"Problem is, someone else is enjoying their licensed copy of your old CD. "
A thief who steals my CDs doesn't _own_ them. He has no right at all to listen to the music on them. Therefore, he is guilty both of theft and of copyright infringement.
Just because I can duplicate a CD doesn't mean I have duplicated the right to listen to the music. Turn this argument around: Just because someone stole my physical CD doesn't mean I've lost the right to listen to the music.
"I don't think I'm stealing anything whatsoever by downloading replacement copies of CDs I used to own. I'm not sure I am even guilty of copyright infringement. I used to have a right to play all that music, whenever I pleased. Was that right somehow erased when my car was broken into?"
When you make a duplicate of a CD, you duplicate the actual CD, but you cannot duplicate the right to listen to the music on it. In the same way, the thief took away your physical CDs, but he could not take away the right to listen to the music. In principle, if the RIAA could prove that the thief listened to your CDs, they could sue him for copyright infringement.
So downloading the music to replace your ability to actually hear the music which you have the right to hear is definitely morally acceptable, and should be legal - you might end up in a court case, however, and have to _prove_ that it is legal. Which might be difficult.
This one is more difficult: If you had 100 CDs, they were stolen, insurance pays to replace the CDs, you download your 100 CDs and use the money to buy 100 different ones.
"Sure you can photocopy the book and give the photocopy to a friend, but this requires work and there is quality degradation. With music, the work to copy albums is almost nothing at all, and there for most people, any quality degradation is acceptable. "
Having just started to turn my LPs into digital form, I can assure you that the work to copy albums is most definitely NOT almost nothing at all.
As has been explained at great lengths on groklaw, you are absolutely free for example to make a Linux distribution named "Knoppix" without having to pay anything, and obviously you are allowed to say "Knoppix is a Linux (R) distribution. Linux (R) is a registered trademark of the owner of the Linux trademark."
You are not allowed to create a distribution and call it "Knoppix Linux" without paying for the trademark. And Microsoft is not allowed to distribute "Microsoft Linux" without paying for the trademark. And once Linux takes over the computing world, Microsoft will not be allowed to rename "Vista" to "Linux" and distribute it as "Microsoft Linux" at all, in order to retain a tiny bit of market share, because Linus can refuse to let anyone use "Linux" in a product name if it isn't Linux what they are selling.
"Why? If I want to hack it apart and make it run on my Dell, that's too bad for Apple. They can say "Only for use on Apple computers!" till they're blue in the face, but that doesn't mean I have to listen to them."
So what are you going to do? You are buying a Macintosh, then you buy a Dell, uninstall MacOS X on the Macintosh, uninstall Windows on the Dell, install MacOS X on the Dell, and install Windows on the Macintosh? That may be legal, depending on where you live and what laws apply, but why would you want to do that?
Installing MacOS X on the Dell while leaving it installed on the Macintosh would be a clear copyright violation.
My theory is that Gates and Ballmer are right now deeply unhappy that this whole story is complete crap and has nothing to do with reality.
Microsoft has applied for their patent in 2002. If this patent gave them any rights over the iPod, they would have done something ages ago. They wouldn't have waited for some Apple patent being rejected.
Maybe this needs a little bit of explanation: The Microsoft patent either covers the iPod or it doesn't. If it doesn't cover the iPod, there is nothing Microsoft can do. If it covers the iPod, then it doesn't matter whatsoever what patents Apple has or has not. Therefore, Apples patent being rejected is completely irrelevant to any claims that Microsoft might or might not have against Apple.
According to a groklaw article, the Apple patent was rejected, because the Microsoft quotes an example how their patent could be used, and one of Apple's claims is exactly that example. Which means Apple's claim was obvious and therefore the patent was rejected.
On the other hand, since that claim was obvious, everyone can use it freely. (There are many more claims which are not obvious).
