According to Guidelines for Using Apple Trademarks and Copyrights [apple.com] (emph. added):
Personally, I don't care how Apple says I can use their trademarks. I have legal rights to use their trademarks under fair use and their claims may be their wishes but wishes don't always come true.
1. the trademark owner's product or service must be one that is not readily identifiable without the use of the trademark;
2. the author only uses as much of the trademark as is reasonably necessary to identify the trademark owner's products or services;
3. the author does nothing that would, in conjunction with the trademark, suggest to the reader sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner.
Cite me another definition of First Sale Doctrine that conflicts with wikipedia. Wikipedia is not always true or un-biased; but that does not necessarily mean they are wrong when it comes to a definition. Also you can look up the statue which the doctrine is based. [cornell.edu]
There is a finer point of law here, the difference between the "work" and the "copy." The "work" are the words which are on the pages of a book. The "copy" is the physical book. I own my copy and under the first sale doctrine, I have the right to do with it as I please as long as I don't violate copyright with regards to the "work."
I can write all over it. I can change pages. I can do what ever I want to it. If I wish to sell "my copy" that has been modified, I can not sell it as the original work, but I can sell it as a modified work. Since I do not have copyright to the original work, I can not make copies of my new aggregate work without permission of the original author. I can however, sell my one copy, buy another original and modify it, and sell that.
Think about a "paint by numbers" canvas. It is a copyrighted work. The purchaser can paint on it and create an aggregate "new" work. The painter is free to sell the painting. While the painter can not make copies of the paint by numbers canvas without violating copyright, they can, however, buy new canvases from the copyright owner and create new paintings each time. This is what Psystar is doing.
Technically not correct. There are exceptions to copyright. Changing the name would not exempt anyone from taking Schlinder's List and re-selling it under Clean Flicks WWII classic because it still has the same content. Ironically the porn industry shows the best example of an legal exemption. They can create Schindler's Lust which may have a similar plot and theme; however they would employ different actors and dialogue. Their example would qualify as parody.
You are confusing the "work" with the "copy." No one has the right to modify schindlers list and sell copies of it except the copyright owner. However, if I buy a VHS tape of Schindler's List, and snip out the parts I don't like, I am free to sell it as long as I make it perfectly clear that it has been modified.
I'm pretty sure that "Clean Flicks" had to create a "new" copy of the film because it is pretty hard to edit a physical DVD. That aspect would be a clear violation of copyright.
I can't help but think that the U.S. dependence on Microsoft is ever more dangerous.
We have a lot of great computer scientists in the U.S.A. but there is no capitial investment to make companies that compete with Microsoft.
How many have tried and fallen because of Microsoft's dirty tricks? How many "Go Computing" scenarios have there been?
The only alternative the computing world has for commodity computers is Free and Open source software. Don't get me wrong, I use Linux, I have done so exclusively since 1995, but it is rediculous that there is only one commercial OS vendor for the PC line of computers.
The economic failing of this is exampled by Russia's OS. There's Microsoft or nothing in the commercial world. Then there is some variation of Linux or BSD in the free software environment.
Because there is no viable alternative to Microsoft in the commercial world, Russia is going to write their own. If there were a thriving environment with multiple viable commercial operating systems, there would be no need for Russia to write their own.
More to the point, in an analogy to the HUGE banks like AIG, they were considered "too big to fail." Which was, of course, disastrously wrong.
Microsoft is a similar sort of problem for us. Since we CAN NOT compete with Microsoft because people won't fund you if you do, we can't create companies that will provide products and services for people who no longer want to deal with Microsoft.
So, outside of the U.S. there is a potential market for non-MS products and services, but in the US VC and employers are afraid of creating products that compete with Microsoft. Thus, moving forward, the US will be losing its software industry and basically giving it away out of fear.
The U.S. IT and software industry HAS to move away from the microsoft monopoly monoculture if it wants to survive in the long term. Linux and BSD are good, but we need lots of profitable software companies competing across the board on applications and operating systems. We need variety and standards. If we don't do this in the U.S.A. we will lose the edge we once had i the software industry.
There are two issues here and they are often conflated:
Evolution as a process and evolution as a path.
The "process" of evolution is what Darwin documented extensively in "The Origin of Species" and scientists have proved beyond any doubt. The "process" of evolution is a fact.
The "path" of evolution, i.e. where and how a specific species has come to exist is a "study." We can speculate, research, and document what we think archaeological remnants mean, but we can *never* prove that A begot B beyond any doubt. We can only speculate that somewhere in the path of evolution Archeopterix is a predecessor to modern flying birds based on similarities and features.
The beauty of science over religion is that science isn't required to be all knowing and infallible. We can and do make mistakes, but all mistakes are not equal. As Isaac Asimov wrote, the mistakes of science are not arbitrary, they are of the character of increasing precision.
We used to believe the world was flat. That was because the earth looked flat to the available technology of the time. We then measured that the earth MUST be round. The earlier "flat earth" was not wrong, per se' it was the best we could do. The round spherical earth was a better model. Well now we know that the world isn't spherical, it is kind of egg shaped. Again, the spherical thing wasn't wrong, it was the best we could measure. It isn't as if science is going to through up its hands and say, "oops! the world is flat, we were wrong" because the nature of scientific errors aren't like that. The mistakes of science are in the form of new knowledge correcting old conclusions in an ever increasingly accurate set of models.
