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.
Thread beginning with comment 352469
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
tttm
Member since:
2009-03-10

I understand the argument put forward for why Apple should not be able to enforce any restrictions of use from the sale of its stand alone software, in this case OSX. And further more, I agree with your argument. I do not want to be dictated to regarding how I can or should use a product I have legally purchased.

However, your argument does not distinguish between for personal use vs for profit. In the case of Pystar, they are using Apple's software, installed on their hardware, to sell their product and compete directly against Apple.

If Pystar was not using Apple's software in this way, would they still have a legitimate business?

Is it right for a company, like Pystar to use Apple's own software to compete and take further business away from Apple?

I say no, not without proper license from Apple, which it has not given.

Reply Score: 1

Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

Psystar doesn't need a license to install OSX on their computers. You think every single computer maker has an agreement with Microsoft to install Windows? They don't, and they don't need one.

Nor do they need a license with Intel to resell Pentium processors, nor do they need a license with Nvidia to resell graphic cards, nor do they need a license with Kingston to resell RAM...

Reply Parent Score: 2

gcbirzan Member since:
2009-03-09

Psystar doesn't need a license to install OSX on their computers. You think every single computer maker has an agreement with Microsoft to install Windows? They don't, and they don't need one.

You are patently (har har) wrong. You do need a license to install it on a computer. As does anyone who wants to install Windows. The agreement is called EULA.

Reply Parent Score: 1

GCrain Member since:
2005-07-11

However, your argument does not distinguish between for personal use vs for profit. In the case of Pystar, they are using Apple's software, installed on their hardware, to sell their product and compete directly against Apple. If Pystar was not using Apple's software in this way, would they still have a legitimate business? Is it right for a company, like Pystar to use Apple's own software to compete and take further business away from Apple? I say no, not without proper license from Apple, which it has not given.


Exactly, but I don't know if it is to use the software to compete against Apple's hardware so much (even though Apple doesn't like it). The fact that Pystar hacks the code, and parts of the OS to work. Is the code Pystar pre-installed IDENTICAL to the code that Apple sells?? No? Then how can Pystar legally reverse engineer, modify it and resell it? Reverse engineering is often not illegal in itself. For an individual, I doubt Apple cares much, but they are basing their business model around it. The EULA isn't the basis of the lawsuit.
This has further implications than just Apple-vs-Pystar. Another car analogy (since I work for an automotive company): A small company reversed engineered the engine controller code, made modifications and was reselling the code as a performance upgrade. It bypassed many safety and emissions related functions. The original manufacturer lawyers went ballistic. It never made it to court.
Should it be legal to resell modified engine controller code that was already 'sold' with the vehicle? The manufacturer did the R&D, testing, safety and emission certification.
Who's responsible when the vehicle is resold to someone unknowing that the air bags and emissions are no longer functional and they get into an accident? They will first go after the original manufacturer, and then the burden would rest on them to prove that the engine controller code was tampered with.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

Another car analogy (since I work for an automotive company): A small company reversed engineered the engine controller code, made modifications and was reselling the code as a performance upgrade. It bypassed many safety and emissions related functions...


If Psystar were bypassing OSX's consumer safety features or EPA regulated specs, you'd have a good point.

LOL.

Reply Parent Score: 2

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

The thing you're missing is that in the course of acquisition and use of all sorts of computer components, we all make money from each other. We write software - we use IDEs. We assemble parts into proper machines. We install operating systems and software and charge for doing it. We go in and fix malware infected machines, using anti virus software, or disk recovery software. We charge.

You will never get your head around this if you keep thinking it is mainly about Apple. It is not, the issues of principle are about the industry as a whole. The way to think about this is, after you figure out you want Apple to have a given power, figure out what will happen to the industry if everyone has that power, and uses it. Think about MS, think about Adobe, think about hardware vendors, ATI or Intel or nVidia.

Then start thinking about publishers of books, people who make drugs, people who make tools.

Then you'll get a feeling for what really is socially desirable and what's not.

Reply Parent Score: 2