of MacOS, installing those on the boxes and selling box and MacOS together. That's how Psystar portrayed it, but it turns out that what they were actually doing was cloning all the machines from a master copy of the OS, then including a (still-unopened) copy of MacOS with the box. If you want to use 17 USC 117 (running programs) and 17 USC 109 (First Sale), you have to actually observe the forms. It's not enough to claim that the result is the same as if you'd observed the forms. Thus the case was a slam-dunk for Apple.
Please explain to me why I am a fool for buying the system that best enables me to do my work? I have, at various times, primarily used Windows, Linux and OSX and, currently, OSX is the system that works best for me. Considering the price differences amount to a couple of hours pay yet the productivity gains amount to more than that every month, wouldn't I be a fool *not* to use it?
It's all fun and games until a 200' robot dinosaur shows up and trashes Neo-Tokyo... Again
Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.
Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?
Has Microsoft tried to sue WINE for allowing and encouraging Linux users to run MS Office under linux? Does Ubisoft care if I get Tomb Raider Underworld working on my copy of Windows ME? You can install Windows XP onto a machine with 32MB's of ram, MS won't try to stop you selling machines in that configuration.
Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run. All other companies will just refuse to support a platform and they state plainly what platform the software has been tested on (and will be supported on) and what they believe are the minimum requirements.
So why are Apple special? If people aren't expecting Apple to provide any support and there are no technical reasons for the software not running, why can't people do what they want? Every single other company works that way.
Since you didn't post to my Apple bashing anonymously, I will explain myself...
My impression and limited experience of Mac users has been folks who genuinely think Apple is innovative. I believe they are not. They take existing technology and perhaps make it more mature by adding a good interface to it. I give them credit for making things like mp3 players more mainstream but they did it by trying to pushing their own format. In the end they are bad for the industry and I am glad their strategy of keeping everything closed failed the last time around they were a heavy player.
Very simply, if "Apple" in the article was replaced with the less word hip "Sony" all the Apple fans would not be happy.
Yes, special exceptions are made for software. One of the notable ones is that a legally owned copy may be duplicated into memory for the purpose of running the program. Notice the three words near the beginning which Psystar failed to satisfy.
(not a lawyer, and all that)
Every other company also makes 5% margin compared to Apple's 30%*, Should Apple also cut their margins to be with the cool crowd?
*figures pulled from ass, but not far from reality.
It's all fun and games until a 200' robot dinosaur shows up and trashes Neo-Tokyo... Again
I think the difference being that if I have a legal license to run software then I have a legal right to load that software into memory and utilize it as long as the original agreement allows for it.
But...
If i pirate software, then run it I don't have a legal right to have the original copy or the additional copy running in ram.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
In the end they are bad for the industry
Well now I wouldn't say THAT. I think the more and more Apple pushes that everything must be what they say, the more and more people want to go against that. Which will, of course, lead to cases like THIS, where they try to crack the OS.
And When Apple Cracks down on those people - 2 things will happen.
People will end up purchasing a Mac with OS X from an Apple store, OR
People will end up purchasing a computer and putting a different operating system on it. And if wanted OS X to get away from Windows, maybe they'll hear about Ubuntu instead?
In the old days, nobody would even think about separating the software and hardware
Sure they would. In 1980 I had a TRS-80 model I, with two single-density, single-sided floppy drives. When I booted it, I could boot Radio Shack's operating system (TRS-DOS) or one of several alaternates including NEWDOS, LDOS etc.
I'm not sure why these smaller companies keep trying to take on the big boys, though, when they know they'll get crushed, like a nut.
You've got Real thinking they can legally distribute software to rip DVDs to you hard drive, Psystar thinking they can legally create defacto Macs, Napster thinking they can facilitate file sharing and on and on.... Someone needs to sit down with these companies and explain how this crushing business works.
"Running a program constitutes an infringement since it transfers the data into memory, thus making an illegal copy."
Except we already have the exception in the law for that, and it's actually specifically stated.
I should re-read the Psystar articles again, but I was pretty sure some of the penalties they are facing are because the Judge counted the contents of RAM as an extra copy.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.
Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?
I guess it's because those companies don't have those provisions in their license agreements. From my perspective it would be detrimental to their business models to place those kinds of restrictions on their products. For Apple it helps their business model and therefore they have included that into the license. You can argue that it might be worthy of anti-trust, might not be the best business model (though evidence points to it being highly effective) or anything else you can think of. The fact that nobody else does this does not mean that it can't be done, just that those other parties haven't found it to be a worthwhile business idea.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
GeOS on the Commodore 64 says 'Hi'
D
The first, last, and only tech news site on the net
The software loaded onto the Psystar machines were legally paid for. Apple's problem with it is that it isn't being installed onto Apple hardware. This licensing agreement is trying to assert a right of a copyright holder to tell you what you can and cannot do with the works that do not include copying. Copying into RAM does not qualify as a copy as it clearly falls into the realm of making use of the works. It would be like telling someone they can buy a book but cannot read it. A damned stupid argument I'm sure anyone would agree.
Copyright licenses attempt to assert some pretty unfriendly terms of use and the terms keep getting worse and worse. It's about time these creeping terms are hedged off.
Apple is doing NOTHING to stop Dell or HP from loading any flavor of Linux or Windows on their boxes.
Apple sells Macs and iPhones, and OSX by Apple is designated only to run on those machines. If you can get it to run on other boxes, fine (and Apple has yet to threaten or prosecute folks who make or tell you how to make a Hackintosh), but don't tell me that Apple is desiring "complete control" over other manufacturer's boxes because those companies want to sell something they don't have the rights to (OSX).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
I guess what I am most confused about is the whole license vs. legal issue.
I was raised to believe that possession is 9/10 the law. If I own the medium the software is contained on, and disagree with the license, which law is on the books that says it's illegal for me to run the software any which way I choose?
In other words, which law is on the books that allows Apple to dictate how I may use their product in the privacy of my own home? AFAIK the only entity that can do that is the FCC because computers emit EMFs that interfere with mediums they regulate. Oh and obviously IANAL.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
You should re-read it. Manually installing a copy of OS X on every computer is time consuming (particularly when it's a hackintosh and needs extra work), so Psystar did it once and then cloned the hard drive. That fucked them over big time.
You try to sell Solaris machines under a name that doesn't involve Sun Microsystems and let's see how long you do in the market.
Or IBM OS/360. Or Palm WebOS. Or...
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
While true, Apple is in the same situation. They allow you to run any OS on their hardware you want, but restrict their own OS to their own hardware, much as TRS-DOS would be restricted to Radio Shack hardware.
Do you mean the people who think they should be able to do whatever they want to do with something they bought and paid for? Beyond not making copies and selling them, what right does any vendor have to tell us what we can do with a product we bought?
If I want to buy a copy of OSX and install it on my own hardware, it has nothing to do with copyright. Can you imagine a car company saying "you can buy our car, but only if you use Brand X gasoline. If you put Brand Y gasoline in it, you are violating the user agreement that's printed on the underside of the car in invisible ink that you tacitly agreed to when you walked into the dealership. Oh, and you can only drive on toll roads. And you definitely cannot paint the car any other color or put different hubcaps on it".
Consumers need to get off their knees. Corporations exist for us not the other way 'round.
I may build a hackintosh and give it to someone as a gift if only as a protest to Apple's hostility toward their customers.
You are welcome on my lawn.