I missed this before. I think you're wrong here. I think it would be easy to prove in court that most people don't know what an OS is. After proving that, Apple could easily prove that anything that runs the Apple OS is likely to be seen as an Apple product.
Psystar can't be held responsible for ignorance. as long as they make a reasonable effort to separate themselves from Apple and ensure that Apple is is not liable in any way, they are fine.
No matter how clear PsyStar is about their affiliations, the general public will think these computers are Apple computers. Having proven that, Apple can claim that PsyStar's operations could damage the value of the Apple brand, and shut them down.
As long as Psystar covers their ass and makes sure that all reasonable efforts have been made to make it perfectly clear that their enterprise is neither endorsed nor approved by Apple in any way, they should be clear. Ironically this suit should do do nicely.
Reading over all your stuff, I get the impression that you think that there are no laws that grant entities the right to protect their brand's value. Or maybe you think that, where such laws exist, they are very much biased in favor of the general public.
Actually, there are no laws to protect "brands" per se' there are, however, laws to protect trademarks and service marks. And here is the circumstances in which you may use them without authorization:
1. the trademark owner's product or service must be one that is not readily identifiable without the use of the trademark;
2. the author only uses as much of the trademark as is reasonably necessary to identify the trademark owner's products or services;
3. the author does nothing that would, in conjunction with the trademark, suggest to the reader sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner.
If you did it on a large scale and posted ads for it, I don't think you'd get away with it. The point is not that you paid for the papers, and your rights as master of your own personal property is immaterial. The point is that you've created the impression that the Times and the Post have united to be "The Times/Post."
If I titled it "MLW Brings you the Times and The Post" it represents a unique derivative work and is perfectly legal. I am not creating the impression that the NYT and WP are joined in any way.
See, I don't think that's right. Again, if you're just doing this for your pot-smoking Aunt Zimmy, no, they can't stop you. But if you put in SkyMall an ad for your Guernica Bong, I think the owner of Guernica has a say.
If I attempt to create the impression that Guernica is endorsing bongs, that is a problem. If I say Buy this bong and get a free Guernica print and disclaim and connection between bong sales and the Guernica company, then I am legal.
At issue is whether or or you are "trading" on someone's trademark or not. This is where Apple may have some sway, but there is protection for using someone else's trademark if there is no other way to do it.
1. the trademark owner's product or service must be one that is not readily identifiable without the use of the trademark;
2. the author only uses as much of the trademark as is reasonably necessary to identify the trademark owner's products or services;
3. the author does nothing that would, in conjunction with the trademark, suggest to the reader sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner.
The fact that you can legally and physically obtain a reproduction of a printed or graphic work does not give you the unhindered right to create commercial products from it. At least, I think.
I can not reproduce a copyrighted work, but I can buy endless reprints and use them to wrap bongs all I want.
What you describe would violate the copyrights of the original author. It is also explicitly not allowed in the first sale doctrine [wikipedia.org] according to wikipedia:
Wikipedia is not authoritative in this respect. If I claim that it has been altered I may sell it as my own work. I can not sell it as the previous work.
For instance, college text books are modified with notes, highlighting, and sometimes hand written corrections. It is quite legal to resell the text books as long as they are marked as such.
As for Clean Flicks, they violated copyright law because they traded their product as the work of another. Their work was a derivative work and not work of the directors. They probably could have sold "Schindler's List" as "Clean Flicks WWII classic." but they didn't do that.
Unless it's your business. Then you're a re-seller and need proper authorisation to resell modified copies.
Show me the statute that defines this restriction, because there isn't one.
First-sale doctrine requires one single identical copy to be transfered from the first buyer to the second-hand buyer.
Where are the words "identical copy" in copyright law, its not there.
In Psystar, a different, non-authorised copy of the software was generated and that thing got sold to the end user.
Wrong, Psystar buys a copy for each user. They modify the user's copy for them, that's their value.
For the court, the problem is that the version re-sold by Psystar are modified.
Are you saying I can't paint my car? That I can't draw on my copy of Moby Dick? I can modify that which I own, and I can sell it when I please.
Apple will go for whatever crack they can find in the copyright law which will help them prevent Psystar from selling hackintoshes.
And I hope the judges are smart enough to fully understand "fair use" and "right of first sale."
Psystar made the error of selling the OS X pre-patched, instead of selling stock OS X together with a boot-disk with an installer-patcher on it. Apple will try to kill them for that.
I don't think Apple has an air tight case. A good lawyer should be able to kill Apple on this. Apple is being paid for their product. After it leaves their hands, there is little that they can do about it by law.
It would be one thing for Psystar to sell OS X in boxes. It's another for Psystar to modify and install OS X onto a generic computer.
Why, they are purchasing a vendor's product, adding their own value to it and selling the resulting product at a profit. Its called business.
To install it on generic OS X, you need to bypass some of the hardware requirements.
