I liked the days of the nice legal analysis of the SCO time by GrokLaw. Now it has become a front for PJ's baseless and rambling anti-MS rants. In short, PJ has turned into a troll.
And to run it, you need to make another copy... or so the Apple lawyers are claiming. Hence, the license makes you a copyright infringer if you run it. This is simlar to the Safari for Windows coming with the clause that it can run only on a Apple labeled computer. They pulled that back quick.
As I have posted before, what's to stop Apple from successfully claiming that their customers are making modifications(and hence derivative copies) to the OS by installing programs and drivers and then making an unauthorized copy by booting it? Even if the changes you make on your hard drive doesn't make it unauthorized, their EULA says only one copy is allowed.
From Apple's EULA:
A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Ugrade License for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.
The Supreme Court doesn't write the law. Merely interprets it. The case you mentioned is a precedent, but precedents are for guidance only. Judges can(and do) ignore precedents. So saying that Psystar is 100% wrong is... wait for it..100% wrong.
No it doesn't. That only deals with people's rights to resell their software package (media and license.) It doesn;t allow Psystar to make a modified version of OSX to load onto their PCs.
Is installing drivers or programs or user files by Apple customers not 'modifying' the OS? And they boot it, doesn't it make an unauthorized copy in the RAM?
As I have posted before, what's to stop Apple from successfully claiming that their customers are making modifications(and hence derivative copies) to the OS by installing programs and drivers and then making an unauthorized copy by booting it? Their EULA says only one copy is allowed.
From Apple's EULA:
A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Ugrade License for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.
The real question is what's to stop Apple from successfully claiming that their customers are making modifications by installing programs and drivers and then making an unauthorized copy by booting it? Their EULA says only one copy is allowed.
From Apple's EULA:
A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Ugrade License for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or [...]"
That seems to apply to the owner of a copy. But the Apple agreement says:
1. General. The Apple software (including Boot ROM code), any third party software, documentation, interfaces, content, fonts and any data accompanying this License whether preinstalled on Apple-branded hardware, on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the “Apple Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) for use only under the terms of this License. Apple and/or Apple’s licensors retain ownership of the Apple Software itself and reserve all rights not expressly granted to you. The terms of this License will govern any software upgrades provided by Apple that replace and/or supplement the original Apple Software product, unless such upgrade is accompanied by a separate license in which case the terms of that license will govern.
Maybe their argument will be that Section 117 doesn't apply because it's not an owner of a copy but a licensee?
I agree, "unauthorized copy" is the key concept here.
I hate how slashdot posts these half baked articles.
What is this, the Drudge Report?
The unauthorized copy claim is already covered in the first two copies claims that Apple made. This is about an additional one that Apple claims that happens when the computer is booted.
This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy. End-users are granted a license to do so, and here Pystar doesn't have such a license. Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.
Really? From their Snow Leopard EULA:
A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Ugrade License for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.
Looks like Apple doesn't grant you a license to make another copy(as they argue you do by booting). If Apple wins this, can they successfully sue their customers for making unauthorized copies when the computer boots?
Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?
I think what they are saying is that everytime you run an unauthorized copy of a program, you infringe its copyright.
No, what they're clearly saying from their brief is that you're making an additional copy of the program by loading it into RAM. If Apple wins can MS successfully sue it's customers for having two copies of Windows or Office but license for only one?
Groklaw and PJ seem to have turned the site into a slanted conspiracy site. She was insinuating that MS could be likely behind Psystar(why would MS risk invalidating EULAs on which their cash cows thrive?). Even in this article, PJ doesn't seem to defend the freedoms that she seems to hold dear in her Linux vs. SCO articles. Infact she seems to hold the DMCA dear and Groklaw has gone from giving a nice objective look at things to becoming like BoycottNovell, which is another site operating on anti-MS-at-all-costs grounds. She even fails to highlight the egregious abuse of copyright law that Apple is trying here which would ruin freedom to even run a program without paying for double licences. In fact she appears to side with Apple on this.