Example: If I had invented a powerful petrol engine 130 years ago, and in the patent I had written "for example, this kind of engine would be useful to build a horse carriage without need for a horse, or it could be attached to a bicycle to drive the bicycle at high speed", then I wouldn't have a patent for the motor car and the motorbike, but nobody else could patent them because they were obvious!
"Actually, that's exactly how first-to-file works. Say you invent X, but you haven't patented it yet. Someone else can claim to have inveted X and file. Then, becuase they were first to file, they have the rights, not you. Scary eh?"
Not at all. They can't just "claim" to have invented X first. Either they invented it independently, and filed for a patent, while you kept it secret. Tough for you, but not their fault.
Or they got the idea for X from you. Either they received it under NDA, in which case they are in breach of the NDA, and you can sue them for damages; losing the patent is one of the damages, so you get that. Or they used industrial espionage: Even worse for them. Or they just filed a patent for something in one of your products: They lost. The product is prior art. And when you sue them, they will have to play court cost plus your lawyers, so there won't be much of a fight.
Guys, if you check out the facts for this crazy story, then this is what you will find:
1. Apple applied for some iPod related patents. They don't need these patents to build the iPod, they just want these patents to prevent others from copying parts of the iPod.
2. The patent examiner found that one of the claims in Apple's patent application is covered by a Microsoft patent. Therefore Apple can't get its patent.
3. The Microsoft patent has nothing to do whatsoever with the iPod. Only one claim in their patent is the same as one claim in a patent that Apple tries to get. All that Apple needs to do is remove that claim, reapply, get the patent.
4. There is no reason to assume that the iPod itself relies on this one specific claims and therefore would be covered by the Microsoft patent. In any case, the iPod was built _before_ Microsoft made its invention, so even if it was covered by the patent, Microsoft would have some problem. (Patent examiner: So where is the prior art? Apple: We built and sold one million of them. Is that enough prior art? )
5. There is a patent exchange agreement between Microsoft and Apple that was still running when Microsoft got their patent.
"Personally if I find out this is a solid platform on white boxes, I'm going to purchase a copy for my home PC and possibly my office laptop."
There will be no MacOS X 10.4 for Intel for sale. Ever. The only way to get your hands on it legally will be by buying an Intel Macintosh.
When MacOS X 10.5 is released, the only Intel versions will have UPGRADE written on the box in extra big letters. The only way to run it legally will be to install it on a computer that has an older version of MacOS X legally installed - which will be an Intel Macintosh.
Maybe Apple will release a full, non-upgrade version of MacOS X. But that will cost you more than the $129 that you pay for the MacOS X 10.4 upgrade for PowerPC Macintoshes. My guess is $399.
"But you sold away that right in exchange from a large advance from Sony. You can't have it both ways. You can have your freedom or you can take the corporate dollar."
I would assume that by refusing to sell an artists records on iTMS, a record company would be neglecting their duty to promote sales of the artist. There is a company (Apple) willing to sell an artist's records and pay money to Sony, which would then have to pass a tiny amount on to the artist. Sony refuses. Quite likely Sony is in breach of a contract.
"Does anyone else see the terrible, terrible irony here? If they held their logic true, they should be protesting the guilty verdict, since it obviously wasn't his fault, the video games did it. "
Incorrect. There are a few people around who are evil bastards, but not quite evil enough to kill people, just close to the border. One of those could be put over the edge by playing a violent video game (if it is indeed the case that video games make people more violent). This can be no excuse for the killer, but if the murder was caused by the combination of two things (person who is almost a killer + violent video game) then it is quite reasonable to sue both for damages, or only the one party that will have money to pay.
"No, insurance companies are there for the unknown, not against risk per say."
And you are just eating the propaganda of the insurance companies. I don't take out insurance against risks, I take out insurance against the possibility of having to pay out money that I cannot afford to pay myself. If I get a medical condition that makes it impossible for me to work, I want someone to pay, whether that medical condition is the result of an accident or a result of my genetic material. That is why I pay for insurance.