Yup, and their added value is that they have done that for you.
To extend your analogy, it would be like reading the newspaper, deciding that you didn't like the editorials, changing them, reprinting it on newsprint, then re-selling it as the "improved version" of that newspaper. I don't think any newspaper in the country would allow you to do that.
Wrong, in a previous analogy I wrote that I could buy a book from a store, rip out pages from it, put my own pages in, and sell it. That's a perfectly legitimate business. It would be illegal if I represented *my* version as unmodified, but Psystar says their version is modified and that Apple is not responsible. So it should not be an issue for Apple.
Okay, but could you buy, say, a copy of the New York Times and a copy of The Washington Post, staple them together, and sell it under the name "The Times/Post"? You are associating two entities that would rather not be associated. Could they prevent this? I think they could.
Nope, I can do that if I want. If the NYT is $1.00 and Post is $1.00, I could even charge $4.00 for the two papers stapled together if I wanted. I could charge $1000 if someone would pay me.
Both NYT and WP got payed for their paper. I'm not claiming ownership of it, I'm just using my "right of first sale" and making a profit.
Okay, but that's a whole different matter, because I think in that case you technically own an implied copyright on reproductions of the work. The better analogy is that you buy prints of the painting from the owner, and then you use the prints to decorate and re-sell bongs.
Great idea. Let's use old Windows manuals to wrap bongs!!
Suddenly you're doing national business because everyone wants the Guernica Bong. Again, you're creating a public association between two things. Can whoever owns Guernica put a stop to this? I think they can.
Yes, they can stop selling me copies, if they can't stop selling me copies, they can't stop me from gift wrapping bongs.
Not sure you're right. By advertising your product using terms that are trademarked by Edelbrock and WorldPort, you are creating a public association of your product with theirs. I think they get a say in that.
If I say: "I only use Edelbrock Intake Manifolds and WorldPort Heads in my 383 stroker engines" I am stating something perfectly true and they can't keep me from saying it. They can only attempt to keep me from buying their product.
Big difference is, you are not reselling that paper as a VAR to enhance another product that competes directly with the publisher. Why should/would the publisher give you that advantage?
Because they don't have the option. Copyright law is what it is.
It's businesses that claim a right to bundle Apple's IP with their own product in the name of "free choice" (when it's really profit motivating them).
There is NOTHING wrong with making a business "reselling" products, even modifying them and then reselling them. Apple is being paid.
Not to mention the commercial distribution of their trademarks.
Yes, as attached to their products, still perfectly legal.
I doubt other well established brands would allow their trademark to represent their brand in products not made by them.
Psystar is clear that they are not affiliated with Apple, so that's not an issue.
Though they will not get it, the proper channel is to request for a license to distribute with their own hardware.
That is what Apple would like, but it is not true.
It is business to buy vendor's products, modify and or combine them with other products to create new products.
I could build engines in my basement, I would buy WorldPort heads, edelbrock intake manifolds, GM small blocks, crane cams, etc. Call it the MLW 383 stroker featuring Edelbrock intake manafold, WorldPort heads, etc. It is perfectly legal. Why wouldn't it be? I paid for the parts, tuned and ported the heads and manifold. Created a new product. That *is* what business is. Apple is trying to exert control and authority it should not have.
A different example:
Suppose I buy Dell computers with MS Windows on them. I manufacture an I/O board and write software that controls electrical devices. I repackage the systems as MLW Home Automation Systems. Isn't that legit?
What if I didn't buy Dell computers, but bought non-name brands and bought OEM versions of Windows. Wouldn't that still be legit?
Adobe. Yahoo. Real. Whoever made that game Crayon Physics.
It's software. It's easier to just turn a few internal settings off rather than creating a whole new lesser version is just easier.
I didn't say it didn't happen, I said the customers don't like it and choose the competition.
H1Bs give worker more freedom,
BS, H1B visas reduce the prevailing wage.
DRM prevents stealing,
DRM does not prevent "stealing" it makes copyright "fair use" more difficult.
Steal:
1. To take, and carry away, feloniously; to take without right or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully; as, to steal the personal goods of another.
MS has probably done more than any company to help individuals leverage their abilities without having to become a nerd in the process.
LOL, what is the supporting argument for this opinion?
The problem comes from the fact that Psystar isn't reselling Mac OS X as-is. (as it should be with a first sale).
You don't understand copyright. I can buy a book, draw all over it, and sell it as an original work.
The problem comes from the fact that Psystar buys a stock copy of OS X, modifies it and sells the modified version as a business.
There is no such problem in copyright. As long as "each copy" is purchased from Apple, modified, and sold, that should be perfectly legal.
Apple is trying to prove in court that this constitute a derivative work, something that isn't authorised by copyright law - you need a license to do that (like BSD you give you this right, or GPL which gives it too, as long as you publish your modifications too). Not every part in Mac OS X is licensed under BSD.
You misunderstand "derivative work." If I buy a book, rip out a number of pages and replace them with my own, I have created a derivative and I may sell it as I wish. However, if I want to sell more than one copy of it, I have to buy another original or work out an agreement with the original author.
