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 387934
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Oh no..
by Laurence on Tue 6th Oct 2009 15:44 UTC 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[7]: Oh no..
by Laurence on Wed 7th Oct 2009 07:44 in reply to "RE[6]: Oh no.."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

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.


WoW is a subscription based purchase rather than a one off payment such as OS X. Thus Blizzard can dictate additional contractual agreements users have to agree to prior to purchase but Apple can't.

So I don't see those cases as "identical" as you or the article suggests.

But I will have another - more in depth - read through in case my initial analysis was unfair.

However, the fact still remains that (as far as I've seen published) there have been more case studies one in court defending Psystar than there have been defending Apple.

But like a lot of legal Proceedings based on legal grey areas - the only reliable case study will be the outcome of that specific case itself.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Oh no..
by alcibiades on Sat 10th Oct 2009 17:35 in reply to "RE[6]: Oh no.."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

The issue between the two cases is this.

In the case of Psystar, what is being argued against is that the owner of a copy, or Psystar as his agent, performed an installation. In doing so they made copies. However, they were granted the right to make those copies under Title 17 S117 because it was essential to make those copies to use the software of which they owned a copy with a machine.

In no way can it be argued that it is necessary to install Glider to use the Warcraft packages with a machine. So the essential difference is that the conduct of a Hackintosher is protected under copyright law, and is thus not a copyright violation.

This means that even if you get sued for installing OSX on the 'wrong' kind of machine, you will get sued for breaking a civil contract, not for violation of copyright law. Which is much, much more serious and a criminal not simply civil matter.

Reply Parent Score: 2