What the fuck are you babbling about? There is plenty of information on making a Hackintosh and people do it all the time. Psystar was reselling a hacked version of Mac OS X. No company would allow that to their IP. Apple isn't suing hackers who mod their computers and operating systems, they're suing someone trying to make a buck off their stuff. Big difference.
As usual the idiots at slashdot modded you up to 5 Insightful, for a wrong observation about what is happening.
You can call the users fools if you want but a lot are quite simply desperate. A lot of people have had bad experiences with Windows (cue people saying that Windows works for them) and they are desperate to buy something else. And Mac happens to be that something else.
We could have an entire discussion about why exactly people have bad experiences with Windows. But the reasons are irrelevant. A lot of people (fools as you call them) are willing to pay a lot for something that is not Windows.
much as TRS-DOS would be restricted to Radio Shack hardware.
TRS-DOS wasn't restricted to Radio Shack hardware - It ran on any of the TRS-80 clones, like the LMW-80. Most people ran 'better' OSes like NEWDOS, but if memory serves (and granted it was nearly 30 years ago) there was nothing preventing you from running TRS-DOS on a TRS-80 clone.
I was raised to believe that possession is 9/10 the law.
Maybe if you had lawyers for parents, you wouldn't harbor these misconceptions about the law.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Eww... Remind me to never borrow anything from you, ever.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
You were raised incorrectly in that sense, because the law is a whole lot more complicated than that. Try running that line past a judge and see how far it gets you.
(I was raised incorrectly, too. Most of the family still believes in that platitude.)
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
One is that Apple has done a good job of setting themselves up as the anti-MS underdog. Well, you get lots of geeks who hate MS. Thus if Apple is anti-MS, they like Apple. They never bother to examine if Apple's tactics are any better than MS's. It is a simple case of "I hate MS, these guys hate MS, so I like these guys."
Another is the cult/fanboy mentality Apple works to foster. They have always marketed their stuff as being superior, and implied that you are a superior person because you buy it. They work to create this cult-like status where you are "special" for being one of the chosen few who are an Apple user. That sort of thing leads to a "They can do no wrong," kind of mentality. Fanboys very much believe that their chosen brand/company is always right, whatever they say or do is correct. As such it doesn't matter how bad the action is, they defend it.
Along those lines is the worry that if another company replicates what Apple is doing, then they'll no longer be special. Despite their talk about OS-X being superior, the fanboys don't want everyone to have it because then they aren't special anymore, they are just normal.
That is really what it comes down to. Apple has a large fan base who is convinced they are the noble underdog, fighting the good fight. They don't examine their behavior objectively.
"legally owned copy" I think...
Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds. - wonkey_monkey
>>Corporations exist for us not the other way 'round.
I think corporations exists for the shareholders not us...no?
Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds. - wonkey_monkey
It's not about getting software to work in those different ways, it's about changing it, repacking it and selling it on your own hardware.
Two words - Logic Studio
(Don't mention Ardour either, because as good as it is, it's nowhere near Logic)
Listen to my latest album here
I have bought an (unlocked) iPhone and a 17" Macbook Pro. A few iPods are also on my conscience I must admit. The iPhone had to be unlocked. The Macbook Pro barely runs XP, after alot of fiddling with unofficial Bootcamp versions and whatnot. Why Apple can't seem to make regular updates for such software is beyond me. Maybe I have to buy the latest OS version, along with all the software again, to get updated? Oh yeah, I forgot, I probably have to buy a new computer from them as well then..
If OS X didn't try to screw you on purchasing every software you need, and was faster, it would get used, but I don't like the OS anymore. It's not UNIX either, but a bastard from the netherworlds posing as something great ;-)
Although the hardware is great and software pretty decent, I am sick and tired of the restrictions set by Apple in both software and legality. For years they have been screwing over their customers, even their most hardcore fans setting up fansites etc. Everybody seems to be getting visits from Apple's legal team.
I hereby declare I will never ever buy anything from Apple again, for me, or even encourage anybody to buy something from them. In the end I will save money, and I will discourage companies like Apple playing the laws like they do. Oh, yeah, Apple's stocks will be discriminated against also.. They will not get my money again.
In short: fsck / chkdsk Apple! :-)
(If more people want to take similar pledges, that'll be cool)
I just think this will make the world a tad better. Thank you!
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Every other company also makes 5% margin compared to Apple's 30%*, Should Apple also cut their margins to be with the cool crowd?
No, but that does indicate that there's something wrong.
All the people who defend Capitalism and Free Market often quote how it is a better thing for consumers than lots of regulation. It's true, when lots of competition exists. Ever questioned why that is? Hint: it's not because companies get a high profit margin. On the contrary, it's because prices approach marginal cost
A high profit margin indicates there's something wrong with the market, in the form of not enough competition. In this case, it's particularly bad, because the lack of competition is not due to others not wanting to get in the market, but due to government protecting Apple's market in the form of enforcing EULAs in court. If you buy Mac OS X, they should have no say what you do with it.
That's an awfully big generalisation to make about people who buy Apple products.
Am I to infer that you run some flavour of Linux because you are just too cheap to spend money on software and hardware that works for you?
They also sell operating systems without hardware.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"but they did it by trying to pushing their own format" - MPEG-4 is *not* Apple's format.
What is the difference though? Lots of manufacturers like Dell use master copies to clone their PCs.
What you're suggesting is insane. The only difference is having to install everything manually on every computer, or just cloning the same bits and bytes. What's the difference as long as Apple got the same amount of money?
The law should not be stupid, but be interpreted according to common sense. If this is how it is, either this broken legal system needs further fixes, or we just need to stay away from proprietary software altogether - too much risk and arbitrary decisions in the hands of the wrong people..
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Microsoft does in the form of badges or certification.
Vista Approved, Designed for Vista, etc... These come from Microsoft and not the hardware maker.
However for Microsoft they go the opposite route. Rather than trying to restrict it, they label it to hardware that can barely do the job.
Of course this was an Intel/Microsoft clusterfsck, where Intel wanted to sell lots of old crappy motherboards, with terrible crappy integrated video, and Microsoft really wanted to release their new OS.
From some perspective it makes sense for Apple to limit. It keeps idiots from complaining, and most Apple users are idiots (ducks!). For example, if you try and run some software, on hardware that can't handle it, and you don't know what the hell you are talking about, you can come to the definite conclusion that their software must suck because it runs so slow, not that your hardware is obsolete and utter garbage. This works the other way as well. If you try running some horrible bunged up software on some awesome cutting edge hardware, they can come to the conclusion that the hardware clearly isn't powerful and not worth your time.
As I said Apple, knowing their users (idiots), know they do not really want to know all this fiddly stuff like information, and facts, they just want it to "work". They core market isn't interested in hacking OS X onto some crazy hardware. They want to go to iTunes, and buy all their "stuff" at the Apple Store. So it makes sense to limit the functionality, at least from their perspective, as this is the market to which they serve.
Anyway I am jk about the whole idiot thing, I just like stirring the pot... :)
I was raised to believe that possession is 9/10 the law. If I own the medium the software is contained on, and disagree with the license, which law is on the books that says it's illegal for me to run the software any which way I choose?
Part of the purchase agreement is that Apple only sells a box with MacOS X if you agree to the license. Up to the point where you agree to the license, you have a box in your hands that is legally Apple's, and Apple has money in its hands that is legally yours. You have the right to disagree with the license and return the box for a refund.