This is what psystar is doing. They are buying originals, modifying them, and selling them. This should be perfectly legal. Apple is being compensated. What's the problem?
This is the crux of the matter. In face-to-face transactions, the painter would simply deny the sale to you of his painting if you refused his covenants.
Even if you lie to him, it is still legal.
However in the new world of shrink wrap and electronic transfers, the requirement is to provide a End User License Agreement (EULA) for those covenants. The standard is that if you click 'I Agree', or bust open the shrink wrap, that you agree to the terms and conditions placed upon you for that product.
A lot of the contents of EULAs are unenforceable and have been ruled as such.
Obviously, the problem lies in when you do not agree or conform to the EULA. Is it enforceable? Is it valid? What are the penalties? Can you properly 'own' the product if you did not agree to the EULA or intended to break the agreement?
That's an interesting statement. The "recording industry" attempts far fewer restrictions than software companies. Furthermore, while I detest RIAA and the rest for their tactics, they are not egregious in this aspect.
When you copyright something and make it available to the public, in exchange for the protection of copyright, you loose some control over your work.
If I read a newspaper, when I am done, I can pass it to someone else if I wish. That is legal and there's nothing a newspaper can do about it. Even if the newspaper says "non-transferable," they may wish that to be true, but it is not. We have rights and we need to fight back and challenge entities that make claims that are not true.
The argument that it "belongs to them" doesn't work because they are making it public under copyright law. Copyright law protects their content AND allows fair use of it.
Software is copyrighted. A license agreement does not limit your rights under "copyright law," it enhances your rights beyond copyright law. Software vendors will argue otherwise, but more and more court cases are upholding copyright over EULAs.
If I purchase software, the ISV can not control what I do with it. I have a valid right to use the material, obtained legally and under the financial terms agreed upon by the copyright owner. When I am finished with it, I have a court confirmed right of first sale. I'm sure the court will confirm what we all know, that I can do with it as I please. As long as I do not make and distribute copies of it, I'm legit.
For instance, I can buy a painting from a painter. He may say, "under no circumstances are you to destroy this paining or sell it to anyone else," but once he sells it to me, I can do with it as I please. I can spray paint it, burn it, or sell it.
This quote, even if not an official policy of Microsoft is indicative of the monopolistic mindset of a tyrant.
There is *no* technological reason or justification to limit the number of applications that can be run. The *only* reason to even think of doing this is that if you are confident that no one can compete with you.
In a truly competitive environment, *NO* ISV could dare even think of this. The instant that you artificially limit your software, competition eats you up.
We, as an industry, REALLY REALLY need to nuke Microsoft. They are anti-customer (this), anti-worker (H1B), andi-freedom (DRM), and anti-competitive.
Verification in this case means probabilistically proving that the processor will make a certain number of errors, given certain conditions. Since you can make the error rate as low as you want (it could be lower than actual quantum events, for example) this isn't as bad as you might think.
Randomised approaches can make proofs simpler than deterministic versioins.
That sounds like typical "fuzzy" drivel. You can't establish any probabilistic base line for errors without an accurate proof.
This is sort of the difference between quantum physics and old-school physics for which Einstein's famous quote "God does not roll dice" originates.
I would argue that quantum physics as we currently know it will become more accurate as we continue to understand the realm which we have discovered. It is so different that our ape brain is a bit at a loss for a conceptual backdrop.
Similarly, abandoning "accuracy" in computing is a bad idea. A "good" engineer or scientist can estimate a number of things easily to lightly test viability of an idea, but must eventually prove the concept.
A computer and/or system that does not accurately process information and can, in fact, return non-identical answers for identical problems can not be trusted. Most computing involves many calculations, be it animation, banking, science, or what ever. Introducing little inaccuracies at each stage will multiply into larger inaccuracies.
Yes, something can be racist and funny at the same time.
To a racist bigot.
One of the kinds of people I hate most are those who will completely discount a valid viewpoint because it has one little thing they think is politically incorrect.
I'm pretty sure this is NOT one of these cases.
By the way, racism is an opinion held by someone you don't agree with.
No, "racism" is an expression of hate by sick and ignorant people.
Murder is an action that has a deleterious effect on another person. They aren't equivalent.
You've obviously not been on the receiving end of racism which, at times, ends in murder.
Take many sorting algorithms, for example - they really hate to compare values more than once, and if the result of a comparison is randomly wrong, just once, then the resulting array is not sorted correctly.
While I don't think the approach being discussed is a good idea, most sorting algorithms are merely concerned with = -1, 1, 0 respectively.
Slashdot Mirror
According to Guidelines for Using Apple Trademarks and Copyrights [apple.com] (emph. added):
Personally, I don't care how Apple says I can use their trademarks. I have legal rights to use their trademarks under fair use and their claims may be their wishes but wishes don't always come true.
1. the trademark owner's product or service must be one that is not readily identifiable without the use of the trademark;
2. the author only uses as much of the trademark as is reasonably necessary to identify the trademark owner's products or services;
3. the author does nothing that would, in conjunction with the trademark, suggest to the reader sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner.
