What Is the Issue in the Psystar Case?
Linked by Nescio on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:05 UTC
Apple Numerous irrelevant issues and feelings about them are ventilated in comments on the case. However, there are only two important issues. One is what the law is, the other is what we think the law should be.
E-mail Print r 12   · Read More · 113 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/ga8
Thread beginning with comment 352348
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Uhm...
by rhavyn on Mon 9th Mar 2009 22:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Uhm..."
rhavyn
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Whether the license grants or removes rights is completely immaterial, the concept is respecting the license. If you feel that you have a right to infringe on Apple license, regardless of the reason, then you should have no qualms about someone else infringing on the GPL, regardless of the reason.

Actually, if the Apple license falls under copyright misuse, then Apple is prevented from enforcing it until they take care of the misuse. "

And if the sun goes supernova tomorrow then we're all dead. Problem is, the chances of either happening are essentially zero. Or, you can actually give a coherant argument as to why there is even a hair's breadth chance of Apple's license falling into the category of copyright misuse when there is already court precedent on these very issues?

"Finally, you're going to have to do a lot more than simply state that Apple's EULA in some way harms consumers. I'm afraid that your opinion carries no weight with me or many other people on this planet. Such comments sound more like hyperbole attempting to appeal to fear than a rational, coherent argument.

Limited monopolies, enforced through the abuse of copyright, can do nothing but harm the market. Competition is known to improve the market, not allowing it hurts the market.
You tell me, how does Apple EULA _help_ consumers? By limiting their choice of hardware to one? "

I'm afraid you've lost me. How is their hardware choice limited to one? Did every other hardware manufacturer suddenly go out of business? Oh, wait, you mean every manufacturer who includes OS X. Well, yes, there is only one of those. As there was only one manufacturer of Palm OS devices. For all intents and purposes there is only one manufacturer of Tivo products. Only one manufacturer of Playstations, Xboxes, Wiis. I guess we better start forcing Microsoft and Sony to start cross licensing their consoles so there is some competition.

So here's some advice if you decide to respond. First, I don't need to prove that their EULA helps consumers since I never made that assertion. The lack of harm does not indicate the creation of help. Second, you need to dissassociate with this idea that just because you want something in a different packaging the manufacturer is obligated to provide it. As I've given half a dozen products that you can only get from a single provider you need to prove that somehow that is causing harm in the market, even when there is credible competition between different products in the same market (i.e. computers with OS X versus computers with Windows, the different game consoles, Tivo versus other DVR makers, Palm OS versus other handheld OSes).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Uhm...
by Moulinneuf on Tue 10th Mar 2009 00:47 in reply to "RE[5]: Uhm..."
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Better yet , let reality and the judge repsond :

"In an order signed on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup gave Psystar the go-ahead to amend its lawsuit against Apple. According to Alsup, Psystar may change that countersuit, which originally accused Apple of breaking antitrust laws, to instead ague that Apple has stretched copyright laws by tying the Mac operating system to its hardware."

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleB.....

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Uhm...
by gcbirzan on Tue 10th Mar 2009 00:52 in reply to "RE[5]: Uhm..."
gcbirzan Member since:
2009-03-09

"[q]Whether the license grants or removes rights is completely immaterial, the concept is respecting the license. If you feel that you have a right to infringe on Apple license, regardless of the reason, then you should have no qualms about someone else infringing on the GPL, regardless of the reason.

Actually, if the Apple license falls under copyright misuse, then Apple is prevented from enforcing it until they take care of the misuse. "

And if the sun goes supernova tomorrow then we're all dead. Problem is, the chances of either happening are essentially zero. Or, you can actually give a coherant argument as to why there is even a hair's breadth chance of Apple's license falling into the category of copyright misuse when there is already court precedent on these very issues? [/q]
I'll bite. I've given you my precedent. Where's yours? I had given it two pages ago, but you ignored it. I explained it in my previous post again.

I'm afraid you've lost me. How is their hardware choice limited to one? Did every other hardware manufacturer suddenly go out of business? Oh, wait, you mean every manufacturer who includes OS X. Well, yes, there is only one of those. As there was only one manufacturer of Palm OS devices. For all intents and purposes there is only one manufacturer of Tivo products. Only one manufacturer of Playstations, Xboxes, Wiis. I guess we better start forcing Microsoft and Sony to start cross licensing their consoles so there is some competition.

Does Palm sell the OS separately? Does Sony, MS or Nintendo sell the operating system of those consoles separately from the hardware? Not as far as I know. Then why in God's name would you bring it up?
So here's some advice if you decide to respond. First, I don't need to prove that their EULA helps consumers since I never made that assertion. The lack of harm does not indicate the creation of help.

Fair enough. But I thought that you had such a view. My bad if you do not.
Second, you need to dissassociate with this idea that just because you want something in a different packaging the manufacturer is obligated to provide it. As I've given half a dozen products that you can only get from a single provider you need to prove that somehow that is causing harm in the market, even when there is credible competition between different products in the same market (i.e. computers with OS X versus computers with Windows, the different game consoles, Tivo versus other DVR makers, Palm OS versus other handheld OSes).

As I said, since Apple is selling the OS separately, that means it already provides it in a different packaging. If you want not to sell it except bundled with the hardware, that's fine. Selling it separately and then saying "oh, but, wait, you can't use it except with our hardware" is not.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Uhm...
by MobyTurbo on Tue 10th Mar 2009 07:04 in reply to "RE[5]: Uhm..."
MobyTurbo Member since:
2005-07-08

Although I'm on Apple's side on this issue, your facts are wrong: Palm OS was not only on many devices, legally, Palm spun it off into a separate company and that company sold it to other Palm OS device makers.

Remember the Sony Clie, the Handspring Visor, and numerous other PDAs that used the Palm OS? (You don't? That's because you're a whippersnapper. ;-) ) The only reason why you only see Palm making them now is because the PDA market dried up, making everyone leave except Palm in the Palm OS PDA market, and nobody else was interested in making phones with it. (Though the first PalmOS phones were also not made by Palm, but a small company that no longer makes such phones to my knowledge.)

Reply Parent Score: 1