No, they're modifying the code slightly in order to make it boot.
Ah, but which code are they modifying? OS X is not actually a single product, but rather an aggregation of products, many of which are licensed differently. If the code being modified is part of Darwin, then it is likely licensed under the ASPL2, which would allow Psystar to distribute that modification legally.
Note that the validity of the ASPL2 comes from the fact that it grants those modification and distribution rights, which Psystar would not have otherwise. However, it also claims that acceptance is required for mere use of the software; that part of the license is invalid in my opinion.
Copyright is a licence that describes how you can use something you purchases.
No, it isn't. Copyright is a law. If you don't understand that, then I can't think of a way to explain it to you more simply. You're just plain wrong.
You most definitely have a licence with every book, CD, DVD and even car you buy.
No, you don't. Go and try to find the EULA for your book or CD or DVD or car. Look hard and carefully. I'll give you a hint: you won't find it, unless possibly the CDs or DVDs in question were the more recent once that have been "enhanced" with software and/or extra DRM.
but what about the restriction of "not photocopying it and selling the copies for $5"?
That restriction comes from copyright law itself, not from any imaginary "license!"
Most drivers have a licence that tells them how they are allowed to use the car, and how they must not use it.
But that's an entirely different kind of license, which has nothing to do with what we're discussing here. To be honest, it boggles my mind that you even brought that up -- it's that irrelevant.
If you don't believe me, please note that drivers' licenses are issued by the State, not Ford!
Ford produces cars to allow drivers to use them in accordance with those licences.
No, Ford produces cars to allow drivers to use them however they want. The State restricts what the driver can do when the car is used on public roads.
Note that if you're not on public roads, you can still do whatever you want with the Ford car, even if you have no driver's license at all! If you're on private property (such as a farm, movie set, etc.) and have permission from the owner of that private property, then you can drive 100 MPH, you can jump ramps, you can chug a beer, you can choose not to wear your seat belt -- whatever you want! It's your property and you can do whatever you want with it.
This, by the way, is why movie stuntmen don't get speeding tickets.
Your right to use something you purchased ends when it conflicts other people's rights.
Yep, and for software those conflicts begin and end precisely with copyright law.
You have no right to use your stuff in any way you please.
Yep, and that's why I specifically mentioned that the use must fall within the bounds of copyright law. Or, as in the case with the car or knife, other laws imposed by the State. But that's the key, there: the restrictions are imposed by the State. Not the seller! And that's reasonable, because the State has the privilege of imposing laws -- a power that sellers, most emphatically, do not have!
Under your definition, all companies hold a monopoly on their own products.
No, under my definition the extent to which a company holds a monopoly on its product is proportional to the extent to which it can be substituted with an similar one. Or in other words, proportional to how similar the competing products are. For example, a bolt manufacturer making bolts of a particular specification does not have a monopoly on his product, because you could get essentially identical bolts elsewhere. But a bolt manufacturer making bolts of an odd size that can't be found anywhere else would have a monopoly, because the bolts made by other manufacturers wouldn't fit.
You go on to say that "OS X has no reasonable substitute" but surely since I can install Windows or Linux on a Mac, it does. I can substitute OS X quite easily.
I agree, that makes OS X less of a monopoly than it would have been if you couldn't install another OS on your Mac. But we're talking about moving along a spectrum, not a binary distinction.
How about the idea that I can compile well-written OS X code and run it on Linux? Some apps transfer between OSs with a recompile, after all.
And some don't. The existence of software that compiles and runs only on OS X moves it back down that spectrum towards a monopoly.
Look, I admit OS X isn't a 100% monopoly. But it doesn't have a 100% perfect substitute either, and that's my point. In fact, I would say that the fact that people apparently want to run OS X on non-Apple hardware is pretty good evidence that the extent to which other operating systems can substitute for it is substantially less than 100%.
Apple only lets you use the software because you've agreed to their terms.
The problem with that is that you buy the software before you are required to agree (or otherwise) to the terms. It doesn't make any sense to say that Apple "lets" you use the software you own, anymore than it makes sense to say that Sears "lets" you use the rake you bought!
