Microsoft plays by different rules. The ruling that made them a monopoly and thus subject to anti-trust laws changed the whole game for them. Apple is under no obligation to follow anti-trust rules because it doesn't have a trust. Thus they can do product tying (if the products are related, ie, a computer and an OS) and impose conditions to OEMs and resellers. Not being in a monopoly position, everyone can give them the finger without much consequences to their business.
Precisely, the burger stand isn't doing any harm to McDonalds because it's still paying for their product at their retail price. So any claim that they hurt McDonalds' business should be held as laughable.
Actually, way to misread the quote. Read it again, the burger stand doesn't sell Bigmacs, it sells its own burgers. If it sold bigmacs, it would get sued out of existance, even if it bought all those bigmacs at McDonald's. McDonald's has certain quality standards that are associated with its brand and any unauthorised reseller that isn't subject to the same standards will only tarnish its image.
As for your customization example, it's the same as your earlier background example. Psystar rewrote parts of the kernel and repackaged the OS X distribution to be distributed. You changing parameters that Apple or Microsoft made modifiable is not creating a derivative work.
So please go understand the case facts and findings before you post, you're obviously lacking a lot of knowledge about the laws and facts involved.
I think I remember you from other Psystar threads trolling with the same stuff. Are you being paid ?
Your background example is laughable. Microsoft authorises such modifications to OEMs. If an OEM were to remove activation from their product though without it being a VLC, you'd see their lawyers all over it and the OEM would get what is coming. Apple does not authorise people to remove their copy protection kext.
And if Psystar had to install every copy from a fresh DVD they bought, they wouldn't be in the business in the first place. The costs associated would be prohibitive.
And seriously, if Psystar wanted to compete with Apple, why didn't they invest in a a few programmers and wrote their own OS from open source components ? The burger stand down the road doesn't compete with McDonald's by selling Big Macs.
Actually, during discovery, Psystar failed to produce any proof that they did purchase the copies of OS X they sold. Not to mention everyone of the about 700 PCs they sold was imaged from an imaging server and thus used a single copy (which was unlawful).
Finally, they were found guilty of copyright infrigment because they made a derivative work (changed Apple's copy protection kext, "Dont Steal MacOS X") which they put on this imaging server, thus engaging in unlawful distribution of an unauthorised derivative work.
So maybe you should get the facts about the case before you judge Psystar as some kind of good guy.
It seems you needed a lesson in respect of other's hard work. Now you've learned the hard way that it doesn't pay to try and rip off someone.
Speaking seriously though, after the injunction that included RebelEFI, what did you think was going to happen ? Why even purchase a product that requires activation when all it is, is a rip off of an open source product ? I'm betting there's going to be a lot of flames in this discussion.
You're comparing a tower PC to a small form factor PC. The only Dell comparable to a Mac Mini is a Studio Hybrid (the Zino and Zino HD use low power processors that aren't up to par with the Core 2 Duo in the Mini). The small form factor PCs are always a bit more expensive due to requiring laptop parts instead of desktop parts.
Price out a Studio Hybrid vs a Mac Mini and compare more than just 3 specs (RAM, HD, CPU) and you'll see Apple isn't priced out of the market like you claim. But of course, that would require a good faith effort on your part.
Because that is the Droid's screen resolution, which is becoming ubiquitous as a resolution for newer big screen phones and portables. So if you've never seen it before, it's because you weren't looking.
Why repeat it if it never was true ? It didn't need to be part of the summary at all for that matter, the true story here has nothing at all to do with the Mac port.
<video width="640" height="360" src="/demo/google_main.mp4?2" autobuffer>
<div class="video-fallback">
<br>You must have an HTML5 capable browser.
</div>
</video>
Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro
on
Google About Openness
·
· Score: 1
You've failed to grasp the article, just like the submitter and the Slashdot editors. Google is not proning open sourcing core businesses all around, they are proning an Open Internet. Open, Standard protocols and client software that lets everyone access everything on the Internet without any vendor lock-in (think proprietary file formats or protocols like Microsoft puts out, things like.doc,.xls or MAPI). A lot of Google's effort on the matter are very open, they adopt the W3C standards for their websites which then work on every browser on every platform. Their search business doesn't need to be open source, it's open the everyone. Best yet, if you want to switch to Bing, it's as easy as replacing your bookmark or search provider in your browser. Closed source is not wrong. It's when closed source turns into proprietary and vendor lock-in that it becomes wrong.