Cite me another definition of First Sale Doctrine that conflicts with wikipedia. Wikipedia is not always true or un-biased; but that does not necessarily mean they are wrong when it comes to a definition. Also you can look up the statue which the doctrine is based. [cornell.edu]
There is a finer point of law here, the difference between the "work" and the "copy." The "work" are the words which are on the pages of a book. The "copy" is the physical book. I own my copy and under the first sale doctrine, I have the right to do with it as I please as long as I don't violate copyright with regards to the "work."
I can write all over it. I can change pages. I can do what ever I want to it. If I wish to sell "my copy" that has been modified, I can not sell it as the original work, but I can sell it as a modified work. Since I do not have copyright to the original work, I can not make copies of my new aggregate work without permission of the original author. I can however, sell my one copy, buy another original and modify it, and sell that.
Think about a "paint by numbers" canvas. It is a copyrighted work. The purchaser can paint on it and create an aggregate "new" work. The painter is free to sell the painting. While the painter can not make copies of the paint by numbers canvas without violating copyright, they can, however, buy new canvases from the copyright owner and create new paintings each time. This is what Psystar is doing.
Technically not correct. There are exceptions to copyright. Changing the name would not exempt anyone from taking Schlinder's List and re-selling it under Clean Flicks WWII classic because it still has the same content. Ironically the porn industry shows the best example of an legal exemption. They can create Schindler's Lust which may have a similar plot and theme; however they would employ different actors and dialogue. Their example would qualify as parody.
You are confusing the "work" with the "copy." No one has the right to modify schindlers list and sell copies of it except the copyright owner. However, if I buy a VHS tape of Schindler's List, and snip out the parts I don't like, I am free to sell it as long as I make it perfectly clear that it has been modified.
I'm pretty sure that "Clean Flicks" had to create a "new" copy of the film because it is pretty hard to edit a physical DVD. That aspect would be a clear violation of copyright.
I can't help but think that the U.S. dependence on Microsoft is ever more dangerous.
We have a lot of great computer scientists in the U.S.A. but there is no capitial investment to make companies that compete with Microsoft.
How many have tried and fallen because of Microsoft's dirty tricks? How many "Go Computing" scenarios have there been?
The only alternative the computing world has for commodity computers is Free and Open source software. Don't get me wrong, I use Linux, I have done so exclusively since 1995, but it is rediculous that there is only one commercial OS vendor for the PC line of computers.
The economic failing of this is exampled by Russia's OS. There's Microsoft or nothing in the commercial world. Then there is some variation of Linux or BSD in the free software environment.
Because there is no viable alternative to Microsoft in the commercial world, Russia is going to write their own. If there were a thriving environment with multiple viable commercial operating systems, there would be no need for Russia to write their own.
More to the point, in an analogy to the HUGE banks like AIG, they were considered "too big to fail." Which was, of course, disastrously wrong.
Microsoft is a similar sort of problem for us. Since we CAN NOT compete with Microsoft because people won't fund you if you do, we can't create companies that will provide products and services for people who no longer want to deal with Microsoft.
So, outside of the U.S. there is a potential market for non-MS products and services, but in the US VC and employers are afraid of creating products that compete with Microsoft. Thus, moving forward, the US will be losing its software industry and basically giving it away out of fear.
The U.S. IT and software industry HAS to move away from the microsoft monopoly monoculture if it wants to survive in the long term. Linux and BSD are good, but we need lots of profitable software companies competing across the board on applications and operating systems. We need variety and standards. If we don't do this in the U.S.A. we will lose the edge we once had i the software industry.
Any theory that does not provide a method to falsify and validate its claims is a useless theory.
You have a long post based on an invalid premise. You can not prove a negative. One can not prove something does not exist.
In science, there is no need too. Every claim needs proof that it is factual.
There are two issues here and they are often conflated:
Evolution as a process and evolution as a path.
The "process" of evolution is what Darwin documented extensively in "The Origin of Species" and scientists have proved beyond any doubt. The "process" of evolution is a fact.
The "path" of evolution, i.e. where and how a specific species has come to exist is a "study." We can speculate, research, and document what we think archaeological remnants mean, but we can *never* prove that A begot B beyond any doubt. We can only speculate that somewhere in the path of evolution Archeopterix is a predecessor to modern flying birds based on similarities and features.
The beauty of science over religion is that science isn't required to be all knowing and infallible. We can and do make mistakes, but all mistakes are not equal. As Isaac Asimov wrote, the mistakes of science are not arbitrary, they are of the character of increasing precision.
We used to believe the world was flat. That was because the earth looked flat to the available technology of the time. We then measured that the earth MUST be round. The earlier "flat earth" was not wrong, per se' it was the best we could do. The round spherical earth was a better model. Well now we know that the world isn't spherical, it is kind of egg shaped. Again, the spherical thing wasn't wrong, it was the best we could measure. It isn't as if science is going to through up its hands and say, "oops! the world is flat, we were wrong" because the nature of scientific errors aren't like that. The mistakes of science are in the form of new knowledge correcting old conclusions in an ever increasingly accurate set of models.