So before you agree to the license, you have no rights at all. You have the same rights as the postman who delivered the software to your home - he held software in his hands that wasn't his own, he had no right to install it anywhere. After you agree to the license, you agreed. Even Psystar did never, ever argue that Apple's license didn't in principle apply. They only disagreed (strongly) with certain terms in the license, not with the license itself.
Owning the medium of the software clearly means nothing. You could always buy a recordable DVD and make a copy of the software and you would clearly own the medium, but that wouldn't give you any rights either. And you don't own the software: You have a license allowing certain uses, and since you asked, it is _copyright law_ that doesn't allow you to make any copies without permission (license) of the copyright holder.
Don't large PC manufacturers do something like this for whatever system they're installing?
Surely HP and Dell don't have someone sitting there running the Windows install disc for every machine they crank out.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
I can at least partially agree with this. People in the Hackintosh community should stop cheering for Psystar. Apple doesn't seem to care if hobbyists make their own Hackies. However, if more people keep trying to sell them, then guess what? Apple will not just sue those people out of existence, but they'll also start tightening their grip on OS X. It will get harder and harder to put OS X on a homebuild. So in a sense, I'm glad that Psystar is getting screwed in court. Commercial Hackintoshes are a very bad idea unless Apple officially lets people, although that's bloody unlikely.
That being said, I wish it didn't have to be that way. Apple is a bunch of dicks, but it's been that way for a long time and I doubt it's going to change as long as Steve Jobs keeps getting new organs (the guy is going to look like a Veridian from ST: Voyager in 10 years). I'd love to be able to quickly and easily get OS X on any old PC, but that's not how it is now and we all have to deal with it.
Psystar was a lost cause from the start anyway. Apple can spend more on lawyers than Psystar could gross in a year. They were dead meat from the moment Apple filed suit.
...software.
Imagine you made a device and spent the time and energy to write some really nice software for it and started happily selling your device. The somebody comes along and starts putting your software on their own cheaper hardware and starts selling that. In this case, they're using your own software as a tool to compete against you.
I don't see how would be wrong for you to want to stop that someone from using your software.
A lot of the discussion here seems to be about whether it's ok to use Apple's software on your own PC. I don't think that's totally unethical. What you do as an individual with your own computer is your business. However, starting a company and attempting to compete against them in the computer hardware market is a completely different thing. Pystar is clearly using the fact that you can buy one of their machines with OSX installed as their "unique selling proposition". Discussion about how Pystar is getting OSX onto the machine seems moot.
this post is now diamonds!
Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?
Go read the EULAs that come with all of those products, for a long list of things that you cannot do with "your" copy. Such as run the cheaper versions of Windows on any sort of virtual machine, move the OEM windows bundled with your PC onto another machine, use your educational-licence copy of Photoshop for commercial work...
The details are different, but the principle is the same: you don't own the copy you bought.
Every single other company works that way.
In your dreams. Well, maybe Ubuntu since the GPL only really kicks in if you want to modify or redistribute.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Apple is disappointing me more and more. I've been a Mac user for more than 15 years, but this month I'll be switching to an ordinary PC with Ubuntu on it. The new machine is already ordered. It is as powerful as a MacPro and costs half of it. (One thing that annoys me is that I need to keep my old Mac to be able to compile software for OS X, but perhaps the Hackintosh solution will help me get rid of this piece of junk.) The main reasons:
Goodbye Apple!
Hey, I got a $6000 Mac Pro to run Windows 7 so that I can run the Software (Visual Studio) I want to on the hardware (2 Quad Cores) I want to. I do it using Bootcamp, with full legit copies of the Operating Systems.
And I'll be honest, I don't think all Mac users are fools*. As much as I know about the Music and Video industry, which is very little, I understand that Macs are quite popular in that regard. I personally don't use that software so I wouldn't know how well it performs. I'm sure for those people who do that kind of stuff a Mac shines in every aspect and is worth every penny.
The fools I'm referring to are the people who got an iPod because they thought it was the only thing of its kind. Or the ones who bought a Macbook Air and keep it at home to surf the web. Or the kind who purchased a Mac to say they have a Mac. There alot of people like that out there. When there are far cheaper options to fit their needs, and I mean FAR cheaper. There are 8 Gig MP3 players going for 60 dollars, where an 8 Gig iPod Nano goes for over 100.
But - if White coloured headphones are crucial, thats the consumers choice to make.
*I'm probably the biggest fool of them all, for buying a Mac Pro when I PROBABLY could have built a comparable rig myself for half the price. Oh well.
PS - As for Linux, I only run that stuff on my Original Xbox, PS3, and a home-server. It's rarely used as much as a "Linux User" uses Linux.
ppc != x86
You'll need to hack an ibm p-series blade server for ps3/x360 code to _somehow_ work.
As opposed to x86 code on an x86 machine.
proud caffeine whore
So, Windows, Oracle, Sun, IBM, Intel, Micron, the entirety of China have OK corporate behavior? So you're posting on a 1982 Morrow Micro Decision? Or something you built in your basement?
Get over it.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Personally I think we need new laws that separate the purchase of hardware and software.
So people know what they are buying, because in sales whether it be Microsoft Windows or a Netgear router you are buying software as well as the hardware.
Form my posts on /. any one can see I am a fan of Mac’s so running OS X without the hardware defeats the purpose of the platform for me.
But I can see it form the other side. What if I wanted to buy Mac hardware but want to run Linux or Windows, why should I have to pay for the development and sale price of OS X if I am not going to use it. We use the same argument against OEM’s with MS Windows.
If you switch the situation and just want the software, I can see that point as well. But I would not hold Apple responsible to support me in any way.
Who is funding Psystar?
I don’t think it’s Microsoft as that would be a dumb move ether way it goes.
I think it is one of the OEM’s myself, as they have noting to lose if this goes Apple’s way and hole lot to gain if it doesn’t.
Apple needs to stop this now before the EULA is really tested, it might go their way this time. But it will not stop, people and companies want OS X and if any thing about technology has been proven to us, is that they will find a way to run.
I think Apple should license OS X now while they have the power to put in place some restriction. They could make the license ridiculous priced and restrictive, The OEM’s would still lap it up for the chance to get rid of Windows. As for Linux the OEM’s have dabbled it this space. But they still have the 1980’s mentality of they would rather license the software than level the playing field with their competitors.
A company that licenses OS X would not be able to use Apple trademarks. But the OEM’s could call it Dell OS or something like that and it would be “OS X compatible”. They could make a range of premium computing to stay in the price range of Mac’s.
As to argument that it will kill Apple it could do, but they are in different places now and the market has changed a hole lot since then.
Fair enough, but it was still something of a generalisation.
Incidentally, the white headphones are terrible.
This would be the same as telling me I can't put a Chevy LS6 motor in my 34 Ford Coupe. The motor by itself does nothing but put it in a car and its the heart of it. Same thing here. I'm not going to sell the car as a chevy. Whats the problem? Apple need to get a clue, as well as the rest of this $#%#'d up industry. This is the only time I can remember when it was an honor, or privilege, to be able to buy or use products from certain vendors. Apple, M$oft, Verizon, ATT, Direct TV, all come to mind. If you don't use their products EXACTLY how they say, shame on you! I guess I should start worrying about Levi as I cut up an old pair of jeans and use the rags in the garage.
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
Why is this so different from format shifting? Music industry makes a CD and says you can't play this on an iPod...shouldn't the music company have a right to say what boxes you can use to play your music? What if Microsoft says you can only install Windows on approved manufacturers (say, Fujitsu and Toshiba)? What if Microsoft says you can only run Internet Explorer on Windows? Anti-trust?
