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 387930
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Oh no..
by wirespot on Tue 6th Oct 2009 15:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Oh no.."
wirespot
Member since:
2006-06-21

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.


Ha. This is so off the mark it's basically hallucination.

Apple is a hardware maker. Hardware is their bread and butter. The software (OS X, iTunes, ITS, AppStore) are there to make the hardware more attractive.

Have they not shown any innovation? Haven't they put any care into their hardware products? If they're really so mundane, so "off-the-shelf", why isn't the world filled with Apple-quality hardware? Why did it take Apple to turn the portable music player and smartphone markets on their heads? Why isn't everybody doing it?

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.

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

Reply Parent Score: -3

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[6]: Oh no..
by Piot on Tue 6th Oct 2009 18:58 in reply to "RE[5]: Oh no.."
Piot Member since:
2009-09-17

I think that requires a little clarification Thom.

What judgements are you referring to ?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Oh no..
by wirespot on Wed 7th Oct 2009 07:10 in reply to "RE[5]: Oh no.."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

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


Is the Apple vs Psystar suit over and I haven't heard of it? If you meant another suit please link to the decision. Otherwise you're showing just as uninformed as me.

I won't mention "indoctrinated" because there's no need, you've long ago proved your bias time and time again. I just wish you'd embrace it and come out with it; say "yes, I like Microsoft and regard Apple and Linux with contempt." I mean, it would be the minimum of disclosure you could offer, given you're publishing on a website called "OS News", not "Windows News".

And no, I don't mean you don't do other good work. It's just that you're biased and you're in the closet about it. I do it, I state "I'm with Apple on this one", or "I'm a long time Linux user and passionate about it". It's not hard, why can't you?

Reply Parent Score: 2

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[6]: Oh no..
by wirespot on Wed 7th Oct 2009 07:22 in reply to "RE[5]: Oh no.."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

I don't think you understand copywrite law nor this case.


That's a laugh.

OK, how about we turn over to someone who analysed the premise of this case carefully?
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009081716312060

It even refers to a relevant case. And no, it's not the one most people around here seem to refer to (Vernor vs Autodesk). Why? Read the article to find out why.

MDY vs Blizzard has everything I keep saying Psystar vs Apple has. It has DMCA. It has copyright law. But noo, what do I know, I'm "ignorant and indoctrinated", to quote Thom.

Get it through your thick heads: EULAs used to be solely about click-through shrink-wrap contracts, yes. But the companies got smarter. They've pulled in copyright and DMCA. Software that is no longer sold but licensed. This changes things. How: we'll see when Apple vs Psystar is over. In the meantime, MDY vs Blizzard should give you and idea.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

RE[6]: Oh no..
by wirespot on Wed 7th Oct 2009 07:42 in reply to "RE[5]: Oh no.."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

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.


Verson vs Autodesk is not relevant to Apple vs Psystar. See here why:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009081716312060

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.


Whoa there. "Modifications?" Verbatim copy is one thing, modification is another. The law says "adaptations", and if you think that means "modifications" then you have a suprise coming your way.

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.


Yes they can.

You probably read US law, most likely 17 ยง 106, and thought "here's what the copyright owner can do".

You're wrong. Yeah, that's a set of rights the software maker automatically gets. But the thing is, you, the buyer, GET NOTHING. You don't have ANY rights to that piece of software. You can't do anything at all with it.

The only thing that grants you ANY rights is the copyright license you get from Apple. You don't have to agree to it. If you don't, you're back to square one (no rights at all).

If Apple (or Microsoft, or anybody writing any software) say "you have to stand on your head when you use this piece of software", they can.

Now, it doesn't mean it applies. Taking some of your examples, we see that they infringe on fundamental liberties of the individual, so they won't apply.

But Apple is making provisions that are perfectly sensible and DO apply. Because they have to do with modification and redistribution of the software, and that's very much the realm of copyright law.

Yes, you can make copies for personal use. Yes, you can perform adaptations of hardware and software so you can run OS X (because the law made an exception saying you can). But a company cannot necessarily make a business out of doing this for you. It's alright with, say, Linux or Windows, because their licenses allow it. But the OS X license doesn't.

Edited 2009-10-07 07:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2