It says it right there in the EULA, which is a CONTRACT.
Yep, it's a contract alright: a contract of adhesion that provides no valuable consideration to the customer. Or in other words, an invalid, unenforceable contract!
For your other examples, they're ridiculous. See, if Ford, Sony, Rowling, whoever did this, they would LOSE money. This license makes things easier for Apple and makes them money.
Irrelevant: Apple's business model is its own problem, and has no business whatsoever influencing contract law!
Besides, losing money is not the reason Ford, Sony, and Rowling don't do this. They don't do it because they can't. The law doesn't give them standing to do so! There is nothing whatsoever different about software compared to any other product, whether it's a physical object (like a car) or a creative work (like a movie or book). They're all sold by the distributor and bought by the customer, and the customer has all the same rights of use as he does with all the rest of his property.
Don't like it? Move to some communist country -- I hear they don't have this pesky "property" concept there. But in capitalist America, we respect property rights!
Like OSX but still don't want their hardware; I guess you have quite the dilemma then.
On the contrary, Apple has quite the dilemma, because it has no right to restrict the owner of the copy from using his property in any manner he sees fit (within the bounds of copyright law).
By this..."thought"... McDonald's has a horrible monopoly on the Big Mac!
Big Macs don't run software, and they have almost-perfect substitutes (e.g. Burger King's Whopper). Mac OS doesn't have a reasonable substitute, because no other OS can run Mac OS software.
The language is ambiguous: does "Apple-labeled" mean "labeled by Apple" or "labeled with an Apple logo?" I choose to believe it means the latter; the fact that Apple supplies Apple logo stickers in the OS X package supports this position. I mean, what else are they supposed to be used for, if not to "Apple-label" the computer you're installing the OS on?
Even if it's designed and licensed to run only on Cisco hardware? So you essentially don't believe in copyright?
You're confused: copyright does not give the copyright holder the privilege to dictate how the work is used; it only gives the copyright holder control over distribution of copies and derivative works.
In other words, if we assumed suitable hardware existed and the copy of IOS in question was legally obtained, then Cisco cannot use copyright law to prevent IOS from being used on that hardware. No copies (except the incidental one to install the software, which doesn't count because it's a consequence of how the medium of software works*) were made, so copyright law does not apply.
Nobody is talking about EULAs.
Now you're really confused: the whole point of the lawsuits being discussed (you know, the ones between Apple and Psystar) is about deciding whether Apple's EULA is valid or not!
What if Microsoft did not comply with the GPL-- what then?
Then Microsoft's rights under the GPL would be revoked, which would cause Microsoft to violate copyright.
Because the GPL would only be binding if you believe in copyrights...
More or less, yeah: it would still exist if there were no copyights, but there would be essentially no penalties for violating it (because there would be no monetary damages incurred -- see the original (not appellate) decision in Jacobsen v. Katzer).
...and further interpret the law to mean that installing software into hardware and then selling the resulting package requires some kind of license.
Nope! Neither installing the software nor selling the resulting package falls under copyright law, if no other copies were made and the install media were included in the package.
The point at which Microsoft would run afoul of the GPL (and copyright law) would be if either it:
failed to include the install media in the package, in which case the installed copy (which I called "incidental" before) would become a real copy by virtue of being separated from its pair), or
duplicated the install media instead of obtaining a separate copy from the upstream provider for each instance of the package sold.
In other words, if Microsoft called up Canonical and got a big pile of Ubuntu disks then it could distribute them without being subject to the GPL or copyright law because Microsoft wasn't the entity making the copies. It would merely be a distributor in the same way that, say, Wal-Mart is. (Of course, Microsoft wouldn't be able to violate the GPL either because they wouldn't be able to modify the CDs to remove the notices and source code anyway.) But if Microsoft got one Ubuntu disk from Canonical and then duplicated it itself and distributed the copies, then it would be subject to the GPL and copyright law.
(*this argument is currently being disputed in the courts; there have been decisions both affirming and refuting it.)
I don't see how they would be forced to sell OSX to non-Macs. Worst case I could see is that their EULA is ruled invalid and therefore they can't stop you from buying a copy of OSX and installing it on a non-Mac.