I don't see this as being all that different.
Don't large PC manufacturers do something like this for whatever system they're installing?
Sure they do. And they have a license from Microsoft that allows them to do that legally. Apple, on other other hand, did not grant Psystar any sort of license at all to install OS X on their computers, let alone one that allowed them to create cloned copies.
This ain't rocket surgery.
How come 'copying into RAM' doesn't 'qualify as copy' ? It sounds strange to me... How about guns? You have the right to own one(in US), but it's use is restricted: you cant start killing people just because you bought you AK-47 legally. Apple made it too restrictive? Let the market say it so... They've already made iTunes work on Windows...
Under that logic, isn't reading a book without an explicit license illegal? After all, you're making a copy in your brain.
It's been a long time.
Does Ubisoft care if I get Tomb Raider Underworld working on my copy of Windows ME? You can install Windows XP onto a machine with 32MB's of ram, MS won't try to stop you selling machines in that configuration.
Because MS doesn't sell machines themselves, while Apple does.
Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run. All other companies will just refuse to support a platform and they state plainly what platform the software has been tested on (and will be supported on) and what they believe are the minimum requirements.
Of course they do, again, Apple sells hardware+software bundles. Apple's business is selling hardware. Of course they want their software running on their own hardware. It is their business model.
Besides, there actually are companies who restrict what their software will run on. I'm pretty sure an Xbox game does not run on a PS3. I know they are totally incompatible on many levels, but if they were compatible, you'd have the same discussion.
Just because something is *technically* possible, does NOT mean it is legal, or should be.
If i decide to build some kind of highly specialised medical software, and decide to bundle it exclusively on x86-hardware i sell with my own label, just for performance assurance, does that mean somebody else can tear it apart and re-sell my software on their own systems?
According to the latest reliability charts, Apple hardware is the expensive and unreliable choice. The premise that Apple sells you "quality" hardware is fast losing traction.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
You're right, there is an explicit exemption in copyright law that SHOULD render EULAs worthless. Unfortunately, judges have been ignoring that part of the law for years, and in a common-law legal system, precedent is king.
He's saying it doesn't count because it is literally a requirement to use any software. There is no other way to run software other than copying it into RAM, and therefore you don't require an exception to copyright law, as such an exception is assumed when you buy it.
When the Ghost cloning utility started, they did *NOT* get approval from MS.
MS was even denying support for systems that were cloned with Ghost or equivalent.
Today, MS has their own utility that does the same thing.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Not quite, no. Psystar had legally owned copies, purchased from Apple. Claims that their copies are illegal because they run afowl of the Apple-branded computer clause in the EULA are only relevant if the EULA applies, which is what the GP was calling into question. As such, your statement is purely circular: Psystar's use was illegal because it wasn't covered by the exception because it was illegal.
The actual reason is that the law has simply been ignored since its conception. A bad precedent was set, and judges have followed it ever since.
Owning the medium of the software clearly means nothing. You could always buy a recordable DVD and make a copy of the software and you would clearly own the medium, but that wouldn't give you any rights either. And you don't own the software: You have a license allowing certain uses, and since you asked, it is _copyright law_ that doesn't allow you to make any copies without permission (license) of the copyright holder.
Invalid analogy. You have no right to make a copy of the software onto the recordable DVD. This act is copyright infringement and that DVD is called an "Infringing copy".
Copyright law only allows you to install a non-infringing copy of software on a computer, including RAM.
Every time you use software which is an infringing copy, you are committing an additional act of copyright infringement.
On the other hand if Apple gives you a DVD with the sofware on it, then you have a non-infringing copy, and it is copyright law that allows you to make a copy of a non-infringing copy onto a computer including its RAM, for the strict purpose of running the software on that computer including the right even to modifying strictly for the purpose of making it compatible with that computer.
However you have no rights to distribute such computers. They contain copies of the software, and distribution rights are another exclusive right of the copyright holder.
You aren't even permitted to buy 100 copies of OSX and distribute them without Apple's permission.
If you comply the EULA may give you additional rights, but it didn't give you the original right to run the software, nor can an document you have not agreed to alter the fact that you legally own the copy of the software apple sold you.
I'm not saying EULA's are always invalid. And I'm not saying what Psystar is doing is legal. I'm saying its not as simple as people make it out to be.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
.. evil. This is nothing new. They've had the same predatory behavior for well over 2 decades now.
It's hard for a lot of us to accept, because nearly everyone here owns an apple product they genuinely enjoy (I own several myself), but the truth is Apple is evil.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Wait a minute, I thought the accepted truth at /. was that companies aren't entitled to their business models, and should adapt and innovate.
Or does that only apply to the record/film industry?
You should re-read it. Manually installing a copy of OS X on every computer is time consuming (particularly when it's a hackintosh and needs extra work), so Psystar did it once and then cloned the hard drive. That fucked them over big time.
I'm not sure if that really did in itself. If the effect is identical, then I suspect the court wouldn't care. However Psystar has no distribution right. To clone hard drives this way is clearly done for the purpose of distributing OSX and that would be an infringement even if the individual copies are all perfectly authorized under law.
The way the law is written you are not free to go and buy 100 copies of a book and resell them without permission. Distribution rights are exclusive rights of the copyright holder.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Despite their high cost relative to other vendors, I was thinking about buying a Mac
Citation needed, otherwise I call bullshit. It's easy to make a statement like that but unless you can prove it, it's totally meaningless.
This ain't rocket surgery.
You try to sell Solaris machines under a name that doesn't involve Sun Microsystems and let's see how long you do in the market. Or IBM OS/360. Or Palm WebOS. Or...
Fujitsu. They even design their own SPARC CPUs which are better performing than Sun's. In fact, Sun has done such a craptastic job designing UltraSPARC V and Rock, that they have to sell high-end servers using Fujitsu's processors to be able to compete. Amdahl Corporation manufactures IBM S/360 hardware.
This argument is flawed. Shooting someone is an illegal action. Killing people was illegal before AK-47s existed. But running a piece of software is not an illegal action, so I don't see how you can limit how and when and where people are doing so if they have legally paid for it.
Eh, I always figured Copyright law was part of that 1/10th that "possession" doesn't fall under.
It's not good legal advice, but it's a pretty good rule of thumb for anything that doesn't involve copyright laws.
Fujitsu. They even design their own SPARC CPUs which are better performing than Sun's. In fact, Sun has done such a craptastic job designing UltraSPARC V and Rock, that they have to sell high-end servers using Fujitsu's processors to be able to compete. Amdahl Corporation manufactures IBM S/360 hardware.
You think they never requested permission to sell such systems? The point of the grandparent still stands - you try to sell such systems and see how long it takes to get a call from a lawyer.
You must have one HELL of a job if the price difference between a PC and a comparable Mac is only a couple of hours pay.
Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run.
Ever heard of Sony or Nintendo? Last I checked, PS3 and Wii discs were not readable on a PC -- technological measures and all that. In addition, their respective software licenses specifically forbid any copying whatsoever, a step required if one is going to use the titles on anything other than the intended hardware.
I honestly don't care what the law says. I don't believe the law is right. I can believe that Psystar is violating the law, I just don't care.
They bought copies of OS X. I don't give a damn about a EULA that should not be enforceable (even if it *IS* enforceable), because I think it's wrong of Apple to be able to control what people do that way. They paid for the software, they shouldn't be able to play licensing trickery that, even though you paid for it, you can only use it in certain Apple-approved ways.
