Whenever we talk about Mac clone makers such as Psystar, we all more or less accept as a fact that Apple is selling copies of its Mac OS X operating system at a price lower than it would have been if Apple did not have a hardware business. Even though we treat this statement as fact - recently, I've been wondering: where is the proof?
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-12-02
Almost, but not quite. The case has nothing to do with whether *you* or *I* as consumers put OS X on a computer after we have purchased OS X. That is allowed by law already, and has nothing at all to do with this case. Apple has no say in that matter, and doesn't give a rats ass about it. This case has to do with whether a commercial entity can do so. Commercial entities such as Psystar are not consumers, as they are a computer manufacturer. The line is finely drawn, but it is there.
Member since:2005-10-12
Don't think so. If it is OK for me to do it, its OK for me to authorize (and pay) someone to do it. Once you admit that it is perfectly lawful for me, regardless of copyright and the EULA, to install OSX on an x86, then you have to admit it is lawful for me to pay a third party to do it for me.
Maybe it has to be done with some attention to the legal niceties, like perhaps ownership has to reside with me and not the third party when this is done. But there is going to be enough leeway in this to make it impossible to only allow individuals to install OSX on x86, and not organizations on their behalf.
This is explicitly recognized in US copyright law. The law in S117 explicitly gives the legitimate owner of a copy the right to make copies as necessary to use the software with a machine. It also gives him the right to authorize others to do this on his behalf. But it denies him or them the right to transfer ownership of the resulting copies without authorization from the copyright holder.
It follows that a properly structured arrangement will permit someone to go into the business of installing OSX on x86 machines for others, as long as those others own the machines and the copies at the time of the install, without violating copyright.
I do not know whether Psystar complied with these conditions or not. They do claim to build only to order, so maybe they do.
Whether the EULA will permit Apple to stop such installations is a different matter. But here too, there is no way that it can be lawful for an individual to violate the EULA but not lawful for a third party to do so acting on his authorization and doing it with his property.
Apple people get furious with the idea that Psystar is doing this to make money, as if we did not all do things to make money every day. But there is nothing unlawful about that. What may be unlawful, but should not be, is violating the EULA provision on where you install, or cause others to install for you.
Member since:
2005-10-12
kawai, you say "what it is all about is envy and jealousy. I can't have that product so I'd sooner see the company get destroyed instead."
Not for me. I don't want the product. What its about for me is whether a company, any company, can sell a software package and then have you, during the installation or use process, agree to a further contract which restrains how you may use it.
I don't see any difference between Apple telling you what kind of hardware you may install on, and Apple telling you what books you may read with it, or what other software you may install with it. In the end this issue is about our intellectual freedom, its about whether we or the supplier own what we may access through the software. It touches on stuff like open file formats and similar forms of lockin. It touches on ability to migrate from one platform to another.
Here, let me give you a real concrete example. There is a software package in the UK which I deal with, which has no export facility, and which keeps the data a customer keys in, in binary and proprietary formats. Now, the files are hackable so I have helped a customer extract their own data. If Apple's method of operating is upheld, so would a clause in a EULA be that said that you agree not to access the file C:\etc\etc, that you agree not to decompress it, that you agree not to use awk perl or sed or similar products in conjunction with it - in short, that you agree to pay 100 Euro for the service every time you want to get your data out, and you agree not to then put your data in to any competitive product.
This is why this case is so important. And this is why the case is not even mainly about Apple and its business model or its fortunes. This is about us, this is about people being able to do what they want with the software they have bought, versus a point of view that says, I will sell it to you, and then I will dictate what you may or may not do with it, in any respect I care to name, and no, nothing you create with this software is yours, even if it is entirely your own intellectual property. It is mine, because you did it with my software package.
And if I take steps that are in my interests as a company and not in yours as a user, well that's tough.
You don't think it can happen? It can. It does. If Apple wins it will be everywhere. A very skilled professional, not very computer savvy, was told by this company, when she asked tech support how to get the data, her own data, out, that it was all industry standard stuff, all she had to do was learn to write XSLT transforms. They suggested she learn Saxon and wished her good luck with it. She asked me where to start. I said, don't bother, they are laughing at you.
This is what is at stake. It has nothing to do with envy and jealousy, it has to do with intellectual freedom. It has to do whether, in order to give Apple the powers that it wants, but should not want, and does not need to maintain its business model, we abridge the intellectual freedom of the whole computer using public. That is, all of us.
Hell no, is what we should all be saying.