College sports players are paid. Many receive free tuition, housing, and food. Some even get stipends for "academics." They get free tutoring that isn't available to the other students.
Textbook publishers have been doing an analogous thing for years. They set up some pitiful homework website and the code to use it only comes bundled with the new book or will set you back $49.99. Usually this isn't an issue, but some prof's are too lazy to grade the homework and get roped into this scheme (e.g.: mastering physics). It's a total scam. I, for one, bought an old copy of the textbook used for $30. Then i found out that because I didn't buy the new, ~200 textbook, I would have to pay $50 to do my homework!
Maybe the parents were simply better at teaching their students math. I remember back in elementary school when they tried to teach us "new math" through these misguided methods that were extremely unhelpful and confused many students. My parents taught me how to divide the real way.
Companies like Google and GoDaddy leaving China is not the result of them foisting their (or as you put it, American) views upon the Chinese; they are acting in what they believe to be their best interests. Filtering internet content or maintaining a backlog of photos and business IDs takes time and costs money. These companies did not like the control China was trying to exercise over them. The Chinese told them to get lost, and they did.
I have student health insurance. It costs $1500 per year and it's quite decent insurance. They can do this not because of the "skyrocketing" price of healthcare, but because the population they are covering has a mean age in the low 20's and is generally healthy. Young and healthy people should not have to pay the same rate that some gangly old fart about to kick the bucket pays; it should be assessed on risk.
The funny thing about health insurance is that it's only insurance if you're young; when you're old it is a payment plan. Of course, we try not to pretend this is true, thinking that everybody can live forever and that these health "events" are randomly spread out through life; it's not true to any degree. Insurance, used broadly, is something one uses to protect oneself from catastrophic events (e.g.: hit by a bus) that are unlikely to happen. It is a way of hedging one's bets by pooling money with people of similar risk factors. Unfortunately, health insurance does not pool people of similar risk factors -- the old don't pay a rate representing their actual risk; this makes health insurance a poor bet for anybody young.
Compounding problems is the idea that people with preexisting conditions must be insured, and at the same rate; this brings up two groups of people, and while neither shouldn't be denied medical care outright, they ought to be willing to pay for it. The first group of people are those that simply didn't buy insurance until they became sick. These people are completely dishonest and the people paying into the insurance pool should not have to assume the risk someone took by not purchasing health insurance beforehand. In the second group is someone who has perhaps has had a lifelong illness and could never obtain coverage. Should they pay the same rate as everyone else? Absolutely not. Should they be able to obtain insurance for things OTHER than their illness? Certainly; however, nobody really knows how to distinguish between the two.
As an example of how new healthcare legislation is a complete failure, look into Massachusetts. The state mandated that every person must purchase health insurance or pay a fine, and that nobody could be turned down for preexisting conditions. The price of insurance has skyrocketed: the fine is low enough that people pay it until they get sick, buy premium insurance, get cured, then stop paying insurance. It rewards the dishonest and punishes those who actually pay for their insurance.
Those are the maximum damages allowable under the statute. Actual damages may be much lower; a reward of $0.01 or even $0.10 per cup might not be so unreasonable for committing a billion counts of fraud. What is interesting to note, however, is that one must prove both that either the cups were never patented, or if they were that they were manufactured after the patent expired.
I agree with you completely. In fact, now that I think about it, I do seem to remember a case involving a company that offered cheap upgrades to the TurboTax software. The idea was that if you had already purchased TurboTax the year before, you could buy this cheap upgrade that hijacked the TurboTax engine and updated everything for the new year's taxes. If I remember correctly, the case came to an end with TurboTax victorious. I can't tell you about any appeals. I'm not sure how/if Apple can use this particular case because Psystar is cleverly arguing that their modifications are for the sole purpose of utilizing Apple's software which is allowed under some portion of the copyright law.