Those two situations are essentially the same.
The obvious solution to that would be to stop selling copies of OSX and only bundling them with a new Macintosh.
If Apple wanted its users to buy upgrades, it wouldn't be able to do that. Apple could try to make the software "upgrade only" like Microsoft does with Windows, but in the absence of the EULA there's nothing stopping the owner from modifying the software to bypass the previous version check.
So if Linksys modifies Linux and links in software that it does not publish as the GPL demands [and distributes that modified version], the only problem is that Linksys has violated GNU's (or whoever hold its) copyright?
Yes, exactly. Why, isn't that enough?
Even if that is your argument, how could it possibly be that Paystar has no copyright issue involved with taking Mac OS X, making changes, and reselling it as a derivation?
There's no copyright issue because Pystar isn't making changes, and isn't selling a derivative. They're reselling the unmodified original copy -- installing the software is incidental to the medium, and doesn't count.
Paystar is volating Apple's copyright by selling Apple's software as its own.
Nope, Psystar is still properly attributing the copyright to Apple.
f I were to start selling PCs running Windows using OEM licenses I acquired, made changes to how Windows works, and began selling them as Mojave PCs, Microsoft would have both an IP licensing case and a copyright infringement case against me.
Yep, Microsoft sure would. However, that analogy is irrelevant because Psystar isn't actually doing any of the things you accuse it of doing! You're imagining all of them!
Just because you want a white box Mac doesn't mean the legal system doesn't exist.
Just because you imagine Psystar is doing something the legal system should be concerned with doesn't mean those offenses actually exist.
If you buy a Potter book (and please don't just on my account), and then rewrite the ending to please a given audience, and then sell it as the work of the Potter author, you are not operating a book store, but rather violating copyright.
Yes you would. But that's completely irrelevant to the situation we're discussing here! Psystar didn't "rewrite" OS X, it merely installed and resold the software as-is. There's no derivative work or plagiarism involved.
Paystar is not just bundling Mac OS X retail boxes with PCs.
So they're format-shifting in addition to bundling. Whoop-de-fucking-do! There's still nothing wrong with it.
...and is further modifying it (because installing Leopard on a PC requires modification)...
That's bullshit, and you know it! Merely configuring the settings is not the same as modifying the software. Installing software is not a copyright-violating act; it is a reasonable and expected incidental consequence of how the medium of software works.
Apple is not taking action against users who buy and install Leopard on their own PC...
...because Apple has no case, and its lawyers know it.
allowing Paystar to represent that it is selling a functional equivalent to an Apple Mac would be more than lost money for Apple, it would be a brand smear
No it wouldn't, because Psystar is clearly differentiating their product from Macs: they say "Psystar" rather than having an Apple logo, their cases don't resemble Apple's style, etc. Nobody's gonna mistake a Psystar for a Mac, and therefore Apple has no grounds to claim trademark infringement (which, by the way, is the correct technical term for what you call "brand smear" -- get it right next time).
...and potentially expose Apple to liability
Yeah, right -- just like how Dell, et. al. are liable for that cesspool that is Windows. What fantasy land are you living in where that's true?
...some small business or litigious retired couple that buys a Paystar PC being marketed as a cheap Mac...
Stop right there! You're wrong because the Psystar PC is not being marketed as a "cheap Mac!" It's being marketed as a "Psystar PC, which is capable of running Mac OS X," but that's entirely different than being marketed as a Mac.
Also, all of Paystar's customers will have the impression that any problems they have are the fault of Apple...
Why? Either they already understand exactly what they're getting into, or they'd have no idea that Psystar even existed, let alone why they'd want a computer from that company.
The problem isn't that Paystar doesn't have a license to use software it is purchasing.
WTF?! It's called the right to own property! Go read Locke if you can't figure it out for yourself. And if you don't like it, then you're a communist (literally, not as a derogatory statement).
Apple's license also establishes the conditions under which they allow users to make copies of their software.
No it doesn't. It tries to establish conditions under which they allow users to use the software, and there's a big fucking difference between mere use and copying: namely, that in the former case copyright law does not apply.
