[dizzle]

In listening to Bally I hear the simpering whine of Jim Taggert.

[Wondercow]

mdawson said:

> Wondercow wrote:
>
> Please explain to us how this is unsubstantiated.

He cannot. As you wisely pointed out, and are well aware having engaged in this debate since it arose about a year ago, those supporting Psystar have no point. All these people care about is what they want, all else be damned, and should you dare disagree with their self-absorbed grand wisdom then they resort to insults and ad hominem because they have nothing with which to debate.

I know, I know, but I have to be true to fairness (even if others aren't). I must allow them a chance to both rebut my comments and, more importantly, to explain theirs. Maybe I missed something or typed my thoughts in haste; I could have erred in something I said and I must afford them the opportunity to explain their criticisms of me. (And, to be fair, since my accident my concentration is shot and I make many errors--it usually takes about 30-60 minutes to type out a post.)

[UbuntuProgrammer]

I'm not certain why apple does not allow it's software to be installed on other machines if the sotware can be sold separatly... but as I can see in:
Mac OS X (Leopard) Software License (PDF)
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
"...Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time."
However apple-labeled computer is not defined in the document. So I will assume this means any computer with the apple ™ on it (a reasonable person would assume this). Since I am not aware of a HW binding contract on HW usage rights then one should be free do what ever one wants with this computer.
Applying Theseus's paradox to Apple HW, and you have reductio ad absurdum of what is an "Apple-labeled computer", so long as the case is intact and maybe not even then. Combined with the rights and freedoms of the country I live in, it would be moot to even consider what an individual may or may not do with any piece of equipment which does nothing harmful to the public good (or potentially endangers it).
However this issue with Psystar seems to be over brand and image control. Trade marks are an enforceable matter. If someone opened "OpenMcDonaleds" selling burgers beside (or anywhere actually) McDonalds you could rest assured a cease and desist is in the mail. However I am still not convinced given obvious brand distancing that Psystar should not be able to offer Apple OS on Apple-clone machines. But the reasoning is non-trivial, simply it has to do with what I consider to be "good" (personally speaking why it is not in the best interest in maximizing potential).

[mdawson]

Quote

UbuntuProgrammer wrote:

>

Quote

I'm not certain why apple does not allow it's software to be installed on other machines if the sotware can be sold separately? (sic)

Apple does not allow OS X to be installed on other machines because other PCs are direct competition to the Mac. Apple is in business to sell computers, not software, and it is sale of Macs that generate the revenues for Apple?s other ventures. The fact that you can buy a copy of OS X off the shelf does not nullify Apple?s rights as the copyright holder to dictate terms of use.

Quote

UbuntuProgrammer wrote:

>

Quote

Combined with the rights and freedoms of the country I live in, it would be moot to even consider what an individual may or may not do with any piece of equipment which does nothing harmful to the public good (or potentially endangers it).

Apple in no way attempts to dictate how you use any piece of equipment. When you buy a Mac you own it outright and are free to do with it as you please within the bounds of the law. The application of EULAs on purchased items has already been shot down by the courts.

You do not and cannot buy OS X. Even if Apple were to put OS X up for sale, you would not be able to afford it. The use of OS X, or any commercial software, is done under license and you must agree to that license and its terms in order to install the software. OS X is copyrighted material owned solely by Apple, Inc. Like any copyright holder, Apple has the right to be as open or restrictive in the terms of use of their property as they please barring violation of fair use; a point that the media industries do not seem to get.

Quote

UbuntuProgrammer wrote:

>
However this issue with Psystar seems to be over brand and image control. Trade marks (sic) are an enforceable matter.

As are copyrights. Branding is only part of the matter, but it is important in a market where people have consistently shown that they are incapable of making proper distinctions. I have all too often come across situations where I ask someone what version of Windows they are running and they tell me the version of Office that they have or vice versa.

UbuntuProgrammer wrote:
>
However I am still not convinced given obvious brand distancing that Psystar should not be able to offer Apple OS on Apple-clone machines.

Apple is not suing Psystar over brand identity, although that can almost be implied in a copyright case of this nature. No OEM can offer OS X because they do not own the software and do not have an OEM license from Apple that gives them the required legal permission to pre-install Apple?s copyrighted software. Are you not convinced that Warner Bros. cannot distribute anything from the Star Trek franchise owned by Paramount without Paramount?s consent?

[UbuntuProgrammer]

