Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 25th Oct 2009 12:51 UTC
Editorial A couple of years ago, a professor at my university had a very interesting thought exchange with the class I was in. We were a small group, and I knew most of them, they were my friends. Anyway, we had a talk about language purism - not an unimportant subject if you study English in The Netherlands.
Thread beginning with comment 391027
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: It's simple really...
by wirespot on Sun 25th Oct 2009 22:20 UTC in reply to "RE: It's simple really..."
wirespot
Member since:
2006-06-21

MS doesn't supply installed copies of Windows on a PC.


Are you kidding me?! That's how the vast majority of [legal] Windows copies get sold. Very seldom do people go to the store and buy a boxed copy (if only because it's so much more expensive). They usually get an OEM version with a computer, and the cost is disguised in the price of that computer.

He is suggesting that they either stop selling retail copies OR allow people to do what they like with their retail copies when bought.


How is that a problem? Apple is allowing people to do just that. Have you seen Apple sue any individual who installed OS X on non-Apple hardware? What they have a problem with is companies who want to undermine their business model by producing Mac clones against Apple's express wishes and legal license.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

How is that a problem? Apple is allowing people to do just that. Have you seen Apple sue any individual who installed OS X on non-Apple hardware? What they have a problem with is companies who want to undermine their business model by producing Mac clones against Apple's express wishes and legal license.


...and that exact same license is used for ordinary consumers. If the judge rules that the specific EULA clause is valid, and Psystar is not allowed to install Mac OS X on non-Apple labelled machines, then that is just as much jurisprudence for companies as it is for individuals. The law makes no distinction.

If what you say is true, then Apple would've included that in its EULA - which is quite a common practice. There are literally countless of EULAs out there that give a lot of freedom to individuals, but restrict usage for commercial endeavours.

Apple is actively trying to make it illegal to jailbreak iPhones, a practice only done by individuals - and you're telling me they are okay with people like me installing Mac OS X on a non-Apple labelled machine? For a company so actively trying to prevent jailbreaking, it sure dun' seen like it.

Apple fanatics continuously put Psystar apart from individuals, but this is nonsense. Apple has a single EULA, covering both cases, and in said EULA, no distinction is made. Any ruling by the judge affects both cases, because legally, there is no difference between me selling my Mac clone on eBay, and Psystar.

Edited 2009-10-25 22:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: It's simple really...
by wirespot on Sun 25th Oct 2009 23:44 in reply to "RE[3]: It's simple really..."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Careful with the legal talk, Thom, you might cut yourself.

If you bothered to read Groklaw instead of dismissing PJ as "nutty" you might actually learn something. Such as this:

The Court recognizes that Vernor found the meaning of "owner" to be the same in sections 109 and 117 and therefore found Wise and Wall Data to be incompatible. Id at *7. The Vernor court elected to follow the older precedent of Wise. Id. This Court, however, is confronted with recent Ninth Circuit authority not only interpreting section 117, but also explicitly declining to reconsider the rule established in MAI and Triad. Wall Data, 447 F.3d 785 n.9. If the Circuit's interpretation of section 117 is to be reconsidered, it must be done by the Circuit, not this Court. Moreover, it is not at all clear that the result in this case would be different even if the Court were to follow Wise. Under Wise, a transaction is a license where the recipient is required to the return the copy to the copyright owner or the copyright owner retains title to the copy. 550 F.2d at 1190-92. As noted above, section 3 of the EULA provides that Blizzard explicitly retains title to "all copies" of the game client software. Dkt. #42 at 3.


No written by PJ, BTW, but by an US judge.

Apple is actively trying to make it illegal to jailbreak iPhones, a practice only done by individuals - and you're telling me they are okay with people like me installing Mac OS X on a non-Apple labelled machine?


Yes.

iPhones and Macs are not alike, OS-wise. The Mac comes with OS X and allows the user to exercise large amounts of freedom in handling that OS and applications. Not legally, but in practice. Yes, you may be breaking the OS X license. But Apple won't come after you. In fact, they've elected to treat their customers honorably and assume they're being legit, rather than torture them with authentication schemes a la Microsoft. That assumption obviously doesn't apply to a company like Psystar which tries to openly destroy Apple's business.

The iPhone, on the other hand, is a device on which Apple wishes to control all the running applications, in order to enforce a very high level of quality and security. In order to do that they have to lock it tight and closely examine any applications that goes through their AppStore. It's not an original practice; Linux distributions do it too with their repositories (minus the locking down of the users' machines, of course).

Reply Parent Score: 2