"I seem to recall a court case (that made it onto Law and Order [but I'm pretty sure it was a real court case first]) where someone tried to argue "not guilty by reason of a genetic predisposition towards X". The judge threw out that line of defence."
If I was the judge, you would be very careful coming up with an excuse like that. A major reason for getting people into court and convicting that is the hope that they learn from the punishment and don't do it again. If you are "genetically predisposed" for example to steal cars or molest children, then I would say that you shouldn't be put into jail, but suitable measures should be taken so that you can't commit these crimes again. Like locking you up in a padded cell forever, if that is the only thing that keeps you from commiting a crime, but not in a prison.
"Right on... I got the 1710ML for under $100 and have been happy with it so far. However, it's kind of a laser printer with the inkjet business model -- it comes with a "starter" toner that is only good for 1500 pages or so, then you get to buy expensive toner cartridges that are good for 3000-5000 pages (I think)"
In principle, that is correct. However, I bought a similar Samsung printer about 18 months ago. It has been in storage at some time for three weeks; I attached it to the computer, printed a page and it just printed. I know that the Canon inkjet printer that I threw away would have needed new cartridges at that point.
I just started the second pack of 500 pages of copier paper (probably saved £10 on the paper alone because it is cheap photocopier paper), and for my needs this printer will print at least for one or two more years. And it just prints, no cleaning, no new cartridges, just works.
For home users who print a few pages from time to time, these cheap Samsung printers are absolutely excellent. For £50 I expect to print everything I need for about three years. When the cartridge is empty, I'll have to decide if I want a new, better printer with another 1000 page cartridge, or my old printer with a 3000 page cartridge, both for about the same price.
Actually, the starter cartridge might last so long that they don't make that cartridge anymore when it runs out!
"I can't believe you snitched on your friend. I consider betraying your friends trust to be worse than his fraud. "
In Britain, there is a phone number that you can call if you want to snitch anyone to the police anonymously. According to police statistics, the calls are divided rather equally in three categories:
1. Crooks trying to get rid of the competition. 2. Friends and relatives who snitch on a small crook to avoid him becoming a big crook. 3. Concerned citizens.
There's a good chance that the guy learned a lesson and was stopped from a life of crime. And involving a friend in your crime is a nasty thing to do. If you steal, don't tell your friends. If you steal and your friends find out, you give them the choice of becoming accomplice to a crime or ratting on you.
Oh, the other statistics is that statistically, those people who say that snitching is worse than committing the crime, are most likely to snitch on you if it is to their advantage.
"Wow - so regardless that the dev kits contain the code and the mobo's contain the chip, an anonymous developer said they don't have them?
Well obviously the anonymous developer must be right; after all - who can argue with anonimity?"
I am quite sure that everybody who claimed to have seen some chip on an Apple devkit machine has done so anonymously, and so has anybody who claimed to have taken a photo of an Apple devkit motherboard. Because if they put their name to it, Apple will jump on them so hard that they never recover.
So for all we know, the guys who claim to have seen any DRM chip could be complete idiots who have never been anywhere near an Intel Mac. In any case, they are in breach of an NDA, therefore not trustworthy. If they breach their contract with Apple, what makes you think they would tell _you_ the truth?
"Mac users aren't smart enough to DIY their own computers, who knew they could buy non-Mac mice?"
Building your own computer takes about an IQ of 90. Pick a case, a motherboard, a processor, a harddisk, RAM, optical drive, graphics card, keyboard, mouse, monitor, take your screw driver, and done.
People with an IQ of 110 add up the prices and notice that a ready-built computer is cheaper.
People with an IQ of 120+ figure out that they want to use a computer, not maintain it, so they get a Mac.
"This article taught me one important thing. There are people who actually PREFER a single button mouse. This is totally news to me.
Really, what's the argument for one mouse button over two? "
Instead of having a "left button" and a "right button" (two different actions) you have a "button" plus a huge combination of modifier keys (command key, option key, control key, shift key). Much easier.