Seriously, if a Movie wounded your inner child and destroyed your hopes and dreams, you had a very sad life. Most normal Star Wars fan just didn't watch the movie again and that's it. Personally, it was the 3rd movie that turned me off completely. Anakin's turn to the darkside felt so rushed and didn't seem to work with the character at all (one minute he's a goodie 2 shoes that's going to turn Sidius in, 30 seconds later he's bowing to his new master... wtf ?).
Apple doesn't sell OS X in a retail pack. It sells upgrades to OS X. You have to have an Apple branded computer with an existing version of an Apple OS in order to comply with the license. Sure the media can be used to install on a brand new clean hard drive, but the license is clear. Apple sells their upgrades in the retail channel so it's easier for users to obtain them. It has nothing to do with OS X being standard shrink wrapped software.
Well, no, the DMCA claims would have still held in such a scenario. The other point to note is that their sales would have plummeted from their already very low volume that way. Why would a user in his right mind buy a computer he needs to install an OS on ? It wouldn't have sold to the hackintosh community (they're tinkerers who want to do things themselves) and it would have had no mass market appeal. And they still would have had an injunction against them thanks to the DMCA (the current injunction covers Rebel EFI, even if the lawyer says Psystar will continue selling it).
Read the text again. Notice how it says you need to return the entire package to get a refund. If you reject the EULA, you can go on using the hardware with no problems. But don't expect Apple to refund the cost of your software if you don't also give them back your hardware. That's the point of the text, since the original assertion was that "Apple could just sell OS X for 2k$ and give you the hardware" which was retorted by "but then, I'd have free hardware if I get a refund for refusing the EULA!".
Now you understand the point of this conversation. Next time, read all the posts, not just the +4 ones.
So what you're saying is that no matter what OS, a computer does need an OS. So a computer and an OS are naturally related. As such, tying an OS and a computer in a naturally related way is just fine ? Seriously, you need to rethink that argument because you've just made the argument that the tying isn't unnatural.
But since you're an AC, I get you're just trolling.
Tying is the practice of making the sale of one good (the tying good) to the de facto or de jure customer conditional on the purchase of a second distinctive good (the tied good). It is often illegal when the products are not naturally related
I think it would be hard to argue that a computer and an operating system are not naturally related. Maybe you need to rethink your source material.
Seeing how my job is basically doing admin for HP Integrity platforms, I think I have an idea what big Iron Unix is (our smallest BL870 has about 96 GB of RAM) and what the business model is behind it.;)
Rebel EFI is already open source. It's not because Psystar doesn't respect the APSL that it isn't. They stole the code for it from the OSX86 community :
Actually, no you can't. Even today that the Mac hardware is paid for and not given away with the OS like the previous poster suggested, the EULA states plainly that if you do not accept the EULA and that the software product shipped pre-installed on the computer, you must return the whole package to Apple (quoted directly from the OS X license agreement):
FOR APPLE SOFTWARE INCLUDED WITH YOUR PURCHASE OF HARDWARE, YOU MUST RETURN THE ENTIRE HARDWARE/SOFTWARE PACKAGE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A REFUND.
The thing to note here also is that Psystar were modifying Apple's base image and redistributing it without a license to make a derivative work and to then distribute the results. The EULA was only 1 part of the case, they were very on the way to be found guilty of copyright infrigement when they decided to settle with Apple. Not to mention the DMCA claims because they circumvented Apple's protection measures (that kext I listed earlier).
Apple didn't use any novel concepts. Software licensing is something that isn't exclusive to them. The copy into RAM defense is actually from an older court decision that didn't involve Apple at all (and was discussed at length a few years back on Slashdot).
What you're doing is claiming that all software licensing is invalid. If like you say "you bought it, you can do what you want with it", then Oracle has no leg to stand one when they ask 50,000$ per processor for a license to use their software. Heck, you bought it, you can install it on any machine and do what you want (you're starting to sound like Cartman there...).
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft plays by different rules. The ruling that made them a monopoly and thus subject to anti-trust laws changed the whole game for them. Apple is under no obligation to follow anti-trust rules because it doesn't have a trust. Thus they can do product tying (if the products are related, ie, a computer and an OS) and impose conditions to OEMs and resellers. Not being in a monopoly position, everyone can give them the finger without much consequences to their business.