I missed this before. I think you're wrong here. I think it would be easy to prove in court that most people don't know what an OS is. After proving that, Apple could easily prove that anything that runs the Apple OS is likely to be seen as an Apple product.
Psystar can't be held responsible for ignorance. as long as they make a reasonable effort to separate themselves from Apple and ensure that Apple is is not liable in any way, they are fine.
No matter how clear PsyStar is about their affiliations, the general public will think these computers are Apple computers. Having proven that, Apple can claim that PsyStar's operations could damage the value of the Apple brand, and shut them down.
As long as Psystar covers their ass and makes sure that all reasonable efforts have been made to make it perfectly clear that their enterprise is neither endorsed nor approved by Apple in any way, they should be clear. Ironically this suit should do do nicely.
Reading over all your stuff, I get the impression that you think that there are no laws that grant entities the right to protect their brand's value. Or maybe you think that, where such laws exist, they are very much biased in favor of the general public.
Actually, there are no laws to protect "brands" per se' there are, however, laws to protect trademarks and service marks. And here is the circumstances in which you may use them without authorization:
1. the trademark owner's product or service must be one that is not readily identifiable without the use of the trademark;
2. the author only uses as much of the trademark as is reasonably necessary to identify the trademark owner's products or services;
3. the author does nothing that would, in conjunction with the trademark, suggest to the reader sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner.
If you did it on a large scale and posted ads for it, I don't think you'd get away with it. The point is not that you paid for the papers, and your rights as master of your own personal property is immaterial. The point is that you've created the impression that the Times and the Post have united to be "The Times/Post."
If I titled it "MLW Brings you the Times and The Post" it represents a unique derivative work and is perfectly legal. I am not creating the impression that the NYT and WP are joined in any way.
See, I don't think that's right. Again, if you're just doing this for your pot-smoking Aunt Zimmy, no, they can't stop you. But if you put in SkyMall an ad for your Guernica Bong, I think the owner of Guernica has a say.
If I attempt to create the impression that Guernica is endorsing bongs, that is a problem. If I say Buy this bong and get a free Guernica print and disclaim and connection between bong sales and the Guernica company, then I am legal.
At issue is whether or or you are "trading" on someone's trademark or not. This is where Apple may have some sway, but there is protection for using someone else's trademark if there is no other way to do it.
1. the trademark owner's product or service must be one that is not readily identifiable without the use of the trademark;
2. the author only uses as much of the trademark as is reasonably necessary to identify the trademark owner's products or services;
3. the author does nothing that would, in conjunction with the trademark, suggest to the reader sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner.
The fact that you can legally and physically obtain a reproduction of a printed or graphic work does not give you the unhindered right to create commercial products from it. At least, I think.
I can not reproduce a copyrighted work, but I can buy endless reprints and use them to wrap bongs all I want.
What you describe would violate the copyrights of the original author. It is also explicitly not allowed in the first sale doctrine [wikipedia.org] according to wikipedia:
Wikipedia is not authoritative in this respect. If I claim that it has been altered I may sell it as my own work. I can not sell it as the previous work.
For instance, college text books are modified with notes, highlighting, and sometimes hand written corrections. It is quite legal to resell the text books as long as they are marked as such.
As for Clean Flicks, they violated copyright law because they traded their product as the work of another. Their work was a derivative work and not work of the directors. They probably could have sold "Schindler's List" as "Clean Flicks WWII classic." but they didn't do that.
Unless it's your business. Then you're a re-seller and need proper authorisation to resell modified copies.
Show me the statute that defines this restriction, because there isn't one.
First-sale doctrine requires one single identical copy to be transfered from the first buyer to the second-hand buyer.
Where are the words "identical copy" in copyright law, its not there.
In Psystar, a different, non-authorised copy of the software was generated and that thing got sold to the end user.
Wrong, Psystar buys a copy for each user. They modify the user's copy for them, that's their value.
For the court, the problem is that the version re-sold by Psystar are modified.
Are you saying I can't paint my car? That I can't draw on my copy of Moby Dick? I can modify that which I own, and I can sell it when I please.
Apple will go for whatever crack they can find in the copyright law which will help them prevent Psystar from selling hackintoshes.
And I hope the judges are smart enough to fully understand "fair use" and "right of first sale."
Psystar made the error of selling the OS X pre-patched, instead of selling stock OS X together with a boot-disk with an installer-patcher on it.
Apple will try to kill them for that.
I don't think Apple has an air tight case. A good lawyer should be able to kill Apple on this. Apple is being paid for their product. After it leaves their hands, there is little that they can do about it by law.
But that is not what Psystar is doing.
Sure it is.
It would be one thing for Psystar to sell OS X in boxes. It's another for Psystar to modify and install OS X onto a generic computer.
Why, they are purchasing a vendor's product, adding their own value to it and selling the resulting product at a profit. Its called business.
To install it on generic OS X, you need to bypass some of the hardware requirements.
Yup, and their added value is that they have done that for you.
To extend your analogy, it would be like reading the newspaper, deciding that you didn't like the editorials, changing them, reprinting it on newsprint, then re-selling it as the "improved version" of that newspaper. I don't think any newspaper in the country would allow you to do that.