Actually, the Apple Pro Mouse doesn't have a button at all; you put your hand on it and "will" it down to click. There is no conscious brain activity involved at all; like with an experienced driver who doesn't step on the accelerator and brake pedals, he just thinks "faster" and "slower" and it happens.
Left + Right click takes much more of a conscious effort. There is no reason why "left" should do one thing and "right" should do another. There _is_ a reason why modifier keys modify the behavior of a mouseclick.
Actually, Apple's solution before yesterday was to offer EIGHTEEN different mice (or is it mouses? ) from other manufacturers at www.apple.com/store. Plus two Apple single button mice, and now one Apple multi-button mouse.
You could always USE a multi-button mouse with a Macintosh. You could always BUY a multi-button mouse from Apple. The only difference now is that you can buy an Apple-labeled multi-button mouse.
"No feedback on your fingers is not a good thing when you are not experienced. It is exhausting to constantly check the sound of the click."
You have never tried the Apple zero button mouse, have you? People may be shocked initially to see no button, then you tell them "just use it!" and they use it. There is feedback. You don't know _how_ you pressed it (unless you very consciously observe what is happening), however you know _that_ you pressed it, you _know_ when you are holding it down, you _know_ when you release it.
I have never seen anybody who had the slightest problem using it. To those who think it is not intuitive: It is. Just put your hand on the mouse and use it.
"You've been drinking too much of the Koolaid. More pirates will run MacOS under Windows than people legally running MacOS on Apple hardware. That's my prediction. You apparently disagree. We'll see who's right in a few years."
You forget that Apple has an enormous advantage against Microsoft here: If you install for example the same version of Windows XP on ten PCs, then each single installation on its own would have been legal (if you hadn't done the other nine installs), so it is hard for the software to see that you've done anything you shouldn't. In the case of MacOS X, installing it on a non-Macintosh is _always_ illegal. So the next security update that you install could contain a check and disable MacOS X on your non-Apple computer. The next version of iTunes could contain a check. The operating system could erase itself twelve months after installation; that's what I would do. Or after twelve months, the web browser will only connect to the Apple Store website, where you can order a real Macintosh...
"It is very doubtful, at least in Europe, that an EULA forbidding one to run a purchased operating system on the hardware of one's choice will be legally enforceable. In general, the European competition legislation has prevented almost all post sale restrictions on use. The general position is, you buy it, you use it as you like."
This would allow you to buy an Intel Macintosh, delete MacOS X from the harddisk, install Linux on it, grab your old PC, delete Windows, and install MacOS X on it. If that is what you want to do, it may very well be legal in Europe. In other words, everybody can buy MacOS X for the price of $499 (price of the cheapest Mac Mini) plus you get a free Linux box.
However, you can bet that any newer retail versions of MacOS X that you can buy will be marked as UPGRADES and I am quite sure that you are not allowed to install an upgrade on a machine that doesn't have a previous version installed.
"But how would that violate copyright law in countries with more sane legislation, or even in the USA? Assuming, of course, that the person has bought a legal copy of OS X."
At the moment, anybody installing a copy of MacOS X 10.4 on a computer installs it on a computer that has already an Apple operating system installed. It may not say so on the box, but MacOS X 10.4 is effectively an upgrade. It doesn't check whether a previous version is there (and it actually will install onto an empty harddisk), but that is because Apple _knows_ you have already paid for some MacOS version.
You won't be able to buy MacOS X 10.4 for Intel separately, because every Intel Macintosh will ship with it. So you can't install 10.4 on a PC without making a copy which is illegal.
MacOS X 10.5 retail boxes will probably be clearly marked as "upgrades" which you are only allowed to install on Macintosh computers. Should Apple decide to make MacOS X available for generic PCs (and that is very unlikely), you should expect a much higher price than the $129 you pay for MacOS X 10.4, probably something like $299 or $399.
Slashdot Mirror
"Problem is, someone else is enjoying their licensed copy of your old CD. "
A thief who steals my CDs doesn't _own_ them. He has no right at all to listen to the music on them. Therefore, he is guilty both of theft and of copyright infringement.
