Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 4th Jul 2009 00:40 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Now this is interesting news that hit my inbox at 2:22 AM (don't ask). It seems like the concept of selling Mac clones is more lucrative than many have anticipated, as I've just been informed via email that the German PearC has expanded its business into the BeNeLux (Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg) and France. Together with the news that Psystar emerged from chapter 11, it looks like the market for Mac clones is more lucrative than many of us had imagined.
Thread beginning with comment 371767
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: :)
by looncraz on Sat 4th Jul 2009 19:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: :)"
Member since:

The U.S. actually has those laws as well, we just have a LOT of stupid judges which led to some bad precedence and further misinterpretations which leads us now to how software somehow isn't necessarily covered under the same laws that govern copies of copyrighted materials - even though software is EXACTLY a copy of a copyrighted material...

It is illegal in the U.S. to control what I do with my copy of a copyrighted work unless a contract was agreed upon as a condition upon purchase. Not some little note somewhere, a signed, written, often notarized / witnessed, contract.

Even then, you do not have the right to sign away many rights you possess. This was done in right-minded legislation (a rarity in U.S. law these days ) to protect consumers even from themselves. Non-contractual Terms of Use may only be applied to unprotected/non-enumerated freedoms or may be utilized to provide additional freedoms, with any conditions for those additional freedoms.

So, if a EULA ( Terms of Use ) says you can't do something you are legally allowed to do, those lines are invalid. If it says you have permission to do something you have no right to do, but says you must do something to gain that permission, that stands.

If it forbids something you have no right to do anyway, then it is really just wasted space in most cases, but sometimes not ( such as the unforeseen case - in which some action is not a protected right for the consumer, but is not illegal, but must not be allowed as Terms of Use - a real rarity, it is just an in-case type of thing ).

Problem is we have the worst judges in the world, seriously. Some are great, others have no idea what is going on ( and don't care ). That is the problem with elected judiciary officials, and the lack of job requirements ( think a judge needs to know the law? ).

--The loon

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[8]: :)
by cranfordio on Sun 5th Jul 2009 15:07 in reply to "RE[7]: :)"
cranfordio Member since:

The issue at hand though is whether a company has the right to sell computers with Mac OS X pre-installed.

Apple is not suing or pursuing Joe Consumer (I am not speculating whether or not they will, and if they do I my opinions about this will most certainly change) they are suing a company that is selling computer with the system already loaded.

If I have my own non-apple computer and I decide to buy a copy of Mac OS X and figure out some way to install it then that is my right, I own the computer and the software. But I do not agree with what Psystar and this other company are doing, they are not the consumer, they should not have this right and therefore should be stopped.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: :)
by looncraz on Mon 6th Jul 2009 00:01 in reply to "RE[8]: :)"
looncraz Member since:

By that logic it should be illegal for a car company to buy Corvettes or Mustangs, upgrade the engines, and then resell them.

Or, more accurately, buy a Ford V8 Engine, put it in their own car model, and then resell them.

These actions are protected by law for a reason. Short of illegally obtaining the engine, no one can say a thing about what the company is doing.

And Ford ONLY would have a say if that company was cloning parts, stealing the engines directly from Ford, or infringing on patents.

See the problem is, I believe, that you are thinking of software as something different than what it actually is. It is a copy of a copyrighted work ( exactly like a book ).

Apple needs to require the purchase of a Mac or proof of ownership as a condition of purchase of a copy of MacOS to be legally binding. Simple. If you can legally purchase a copy of MacOS X at the store without signing a contract, then you own that copy of the copyrighted work without restriction. The law explicitly prohibits copyright holders from controlling or influencing what owners of copies of their covered works can or can't do, including modification or resale.

It is like making notes in "To Kill A Mockingbird," then reselling it as a used book, then being sued by the publishers of the book. You can't sell the book as new, because it ain't.

BUT, let us say you buy 500 copies of the book from the store, paying full price. Then, you wrap the book in a new cover and resell it as the same book, but with a new cover you wrapped it in ( honestly representing the product, the source, the result ). You charge a premium, and you are a business.

Is that wrong? Should I not be allowed to start a business selling books which have protected coverings applied to them?

What if I were applying something to EVERY page to protect the book from tears and liquid? What if my process made the pages black and the ink white? Should that be illegal?

I certainly don't think so. And I really hope you don't.

--The loon

Reply Parent Score: 2