The last link in TFS itself shows that Gates is seriously interested in technology and was intimate with the detailed intricacies of atleast MS Excel, if not all of MS's product suite. Which non-geek would care to read 500 pages of specs if they're not interested in technology and don't have to answer to their boss? Not to mention realizing that date functions would need special handling in VBA.
MS missing the internet boat has nothing to do with this. Technologists make mistakes all the time, all the more so because they tend to be more opinionated than others. Contrast missing the boat with the internet with licensing the Windows OS to Compaq making IBM clones. That was a brilliant move that we're all reaping rewards till today. Even Apple switched to x86 hardware.
Windows is so successful because it's the OS for the pathetic masses without own opinions and extremely weak realities. Those who prefer to live their lives in a walking daze, voting whoever "others" would vote for (meaning: what the media tells them is the top candidate), preferring comfort over every other thing in their life. Over freedom. Over wealth. Over everything. Yelling "Hey, stop being so loud. You're disturbing my comfy TV session." to the guy who just bleeds to death, crying for help.
Or maybe because people just want to listen to music while watching videos without first learning how to compile OSS4 into the kernel because PulseAudio sucks ass? Or maybe because there's no software out there(free or paid) that has as many features as MS Office? . Most of the true nerds that don't rabidly hate MS have already left this place. Write a post that doesn't lambast against MS and get hit for DAYS afterward, with overrated, flamebait and troll mods by people who need to defend their OS choice at all costs.
If the rest are anything like dell and newegg, they go down on a daily basis.
Really, is that all what you have to say? Those two sites are stable for me and I built my current machine from newegg. Citation needed or you're just spewing BS.
And Java never has failures, right? See friendster.
So, what was Friendster based on, initially? Java. Friendster was run entirely on Java, handling all aspects of its systems, and as it grew, it simply could not scale up. The unofficial tale from troutgirl was that they’re Java setup couldn’t scale. More to the point, if she is to be believed (any why wouldn’t she be believed?) Friendster called in a number of ‘big guns’ in the Java world, tried a number of options to increase the performance, and nothing could handle their load. Could they just have upped the hardware? Possibly. But that skirts around the conclusion that using Java as a front-end website platform is probably not a good idea. Yes, it’s one example, and I’m sure people could provide me counter examples. The fact that most sites don’t publish much of their technical details makes comparisons difficult, but hey, it’s my blog here so I’m drawing this conclusion.
So it was recently switched. Whats your point? Why nitpick on one site instead of getting the essence of the post? Oh, I guess you have nothing to say about my actual point so you pull ad hominem on me.
Maybe you should tell those sites that.NET is a unproven technology? Or will you try to argue that these are not huge enterprise apps? Just because you want something to be true(or maybe you were just karma whoring) doesn't make it true. C# is a better language than Java, though each one has it's strengths. And even conceding your point(I don't) that Java is faster, speed is not everything. Or we would all be coding in assembly or machine code.
Re:There is little to suggest Gates knows technolo
on
Microsoft's Lost Decade
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Hey! Stop interfering with the revisionist history! Next you will complain about the Gates Borg Icon and the Broken Windows icon for stories.
Slashdot Mirror
I liked the days of the nice legal analysis of the SCO time by GrokLaw. Now it has become a front for PJ's baseless and rambling anti-MS rants. In short, PJ has turned into a troll.
From a post above:
This patent was filed more than four years ago, in April of 2005. This filing predates Red Hat's announcement of PolicyKit by about a year.
From a comment above:
This patent was filed more than four years ago, in April of 2005. This filing predates Red Hat's announcement of PolicyKit by about a year.
And to run it, you need to make another copy... or so the Apple lawyers are claiming. Hence, the license makes you a copyright infringer if you run it. This is simlar to the Safari for Windows coming with the clause that it can run only on a Apple labeled computer. They pulled that back quick.
I still maintain it, you have nothing logical to say about the gist of my original post.
My signature is meant to be funny. Reread it. I mostly use Google. Not my fault if you're humor impaired.
As I have posted before, what's to stop Apple from successfully claiming that their customers are making modifications(and hence derivative copies) to the OS by installing programs and drivers and then making an unauthorized copy by booting it? Even if the changes you make on your hard drive doesn't make it unauthorized, their EULA says only one copy is allowed.