Wrong, in a previous analogy I wrote that I could buy a book from a store, rip out pages from it, put my own pages in, and sell it. That's a perfectly legitimate business. It would be illegal if I represented *my* version as unmodified, but Psystar says their version is modified and that Apple is not responsible. So it should not be an issue for Apple.
Okay, but could you buy, say, a copy of the New York Times and a copy of The Washington Post, staple them together, and sell it under the name "The Times/Post"? You are associating two entities that would rather not be associated. Could they prevent this? I think they could.
Nope, I can do that if I want. If the NYT is $1.00 and Post is $1.00, I could even charge $4.00 for the two papers stapled together if I wanted. I could charge $1000 if someone would pay me.
Both NYT and WP got payed for their paper. I'm not claiming ownership of it, I'm just using my "right of first sale" and making a profit.
Okay, but that's a whole different matter, because I think in that case you technically own an implied copyright on reproductions of the work. The better analogy is that you buy prints of the painting from the owner, and then you use the prints to decorate and re-sell bongs.
Great idea. Let's use old Windows manuals to wrap bongs!!
Suddenly you're doing national business because everyone wants the Guernica Bong. Again, you're creating a public association between two things. Can whoever owns Guernica put a stop to this? I think they can.
Yes, they can stop selling me copies, if they can't stop selling me copies, they can't stop me from gift wrapping bongs.
Not sure you're right. By advertising your product using terms that are trademarked by Edelbrock and WorldPort, you are creating a public association of your product with theirs. I think they get a say in that.
If I say: "I only use Edelbrock Intake Manifolds and WorldPort Heads in my 383 stroker engines" I am stating something perfectly true and they can't keep me from saying it. They can only attempt to keep me from buying their product.
Big difference is, you are not reselling that paper as a VAR to enhance another product that competes directly with the publisher. Why should/would the publisher give you that advantage?
Because they don't have the option. Copyright law is what it is.
It's businesses that claim a right to bundle Apple's IP with their own product in the name of "free choice" (when it's really profit motivating them).
There is NOTHING wrong with making a business "reselling" products, even modifying them and then reselling them. Apple is being paid.
Not to mention the commercial distribution of their trademarks.
Yes, as attached to their products, still perfectly legal.
I doubt other well established brands would allow their trademark to represent their brand in products not made by them.
Psystar is clear that they are not affiliated with Apple, so that's not an issue.
Though they will not get it, the proper channel is to request for a license to distribute with their own hardware.
That is what Apple would like, but it is not true.
It is business to buy vendor's products, modify and or combine them with other products to create new products.
I could build engines in my basement, I would buy WorldPort heads, edelbrock intake manifolds, GM small blocks, crane cams, etc. Call it the MLW 383 stroker featuring Edelbrock intake manafold, WorldPort heads, etc. It is perfectly legal. Why wouldn't it be? I paid for the parts, tuned and ported the heads and manifold. Created a new product. That *is* what business is. Apple is trying to exert control and authority it should not have.
A different example:
Suppose I buy Dell computers with MS Windows on them. I manufacture an I/O board and write software that controls electrical devices. I repackage the systems as MLW Home Automation Systems. Isn't that legit?
What if I didn't buy Dell computers, but bought non-name brands and bought OEM versions of Windows. Wouldn't that still be legit?
So, what is Apple's problem?
Adobe. Yahoo. Real. Whoever made that game Crayon Physics.
It's software. It's easier to just turn a few internal settings off rather than creating a whole new lesser version is just easier.
I didn't say it didn't happen, I said the customers don't like it and choose the competition.
H1Bs give worker more freedom,
BS, H1B visas reduce the prevailing wage.
DRM prevents stealing,
DRM does not prevent "stealing" it makes copyright "fair use" more difficult.
Steal:
1. To take, and carry away, feloniously; to take without right or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully; as, to steal the personal goods of another.
MS has probably done more than any company to help individuals leverage their abilities without having to become a nerd in the process.
LOL, what is the supporting argument for this opinion?
The problem comes from the fact that Psystar isn't reselling Mac OS X as-is. (as it should be with a first sale).
You don't understand copyright. I can buy a book, draw all over it, and sell it as an original work.
The problem comes from the fact that Psystar buys a stock copy of OS X, modifies it and sells the modified version as a business.
There is no such problem in copyright. As long as "each copy" is purchased from Apple, modified, and sold, that should be perfectly legal.
Apple is trying to prove in court that this constitute a derivative work, something that isn't authorised by copyright law - you need a license to do that (like BSD you give you this right, or GPL which gives it too, as long as you publish your modifications too).
Not every part in Mac OS X is licensed under BSD.
You misunderstand "derivative work." If I buy a book, rip out a number of pages and replace them with my own, I have created a derivative and I may sell it as I wish. However, if I want to sell more than one copy of it, I have to buy another original or work out an agreement with the original author.
This is what psystar is doing. They are buying originals, modifying them, and selling them. This should be perfectly legal. Apple is being compensated. What's the problem?
Of course, no software vendor EVER ships a restricted version for less $.