Frankly, in some ways I'm glad that Microsoft crushed Apple. Although Apple makes superior products, they're even worse control freaks than Microsoft about what you may and may not do with their software and I hate that about them, even if their products are great.
No. Read the case.
From my understanding, Psystar installed one copy on Apple-branded hardware. They then modified that image, and replicated it repeatedly, eventually onto the systems which were sold (accompanied by unused Apple software).
Those additional copies are pretty clearly not authorized by either Apple nor Copyright law. Those additional copies are why the judge smacked down their first-sale claim. And those additional copies are why arguments about the EULA do not matter one whit.
I should re-read the Psystar articles again, but I was pretty sure some of the penalties they are facing are because the Judge counted the contents of RAM as an extra copy.
You are actually completely wrong.
Yes, loading software into RAM means you are making a copy. That is bloody obvious. And when you have a license to use the software, then you automatically have the right to make the copy into RAM as well; when you don't have the license to use the software, you don't have the right to make that copy. But so far the judge has only decided that Psystar has indeed made copies without permission, made modifications without permission, and distributed the modified software without permission, exactly the three things that the copyright holder has the right to allow or not allow.
Damages are a second phase. Apple asks for two kind of damages: For copyright infringement, and for DMCA violation. For the copyright infringement, Apple apparently lets them get away very, very cheap: Apple only asks for $30,000 per work, once for MacOS X 10.5 and once for MacOS X 10.6. If you remember, Jammie whatshername was fined $80,000 per work, for 24 works, each work being not a complete operating system, but just a song that you could download for 99 cents or less. Apple didn't count how many copies were made when asking for damages for copyright infringement. If Apple gets what they want, then anyone in trouble with the RIAA should take very, very good notice of this.
However, Apple asks for $2500 per DMCA violation, and counts each computer shipped as one DMCA violation, and each upgrade disk that Psystar shipped as one DMCA violation. Apple thinks that starting each computer to check that it works would have been a DMCA violation, but doesn't ask for damages for that. And Apple says that every time a Psystar customer starts their computer, that is another DMCA violation, but not committed by Psystar. The DMCA violation is what will kill Psystar. That's also more important for Apple, because a company might be able to get around the copyright infringement, but they can't get around the DMCA violation.
Incidentally, the white headphones are terrible.
I thought the white headphones were okay for earbuds. Not a pad on my large padded headphones I have at home, but passable.
I actually dislike the white headphones because of their appearance. Firstly because it makes me look like a wannabe-fashionable tosser buying Apple to look cool. (*) Secondly, because I'm more worried about it making me a target for a thief/mugger on dark winter evenings.
I have a pair of really cheap black ones that don't seem to give as much sound output with my EU-volume-limited iPod at max stength- a problem with outside noise. So I'm still using the white ones... though I'll probably buy another pair, and when I do, they won't be white.
(*) I say "wannabe" because IMHO they could have the opposite effect. Since I don't normally dress or look that sharp, simply having an iPod isn't going to make me a fashion god. I don't think that, and I doubt most people do- but wearing the white headphones they might think that *I'm* under that impression... which would make me a wannabe loser. Personally, I dislike the damn white headphones because I don't like Apple's image- the electronics equivalent of Gap ten years ago- and the damn things are so ubiquitous (every man and his dog has an iPod) that they aren't that cool anyway- again, Gap ten years ago.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Back in the PPC days, you couldn't install OS X on anything else than a MAC (excluding licensed UMAX and MOTOROLA machines). The day Steve went X86, you just knew installing OS X on a PC would be possible (same hardware)
:)
Heck, I'm typing this on 10.5.8 running on an AMD Athlon X2
If you buy a standard PC with similar hardware, it's quite easy to run OS X on it.
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
Applies to about every other company. almost any consumer device today is cheap, of a doubtful quality and disposable.
My dad's VCR is beginning to show its age (it's 22 years old), but that thing is built like a brick. Yes it's a front-load with HI-FI and everything, but it was expensive. Today, you would be lucky to find one that lasts more than a couple years.
A more recent example, Printers. My first inkjet was a Deskjet 500C. That thing was a TANK. virtually undestructible. Today, it's less expensive to buy a new one then change cartridges.
Laptops? I've recently found an old Toshiba T1800 (386 monochrome), and the way its built, I could use it as a traction-aid and it probably would still work. Newer laptops will break if looked at too often.
Everything is disposable now. Lower quality, made in CHINA cheap stuff.
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
but I do point out when a company continuously acts like a fool. The bigger fools of course are the users who overpay and support it because they like having a more closed system as long as the interface is shinier.
I notice you don't call Psystar fools for selling overpriced PCs and Software that is nothing but slightly changed Open Source for quite some money (and of course don't make available source code).
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Sure. And MACs do not use cloned images?
unboxing a MAC only involves pluging it in, turning it on and typing some info on the registration *wizard*. So yes, Apple clones drives.
It shouldn't be different because it's the Mighty Steve (c)
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
My impression and limited experience of Mac users has been folks who genuinely think Apple is innovative. I believe they are not. They take existing technology and perhaps make it more mature by adding a good interface to it. I give them credit for making things like mp3 players more mainstream but they did it by trying to pushing their own format.
Oh? And what would that format be? MP3? Later AAC? Or did the introduction of the iTunes (Music) Store with DRM make the iPod "more mainstream"? Are you telling us they should have used the "open" WMA with DRM on the iPods?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
You don't need a license to run an authorized copy of software any more than you need a license to read a book. Running software is not an exclusive right protected by copyright.
I think he is talking about the "FairPlay" iTunes DRM encryption ensuring you could only playback the music files using Apple hardware products.
Let's assume that you weren't implying that PCs running Windows are "Apple hardware products". So what, if you can only play songs with FairPlay on iPods - Apple never promised anything else. But before the iTMS, you could only buy music online from site that sold obscure indy music, from Russian sites of dubious legality, and about a dozen stores with a rather small catalogue selling songs in WMA with a much worse DRM than FairPlay that most MP3 players couldn't play.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Interesting choice of example, since Logic is Mac-only for the sole reason that Apple bought eMagic. Prior to that Logic was also available for Windows. The windows Logic users were left high and dry with no further updates or support whatsoever. Think about it - Logic for Windows was a $399 piece of software. It was also rather unorthodox, leaving users to learn entirely new audio software. Very few were of a mind to buy a Mac I assure you.
I find it ironic that a Mac user would be proud of Apple for some of its most anti-competitive behaviour, especially in this thread of all places. Apple quashing Psystar is completely legal and IMO justified, but it's nothing to be proud of.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
Apple needs to have a real desktop and not court to to sport psystar.
If they had a real desktop at $800-$1500 then psystar would be dead with out apple needing to go to court to do it.
However, you have to pay much more than the workflow gains to get the matching iPod, monotone wardrobe, VW Beetle, and remodel your home in minimalist fashion with Ikea furnishings.
In the end, anarchy never pays. Your denial shall soon consume you, if it hasn't already.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
Of course that isn't even true nowadays, most of iTunes music is DRM free.
*claps heartily*
Well said!
BTW, the '34 Ford coupe sounds like an awesome project, if it is more than 'just a car analogy' for this discussion. :-)
Hot-rodders are hackers too!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Every other company also makes 5% margin compared to Apple's 30%*, Should Apple also cut their margins to be with the cool crowd?
