Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 5th Oct 2009 21:45 UTC, submitted by JayDee
Hardware, Embedded Systems Just when you thought you saw it all. So, we all know about Psystar, the two lawsuits between them and Apple, and all the other stuff that's been regurgitated about ten million times on OSNews alone. Well, that little company has taken its business to the next level - by announcing an OEM licensing program.
Thread beginning with comment 387912
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Oh no..
by Laurence on Tue 6th Oct 2009 13:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oh no.."
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

I personally feel that if I device a really nice piece of hardware, and also a nice piece of software to go with it, and make a nice profit out of selling the two, it's entirely my merit.

Apple didn't devise the hardware though. In fact, bar the logic board, it's just standard PC hardware.
And you can't even argue that the logic board is what seperates the OS X's performance / stability from a typical PC World-built (for example) Windows desktop.

Apple aren't the hardware OEMs, they're hardware middle men. They're a software house that pre-loads their products onto off-the-shell hardware.

I don't see why someone else should be able to sell much cheaper hardware with MY software and undercut my business. They can build their own software and God bless them. So I'm with Apple in spirit on this one.


Competition laws say why other companies SHOULD be allowed to undercut you.


And if Apple don't want to compete in price, then they should just continue to compete on quality.
After all, if their hardware is so fraking magical (like Jobs like to exclaim), then people will continue to buy their hardware from Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Oh no..
by ebasconp on Tue 6th Oct 2009 14:10 in reply to "RE[3]: Oh no.."
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Competition laws say why other companies SHOULD be allowed to undercut you.


Anyway, this thing sounds me kind of cynical; I think I can compete with MY software developed by MY company using MY developers, etc...

Getting profit using someone else's investment is simply a shameless activity.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Oh no..
by Laurence on Tue 6th Oct 2009 14:47 in reply to "RE[4]: Oh no.."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Anyway, this thing sounds me kind of cynical; I think I can compete with MY software developed by MY company using MY developers, etc... Getting profit using someone else's investment is simply a shameless activity.


Apple are still getting profit from their development though.

Apple are still selling copies of OS X regardless of whether its installed on hardware inside a white plastic case with a black silhouette of an Apple, or Psystars own PCs.


This is the crux of the matter and why Psystar haven't already been shutdown: because Apple still selling their software to Psystar, thus Apple are still making money from Psystar - just not as much.

Edited 2009-10-06 14:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

v RE[4]: Oh no..
by wirespot on Tue 6th Oct 2009 15:06 in reply to "RE[3]: Oh no.."
RE[5]: Oh no..
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 6th Oct 2009 15:19 in reply to "RE[4]: Oh no.."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Not if you break other laws in the process. And by bundling OS X you break basic copyright law. Apple made the software and Apple gets to dictate what you can do with it. You can't do what Psystar is doing. Period


Well, US judges disagree with you. I think I'm opting for their judgement, not your uninformed indoctrinated nonsense.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Oh no..
by Laurence on Tue 6th Oct 2009 15:44 in reply to "RE[4]: Oh no.."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Have they not shown any innovation? Haven't they put any care into their hardware products?

i didn 't say any of that. stop exaggerating what I said to try and win your own point.

If they're really so mundane, so "off-the-shelf", why isn't the world filled with Apple-quality hardware?

The world is filled with "Apple-quality hardware".
it 's also filled with poorer quality hardware too, but you CAN buy "Apple-quality hardware" off the shell.

As I said before, Apple don't own Intel so why would Intel deny their biggest userbase (Windows) their best processors? To suggest that PC users can't build solid systems with high-quality components is absoltely insane.


Why did it take Apple to turn the portable music player and smartphone markets on their heads? Why isn't everybody doing it?

this isn't about embedded devices, it's about desktops.
However, if you want to talk about embedded devices, then you should know that:
* the iPhone isn't the only capacitive nor multi-touch smartphone handset
* the iPhone wasn't the 1st device to have an app store
* the iPhone wasn't the 1st smartphone to have a digital compass
* the iPhone wasn't the 1st smartphone to have GPS, 3G, Edge or an number of other features.
...i could go on, but I'm at work.