Just because I can duplicate a CD doesn't mean I have duplicated the right to listen to the music. Turn this argument around: Just because someone stole my physical CD doesn't mean I've lost the right to listen to the music.
"I don't think I'm stealing anything whatsoever by downloading replacement copies of CDs I used to own. I'm not sure I am even guilty of copyright infringement. I used to have a right to play all that music, whenever I pleased. Was that right somehow erased when my car was broken into?"
When you make a duplicate of a CD, you duplicate the actual CD, but you cannot duplicate the right to listen to the music on it. In the same way, the thief took away your physical CDs, but he could not take away the right to listen to the music. In principle, if the RIAA could prove that the thief listened to your CDs, they could sue him for copyright infringement.
So downloading the music to replace your ability to actually hear the music which you have the right to hear is definitely morally acceptable, and should be legal - you might end up in a court case, however, and have to _prove_ that it is legal. Which might be difficult.
This one is more difficult: If you had 100 CDs, they were stolen, insurance pays to replace the CDs, you download your 100 CDs and use the money to buy 100 different ones.
"Sure you can photocopy the book and give the photocopy to a friend, but this requires work and there is quality degradation. With music, the work to copy albums is almost nothing at all, and there for most people, any quality degradation is acceptable. "
Having just started to turn my LPs into digital form, I can assure you that the work to copy albums is most definitely NOT almost nothing at all.
As has been explained at great lengths on groklaw, you are absolutely free for example to make a Linux distribution named "Knoppix" without having to pay anything, and obviously you are allowed to say "Knoppix is a Linux (R) distribution. Linux (R) is a registered trademark of the owner of the Linux trademark."
You are not allowed to create a distribution and call it "Knoppix Linux" without paying for the trademark. And Microsoft is not allowed to distribute "Microsoft Linux" without paying for the trademark. And once Linux takes over the computing world, Microsoft will not be allowed to rename "Vista" to "Linux" and distribute it as "Microsoft Linux" at all, in order to retain a tiny bit of market share, because Linus can refuse to let anyone use "Linux" in a product name if it isn't Linux what they are selling.
"Why? If I want to hack it apart and make it run on my Dell, that's too bad for Apple. They can say "Only for use on Apple computers!" till they're blue in the face, but that doesn't mean I have to listen to them."
So what are you going to do? You are buying a Macintosh, then you buy a Dell, uninstall MacOS X on the Macintosh, uninstall Windows on the Dell, install MacOS X on the Dell, and install Windows on the Macintosh? That may be legal, depending on where you live and what laws apply, but why would you want to do that?
Installing MacOS X on the Dell while leaving it installed on the Macintosh would be a clear copyright violation.
My theory is that Gates and Ballmer are right now deeply unhappy that this whole story is complete crap and has nothing to do with reality.
Microsoft has applied for their patent in 2002. If this patent gave them any rights over the iPod, they would have done something ages ago. They wouldn't have waited for some Apple patent being rejected.
Maybe this needs a little bit of explanation: The Microsoft patent either covers the iPod or it doesn't. If it doesn't cover the iPod, there is nothing Microsoft can do. If it covers the iPod, then it doesn't matter whatsoever what patents Apple has or has not. Therefore, Apples patent being rejected is completely irrelevant to any claims that Microsoft might or might not have against Apple.
According to a groklaw article, the Apple patent was rejected, because the Microsoft quotes an example how their patent could be used, and one of Apple's claims is exactly that example. Which means Apple's claim was obvious and therefore the patent was rejected.
On the other hand, since that claim was obvious, everyone can use it freely. (There are many more claims which are not obvious).
Example: If I had invented a powerful petrol engine 130 years ago, and in the patent I had written "for example, this kind of engine would be useful to build a horse carriage without need for a horse, or it could be attached to a bicycle to drive the bicycle at high speed", then I wouldn't have a patent for the motor car and the motorbike, but nobody else could patent them because they were obvious!