In other words, you have no clue what you're talking about. Go figure out the difference between an end user license and a distribution license, and then you might be capable of meaningfully contributing to this discussion.
To my knowledge Psystar are not making copies, and are therefore not in breach of Copyright.
Apple claims that installing the software on the computer's hard drive counts as making a copy. It's a bullshit argument, but it's the same reasoning as is behind all EULAs, and at least some courts (e.g. the one that decided Blizzard vs. Glider) were stupid enough to buy it.
First sale doctrine allows PsyStar to resell copies of OS X, but not install it on their PCs!
Right, the fair use doctrine is what allows that!
Psystar is format-shifting a legally-purchased copy OS X for the convenience of its customers. Nothing more.
More interesting is Jacobsen vs Katzer, where the Artistic License is an enforceable copyright restriction.
The Artistic License is not an EULA. It is a distribution license, just like the GPL. Katzer was committing copyright infringement because the Artistic License was revoked due to failure to comply with its terms. Or put another way, the Artistic License was the only thing giving Katzer permission to do things which would otherwise default to being copyright infringement.
In contrast, Apple's EULA tries to restrict you from doing things which you would otherwise be allowed to do, and is therefore materially different than the Artistic License. Jacobsen vs. Katzer is completely irrelevant.
In this case the issue is whether the OS X EULA contains an enforceable copyright restrictions:
Exactly, and it doesn't contain one by the simple fact that it is an End User License Agreement! EULAs cannot have enforceable copyright restrictions on the prima facie basis that they cover end use rather than distribution, and copyright law doesn't even kick in until distribution has occurred.
Apple isn't selling you OSX and saying "here you go, do as you please, it is all yours now". Apple sells a license of OSX.
Exactly, and Psystar is saying that Apple can't do that! And Psystar is right -- it's bullshit! Ford can't sell you a Focus and then tell you it's a "license" and that you can only drive it on Tuesdays; Sony can't sell you a movie on DVD and then tell you it's a "license" and that you can only watch it on a Sony-brand TV; J.K. Rowling can't sell you a Harry Potter novel and then tell you it's a "license" and that you can only read it if you're under 12 years old. Nobody else, in any other industry, can pull that kind of stunt; why the fuck should Apple have the right to do so either?!
Except that the product that is supposed to be a "monopoly" is an operating system...
By that argument, a Britney Spears album is a good substitute for a Mozart symphony. They're both music, right?
Apple doesn't have a monopoly on "operating systems," but that's irrelevant because the issue is that Apple has a monopoly on computers running OS X, which is relevant because OS X has no reasonable substitute (where a "reasonable substitute" is defined as an OS capable of running OS X software).
The only logical result is the discontinuation of the favorable pricing given to Apple customers. Take a look at any tying case that talks about the theory--promotional tying is not barred, nor is tying per se illegal. It shouldn't be. Favorable pricing for prior customers is one of the benefits one expects from being a repeat customer, and supporting this line of reasoning supports it being banned as anticompetitive. Those posters on Slashdot making points like yours are so painfully short-sighted that it's no wonder consumers are treated with disdain.
The situation people here are complaining about is not that Apple is charging more for copies of OS X to be used on non-Apple hardware, it's that Apple isn't allowing such use at all. Even if Psystar wins, the decision would do nothing to diminish the legality of giving discounts to repeat customers.
Except it's not the same thing, because the only thing that makes using OS X on non-Apple hardware copyright infringement, is an EULA stipulation.
Actually, nothing makes it copyright infringement. Using OS X on non-Apple hardware would cause Apple to sue for breach of contract, not copyright infringement.
The reason Apple is suing Psystar for copyright infringement (in addition to breach of contract) is that Psystar installed the operating system onto their computers and distributed both copies when the computer was sold -- an issue that would apply whether the computers were "Apple-labeled" or not. It's a bullshit argument, but there you have it.
(The mechanic will likely sue for mental anguish.)
