[Wondercow]

[quote name='tvon']
>

Wondercow said:

> Really? So it's not illegal for me to drop an anvil on your head since 1) I paid for the anvil and 2) no court has decided "one may not drop an anvil on another person"?

Actually, I don't think the anvil company could sue you for that

But the police may extend me an invitation.... (My point wasn't that the company could sue, but to counter the statement that "it's not illegal until a court says it is.")
>though you would have more pressing issues to deal with anyway...
Yeah, will I be able to watch Road Runner cartoons in prison?! ;-)

[johndrake]

Let's say you not only make the software but also the hardware it is to run on, you know the same as the makers at Apple, Sony, Microsoft, etc ( Wii- XBox360 insert your favorite software/hardware combo here)-and I come out with a box that is cheaper, not as reliable etc. and used you software/OS without any need to create my own, would you be happy what that would do to your business and reputation. And then if my customers came to you for support, and the folks out there that don't know the difference think that my machine/software combo is your machine/software combo and start spreading bile about your products? I'd bet your next pay check you'd do everything legally possible to stop me from violating your product/ideas/reputation/income. And if you answer no to that you're only kidding yourself.
If you want to do what Psystar is doing for yourself that would be your prerogative.

[phuney]

Funny how the fans boys will back Apple with what ever they do.

I would have thought the law already covers dropping anvils on heads. I don't think we would need a trip to court to decide whether that is ilegal. Obviously we do need a trip to court to decide whether Apple's licencing agreements are legal.

Psystar didn't steal Apple software they bought it and according to Psystar and their lawyers they have every right to resell it on their machines.

Just because Apple says something in their licence doesn't make it legal. (I know this is hard to understand for some of you). This is what the court will decide, Is Apple's licencing legal?

If it is Psystar will dissapear and Apple (and others) will tighten their grip. Until the EU thinks they have too much power and they will have to sell OS10.6 without itunes and safari.

[johndrake]

Until the EU thinks they have too much power and they will have to sell OS10.6 without itunes and safari.

You can take both of those out of the mix without any repercussions to the OS, unlike Windows and IE to which you allude...

[yourboyvic]

Apple, Inc. is no longer just a computer company and the mac isn't the only thing Apple is trying to sell. Apple is trying to sell the entire platform now. iPod and iPhone have infiltrated the market and, however subversively OS X will too, with the Mac in tow.
at this rate, as long as Apple, Inc. doesn't outright say clones are okay the Windows community will continue to cannibalize itself... and we should let it happen.
cannibalize |ˈkanəbəE?līz|
verb http:// trans.
1 use (a machine) as a source of spare parts for another, similar machine.
• use (the creative work of others) in one's own art : high culture should cannibalize mass culture.
• (of a company) reduce (the sales of one of its products) by introducing a similar, competing product.

[Wondercow]

phuney said:

Funny how the fans boys will back Apple with what ever they do.

Funny how those with weak arguments must always reduce others to "fanboy." Funny how you know nothing of what I think or feel yet you feel the justification to take your argument to a personal level.

Quote

I would have thought the law already covers dropping anvils on heads. I don't think we would need a trip to court to decide whether that is ilegal.

Contract law is likewise clearly established. EULAs have long been upheld in court and the judge has already ruled that Apple has a right to tie MacOS to Mac hardware.
>Obviously we do need a trip to court to decide whether Apple's licencing agreements are legal.
You don't think, were I to drop an anvil on you, that I'd end up in court? I certainly would be put on trial--a trial that would decide if I were guilty or not guilty. My "trip to court" would "decide whether my actions were legal."

Quote

Psystar didn't steal Apple software they bought it and according to Psystar and their lawyers they have every right to resell it on their machines.

In other news.... according to every defence lawyer--past, present, or future--all clients had every right to do whatever they did.

[mdawson]

Quote

phuney wrote:

>

Quote

Funny how the fans boys will back Apple with what ever they do.

Funny how people without clue come onto a Mac forum an accuse people of being fan boys when they obviously have no idea of what they are talking about. If you actually knew anything about the regulars on these boards, then you would know that all of us have had our share of complaints about Apple.

Quote

phuney wrote:

>

Quote

Psystar didn't steal Apple software they bought it and according to Psystar and their lawyers they have every right to resell it on their machines.

Really? At what point did Apple ever put OS X up for sale? At what point did Psystar pay the millions of dollars that OS X is worth and earn a transfer of ownership that constitutes a sale? Perhaps before you go around calling people fan boys, you should go and learn the difference between purchasing and licensing/leasing/renting.

Quote

phuney wrote:

>
Just because Apple says something in their licence doesn't make it legal. (I know this is hard to understand for some of you). This is what the court will decide, Is Apple's licencing legal?

At no time in any thread on this topic has a single person backing Apple?s position has ever stated or implied that anything Apple writes into their license is automatically legal. By the same token, just because Apple is involved does not make the position wrong. Like most iWants? you are quick to exaggerate the matter as being some movement to prove that anything Apple does is right. I know this is hard for you to understand, but defending Apple does not equate to some irrational zealous. The issue here is that any company has right to protect their copyrighted property; it is about more than Apple.

phuney wrote:
>
If it is Psystar will dissapear and Apple (and others) will tighten their grip.