No, but that does indicate that there's something wrong.
All the people who defend Capitalism and Free Market often quote how it is a better thing for consumers than lots of regulation. It's true, when lots of competition exists. Ever questioned why that is? Hint: it's not because companies get a high profit margin. On the contrary, it's because prices approach marginal cost
A high profit margin indicates there's something wrong with the market, in the form of not enough competition. In this case, it's particularly bad, because the lack of competition is not due to others not wanting to get in the market, but due to government protecting Apple's market in the form of enforcing EULAs in court. If you buy Mac OS X, they should have no say what you do with it.
I find it odd that to prove wrong "the people who defend Capitalism and Free Market" (and to whine about Apple's profits) you pull out an theoretical construct of theirs which is completely pie in the sky because it requires things like
Not to forget that "Firms Aim to Maximize Profits" is also needed - which you came in to slam in the first place.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
What part of this is a troll? The part where he says that Apple makes great products, or the part where he says that Apple is slimy? Both parts are true. Where are the meta mods when we need them?
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
Uh, no, the right of first sale says that you are, in fact, allowed to resell any legally purchased copy of software, period. Anyone who says otherwise probably works at Autodesk....
Actually, the EULA doesn't grant the original right to run a piece of software. Copyright law does.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Nope. Go back one more level. Corporations exist because the public gave them permission to "make a buck" (pursuit of happiness) in order that we gain from it also. Listening to any App£€ "user", one would think that corporate rights are the only things that matter. Fuck corporate rights, they need less, not more!
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
My problem is when these fools try and convince me they are not fools or worse yet try and convince non foolish people to follow their foolishness.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I'm not talking about copying and distributing, I'm talking about doing what you want with something for your personal use.
No, you're missing the point, Apple has never gone after anyone for making a hackintoch for their own use. Apple has only gone after those who want to distribute hackintoches. And that is what corresponds to you copying "Bob the pop singers' latest CD".
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I went back to college in 2002-2006 (incidentally buying my first Mac in 2002 after 7 years of exclusive desktop Linux use, and I hate that I have to even throw in this disclaimer) and over that period for the first time noticed Macs being considered 'cool.'
Yet you give your trendy straw men (and women) too little credit. Just because they're not geeks and don't know much about computers, even if they bought a Mac because all of their friends said it was the cool thing to do, they can damn well tell you a lot of things they don't like about Windows. Ask them. I've heard it. These are the very technophobes who let their systems get overrun with spyware and adware, who got viruses while everyone on Slashdot bragged about the number of years they spent in their mom's basement *not* getting viruses (*cough*) while using XP sans AV software.
So if they're using a Mac, and it works for them, doesn't it mean their choice was justified?
I hate to think of what you think of all of the engineers using Macs.
My problem is when these fools try and convince me they are not fools or worse yet try and convince non foolish people to follow their foolishness.
My problem is when fools try to convince me I'm foolish! Can't they see what fools they are?
Based on Sony's rootkit incidents, I most certainly would respond differently if Sony was involved.
The Apple stuff meets my needs, YMMV. <shrug> If it doesn't work there are a lot of other vendors out there.
If you bought a Mac Pro primarily to run Windows, you missed the point. The Apple solution only makes sense if your primary OS is OS X, otherwise you are absolutely correct that you can buy cheaper hardware for Windows.
That's not to say the Apple hardware is poor quality, it's just that the combination of OS X + the hardware is what you're paying for.
They sold you a licence to use it.
If Apple relied on that, selling a license to OS X and not OS X itself, Apple would be in trouble. At least one federal judge has ruled that when a person buys software they are not buying a license. A federal judge has already ruled against Autodesk when Autodesk tried to stop resellers from selling Autodesk software such as AutoCAD on eBay. Autodesk claimed they sold a license not the software but the judge said otherwise.
However Apple does not rely on that. Apple relies in part on copyright law. Pystar makes at least two unauthorized copies of OS X. It also modifies OS X. Both break copyright laws.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
So you're saying that Lambourghini needs to have a 30K version because you can't afford their current models? That's what you're basing this on, the price of the item and your willingness to pay it? The logic, it does not work.
Apple isn't a monopoly and they have a (relatively) tiny market share. They can charge whatever they want, albeit charging whatever the market will bear works best in the long run. The market will bear their prices... as proven by Apple's profitability. They don't want/need an $800 "real" (your words, not mine) desktop. You either pay their prices or you don't. They have many others lined up behind you who won't think twice about their prices. If you can't justify it, no sweat, use something else. It's not like you need to feel like less of a man because their product wasn't right for you.
Pet peeve here. The company's name is "Apple" in the vernacular, not apPle.
I understand that your mis-typing of the company's name is perhaps some attempt at slighting them, and thus demostrating your higher moral position. However, your misspelling is both juvenile, and gives me a headache.
So, in short, stop. Thanks.
0100010001101001011001 0100100000011010010110 1110001000000110000100 1000000110011001101001 0111001001100101
Pystar also modified as well as mass copied OS X. When asked Pystar couldn't even provide receipts proving they paid for OS X.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Even so, the RAM argument is still irrelevant. Running a pirated program should not count as 2 counts of copyright infringement. And it should not count as an additional reason that the software was pirated. It is merely a consequence of the infringement.
And how long do you think OS X will be superior if anyone could install it on plain vanilla hardware? People complain about how MS Windows is unstable and doesn't work well with some hardware. By controlling their own hardware, yes Apple is a hardware as well as software company, they are able to make they work well together.
Another thing many people overlook is that Apple does not compeat directly against Microsoft, and MS has shown what it will do against competitors. MS once threatened Apple with canceling MS Office for Macs, and as much as many people know it is not true many people believe they need MS Office.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I don't like some of what Apple does. Nah, let me rephrase that, I wish Apple would do some things Steve Jobs refuses to let the company do. Such as make and sell a mid-range expandable Mac.
I've been a Mac user for more than 15 years, but this month I'll be switching to an ordinary PC with Ubuntu on it.
After using Windows PCs almost exclusively for more than 10 years I switched. I first got a desktop, er Tower, PC with Linux preinstalled. When I get around to it I'll rebuild it into a server. And when I got a new laptop I got a MacBook Pro. Right now it's running Leopard however when I'm ready I'll install Snow Leopard, the DVD is in arms reach, as well as Ubuntu. I'm not sure if I'll install Jaunty or Karmic though. I'm still researching so I can lay out an upgrade plan. Once I have the plan I'll dualboot Snow Leopard and Ubuntu.
You cannot upgrade the graphics card on iMacs.
Can you upgrade the graphics card in other all-in-ones? Looking at Dell's XPS One I don't see where its graphics is upgradeable either. Their Studio One 19 isn't either. I bet if I looked more I'll come up with more all-in-ones without upgradeable graphics.
Apple only sells new iMacs with old and already outdated graphics cards
iMacs come with different cards. The 21.5" model has the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M and the GeForce 9 Series came out in 2008. The technical summary says the 9400 GT came out in August 2008, that makes it all of 15 months old. The 27" iMac comes with a card from 2008 as well.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You should re-read it. Manually installing a copy of OS X on every computer is time consuming (particularly when it's a hackintosh and needs extra work), so Psystar did it once and then cloned the hard drive. That fucked them over big time.
If this is a problem with the law, then it is the law that is the problem.
What if I wanted to buy Mac hardware but want to run Linux or Windows, why should I have to pay for the development and sale price of OS X if I am not going to use it. We use the same argument against OEM's with MS Windows.