Why? I don't know about Ford engines and Nissan Bluebirds specifically, but people do that kind of thing with other cars and engines all the time, such as putting Ford engines in Mazda Miatas instead.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but which code are they modifying? OS X is not actually a single product, but rather an aggregation of products, many of which are licensed differently. If the code being modified is part of Darwin, then it is likely licensed under the ASPL2, which would allow Psystar to distribute that modification legally.
Note that the validity of the ASPL2 comes from the fact that it grants those modification and distribution rights, which Psystar would not have otherwise. However, it also claims that acceptance is required for mere use of the software; that part of the license is invalid in my opinion.
No, it isn't. Copyright is a law. If you don't understand that, then I can't think of a way to explain it to you more simply. You're just plain wrong.
No, you don't. Go and try to find the EULA for your book or CD or DVD or car. Look hard and carefully. I'll give you a hint: you won't find it, unless possibly the CDs or DVDs in question were the more recent once that have been "enhanced" with software and/or extra DRM.
That restriction comes from copyright law itself, not from any imaginary "license!"
But that's an entirely different kind of license, which has nothing to do with what we're discussing here. To be honest, it boggles my mind that you even brought that up -- it's that irrelevant.
If you don't believe me, please note that drivers' licenses are issued by the State, not Ford!
No, Ford produces cars to allow drivers to use them however they want. The State restricts what the driver can do when the car is used on public roads.
Note that if you're not on public roads, you can still do whatever you want with the Ford car, even if you have no driver's license at all! If you're on private property (such as a farm, movie set, etc.) and have permission from the owner of that private property, then you can drive 100 MPH, you can jump ramps, you can chug a beer, you can choose not to wear your seat belt -- whatever you want! It's your property and you can do whatever you want with it.
This, by the way, is why movie stuntmen don't get speeding tickets.
Yep, and for software those conflicts begin and end precisely with copyright law.
Yep, and that's why I specifically mentioned that the use must fall within the bounds of copyright law. Or, as in the case with the car or knife, other laws imposed by the State. But that's the key, there: the restrictions are imposed by the State. Not the seller! And that's reasonable, because the State has the privilege of imposing laws -- a power that sellers, most emphatically, do not have!
No, under my definition the extent to which a company holds a monopoly on its product is proportional to the extent to which it can be substituted with an similar one. Or in other words, proportional to how similar the competing products are. For example, a bolt manufacturer making bolts of a particular specification does not have a monopoly on his product, because you could get essentially identical bolts elsewhere. But a bolt manufacturer making bolts of an odd size that can't be found anywhere else would have a monopoly, because the bolts made by other manufacturers wouldn't fit.
I agree, that makes OS X less of a monopoly than it would have been if you couldn't install another OS on your Mac. But we're talking about moving along a spectrum, not a binary distinction.
And some don't. The existence of software that compiles and runs only on OS X moves it back down that spectrum towards a monopoly.
Look, I admit OS X isn't a 100% monopoly. But it doesn't have a 100% perfect substitute either, and that's my point. In fact, I would say that the fact that people apparently want to run OS X on non-Apple hardware is pretty good evidence that the extent to which other operating systems can substitute for it is substantially less than 100%.
The problem with that is that you buy the software before you are required to agree (or otherwise) to the terms. It doesn't make any sense to say that Apple "lets" you use the software you own, anymore than it makes sense to say that Sears "lets" you use the rake you bought!
Yep, it's a contract alright: a contract of adhesion that provides no valuable consideration to the customer. Or in other words, an invalid, unenforceable contract!
Irrelevant: Apple's business model is its own problem, and has no business whatsoever influencing contract law!
Besides, losing money is not the reason Ford, Sony, and Rowling don't do this. They don't do it because they can't. The law doesn't give them standing to do so! There is nothing whatsoever different about software compared to any other product, whether it's a physical object (like a car) or a creative work (like a movie or book). They're all sold by the distributor and bought by the customer, and the customer has all the same rights of use as he does with all the rest of his property.
Don't like it? Move to some communist country -- I hear they don't have this pesky "property" concept there. But in capitalist America, we respect property rights!
On the contrary, Apple has quite the dilemma, because it has no right to restrict the owner of the copy from using his property in any manner he sees fit (within the bounds of copyright law).