Really ? First thread on Psystar you post in ?
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1419357&cid=29882459
Search wikipedia for a description of derivative work vs changing settings. I'm done arguing with an obvious troll.
Precisely, the burger stand isn't doing any harm to McDonalds because it's still paying for their product at their retail price. So any claim that they hurt McDonalds' business should be held as laughable.
Actually, way to misread the quote. Read it again, the burger stand doesn't sell Bigmacs, it sells its own burgers. If it sold bigmacs, it would get sued out of existance, even if it bought all those bigmacs at McDonald's. McDonald's has certain quality standards that are associated with its brand and any unauthorised reseller that isn't subject to the same standards will only tarnish its image.
As for your customization example, it's the same as your earlier background example. Psystar rewrote parts of the kernel and repackaged the OS X distribution to be distributed. You changing parameters that Apple or Microsoft made modifiable is not creating a derivative work.
So please go understand the case facts and findings before you post, you're obviously lacking a lot of knowledge about the laws and facts involved.
I think I remember you from other Psystar threads trolling with the same stuff. Are you being paid ?
Your background example is laughable. Microsoft authorises such modifications to OEMs. If an OEM were to remove activation from their product though without it being a VLC, you'd see their lawyers all over it and the OEM would get what is coming. Apple does not authorise people to remove their copy protection kext.
And if Psystar had to install every copy from a fresh DVD they bought, they wouldn't be in the business in the first place. The costs associated would be prohibitive.
And seriously, if Psystar wanted to compete with Apple, why didn't they invest in a a few programmers and wrote their own OS from open source components ? The burger stand down the road doesn't compete with McDonald's by selling Big Macs.
Actually, during discovery, Psystar failed to produce any proof that they did purchase the copies of OS X they sold. Not to mention everyone of the about 700 PCs they sold was imaged from an imaging server and thus used a single copy (which was unlawful).
Finally, they were found guilty of copyright infrigment because they made a derivative work (changed Apple's copy protection kext, "Dont Steal MacOS X") which they put on this imaging server, thus engaging in unlawful distribution of an unauthorised derivative work.
So maybe you should get the facts about the case before you judge Psystar as some kind of good guy.
The chinese iPod rip offs don't use Apple's software.
It seems you needed a lesson in respect of other's hard work. Now you've learned the hard way that it doesn't pay to try and rip off someone.
Speaking seriously though, after the injunction that included RebelEFI, what did you think was going to happen ? Why even purchase a product that requires activation when all it is, is a rip off of an open source product ? I'm betting there's going to be a lot of flames in this discussion.
You're comparing a tower PC to a small form factor PC. The only Dell comparable to a Mac Mini is a Studio Hybrid (the Zino and Zino HD use low power processors that aren't up to par with the Core 2 Duo in the Mini). The small form factor PCs are always a bit more expensive due to requiring laptop parts instead of desktop parts. Price out a Studio Hybrid vs a Mac Mini and compare more than just 3 specs (RAM, HD, CPU) and you'll see Apple isn't priced out of the market like you claim. But of course, that would require a good faith effort on your part.
Because that is the Droid's screen resolution, which is becoming ubiquitous as a resolution for newer big screen phones and portables. So if you've never seen it before, it's because you weren't looking.
Despite news that VLC might not have anyone to work on the Mac release
You mean despite the news that was clarified and proven false by the VLC project the day after everyone in the blogsphere and on tech forums went nuts : http://www.osnews.com/story/22629/VLC_for_Mac_Death_Greatly_Exaggerated_
Why repeat it if it never was true ? It didn't need to be part of the summary at all for that matter, the true story here has nothing at all to do with the Mac port.
They're working on it (http://www.youtube.com/html5) :
<video width="640" height="360" src="/demo/google_main.mp4?2" autobuffer>
<div class="video-fallback">
<br>You must have an HTML5 capable browser.
</div>
</video>
You've failed to grasp the article, just like the submitter and the Slashdot editors. Google is not proning open sourcing core businesses all around, they are proning an Open Internet. Open, Standard protocols and client software that lets everyone access everything on the Internet without any vendor lock-in (think proprietary file formats or protocols like Microsoft puts out, things like .doc, .xls or MAPI). A lot of Google's effort on the matter are very open, they adopt the W3C standards for their websites which then work on every browser on every platform. Their search business doesn't need to be open source, it's open the everyone. Best yet, if you want to switch to Bing, it's as easy as replacing your bookmark or search provider in your browser. Closed source is not wrong. It's when closed source turns into proprietary and vendor lock-in that it becomes wrong.