If you switch the situation and just want the software, I can see that point as well. But I would not hold Apple responsible to support me in any way.
Apple sells hardware and software, do you want laws barring the sell of both? Apple hardware sells help fund the development of OS X.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Wah wah wah Apple won't give me what I want.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I think yours is probably the most insightful comment to this article.
If you believe in 'free' you shouldn't be using Apple stuff at all: support the FSF and GNU and run applications on a free operating system.
Shame you posted anonymously.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
The way the law is written you are not free to go and buy 100 copies of a book and resell them without permission. Distribution rights are exclusive rights of the copyright holder.
On the First sale doctrine:
"With reference to trade in tangible merchandise, such as the retailing of goods bearing a trademark, the "first sale" rule serves to immunize a reseller from infringement liability. Such protection to the reseller extends to the point where said goods have not been altered so as to be materially different from those originating from the trademark owner."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Psystar had legally owned copies, purchased from Apple.
Oh, really?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The software loaded onto the Psystar machines were legally paid for.
Oh, really?
This licensing agreement is trying to assert a right of a copyright holder to tell you what you can and cannot do with the works that do not include copying.
Copyright also makes it illegal to modify software without the copyright owners permission. Psystar installs a modified OS X on it's PCs.
Copyright licenses attempt to assert some pretty unfriendly terms of use and the terms keep getting worse and worse. It's about time these creeping terms are hedged off.
It's about tyme people try to profit off others' hard work and expenses.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
which law is on the books that allows Apple to dictate how I may use their product in the privacy of my own home?
And when has Apple dictated and tried to prevent a person from making and using their own hackintosh? All Apple is doing is fighting another business who is trying to profit off of Apple's efforts. And making a profit isn't a right.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
At least one federal judge disagrees with you.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You aren't even permitted to buy 100 copies of OSX and distribute them without Apple's permission.
Yes you are, the First sale doctrine allows an owner of a legal copy to sell it, that includes retailers.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
People can do what they want. Companies can't. Apple doesn't sue people for building hackintoshes the same way Microsoft doesn't sue the developers of wine. I'm sure Microsoft would sue Apple if they tried to make OSX run Windows apps.
My problem is when these fools try and convince me they are not fools or worse yet try and convince non foolish people to follow their foolishness.
And of course you or those who think like you get to define who and what fools are?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
According to the latest reliability charts, Apple hardware is the expensive and unreliable choice.
Citation needed!
Let's see what Google returns. Apple's laptops rate 'Better than Average' in reliability study. Macs not all that for reliability. That article puts Dells in the middle with laptop reliability with Macs above them. "For the first time, Apple Inc. dropped out of the top spot in the computer-reliability ranking of Rescuecom Corp., a Syracuse, N.Y.-based chain of service shops, and ended in third place behind a pair of Asian computer makers that specialize in laptops."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run
You don't know many PC OEMs then do you? I can't take the version of Windows that came with my Gateway and install it on my HP, nor can I install the Windows that came with my HP on a Gateway, or any PC other than that HP. Microsoft has PC OEMs create their own Windows install disk that only work on the PC it was made for.
So why are Apple special? If people aren't expecting Apple to provide any support and there are no technical reasons for the software not running, why can't people do what they want? Every single other company works that way.
Apple is a hardware and a software company, that's why. What is hard to understand about that?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Thank you for the good reference. And as many have been missing, the whole point here is that Psystar did here alter the goods in a material manner (by bypassing software restrictions that detect hardware). Maybe if they had just sold a machine with a Hypervisor to run an unmodified OSX they would be on more solid ground
The software loaded onto the Psystar machines were legally paid for.
Not exactly - the software was a modified derivative of what Psystar paid for. A derivative that was not allowed by the original licensor (Apple). Therefore this copy is illegal.
It's like taking GPL software, modifying it, distributing it and then not following the original licence agreement (that you must then distribute source code). That's why this case is such a big deal for FOSS. If Psystar win, GPL begins to be in trouble
Irrelevant. I was a musician new to DAW recording and knew nothing of the history. Nor did I care. All I cared about was getting the best DAW package at the best price (£170 for Logic Studio 8 in my case). Since it only runs on a Mac, I bought a Mac too. Given that Logic Studio also includes Mainstage, Waveburner, Soundtrack Pro and whole slew of other utilities, even with the premium price of a Mac this meant great value for money.
To be honest I've never understood the mentality of criticising large companies for their actions. ALL large companies would do exactly what Microsoft and Apple do if they felt they could get away with it. Corporations aren't evil, they just are - and that is just the way things are in a capitalist system.
And as for the fanbois of whatever, that's just illogical. Best tool for the job and all that.
Listen to my latest album here
My home computer is a Hackintosh simply because I like MacOS X, the software. I don't think I am morally wrong and I seriously don't think that I cause Apple any harm. On the contrary, me buying a copy of Snow Leopard and installing it on a home built PC gives Apple a positive net win compared to the alternative: Me not buying Snow Leopard at all. Apple gets more money, I save money by getting a much cheaper computer. I also sometimes help Open Source projects with OSX-specific patches. It's a true win-win situation! This talk about rights is just narrow minded bureaucratic nonsense, IMHO. Apple should just shut up and enjoy the money!
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Wah wah wah Apple won't give me what I want.
Falcon
I don't like OS X, and I don't like the neo-hippy styling of Apple products. I also don't like spending an extra $200-$1000 on a computer. So, in fact, I'm not the one crying. Apple can't give me what I want and never has been able to.
Sucks to be you, fanboi.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
But the point was: "let's see how long you do in the market".
It does not stand. You changed the point to "how long it takes to get a call from a lawyer". Memory distortion problems?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
The only reason that is the case is because iTunes would have soon died out (or at the least become very crippled) with competition from the Amazon MP3 store, and anyone else who dared to introduce a DRM free service.
which is totally what she said
Where is this anti-competitive behavior?
Pretty sure he was referring to Apple buying "Logic Studio" and then cutting off the Windows line.
which is totally what she said
In the old days, nobody would even think about separating the software and hardware of an Atari, Apple, Amiga or Commodore computer.
Actually, in the "old days" I used to run Shapeshifter (a Mac emulator) on my Amiga.
which is totally what she said
Don't know if I should bite.. but since Apple owns the copyright on OSX (seeing as they created it), that obviously means they can copy it as much as they want.
It is in fact entirely different.
which is totally what she said
A high profit margin indicates there's something wrong with the market, in the form of not enough competition. In this case, it's particularly bad, because the lack of competition is not due to others not wanting to get in the market
There's plenty of competition. There are a few different versions of Windows, the dominate OS, and dozens of distros of Linux. And Linux is free.
When it comes to OS X, if you don't like the terms of use then don't use it. Nobody's holding a firearm to your head forcing you to use OS X. You can choose to use one of the versions of Windows, a distro of Linux, Solaris, or you can even write your own OS. If you have the skill. No government agent is going to force you to hand money over to Apple. Instead you want to force others to give you something you want. While Apple has no right to make a profit you have no right to take someone else's work.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yep, it would.
This ain't rocket surgery.
I guess it's because those companies don't have those provisions in their license agreements
1. It is not settled law (to put it mildly) that the acceptance of a EULA is necessary to use a copy of software that you own. See here.
