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 391048
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: It's simple really...
by wirespot on Sun 25th Oct 2009 23:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's simple really..."
Member since:

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?


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

RE[5]: It's simple really...
by _txf_ on Mon 26th Oct 2009 00:27 in reply to "RE[4]: It's simple really..."
_txf_ Member since:

I call BS on the iphone quality and security. The most obvious evidence is apples own given BS that jailbreaking would bring down cell towers. Idiocy.

The fact that other manufacturers don't prevent jailbreaking (or even need jailbreaking) is another reason.

"closely examine any applications that go through their appstore".

Given the amount of turd that makes it through I wouldn't say they closely examine;More like haphazardly examine (and blocking anything that would compete with their own apps).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: It's simple really...
by alcibiades on Mon 26th Oct 2009 08:07 in reply to "RE[4]: It's simple really..."
alcibiades Member since:

That assumption obviously doesn't apply to a company like Psystar which tries to openly destroy Apple's business.

This is what is so totally inexplicable. Why do you think that if I set up in business to install a customer's own copy of OSX on non-Apple hardware, I am trying to destroy Apple's business? I am just providing a service.

You are right about Blizzard in one sense: it directly contradicts Vernor on the point of whether I own my copy and thus get S117 protection. We must see which holds up as the appeals wind their way through. But of course neither one has any bearing on anything outside the US.

On the shipping of Windows and the MS model, you didn't address the point. The original assertion was that people who support the right of Psystar and others to do what they do are proposing that Apple be obliged to follow the MS model.

The MS model is that the software developer ONLY ships product either to retail market or to OEMs who package it with hardware. In the MS model, if you want a bundled system of hardware and software, you cannot buy it from MS.

As far as I know, no-one is advocating that Apple be obliged to stop shipping its software as a bundle with its hardware. No-one. So no-one is proposing that Apple follow, or be obliged to follow, the MS model.

They are just saying, take one of two choices. Choice one is, carry on just as now, sell your bundles, sell full copies of OSX at retail with no questions asked. In that case, don't tell people where to install your retail copies.

Choice two is, carry on just as now, sell your bundles, but don't sell full copies of OSX at retail with no questions asked.

Notice that in either case Apple continues to sell bundles, something that MS does not do. Notice that in either case, Apple is not selling OSX through OEMs, something that MS does.

In short, in neither case is Apple adopting the MS model, and no-one thinks it should, or should be forced to. This is a red herring.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:

In short, in neither case is Apple adopting the MS model, and no-one thinks it should, or should be forced to. This is a red herring.

Of course it is. It's demagogy. Scare 'm and they'll fall in line.

For me, there's only one thing that matters: that software be treated like any other copyrighted work. If software vendors want to impose additional restrictions - then fine, but they'll have to handle it the proper way. Software vendors already know perfectly well how to do this: the enterprise market. You won't see a software vendor rely on a click-through EULA in massive software rollouts. Those are properly signed contracts.

Will this hurt the software industry? I'm not sure. EULAs are a relatively recent development, so the software industry grew early on without all that nonsense, so who is to say they would be hurting now?

Even if it did hurt them - why, exactly, should I care? If this will hurt Microsoft, Apple, or whatever - I just don't care. It just means their business model is flawed. It is not the consumer's job to bend over backwards just to ensure the survival of software vendors.

If the foundation of an entire industry is built upon the rather legally dubious practice of the EULA, as some seem to claim, then your industry is severely flawed, and should fall on its ass (see banking world).

I think reality is different, though. The industry won't collapse if the concept of the EULA is tossed out. That's just a red herring promoted by EULA supporters (currently, the EULA supporters in the Apple camp) because they want to have the ability to control their customers.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: It's simple really...
by zlynx on Tue 27th Oct 2009 02:19 in reply to "RE[5]: It's simple really..."
zlynx Member since:

I agree with you.

I think Apple should sell the retail full copies of OS X for $500, put it in the bundle with the Mac hardware for the same, current prices, and sell cheap upgrade copies that require an original license key check.

That would simultaneously solve the "Psystar" problem and people complaining about Apple hardware prices.

Reply Parent Score: 2