So sure, the iPhone shook up the market and combined a number of existing technologies together very well and with a well thought out UI. But it's not the all singing and all dancing JesusPhone (TM) some make out.

But as I said before, this topic isn't about embedded devices so lets please stay on topic.



Ah, could it be that the software is attractive too? Damn right. And I bet lots of companies would like to be able to bundle OS X with their own computers. Guess what: you can't.

That's for the courts to decide - not you.



Not if you break other laws in the process. And by bundling OS X you break basic copyright law. Apple made the software and Apple gets to dictate what you can do with it. You can't do what Psystar is doing. Period.

The Apple vs Psystar suits will show this. And I suggest you think really long and hard about what it would mean if Apple loses, because it would be a blow for copyright itself.


I don't think you understand copywrite law nor this case.
I'd suggest you read through the [read more] rather than posting "knee-jerk reactions" to the headlines.

This case is a great deal more complex than you're simplifying and Psystar are within their rights to hack the open source kernel as described by the terms of the kernel's license.

I would go into more detail about how you've misunderstood the complexity of the situation, but I wouldn't do the case any justice and Thom's already spent hours reviewing the situation for people to read (or not in your case).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Oh no..
by alcibiades on Wed 7th Oct 2009 06:29 in reply to "RE[4]: Oh no.."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Not if you break other laws in the process. And by bundling OS X you break basic copyright law. Apple made the software and Apple gets to dictate what you can do with it. You can't do what Psystar is doing. Period.

This is a mistake about what US law says. The applicable code is Title 17 Section 117. It provides that the owner of a copy of software may make, or authorize someone else to make, any copies of that software that are essential to using it with a machine.

Then we have the two cases of Vernor vs Autodesk and Softman, in which it has been found that to purchase a retail copy is a purchase transaction, and not a license.


So we start out with the position that for me to make or authorize someone else to make any copies or modifications of my retail copy of OSX is lawful under copyright, as long as those copies or modifications are essential to use with a machine. As long as OSX is not a live CD/DVD, copies made in way of installation on a machine are obviously essential to use with that machine.

Now, the next part of S117 says that I can only sell those copies on as part of the sale of the original retail copy with the permission of the copyright holder. Aha, you cry, Psystar did not have such permission. Die, Psystar, die!

Not so fast Moriarty! The question now turns on whether Psystar was the owner of the retail copy at the time that it did the installation. If it turns out that Psystar had charged the customer's credit card or in some other way transferred ownership of the retail copy of OSX before it did the installation, it was simply acting as the person authorized by the customer to do the installation, and as far as copyright goes, this is perfectly lawful.

You then go on to say

Apple made the software and Apple gets to dictate what you can do with it.

This is hallucination or fantasy. The maker of software, whether its Apple, you, me or Microsoft, does not get to tell buyers of retail copies what they can do with it. The maker of CAD/CAM does not get to tell buyers they are not permitted to do boats. The maker of word processing software does not get to tell people they may not write religious tracts, or porn. In general, the maker of graphics software does not get to tell people what graphics cards they may or may not use. No software maker gets to tell people who and under what terms they may resell their copies to. And so on.

Once you have transferred ownership of a retail copy of software, your rights over what the buyer can do with it are only the rights which the EULA contract give you. Those are limited by the law of contract in your jurisdiction, which determine how contracts may be entered into, as well as by the law governing what terms of contracts are enforceable and valid - for instance, consumer protection and anti-trust law. It is highly likely that in most jurisdictions a EULA term which dictates where you buy the hardware you use with a given piece of software will be found unenforceable.

If you think about this, consider the ridiculous situation it would create were it to be possible. Company A tells you you can only use its software by buying your nVidia graphics cards from it. Company B tells you you must buy them from it. You buy them on the open market, install both bits of software, and both sue you. Does this make any kind of sense to you?

Reply Parent Score: 3