2. There is explicit federal law with regard to the right of a owner of a copy of a software program to modify that work as necessary to make it work on "a machine", provided that they do redistribute that modification. See 17 USC 1179(a).
violating Apple's copyrights and IP by making derivatives of OSX
As long as you do not redistribute the result, making an adaptation of an operating system that you have legitimately acquired a copy of as an "essential step" in the use of it on "a machine" is not a violation of Apple's copyrights let alone some other amorphous "IP".
See 17 USC 117(a).
Pretty sure he was referring to Apple buying "Logic Studio" and then cutting off the Windows line.
Think about that, Apple discontinues Logic Studio for Windows. But Apple did not prevent people from using other music production software, on Macs or Windows. Sonar, Cubase, and Reaper all run on Windows. The free and open source Audacity runs on *unix, OS X, and Windows.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
and resold it?
I see you didn't answer my question. Could that be because you don't have a good counter argument?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
In response to your first point, that would fall into an argument over whether or not these types of licenses are legitimate. Until that argument is cleared up Apple's practice is suspect. When/if EULAs are deemed to be 100% valid in the case of restricted use of software I still don't believe that you'll be seeing Microsoft, Adobe, Skype or anyone else limiting their usage to specific computers, it just isn't in their business model. If adobe made their own hardware that they sold their software on they would probably chard a lot more for each license but they would lose much more in sales and would more than likely fail as a company.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
I am convinced that retail EULAs are invalid on their face, and there are a number of courts that agree. The reason why they are invalid is a license is not required to use a copy that you own.
If there was a binding contract (as engaged in for some types of enterprise software), that would be a different story. By the point you have left the store with a copy of retail software however, you own that copy. No further license is required. The only way to make a retail EULA valid would be for the retail store to act as the software manufacturer's agent and require informed consent (preferably signed) with regard to the proposition that the customer isn't purchasing anything as part of the checkout process.
And the only reliable way for that to happen would be to agree that the physical media itself remains the property of the software manufacturer and is only leased to the customer for a finite period (ten years perhaps). No first sale rights because there wouldn't be a sale.
Can you imagine a car company saying "you can buy our car, but only if you use Brand X gasoline.
I have a Mac and I can install Linux or Windows on it. A more appropriate car analogue would be to say Brand X Gas could only be used in Brand Y vehicle. That however is plainly stated on on the packaging. The label on the box of my Snow Leopard DVD states "Requirements, Mac computer with Intel processor". I was able to read that before I bought it, and if I did not want to live up to that I did not have to buy it.
I may build a hackintosh and give it to someone as a gift if only as a protest to Apple's hostility toward their customers.
Boo hoo, Apple won't give me what I want so I'll break the law.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I think corporations exists for the shareholders not us...no?
Corporations exist for the common or public good. If a corporation does not benefit them it's charter can be revoked.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yea, because people want to stay in business they're a bunch of dicks.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
There are specific exemptions for copying programs in order for them to be useful. You only need to own a copy.
The reasoning behind this case is that Apple can decide whether or not they're selling a copy, or "licensing" the software. By doing the latter, they in theory are able to circumvent laws designed specifically to prevent what they're doing.
The thing is, as far as I see it, there is nothing to suggest this is a natural choice for businesses to make. License agreements typically take special circumstances into account such as fixed-term usage or extra commission per work, not your typical buy-and-use software.
If such circumvention is indeed lawful, it would open up a box of other ludicrous tricks.
"I don't sell drugs. I licence them for personal use."
That's not what the law says. All it says is that copying a program in a way that's necessary to use it isn't copyright infringement.
Thus if you pirate the copy and load it into the RAM, only the former counts as infringement wheras the latter doesn't.
There's just something in their craw. I see nice new 27" iMacs I'd love to own, they see a tyranny and a conspiracy against their freedom! Kind of like thinking that health care reform = Dachau.
but by your reasoning Psystar should be able to continue business by installing the copies individually from CDs and then introduce their modifications.
Not even. Psystar doesn't make Apple hardware, only Apple and their contractors make Apple hardware. As for modifications, that breaks copyright.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Miss my point friend.. I want laws that say they have to show the price for the hardware and the software when I buy. So I can clearly see the price I am paying for both sales. And if I want to buy them separately of each other I can. This will stop the bundling of Windows and OS X with hardware.
If I don't want OS X why should I have to pay for it simple as that. I like OS X, but I don't like Windows, It would be small minded of me to say Windows bundling should stop and not too say anything about OS X just because I happen to like the software.
For the me it doesn't matter because I going use OS X the same way it doesn't matter to the boat load of Windows user that it comes bundle with their PC or laptop as they are going to use it. but on the other side when I get a new laptops, I hate have to dodge the windows tax.
It all about the perspective of want you want form your purchase.
Point in case.
Do you see what I have to deal with now.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
So?
That's a technical requirement, not a legal one.
You are welcome on my lawn.
if Microsoft was to make a patch for Windows that made Windows run only on official Microsoft licensed hardware so that people who have Apple Macs can't run Windows on it, there would be a massive uproar and Apple users all over the world would bitch because they can't run the operating system they so desperately try to avoid. Yea... they think they hate Windows, until it's time to do real work: that's when you see all Apple owners resort to running Windows on their super expensive Apple computers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Apples are only good for dicking around and useless for actual work... they say it.
It really doesn't make sense that Apple can legally prevent anyone from running Apple OS on a different hardware than what it was intended for. It would be like saying the music cd's you buy from walmart can only be played in your car's cd player, you are not allowed to play them on your home cd player. That makes no sense. You bought it, you can run it on whatever device can run it.
If I don't want OS X why should I have to pay for it simple as that.
You don't have to pay for OS X, you only pay if you buy a Mac. And haven't you heard Macs are overpriced?
when I get a new laptops, I hate have to dodge the windows tax
What? Do you hate dodging the Windows Tax? You don't have to, just buy a laptop with Windows. Or do you mean you have to buy another laptop so you avoid paying for Window when you buy a laptop? There are a number of laptops with Linux not Windows. For instance Dell sells them.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Very few were of a mind to buy a Mac I assure you.
I challenge this assertion. Some Windows based musicians claim Windows can be used in audio engineering on a professional level.
At Logic's level (You know, real professional studio quality work... Capital Records, Geffen et al), we have voices such as MOTU, Digital Performer and the like. BTW, Digital Performer or Audio Desk is yet to be ported to Windows so while there are *buggy and unreliable* Win32 drivers for MOTU equipment, much of MOTU flag ship software isn't available for Windows.
Most Windows software cited to support Windows role in audio engineering really is... good enough to cut a demo tape. Or, maybe there is one or two software packages that can give it a niche role in a real studio, but not be the computing beef that Macintosh has long traditionally held in this arena.
Inspite of all the craptastic consumer level sound applications like Sound Forge found on Best Buy shelves, when it comes to real audio work, the best analogy would be the gaming market in the late 90s. Linux had more games in the mid to late 90s than Windows ever had in regards to professional audio; not just harddisk recording software but including hardware support.
So, when I hear you say that very few were of a mind to buy a Mac, totally emersed within a culture and profession strongly dominated by Apple... well... such Windows users are indeed "very few" to begin with. But hardly ignorant of their handicap. And speaking of Linux... Linux has some decent software to cut a demo tape. Leaving me feeling rather competitive from a Linux point of view to the audio productivity capable with a Linux box to a Windows box. But, when I bought my MOTU equipment for my guitar work, though I love Linux, I knew that world is dominated by Apple and so I bought a Mac just to run my home studio.