"Actually, that's exactly how first-to-file works. Say you invent X, but you haven't patented it yet. Someone else can claim to have inveted X and file. Then, becuase they were first to file, they have the rights, not you. Scary eh?"
Not at all. They can't just "claim" to have invented X first. Either they invented it independently, and filed for a patent, while you kept it secret. Tough for you, but not their fault.
Or they got the idea for X from you. Either they received it under NDA, in which case they are in breach of the NDA, and you can sue them for damages; losing the patent is one of the damages, so you get that. Or they used industrial espionage: Even worse for them. Or they just filed a patent for something in one of your products: They lost. The product is prior art. And when you sue them, they will have to play court cost plus your lawyers, so there won't be much of a fight.
Guys, if you check out the facts for this crazy story, then this is what you will find:
1. Apple applied for some iPod related patents. They don't need these patents to build the iPod, they just want these patents to prevent others from copying parts of the iPod.
2. The patent examiner found that one of the claims in Apple's patent application is covered by a Microsoft patent. Therefore Apple can't get its patent.
3. The Microsoft patent has nothing to do whatsoever with the iPod. Only one claim in their patent is the same as one claim in a patent that Apple tries to get. All that Apple needs to do is remove that claim, reapply, get the patent.
4. There is no reason to assume that the iPod itself relies on this one specific claims and therefore would be covered by the Microsoft patent. In any case, the iPod was built _before_ Microsoft made its invention, so even if it was covered by the patent, Microsoft would have some problem. (Patent examiner: So where is the prior art? Apple: We built and sold one million of them. Is that enough prior art? )
5. There is a patent exchange agreement between Microsoft and Apple that was still running when Microsoft got their patent.
"Personally if I find out this is a solid platform on white boxes, I'm going to purchase a copy for my home PC and possibly my office laptop."
There will be no MacOS X 10.4 for Intel for sale. Ever. The only way to get your hands on it legally will be by buying an Intel Macintosh.
When MacOS X 10.5 is released, the only Intel versions will have UPGRADE written on the box in extra big letters. The only way to run it legally will be to install it on a computer that has an older version of MacOS X legally installed - which will be an Intel Macintosh.
Maybe Apple will release a full, non-upgrade version of MacOS X. But that will cost you more than the $129 that you pay for the MacOS X 10.4 upgrade for PowerPC Macintoshes. My guess is $399.
"But you sold away that right in exchange from a large advance from Sony. You can't have it both ways. You can have your freedom or you can take the corporate dollar."
I would assume that by refusing to sell an artists records on iTMS, a record company would be neglecting their duty to promote sales of the artist. There is a company (Apple) willing to sell an artist's records and pay money to Sony, which would then have to pass a tiny amount on to the artist. Sony refuses. Quite likely Sony is in breach of a contract.
"Does anyone else see the terrible, terrible irony here? If they held their logic true, they should be protesting the guilty verdict, since it obviously wasn't his fault, the video games did it. " Incorrect. There are a few people around who are evil bastards, but not quite evil enough to kill people, just close to the border. One of those could be put over the edge by playing a violent video game (if it is indeed the case that video games make people more violent). This can be no excuse for the killer, but if the murder was caused by the combination of two things (person who is almost a killer + violent video game) then it is quite reasonable to sue both for damages, or only the one party that will have money to pay.
"No, insurance companies are there for the unknown, not against risk per say."
And you are just eating the propaganda of the insurance companies. I don't take out insurance against risks, I take out insurance against the possibility of having to pay out money that I cannot afford to pay myself. If I get a medical condition that makes it impossible for me to work, I want someone to pay, whether that medical condition is the result of an accident or a result of my genetic material. That is why I pay for insurance.
"I seem to recall a court case (that made it onto Law and Order [but I'm pretty sure it was a real court case first]) where someone tried to argue "not guilty by reason of a genetic predisposition towards X". The judge threw out that line of defence."