What's really bizarre about this case is how poorly Apple's business plan meshes with copyright law, which was created with the intent of protecting the sale of the intellectual work; Apple's business plan is to use that intellectual work to get you to buy their hardware at extremely inflated prices. This would work fine if they didn't already offer their intellectual work on a DVD. As an analogy to this thought, think of the college bookstore and how they often want to sell you the solutions manual and textbook 'set'. Unfortunately, this doesn't stop me from buying a used copy, which is similar to Apple's case.
The way I see it, Apple thinks that their software is actually worth ~$500 per copy (since the hardware in the lappy isn't worth their asking price), and is upset that Psystar has found a way to avoid paying full price. Further, they're mad that they can't profit off the hardware too. They have many options at their disposal, but since they're sleazy, they'd rather sue.
IANAL, and maybe I think my 2 cents is worth a little more than what it's stamped on, but I'm gonna give this one a try: this seems like a tactic by Apple's lawyer's to make Psystar's lawyers work harder and make the case take longer. Reading the briefs, it's evident that Apple has superior lawyers (both number and quality), as well as money to pay them with; they're strong-arming them.
From what I've read in the briefs, Apple's argument rests solely on the one clause from their "Software License Agreement" (Henceforth SLA), which states OSX may only be installed and run on Apple hardware. Without this clause, Apple would have a very difficult time arguing that the the copies are truly unauthorized; whether or not the clause is enforceable is, as far as I know, untested. I believe it is easier and less risky for Apple to drown Psystar in litigation and obfuscate the issue entirely than to actually find out.
As for the creation of unauthorized copies, they're only unauthorized if the first copy is unauthorized as well. Since Psystar legally purchased the media, Apple can't argue that discs are illegal -- simply that the copies on the hard drive are because they aren't on Apple hardware. I have a hard time believing Apple's other argument, namely that an altered boot loader and kernel extensions constitute copyright infringement, especially when 1) similar bundling techniques are routinely practiced with their Windows counterparts and 2) Apple has been paid for the software it is distributing.
I have just one question for Apple: If your computers are truly a hardware and software package, why do you bother to sell the software separately?
Slashdot Mirror
College sports players are paid. Many receive free tuition, housing, and food. Some even get stipends for "academics." They get free tutoring that isn't available to the other students.
Textbook publishers have been doing an analogous thing for years. They set up some pitiful homework website and the code to use it only comes bundled with the new book or will set you back $49.99. Usually this isn't an issue, but some prof's are too lazy to grade the homework and get roped into this scheme (e.g.: mastering physics). It's a total scam. I, for one, bought an old copy of the textbook used for $30. Then i found out that because I didn't buy the new, ~200 textbook, I would have to pay $50 to do my homework!
Maybe the parents were simply better at teaching their students math. I remember back in elementary school when they tried to teach us "new math" through these misguided methods that were extremely unhelpful and confused many students. My parents taught me how to divide the real way.
Companies like Google and GoDaddy leaving China is not the result of them foisting their (or as you put it, American) views upon the Chinese; they are acting in what they believe to be their best interests. Filtering internet content or maintaining a backlog of photos and business IDs takes time and costs money. These companies did not like the control China was trying to exercise over them. The Chinese told them to get lost, and they did.
I have student health insurance. It costs $1500 per year and it's quite decent insurance. They can do this not because of the "skyrocketing" price of healthcare, but because the population they are covering has a mean age in the low 20's and is generally healthy. Young and healthy people should not have to pay the same rate that some gangly old fart about to kick the bucket pays; it should be assessed on risk.
The funny thing about health insurance is that it's only insurance if you're young; when you're old it is a payment plan. Of course, we try not to pretend this is true, thinking that everybody can live forever and that these health "events" are randomly spread out through life; it's not true to any degree. Insurance, used broadly, is something one uses to protect oneself from catastrophic events (e.g.: hit by a bus) that are unlikely to happen. It is a way of hedging one's bets by pooling money with people of similar risk factors. Unfortunately, health insurance does not pool people of similar risk factors -- the old don't pay a rate representing their actual risk; this makes health insurance a poor bet for anybody young.