From Apple's EULA:
A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Ugrade License for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.
The Supreme Court doesn't write the law. Merely interprets it. The case you mentioned is a precedent, but precedents are for guidance only. Judges can(and do) ignore precedents. So saying that Psystar is 100% wrong is... wait for it..100% wrong.
No it doesn't. That only deals with people's rights to resell their software package (media and license.) It doesn;t allow Psystar to make a modified version of OSX to load onto their PCs.
Is installing drivers or programs or user files by Apple customers not 'modifying' the OS? And they boot it, doesn't it make an unauthorized copy in the RAM?
Apple already considers them unauthorized.
Yup, it's pretty hard for a fruit or a voiceless entity to make an argument.
As long as their attorneys are authorized by Apple to represent them in court, I think it can be said that Apple's making that argument in court.
And yes, it's the submitter here.
As I have posted before, what's to stop Apple from successfully claiming that their customers are making modifications(and hence derivative copies) to the OS by installing programs and drivers and then making an unauthorized copy by booting it? Their EULA says only one copy is allowed.
From Apple's EULA:
A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Ugrade License for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.
You don't read or agree to the contract before you buy it. Thus it might be unenforceable, atleast in some jurisdictions.
The real question is what's to stop Apple from successfully claiming that their customers are making modifications by installing programs and drivers and then making an unauthorized copy by booting it? Their EULA says only one copy is allowed.
From Apple's EULA:
A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Ugrade License for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.
However, the section 117 exception gives a specific reason that the software might be allowed to be altered. Take a look (from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html ):
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or [...]"
That seems to apply to the owner of a copy. But the Apple agreement says:
1. General. The Apple software (including Boot ROM code), any third party software, documentation, interfaces, content, fonts and any data accompanying this
License whether preinstalled on Apple-branded hardware, on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the “Apple
Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) for use only under the terms of this License. Apple and/or Apple’s licensors retain ownership of
the Apple Software itself and reserve all rights not expressly granted to you. The terms of this License will govern any software upgrades provided by Apple that
replace and/or supplement the original Apple Software product, unless such upgrade is accompanied by a separate license in which case the terms of that license
will govern.
Maybe their argument will be that Section 117 doesn't apply because it's not an owner of a copy but a licensee?
I agree, "unauthorized copy" is the key concept here.
I hate how slashdot posts these half baked articles.
What is this, the Drudge Report?
The unauthorized copy claim is already covered in the first two copies claims that Apple made. This is about an additional one that Apple claims that happens when the computer is booted.
This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy. End-users are granted a license to do so, and here Pystar doesn't have such a license. Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.
Really? From their Snow Leopard EULA:
A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Ugrade License for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.
Looks like Apple doesn't grant you a license to make another copy(as they argue you do by booting). If Apple wins this, can they successfully sue their customers for making unauthorized copies when the computer boots?
Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?
I think what they are saying is that everytime you run an unauthorized copy of a program, you infringe its copyright.
No, what they're clearly saying from their brief is that you're making an additional copy of the program by loading it into RAM. If Apple wins can MS successfully sue it's customers for having two copies of Windows or Office but license for only one?
Groklaw and PJ seem to have turned the site into a slanted conspiracy site. She was insinuating that MS could be likely behind Psystar(why would MS risk invalidating EULAs on which their cash cows thrive?). Even in this article, PJ doesn't seem to defend the freedoms that she seems to hold dear in her Linux vs. SCO articles. Infact she seems to hold the DMCA dear and Groklaw has gone from giving a nice objective look at things to becoming like BoycottNovell, which is another site operating on anti-MS-at-all-costs grounds. She even fails to highlight the egregious abuse of copyright law that Apple is trying here which would ruin freedom to even run a program without paying for double licences. In fact she appears to side with Apple on this.
The TCP/IP stack has apparently been re-written - but a lot of BSD still persists in Windows.
Care to back that up? AFAIK, only a few programs like FTP etc. had code from BSD. That doesn't qualify as a lot.