Seriously, if a Movie wounded your inner child and destroyed your hopes and dreams, you had a very sad life. Most normal Star Wars fan just didn't watch the movie again and that's it. Personally, it was the 3rd movie that turned me off completely. Anakin's turn to the darkside felt so rushed and didn't seem to work with the character at all (one minute he's a goodie 2 shoes that's going to turn Sidius in, 30 seconds later he's bowing to his new master... wtf ?).
We all go home or nobody goes home.
Apple doesn't sell OS X in a retail pack. It sells upgrades to OS X. You have to have an Apple branded computer with an existing version of an Apple OS in order to comply with the license. Sure the media can be used to install on a brand new clean hard drive, but the license is clear. Apple sells their upgrades in the retail channel so it's easier for users to obtain them. It has nothing to do with OS X being standard shrink wrapped software.
Well, no, the DMCA claims would have still held in such a scenario. The other point to note is that their sales would have plummeted from their already very low volume that way. Why would a user in his right mind buy a computer he needs to install an OS on ? It wouldn't have sold to the hackintosh community (they're tinkerers who want to do things themselves) and it would have had no mass market appeal. And they still would have had an injunction against them thanks to the DMCA (the current injunction covers Rebel EFI, even if the lawyer says Psystar will continue selling it).
Read the text again. Notice how it says you need to return the entire package to get a refund. If you reject the EULA, you can go on using the hardware with no problems. But don't expect Apple to refund the cost of your software if you don't also give them back your hardware. That's the point of the text, since the original assertion was that "Apple could just sell OS X for 2k$ and give you the hardware" which was retorted by "but then, I'd have free hardware if I get a refund for refusing the EULA!".
Now you understand the point of this conversation. Next time, read all the posts, not just the +4 ones.
So what you're saying is that no matter what OS, a computer does need an OS. So a computer and an OS are naturally related. As such, tying an OS and a computer in a naturally related way is just fine ? Seriously, you need to rethink that argument because you've just made the argument that the tying isn't unnatural.
But since you're an AC, I get you're just trolling.
Tying is the practice of making the sale of one good (the tying good) to the de facto or de jure customer conditional on the purchase of a second distinctive good (the tied good). It is often illegal when the products are not naturally related
I think it would be hard to argue that a computer and an operating system are not naturally related. Maybe you need to rethink your source material.
Seeing how my job is basically doing admin for HP Integrity platforms, I think I have an idea what big Iron Unix is (our smallest BL870 has about 96 GB of RAM) and what the business model is behind it. ;)
Rebel EFI is already open source. It's not because Psystar doesn't respect the APSL that it isn't. They stole the code for it from the OSX86 community :
http://netkas.org/?p=299
Actually, no you can't. Even today that the Mac hardware is paid for and not given away with the OS like the previous poster suggested, the EULA states plainly that if you do not accept the EULA and that the software product shipped pre-installed on the computer, you must return the whole package to Apple (quoted directly from the OS X license agreement) :
FOR APPLE SOFTWARE INCLUDED WITH YOUR PURCHASE OF HARDWARE, YOU MUST RETURN THE ENTIRE HARDWARE/SOFTWARE PACKAGE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A REFUND.
http://www.apple.com/legal/sla
Too bad for you that tying in and of itself is not illegal nor anti-competitive, nor that you are in a position to deem it so like you say.
The thing to note here also is that Psystar were modifying Apple's base image and redistributing it without a license to make a derivative work and to then distribute the results. The EULA was only 1 part of the case, they were very on the way to be found guilty of copyright infrigement when they decided to settle with Apple. Not to mention the DMCA claims because they circumvented Apple's protection measures (that kext I listed earlier).
Apple didn't use any novel concepts. Software licensing is something that isn't exclusive to them. The copy into RAM defense is actually from an older court decision that didn't involve Apple at all (and was discussed at length a few years back on Slashdot). What you're doing is claiming that all software licensing is invalid. If like you say "you bought it, you can do what you want with it", then Oracle has no leg to stand one when they ask 50,000$ per processor for a license to use their software. Heck, you bought it, you can install it on any machine and do what you want (you're starting to sound like Cartman there...).