Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Nov 2009 21:53 UTC
Legal We've got some progress in the other legal case Apple is involved in. The California case, Apple vs. Psystar, is more or less a done deal, but the Florida case, Psystar vs. Apple, is only just beginning. As it promised it would do, Apple has now asked the court in California to either dismiss the Florida case, or transfer it to California. Apple is also asking for a permanent injuction against Psystar. Through this motion, we also gain some juicy insight into Psystar's sales projections - and more interestingly, how many machines the clone maker actually sold.
Thread beginning with comment 396675
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: And what if...
by NeoX on Thu 26th Nov 2009 23:36 UTC in reply to "And what if..."
NeoX
Member since:
2006-02-19

Absolutely agree. While the article somewhat mocks Apple for considering Pystar a threat, since they only sold 768 machines, they still have a right to protect their IP. It does not matter if these morons sold 2 machines and made no money, they still did it dishonestly and illegally and could have an impact on Apple's brand name and reputation.

I really do not understand why all the negativeness towards Apple protecting their IP, especially from so called "journalists".

If I had created a successful business and brand name, you bet I would protect it from shady outfits like Pystar.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: And what if...
by shadowhand on Fri 27th Nov 2009 05:44 in reply to "RE: And what if..."
shadowhand Member since:
2005-07-06

I really do not understand why all the negativeness [sic] towards Apple protecting their IP, especially from so called "journalists".


The negativity is not about Apple, per se, but about software in general. The real issue in question here is whether or not you actually own the software you purchase. Apple is claiming that OSX is licensed, not sold, and therefore it is illegal to install OSX on a non-Apple machine.

This implies that even though OSX is tangible media (DVD-ROM), the digital contents of the media do not belong to you, and when your purchase software, you are actually purchasing a license to use the software.

Psystar is claiming that by purchasing OSX discs, they have the right to install OSX on a non-Apple computer and sell the computer. Thus far, the judges do not agree.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: And what if...
by iFrodo on Sat 28th Nov 2009 10:39 in reply to "RE[2]: And what if..."
iFrodo Member since:
2009-06-01


The negativity is not about Apple, per se, but about software in general. The real issue in question here is whether or not you actually own the software you purchase. Apple is claiming that OSX is licensed, not sold, and therefore it is illegal to install OSX on a non-Apple machine.

This implies that even though OSX is tangible media (DVD-ROM), the digital contents of the media do not belong to you, and when your purchase software, you are actually purchasing a license to use the software.

Psystar is claiming that by purchasing OSX discs, they have the right to install OSX on a non-Apple computer and sell the computer. Thus far, the judges do not agree.



Of course judges do not agree. Because it's the whole software industry that works like that, and in fact not only the software industry, but the whole IP legislation that work like that.

You don't own a software, nor you own a music or a movie. The owner of software, musics or movies are ONLY and ALWAYS the author(s). This is the law, and Psystar can't deny it, and that's not what they were fighting against.

What Psystar was denying and so fighting against was the part of the license saying that you can't install Mac OS X on a non-apple hardware. What they wanted to do by making clones was to prove that it was possible to make Mac OS X running on other hardware, and so that the limitation is not justified.

I personally disagree totally with the Psystar point of you, because for me (and I think also for the law), it's the author right to decide which hardware his software target.
If that were not the case, than that would mean that you could force any software maker to port its software to any hardware platform. That would be ridiculous.

If you want a software to be ported to a hardware platform, either you ask the author if he can do it or you ask him if he can give you a license that allows you to do it. But if the author doesn't want to do it or to give you the right to do it, it's his right.

Considering that, Psystar couldn't have won, what it's doing is totally against the Copyright/IP laws. You can't do what you want with an IP work like software, but also musics or movies, because you don't own it (that's the law!!) and so you have to ask the author the authorization for anything not allowed in the license sold with it (if any).
If you disagree with the license, then you can attack the author in court to expect to have the parts of the license you disagree with, invalidated.

But the big mistake of Psystar was to start its activity before having attacked Apple to get the part of the license that disallow it invalidated (even if I don't think they would have won). Because by doing so, and because Mac OS X need modifications to be able to run on a PC, they made them directly guilty of software piracy.

Edited 2009-11-28 10:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: And what if...
by r_a_trip on Fri 27th Nov 2009 10:49 in reply to "RE: And what if..."
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

...could have an impact on Apple's brand name and reputation.

I really do not understand why all the negativeness towards Apple protecting their IP, especially from so called "journalists".


I can't speak for all of us, but I know why Apple has lost a lot of the magic for me.

Back when Apple was on PPC and their marketing machine (and the Apple community) was going full force in bombarding x86 as slow, cumbersome, inferior and boring, one could almost suspend disbelieve when one heard that a 800 MHz PPC was somehow magically soooo much better than a 1.2 GHz Intel processor. Most computer users never touched an actual PPC machine, so there was a huge lack of hands on knowledge to make a fair comparison. Their exotic architecture protected them.

Then the bombshell dropped that Apple was going to use x86 processors. That is when the shroud of mystery started to unravel. Apple is a regular x86 peddler now, save some outlandish case design and what Apple sells is mostly midrange hardware at highend prices. I know that Apple fans try to convey the image that the complete Apple experience is larger than the sum of its parts, but it's more wishful thinking than reality.

We can compare the innards of a Mac one on one with the equivalent off the shelf x86 kit. OS X, while decent, is just another UNIX with monolithic kernel. Aqua looks pretty, but one menu bar and a dock simply doesn't make computing heaven. Having app bundles is nifty, but installing software is mostly a one time affair, so that too doesn't really tip the scales. Technologically Apple isn't really different from say Dell or HP in the home computing market.

It doesn't stop Apple marketing from yelling "We're unique, we're different, we're better!" Sorry, no your not. You are just 80% marketing and 20% technology and 200% more control freakish than Microsoft. I think a lot of the negativity stems from the fact that Apple is carrying on like nothing ever changed, but most of the world has seen the man standing behind the curtain.

The only thing that makes Apple unique these days is the artificial limit on OS X and their banking on the waning image of being the hip, magical technology company.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: And what if...
by shadowhand on Sat 28th Nov 2009 07:35 in reply to "RE[2]: And what if..."
shadowhand Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple may no longer be unique, but they don't need to be. OSX has gotten to the point that a wide range of people can use it and be comfortable, as well as secure.

Let's face it... Microsoft is losing the consumer base and the Linux community still hasn't figured out a way (or doesn't really want to) to break into the preinstalled market, netbooks aside. I think the numbers have shown that Apple is gaining a lot of popularity and will continue to do so. They simply have a better product, end of story.

Reply Parent Score: 1