Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 12th Oct 2009 18:25 UTC
Legal Now that all the nastiness of the discovery phase is behind us in the Apple vs. Psystar case, both parties are trying to get the case settled before it goes to court, much like the recent Vernor vs. Autodesk case. Both Apple and Psystar have filed motions asking for a summary judgement.
Thread beginning with comment 388920
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: OSNews legal analysis
by jgagnon on Mon 12th Oct 2009 21:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: OSNews legal analysis"
jgagnon
Member since:
2008-06-24

That whole exact copy thing is bunk. If I install a driver for a new video card it is no longer an exact copy. If I install a boot loader so I can dual boot to another operating system then it is no longer an exact copy. I could name many more "infringements" of said "exact copy" rule. If what you are saying holds up in court then we will see a flood of pointless lawsuits. Value added resellers (VAR) will suddenly be a dying breed because literally anything could be considered a modification.

Fact is that you HAVE to modify an OS on a regular basis to maintain compatibility with your hardware and other programs. A program installing an updated system file could violate the copyright with what you are suggesting. In the Windows world, for instance, if I were to modify the registry so a program would work and then later sell my computer with that software on it, am I suddenly in violation of copyright law? This all could get very absurd very quickly.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This all could get very absurd very quickly.


Of course, but absurdity is no problem for some people when it comes to defending Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: OSNews legal analysis
by rhavyn on Mon 12th Oct 2009 22:25 in reply to "RE[6]: OSNews legal analysis"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

"This all could get very absurd very quickly.


Of course, but absurdity is no problem for some people when it comes to defending Apple.
"

Thom, if you want to write articles about absurdities of copyright law in the United States I might even agree with you (I'd saw I would agree with you because much of US copyright law is absurd, but you'd likely get so many things wrong that I couldn't agree in the end anyways). But, you really need to differentiate between people defending Apple and people trying to bring a sense of reality to your fantasy land of rainbows and unicorns. It's not defending Apple to point out that much of your commentary on lawsuits is factually incorrect and most of your commentary is legally incorrect.

What's sad is that I've lost count of how many stories you've posted where myself and others have pointed out the legal inaccuracies and pointed you at case law and statute. Yet you have yet to a single time write something that even made an attempt to be factually accurate and based on real legal understanding.

So, you may find people "defending Apple" to be absurd, but I can assure you that nothing is absurd as watching you attempt to write something that even tangentially relates to the law.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: OSNews legal analysis
by rhavyn on Mon 12th Oct 2009 22:13 in reply to "RE[5]: OSNews legal analysis"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

That whole exact copy thing is bunk. If I install a driver for a new video card it is no longer an exact copy. If I install a boot loader so I can dual boot to another operating system then it is no longer an exact copy. I could name many more "infringements" of said "exact copy" rule. If what you are saying holds up in court then we will see a flood of pointless lawsuits. Value added resellers (VAR) will suddenly be a dying breed because literally anything could be considered a modification.


If what I'm saying holds up in court? I'm not saying anything, I'm copying and pasting from the copyright law of the United States. Go ahead and verify it yourself if you don't believe me. I'm willing to be that black letter law will stand up in court too, by the way.

Fact is that you HAVE to modify an OS on a regular basis to maintain compatibility with your hardware and other programs. A program installing an updated system file could violate the copyright with what you are suggesting. In the Windows world, for instance, if I were to modify the registry so a program would work and then later sell my computer with that software on it, am I suddenly in violation of copyright law? This all could get very absurd very quickly.


Which is all very nice, but the way to change it is to lobby your member of Congress and your Senators.

Reply Parent Score: 2