The last link in TFS itself shows that Gates is seriously interested in technology and was intimate with the detailed intricacies of atleast MS Excel, if not all of MS's product suite. Which non-geek would care to read 500 pages of specs if they're not interested in technology and don't have to answer to their boss? Not to mention realizing that date functions would need special handling in VBA.
MS missing the internet boat has nothing to do with this. Technologists make mistakes all the time, all the more so because they tend to be more opinionated than others. Contrast missing the boat with the internet with licensing the Windows OS to Compaq making IBM clones. That was a brilliant move that we're all reaping rewards till today. Even Apple switched to x86 hardware.
Windows is so successful because it's the OS for the pathetic masses without own opinions and extremely weak realities. Those who prefer to live their lives in a walking daze, voting whoever "others" would vote for (meaning: what the media tells them is the top candidate), preferring comfort over every other thing in their life. Over freedom. Over wealth. Over everything. Yelling "Hey, stop being so loud. You're disturbing my comfy TV session." to the guy who just bleeds to death, crying for help.
Or maybe because people just want to listen to music while watching videos without first learning how to compile OSS4 into the kernel because PulseAudio sucks ass? Or maybe because there's no software out there(free or paid) that has as many features as MS Office? . Most of the true nerds that don't rabidly hate MS have already left this place. Write a post that doesn't lambast against MS and get hit for DAYS afterward, with overrated, flamebait and troll mods by people who need to defend their OS choice at all costs.
If the rest are anything like dell and newegg, they go down on a daily basis.
Really, is that all what you have to say? Those two sites are stable for me and I built my current machine from newegg. Citation needed or you're just spewing BS.
And Java never has failures, right? See friendster.
http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/failure-of-java-in-the-marketplace/
So, what was Friendster based on, initially? Java. Friendster was run entirely on Java, handling all aspects of its systems, and as it grew, it simply could not scale up. The unofficial tale from troutgirl was that they’re Java setup couldn’t scale. More to the point, if she is to be believed (any why wouldn’t she be believed?) Friendster called in a number of ‘big guns’ in the Java world, tried a number of options to increase the performance, and nothing could handle their load. Could they just have upped the hardware? Possibly. But that skirts around the conclusion that using Java as a front-end website platform is probably not a good idea. Yes, it’s one example, and I’m sure people could provide me counter examples. The fact that most sites don’t publish much of their technical details makes comparisons difficult, but hey, it’s my blog here so I’m drawing this conclusion.
So it was recently switched. Whats your point? Why nitpick on one site instead of getting the essence of the post? Oh, I guess you have nothing to say about my actual point so you pull ad hominem on me.
I personally run/have run many huge enterprise apps on .NET. It's actually a pretty good platform if you know what you're doing.
Don't take my word for it, though.
When I googled for what you asked to google, I found this list of sites running ASP.NET.
Costco - http://www.costco.com/
Crate & Barrel - http://www.crateandbarrel.com/
Home Shopping Network - http://www.hsn.com/
Buy.com - http://www.buy.com/
Dell - http://www.dell.com/
Nasdaq - http://www.nasdaq.com/
Virgin - http://www.virgin.com/
7-Eleven - http://www.7-eleven.com/
Carnival Cruise Lines - http://www.carnival.com/
L'Oreal - http://www.loreal.com/
The White House - http://www.whitehouse.gov/
Remax - http://www.remax.com/
Monster Jobs - http://www.monster.com/
USA Today - http://www.usatoday.com/
ComputerJobs.com - http://computerjobs.com/
Match.com - http://www.match.com/
National Health Services (UK) - http://www.nhs.uk/
CarrerBuilder.com - http://www.careerbuilder.com/
Newegg http://newegg.com/
Geico http://geico.com/
Capital One http://capitalone.com/
Zecco http://zecco.com/
Maybe you should tell those sites that .NET is a unproven technology? Or will you try to argue that these are not huge enterprise apps? Just because you want something to be true(or maybe you were just karma whoring) doesn't make it true. C# is a better language than Java, though each one has it's strengths. And even conceding your point(I don't) that Java is faster, speed is not everything. Or we would all be coding in assembly or machine code.
Hey! Stop interfering with the revisionist history! Next you will complain about the Gates Borg Icon and the Broken Windows icon for stories.