Big Macs don't run software, and they have almost-perfect substitutes (e.g. Burger King's Whopper). Mac OS doesn't have a reasonable substitute, because no other OS can run Mac OS software.
The language is ambiguous: does "Apple-labeled" mean "labeled by Apple" or "labeled with an Apple logo?" I choose to believe it means the latter; the fact that Apple supplies Apple logo stickers in the OS X package supports this position. I mean, what else are they supposed to be used for, if not to "Apple-label" the computer you're installing the OS on?
You're confused: copyright does not give the copyright holder the privilege to dictate how the work is used; it only gives the copyright holder control over distribution of copies and derivative works.
In other words, if we assumed suitable hardware existed and the copy of IOS in question was legally obtained, then Cisco cannot use copyright law to prevent IOS from being used on that hardware. No copies (except the incidental one to install the software, which doesn't count because it's a consequence of how the medium of software works*) were made, so copyright law does not apply.
Now you're really confused: the whole point of the lawsuits being discussed (you know, the ones between Apple and Psystar) is about deciding whether Apple's EULA is valid or not!
Then Microsoft's rights under the GPL would be revoked, which would cause Microsoft to violate copyright.
More or less, yeah: it would still exist if there were no copyights, but there would be essentially no penalties for violating it (because there would be no monetary damages incurred -- see the original (not appellate) decision in Jacobsen v. Katzer).
Nope! Neither installing the software nor selling the resulting package falls under copyright law, if no other copies were made and the install media were included in the package.
The point at which Microsoft would run afoul of the GPL (and copyright law) would be if either it:
In other words, if Microsoft called up Canonical and got a big pile of Ubuntu disks then it could distribute them without being subject to the GPL or copyright law because Microsoft wasn't the entity making the copies. It would merely be a distributor in the same way that, say, Wal-Mart is. (Of course, Microsoft wouldn't be able to violate the GPL either because they wouldn't be able to modify the CDs to remove the notices and source code anyway.) But if Microsoft got one Ubuntu disk from Canonical and then duplicated it itself and distributed the copies, then it would be subject to the GPL and copyright law.
(*this argument is currently being disputed in the courts; there have been decisions both affirming and refuting it.)
Please show exactly where in my post I wrote the word "support."
Those two situations are essentially the same.
If Apple wanted its users to buy upgrades, it wouldn't be able to do that. Apple could try to make the software "upgrade only" like Microsoft does with Windows, but in the absence of the EULA there's nothing stopping the owner from modifying the software to bypass the previous version check.
Nope, it'd be "copyright infringement." Still illegal, but significantly different from pillaging ships on the high seas.
PSYSTAR ISN'T DOING THAT!
Yes, exactly. Why, isn't that enough?
There's no copyright issue because Pystar isn't making changes, and isn't selling a derivative. They're reselling the unmodified original copy -- installing the software is incidental to the medium, and doesn't count.
Nope, Psystar is still properly attributing the copyright to Apple.
Yep, Microsoft sure would. However, that analogy is irrelevant because Psystar isn't actually doing any of the things you accuse it of doing! You're imagining all of them!
Just because you imagine Psystar is doing something the legal system should be concerned with doesn't mean those offenses actually exist.
Yes you would. But that's completely irrelevant to the situation we're discussing here! Psystar didn't "rewrite" OS X, it merely installed and resold the software as-is. There's no derivative work or plagiarism involved.
So they're format-shifting in addition to bundling. Whoop-de-fucking-do! There's still nothing wrong with it.
That's bullshit, and you know it! Merely configuring the settings is not the same as modifying the software. Installing software is not a copyright-violating act; it is a reasonable and expected incidental consequence of how the medium of software works.
...because Apple has no case, and its lawyers know it.
No it wouldn't, because Psystar is clearly differentiating their product from Macs: they say "Psystar" rather than having an Apple logo, their cases don't resemble Apple's style, etc. Nobody's gonna mistake a Psystar for a Mac, and therefore Apple has no grounds to claim trademark infringement (which, by the way, is the correct technical term for what you call "brand smear" -- get it right next time).