Others like who? The PC OEMs that do not own any operating systems or develop software. How about Microsoft, the company that does not manufacture PCs.

phuney wrote:
>
Until the EU thinks they have too much power and they will have to sell OS10.6 without itunes and safari.
iTunes and Safari are offered with OS X, they are not embedded in the operating system, and Apple is not a monopoly. Therefore, the type of illegal tying that Microsoft has been found guilty of the world over does not apply to Apple.

Your entire post clearly indicates that you have absolutely no idea as to what this case is about, nor do you care as long as you can berate Apple for simply existing.

[himbo]

mdawson said:

>iWants?
What an excellent term! I will have to remember this one.

[mdawson]

Quote

cphoffman42 wrote:

>

Quote

If Psystar loses, it means EULAs will likely get even more oppressive than they are now.

How does Apple winning this case give software developers carte blanc to author more oppressive EULAs? Firstly, the developer is the copyright holder so they have the right to make the terms of use as restrictive as they please as long as they do not impede ?fair use? as dictated under copyright law. Given the activities of the music industry and the movie/TV industry, even that protection for users has been threatened. I am more concerned about their activities?particularly the video industry that has impeded fair use copying unchallenged since the introduction of MacroVision copy protection in the heyday of VHS?than I am about Apple preventing other OEMs from using OS X to cannibalize Apple?s brand space.

[Wondercow]

mdawson said:

>I know this is hard for you to understand, but defending Apple does not equate to some irrational zealous. The issue here is that any company has right to protect their copyrighted property; it is about more than Apple.
This is a very good point: no matter who, or which company, were playing the role of plaintiff in a case like this one, they would have my support. Taking another's work or property without leave or licence to do so is theft and is wrong.

As much as I dislike MS they still have every right to operate their way using their chosen strategies (within the bounds of the law, of course). Just because I feel that they overcharge for Office and don't put enough effort as they should into reducing bugs and increasing security doesn't give me the right to use Office in violation of the terms of use.

[jceeetle]

Apple does not sell MacOS X for installation on new PCs. They only sell upgrades to existing Mac users who received MacOS on their Apple computers.

Compare this to MS Windows. You can either purchase a Windows Upgrade (for installation on a PC with an existing Windows license) or a Full License (for installation on a new PC). And there's a significant cost difference.

Were Psystar to start selling new PCs using a Windows Upgrade license, they would certainly be in trouble with the Microsoft EULA - just as they are with the Apple EULA for installing a MacOS upgrade on a new PC. The Microsoft EULA is no less restrictive than Apple's.

[hillstones]

phuney said:

Psystar didn't steal Apple software they bought it and according to Psystar and their lawyers they have every right to resell it on their machines.

Just because Apple says something in their licence doesn't make it legal. (I know this is hard to understand for some of you). This is what the court will decide, Is Apple's licencing legal?

Amazing that you honestly believe what you type. So do you think Microsoft would sue me if I hacked the XBox software and sold it on a generic hardware box? Why can't I run XBox software on a generic box to avoid having to pay for a real XBox? How about a Wii? Can't I hack that software and run it on non-Nintendo hardware? Just because a software company says something in their license actually DOES make it legal. Pystar is violating Apple's rights by hacking their software.

Here are some interesting details on the Psystar website:
"The highly extensible Open Computer is a configuration of PC hardware capable of running unmodified OS X Leopard kernels. All known Leopard software works flawlessly including the built-in Software Update utility. The price includes a retail copy of Leopard in its original package. We preinstall OS X on your machine so that you may be able to begin using your Open Computer right out of the box. Information about our restore disc is available on our website. Please note that Bootcamp is not supported by Open Computers because it is Apple-hardware specific."

So they include a retail copy of OS X; however, it is useless to the consumer because they cannot install it on the PC! The text later reads, information about OUR restore disc is available on our website. So it looks like they make you buy their hacked version to restore the computer! So the retail copy included does nothing for the consumer. Also, they can't get Boot Camp to run because they claim it is Apple Hardware Specific. So is OS X, when it is not modified illegally.

[mdawson]

I have to give credit where credit is due. leary coined that term back in August/September when two very heated threads on this issue were in play. The ?trademark? is his and he deserves the acknowledgment of his spot on cleverness.

[daveM]

I believe it's not good for the mac community to have a third party selling mac clone computers.
I can't help but wonder though, could Ford prohibit someone from putting a GM engine in their car? Could GM start selling gasoline and make it mandatory to only use their fuel?
Could Honda develop a new gasoline that doubles fuel milage but only sell it to Honda owners?
Could Sony develop a new type of media for video and force everyone to pay huge premiums for the media and license fees for players? Oh wait they are doing that.
If you apply Apples reasoning to other things we buy or use it begins to look foolish.
Macs are just computers, damn good computers but still just computers.
Again, understand I don't want the mac clones but I don't see how to stop them.
Also, the price paid for OSX by Psystar and hackintosh builders is an upgrade fee.
Apple could charge $500 or something for a full & open license maybe that would put an end it.