Name a SINGLE software vendor that has artificially reduced the capability of their product and NOT been screwed by the consumers.
Now, I'm not talking about leaving features out, I'm talking about full fledged products just with a hidden setting turned off. Customers get pissed.
Microsoft is the *only* vendor that can get away with it.
Never happens in the hardware industry either!
Not having it is not the same as having it and not being able to use it.
This is the crux of the matter. In face-to-face transactions, the painter would simply deny the sale to you of his painting if you refused his covenants.
Even if you lie to him, it is still legal.
However in the new world of shrink wrap and electronic transfers, the requirement is to provide a End User License Agreement (EULA) for those covenants. The standard is that if you click 'I Agree', or bust open the shrink wrap, that you agree to the terms and conditions placed upon you for that product.
A lot of the contents of EULAs are unenforceable and have been ruled as such.
Obviously, the problem lies in when you do not agree or conform to the EULA. Is it enforceable? Is it valid? What are the penalties? Can you properly 'own' the product if you did not agree to the EULA or intended to break the agreement?
That's a HUGE issue. Copyright trumps EULAs.
I moved one town over. Instead of N*Star, the town I now live in has a municipal power company.
What town do you live in, and which did you move from? I'm running for treasurer for my town and that may be a good thing to research.
But when you buy something with the clear intention of using it for resale you place yourself into a different bracket.
Under what provision of copyright law does that assertion come from?
tell that to the recording industry
That's an interesting statement. The "recording industry" attempts far fewer restrictions than software companies. Furthermore, while I detest RIAA and the rest for their tactics, they are not egregious in this aspect.
When you copyright something and make it available to the public, in exchange for the protection of copyright, you loose some control over your work.
If I read a newspaper, when I am done, I can pass it to someone else if I wish. That is legal and there's nothing a newspaper can do about it. Even if the newspaper says "non-transferable," they may wish that to be true, but it is not. We have rights and we need to fight back and challenge entities that make claims that are not true.
The argument that it "belongs to them" doesn't work because they are making it public under copyright law. Copyright law protects their content AND allows fair use of it.
Software is copyrighted. A license agreement does not limit your rights under "copyright law," it enhances your rights beyond copyright law. Software vendors will argue otherwise, but more and more court cases are upholding copyright over EULAs.
If I purchase software, the ISV can not control what I do with it. I have a valid right to use the material, obtained legally and under the financial terms agreed upon by the copyright owner. When I am finished with it, I have a court confirmed right of first sale. I'm sure the court will confirm what we all know, that I can do with it as I please. As long as I do not make and distribute copies of it, I'm legit.
For instance, I can buy a painting from a painter. He may say, "under no circumstances are you to destroy this paining or sell it to anyone else," but once he sells it to me, I can do with it as I please. I can spray paint it, burn it, or sell it.
This quote, even if not an official policy of Microsoft is indicative of the monopolistic mindset of a tyrant.
There is *no* technological reason or justification to limit the number of applications that can be run. The *only* reason to even think of doing this is that if you are confident that no one can compete with you.
In a truly competitive environment, *NO* ISV could dare even think of this. The instant that you artificially limit your software, competition eats you up.
We, as an industry, REALLY REALLY need to nuke Microsoft. They are anti-customer (this), anti-worker (H1B), andi-freedom (DRM), and anti-competitive.
Verification in this case means probabilistically proving that the processor will make a certain number of errors, given certain conditions. Since you can make the error rate as low as you want (it could be lower than actual quantum events, for example) this isn't as bad as you might think.
Randomised approaches can make proofs simpler than deterministic versioins.
That sounds like typical "fuzzy" drivel. You can't establish any probabilistic base line for errors without an accurate proof.
This is sort of the difference between quantum physics and old-school physics for which Einstein's famous quote "God does not roll dice" originates.
I would argue that quantum physics as we currently know it will become more accurate as we continue to understand the realm which we have discovered. It is so different that our ape brain is a bit at a loss for a conceptual backdrop.
Similarly, abandoning "accuracy" in computing is a bad idea. A "good" engineer or scientist can estimate a number of things easily to lightly test viability of an idea, but must eventually prove the concept.
A computer and/or system that does not accurately process information and can, in fact, return non-identical answers for identical problems can not be trusted. Most computing involves many calculations, be it animation, banking, science, or what ever. Introducing little inaccuracies at each stage will multiply into larger inaccuracies.
Yes, something can be racist and funny at the same time.
To a racist bigot.
One of the kinds of people I hate most are those who will completely discount a valid viewpoint because it has one little thing they think is politically incorrect.
I'm pretty sure this is NOT one of these cases.
By the way, racism is an opinion held by someone you don't agree with.
No, "racism" is an expression of hate by sick and ignorant people.
Murder is an action that has a deleterious effect on another person. They aren't equivalent.
You've obviously not been on the receiving end of racism which, at times, ends in murder.
Take many sorting algorithms, for example - they really hate to compare values more than once, and if the result of a comparison is randomly wrong, just once, then the resulting array is not sorted correctly.
While I don't think the approach being discussed is a good idea, most sorting algorithms are merely concerned with = -1, 1, 0 respectively.