Yeah, right -- just like how Dell, et. al. are liable for that cesspool that is Windows. What fantasy land are you living in where that's true?
Stop right there! You're wrong because the Psystar PC is not being marketed as a "cheap Mac!" It's being marketed as a "Psystar PC, which is capable of running Mac OS X," but that's entirely different than being marketed as a Mac.
Why? Either they already understand exactly what they're getting into, or they'd have no idea that Psystar even existed, let alone why they'd want a computer from that company.
WTF?! It's called the right to own property! Go read Locke if you can't figure it out for yourself. And if you don't like it, then you're a communist (literally, not as a derogatory statement).
No it doesn't. It tries to establish conditions under which they allow users to use the software, and there's a big fucking difference between mere use and copying: namely, that in the former case copyright law does not apply.
In other words, you have no clue what you're talking about. Go figure out the difference between an end user license and a distribution license, and then you might be capable of meaningfully contributing to this discussion.
Nope, because Microsoft and Linux aren't Mac OS. You can't substitute Windows or Linux for Mac OS, because then you can't run Mac OS programs.
Apple claims that installing the software on the computer's hard drive counts as making a copy. It's a bullshit argument, but it's the same reasoning as is behind all EULAs, and at least some courts (e.g. the one that decided Blizzard vs. Glider) were stupid enough to buy it.
Right, the fair use doctrine is what allows that!
Psystar is format-shifting a legally-purchased copy OS X for the convenience of its customers. Nothing more.
The Artistic License is not an EULA. It is a distribution license, just like the GPL. Katzer was committing copyright infringement because the Artistic License was revoked due to failure to comply with its terms. Or put another way, the Artistic License was the only thing giving Katzer permission to do things which would otherwise default to being copyright infringement.
In contrast, Apple's EULA tries to restrict you from doing things which you would otherwise be allowed to do, and is therefore materially different than the Artistic License. Jacobsen vs. Katzer is completely irrelevant.
Exactly, and it doesn't contain one by the simple fact that it is an End User License Agreement! EULAs cannot have enforceable copyright restrictions on the prima facie basis that they cover end use rather than distribution, and copyright law doesn't even kick in until distribution has occurred.
Exactly, and Psystar is saying that Apple can't do that! And Psystar is right -- it's bullshit! Ford can't sell you a Focus and then tell you it's a "license" and that you can only drive it on Tuesdays; Sony can't sell you a movie on DVD and then tell you it's a "license" and that you can only watch it on a Sony-brand TV; J.K. Rowling can't sell you a Harry Potter novel and then tell you it's a "license" and that you can only read it if you're under 12 years old. Nobody else, in any other industry, can pull that kind of stunt; why the fuck should Apple have the right to do so either?!
By that argument, a Britney Spears album is a good substitute for a Mozart symphony. They're both music, right?
Apple doesn't have a monopoly on "operating systems," but that's irrelevant because the issue is that Apple has a monopoly on computers running OS X, which is relevant because OS X has no reasonable substitute (where a "reasonable substitute" is defined as an OS capable of running OS X software).
The situation people here are complaining about is not that Apple is charging more for copies of OS X to be used on non-Apple hardware, it's that Apple isn't allowing such use at all. Even if Psystar wins, the decision would do nothing to diminish the legality of giving discounts to repeat customers.
Actually, nothing makes it copyright infringement. Using OS X on non-Apple hardware would cause Apple to sue for breach of contract, not copyright infringement.
The reason Apple is suing Psystar for copyright infringement (in addition to breach of contract) is that Psystar installed the operating system onto their computers and distributed both copies when the computer was sold -- an issue that would apply whether the computers were "Apple-labeled" or not. It's a bullshit argument, but there you have it.
Yes, if Watchguard were legally buying copies to do it with.
Fine with me, as long as Microsoft complied with the GPL (which is not an EULA, by the way!).
Yep!
Why? I don't know about Ford engines and Nissan Bluebirds specifically, but people do that kind of thing with other cars and engines all the time, such as putting Ford engines in Mazda Miatas instead.
And the decision in the Blizzard vs. Glider case was wrong.