If I was the judge, you would be very careful coming up with an excuse like that. A major reason for getting people into court and convicting that is the hope that they learn from the punishment and don't do it again. If you are "genetically predisposed" for example to steal cars or molest children, then I would say that you shouldn't be put into jail, but suitable measures should be taken so that you can't commit these crimes again. Like locking you up in a padded cell forever, if that is the only thing that keeps you from commiting a crime, but not in a prison.
"Right on... I got the 1710ML for under $100 and have been happy with it so far. However, it's kind of a laser printer with the inkjet business model -- it comes with a "starter" toner that is only good for 1500 pages or so, then you get to buy expensive toner cartridges that are good for 3000-5000 pages (I think)"
In principle, that is correct. However, I bought a similar Samsung printer about 18 months ago. It has been in storage at some time for three weeks; I attached it to the computer, printed a page and it just printed. I know that the Canon inkjet printer that I threw away would have needed new cartridges at that point.
I just started the second pack of 500 pages of copier paper (probably saved £10 on the paper alone because it is cheap photocopier paper), and for my needs this printer will print at least for one or two more years. And it just prints, no cleaning, no new cartridges, just works.
For home users who print a few pages from time to time, these cheap Samsung printers are absolutely excellent. For £50 I expect to print everything I need for about three years. When the cartridge is empty, I'll have to decide if I want a new, better printer with another 1000 page cartridge, or my old printer with a 3000 page cartridge, both for about the same price.
Actually, the starter cartridge might last so long that they don't make that cartridge anymore when it runs out!
"I can't believe you snitched on your friend. I consider betraying your friends trust to be worse than his fraud. "
In Britain, there is a phone number that you can call if you want to snitch anyone to the police anonymously. According to police statistics, the calls are divided rather equally in three categories:
1. Crooks trying to get rid of the competition.
2. Friends and relatives who snitch on a small crook to avoid him becoming a big crook.
3. Concerned citizens.
There's a good chance that the guy learned a lesson and was stopped from a life of crime. And involving a friend in your crime is a nasty thing to do. If you steal, don't tell your friends. If you steal and your friends find out, you give them the choice of becoming accomplice to a crime or ratting on you.
Oh, the other statistics is that statistically, those people who say that snitching is worse than committing the crime, are most likely to snitch on you if it is to their advantage.
"So I'm moving along writing my book when the drm chip steps in and decides that my book is copyrighted by someone else. "
... "
:-;
That's the DRM way. Here's the Microsoft way:
"So I'm moving along writing my book when suddenly the computer goes beep beep beep
Longhorn will combine the worst of both ways
"Wow - so regardless that the dev kits contain the code and the mobo's contain the chip, an anonymous developer said they don't have them?
Well obviously the anonymous developer must be right; after all - who can argue with anonimity?"
I am quite sure that everybody who claimed to have seen some chip on an Apple devkit machine has done so anonymously, and so has anybody who claimed to have taken a photo of an Apple devkit motherboard. Because if they put their name to it, Apple will jump on them so hard that they never recover.
So for all we know, the guys who claim to have seen any DRM chip could be complete idiots who have never been anywhere near an Intel Mac. In any case, they are in breach of an NDA, therefore not trustworthy. If they breach their contract with Apple, what makes you think they would tell _you_ the truth?
"Mac users aren't smart enough to DIY their own computers, who knew they could buy non-Mac mice?"
Building your own computer takes about an IQ of 90. Pick a case, a motherboard, a processor, a harddisk, RAM, optical drive, graphics card, keyboard, mouse, monitor, take your screw driver, and done.
People with an IQ of 110 add up the prices and notice that a ready-built computer is cheaper.
People with an IQ of 120+ figure out that they want to use a computer, not maintain it, so they get a Mac.
"This article taught me one important thing. There are people who actually PREFER a single button mouse. This is totally news to me.
Really, what's the argument for one mouse button over two? "
Instead of having a "left button" and a "right button" (two different actions) you have a "button" plus a huge combination of modifier keys (command key, option key, control key, shift key). Much easier.