Compounding problems is the idea that people with preexisting conditions must be insured, and at the same rate; this brings up two groups of people, and while neither shouldn't be denied medical care outright, they ought to be willing to pay for it. The first group of people are those that simply didn't buy insurance until they became sick. These people are completely dishonest and the people paying into the insurance pool should not have to assume the risk someone took by not purchasing health insurance beforehand. In the second group is someone who has perhaps has had a lifelong illness and could never obtain coverage. Should they pay the same rate as everyone else? Absolutely not. Should they be able to obtain insurance for things OTHER than their illness? Certainly; however, nobody really knows how to distinguish between the two.
As an example of how new healthcare legislation is a complete failure, look into Massachusetts. The state mandated that every person must purchase health insurance or pay a fine, and that nobody could be turned down for preexisting conditions. The price of insurance has skyrocketed: the fine is low enough that people pay it until they get sick, buy premium insurance, get cured, then stop paying insurance. It rewards the dishonest and punishes those who actually pay for their insurance.
Actually, I believe you meant the First Law of Thermodynamics -- conservation of energy is violated.
Those are the maximum damages allowable under the statute. Actual damages may be much lower; a reward of $0.01 or even $0.10 per cup might not be so unreasonable for committing a billion counts of fraud. What is interesting to note, however, is that one must prove both that either the cups were never patented, or if they were that they were manufactured after the patent expired.
I agree with you completely. In fact, now that I think about it, I do seem to remember a case involving a company that offered cheap upgrades to the TurboTax software. The idea was that if you had already purchased TurboTax the year before, you could buy this cheap upgrade that hijacked the TurboTax engine and updated everything for the new year's taxes. If I remember correctly, the case came to an end with TurboTax victorious. I can't tell you about any appeals. I'm not sure how/if Apple can use this particular case because Psystar is cleverly arguing that their modifications are for the sole purpose of utilizing Apple's software which is allowed under some portion of the copyright law.
What's really bizarre about this case is how poorly Apple's business plan meshes with copyright law, which was created with the intent of protecting the sale of the intellectual work; Apple's business plan is to use that intellectual work to get you to buy their hardware at extremely inflated prices. This would work fine if they didn't already offer their intellectual work on a DVD. As an analogy to this thought, think of the college bookstore and how they often want to sell you the solutions manual and textbook 'set'. Unfortunately, this doesn't stop me from buying a used copy, which is similar to Apple's case.
The way I see it, Apple thinks that their software is actually worth ~$500 per copy (since the hardware in the lappy isn't worth their asking price), and is upset that Psystar has found a way to avoid paying full price. Further, they're mad that they can't profit off the hardware too. They have many options at their disposal, but since they're sleazy, they'd rather sue.
IANAL, and maybe I think my 2 cents is worth a little more than what it's stamped on, but I'm gonna give this one a try: this seems like a tactic by Apple's lawyer's to make Psystar's lawyers work harder and make the case take longer. Reading the briefs, it's evident that Apple has superior lawyers (both number and quality), as well as money to pay them with; they're strong-arming them.
From what I've read in the briefs, Apple's argument rests solely on the one clause from their "Software License Agreement" (Henceforth SLA), which states OSX may only be installed and run on Apple hardware. Without this clause, Apple would have a very difficult time arguing that the the copies are truly unauthorized; whether or not the clause is enforceable is, as far as I know, untested. I believe it is easier and less risky for Apple to drown Psystar in litigation and obfuscate the issue entirely than to actually find out.
As for the creation of unauthorized copies, they're only unauthorized if the first copy is unauthorized as well. Since Psystar legally purchased the media, Apple can't argue that discs are illegal -- simply that the copies on the hard drive are because they aren't on Apple hardware. I have a hard time believing Apple's other argument, namely that an altered boot loader and kernel extensions constitute copyright infringement, especially when 1) similar bundling techniques are routinely practiced with their Windows counterparts and 2) Apple has been paid for the software it is distributing.
I have just one question for Apple: If your computers are truly a hardware and software package, why do you bother to sell the software separately?