Actually, the Apple Pro Mouse doesn't have a button at all; you put your hand on it and "will" it down to click. There is no conscious brain activity involved at all; like with an experienced driver who doesn't step on the accelerator and brake pedals, he just thinks "faster" and "slower" and it happens.
Left + Right click takes much more of a conscious effort. There is no reason why "left" should do one thing and "right" should do another. There _is_ a reason why modifier keys modify the behavior of a mouseclick.
"G) ______type_your_own_solution_here______"
Actually, Apple's solution before yesterday was to offer EIGHTEEN different mice (or is it mouses? ) from other manufacturers at www.apple.com/store. Plus two Apple single button mice, and now one Apple multi-button mouse.
You could always USE a multi-button mouse with a Macintosh. You could always BUY a multi-button mouse from Apple. The only difference now is that you can buy an Apple-labeled multi-button mouse.
"No feedback on your fingers is not a good thing when you are not experienced.
It is exhausting to constantly check the sound of the click."
You have never tried the Apple zero button mouse, have you? People may be shocked initially to see no button, then you tell them "just use it!" and they use it. There is feedback. You don't know _how_ you pressed it (unless you very consciously observe what is happening), however you know _that_ you pressed it, you _know_ when you are holding it down, you _know_ when you release it.
I have never seen anybody who had the slightest problem using it. To those who think it is not intuitive: It is. Just put your hand on the mouse and use it.
"You've been drinking too much of the Koolaid. More pirates will run MacOS under Windows than people legally running MacOS on Apple hardware. That's my prediction. You apparently disagree. We'll see who's right in a few years."
You forget that Apple has an enormous advantage against Microsoft here: If you install for example the same version of Windows XP on ten PCs, then each single installation on its own would have been legal (if you hadn't done the other nine installs), so it is hard for the software to see that you've done anything you shouldn't. In the case of MacOS X, installing it on a non-Macintosh is _always_ illegal. So the next security update that you install could contain a check and disable MacOS X on your non-Apple computer. The next version of iTunes could contain a check. The operating system could erase itself twelve months after installation; that's what I would do. Or after twelve months, the web browser will only connect to the Apple Store website, where you can order a real Macintosh...
"It is very doubtful, at least in Europe, that an EULA forbidding one to run a purchased operating system on the hardware of one's choice will be legally enforceable. In general, the European competition legislation has prevented almost all post sale restrictions on use. The general position is, you buy it, you use it as you like."
This would allow you to buy an Intel Macintosh, delete MacOS X from the harddisk, install Linux on it, grab your old PC, delete Windows, and install MacOS X on it. If that is what you want to do, it may very well be legal in Europe. In other words, everybody can buy MacOS X for the price of $499 (price of the cheapest Mac Mini) plus you get a free Linux box.
However, you can bet that any newer retail versions of MacOS X that you can buy will be marked as UPGRADES and I am quite sure that you are not allowed to install an upgrade on a machine that doesn't have a previous version installed.
"But how would that violate copyright law in countries with more sane legislation, or even in the USA? Assuming, of course, that the person has bought a legal copy of OS X." At the moment, anybody installing a copy of MacOS X 10.4 on a computer installs it on a computer that has already an Apple operating system installed. It may not say so on the box, but MacOS X 10.4 is effectively an upgrade. It doesn't check whether a previous version is there (and it actually will install onto an empty harddisk), but that is because Apple _knows_ you have already paid for some MacOS version. You won't be able to buy MacOS X 10.4 for Intel separately, because every Intel Macintosh will ship with it. So you can't install 10.4 on a PC without making a copy which is illegal. MacOS X 10.5 retail boxes will probably be clearly marked as "upgrades" which you are only allowed to install on Macintosh computers. Should Apple decide to make MacOS X available for generic PCs (and that is very unlikely), you should expect a much higher price than the $129 you pay for MacOS X 10.4, probably something like $299 or $399.