Talking about law is a tricky matter. I am in Canada both the law and even the political machenery we use to make it are different from that of the United States.
mdawson: Apple does not allow OS X to be installed on other machines because other PCs are direct competition to the Mac.
In Canada direct competition is not a crime. I am certain if you ask some children if they can think of companies that offer the same services they will be able to. To help you out and get this to someplace meaningful: It is the nature of the direct competition that matters and whether or not the competition is in the public good.
Copyright does not let you dictate terms of use beyond what is allowed in Canadian copyright law, if we look into it I think most countries has agreed to use copyright in the same way, so your is probably the same. In Canada there are provisions (which I don't care to look up right now but have read) which allow me to copy any copyrighted work which I own for personal research purposes (under fair use). I think you are confusing Copyright with Contract Law. Copyright prevents copying a work, anything beyond this is though a contract... since the contract is probably in the copyrighted work we will give that it is at least seen (for a second at least) by people who install the software. My point is Copyright is a rather universally understood concept while your particular contract is not. My question is... Is this contract in the public interest?
mdawson: You do not and cannot buy OS X. Even if Apple were to put OS X up for sale, you would not be able to afford it.
You are splitting hairs over semantics. I can buy the work which is OS X (in the same way I "buy" a book) and then I have the medium in my personal possession. At this point I can do what ever I want with it that Copyright allows. Hell I could put it in my machine and NOT install it but copy it as a back up and start work reverse engineering it, that is allowed here. Now what I do with the resulting work may not be legal but that is another issue. Whether I can afford to purchase the Copyright to the work is different, but it would be obtuse to think that is what I meant.
mdawson: Like any copyright holder, Apple has the right to be as open or restrictive in the terms of use of their property as they please barring violation of fair use; a point that the media industries do not seem to get.
I disagree and this is the heart of this debate. The issue is in how they are being restrictive (the contract), and one argument will be that it impedes on fair use (as I've seen people here claim that it can not be legally installed on a non apple computer which looking only at copyright is clearly possible where I live for "personal research purposes").
mdawson: Apple is not suing Psystar over brand identity, although that can almost be implied in a copyright case of this nature. No OEM can offer OS X because they do not own the software and do not have an OEM license from Apple that gives them the required legal permission to pre-install Apple’s copyrighted software. Are you not convinced that Warner Bros. cannot distribute anything from the Star Trek franchise owned by Paramount without Paramount’s consent?
You are clearly confusing copyright and contract. In your last sentence you change the issue to one being of only copyright where earlier the issue is the OEM license (which is an agreement). They are not the same issue. Do you understand?

[dizzle]

Ubuntu you are clearly not understanding the issues and it could be the difference in perspective between countries. This is however an American case and must be analyzed based on American law. I am going to give a shameless plug only because I have provided extensive layperson opinion on the legal issues moreso than any other site.

http://news.worldofa...tegory/psystar/

I am particularly fascinated with this case, and it is all I report on, so it is natural that I will give more analysis than a broader and more generalized content provider such as Macworld.

[dizzle]

Actually one aspect of Apple's case IS brand identity and integrity, i.e. infringement of trade dress. Psystar lied like a rug in their answer to that IMHO which I do document.

[Wondercow]

UbuntuProgrammer said:

Talking about law is a tricky matter. I am in Canada both the law and even the political machenery we use to make it are different from that of the United States.

>

Quote

In Canada direct competition is not a crime. I am certain if you ask some children if they can think of companies that offer the same services they will be able to. To help you out and get this to someplace meaningful: It is the nature of the direct competition that matters and whether or not the competition is in the public good.

Copyright does not let you dictate terms of use beyond what is allowed in Canadian copyright law, if we look into it I think most countries has agreed to use copyright in the same way, so your is probably the same. In Canada there are provisions (which I don't care to look up right now but have read) which allow me to copy any copyrighted work which I own for personal research purposes (under fair use).

I don't have the time right now to reply to your other post, nor this one in entirety, but I did want to quickly jump in for this. We,--Canadians--don't have "fair use" rights, we have "fair dealing" (which may seem like just a difference in terminology but there is an actual distinction). Through the fair dealing portion of our copyright act one has the right to make a single copy of portions of a copyright work--we may not copy the entire work, or even a large part (typically).
Message was edited by: Wondercow--left out a word

[MacPro2007]

mdawson,
Very well put. I only wish your post had appeared at the beginning of this thread. You have completely described Apple's rights as an OEM - which in this case shows that they (1) have the basic right to defend by law suit their rights and (2) Psystar will have to cease making their Mac clones.

The only question which qualifies for further debate is one of "our opinion." That is, we may have opposing opinions on whether or not Apple has taken the "best track" in deciding to hold exclusive rights to licensing Mac OS (whatever version).
It will not matter what "we" decide, it will only remain a question and the question (of advisability of this strategy) will only be answered (if at all) on the basis of Apple's ultimate fate as a corporate entity. Will they succeed or fail in the long run? Will that success or failure be traced back to their original decision to hold exclusive rights?

What's not debatable is that Apple has done a masterful job in handling this question. They have survived against odds (and the predictions of partisans) - and have prospered as well.

In the last regard: Many Mac owners complained initially when Apple entered the market for other personal electronic devices. This strategy also succeeded - and they've pretty much proven they remain devoted to their core business of computer products. Now, it seems likely that Apple's move into iPods and iPhones was done precisely to offset the disadvantages of being a "tiny part" of the computer market. Apple made it clear from the beginning of this new phase that the hoped for and foresaw a "halo effect" - which would show consumers that Apple was also a purveyor of high-end consumer products in the "non-computer" electronics market.

I suspect: What's got some Mac owners stirred up in the case of Psystar is their lingering desire for an "equivalent" to the tower config PC. They are frustrated by Apple's strategy of offering only the Mac Mini in that area. So they're giving in to their own desire for a "Mac-ified" PC tower and trying to defend Psystar, which they see as the end of their frustration.

If Apple ever decides to quell and satisfy that "market segment" - all they have to do is to buy a company like Psystar. Which - they could easily do. I speculate that they'll not do this. They might foresee that it would weaken their stance regarding the licensing of the OS to other computer OEMs. - I mean, put them in the position of being charged with monopolistic practices.

So we're left in the position of sideline spectators. The only ones dissatisfied will be those who think they have the better strategies for a win. Here in the US, that's called "armchair coaching" or "back seat driving." I'm content to leave that occupation to those who insist on remaining frustrated. I think you are too. :-)

[jman3001]

What we're seeing is the natural course of "Supply and Demand".
Apple fails to supply an adequately priced desktop and the consumer finds an alternative.
This is always the way the consumer market works. Apple has failed as a company and others have picked up the gauntlet.
For those that don't understand basic common business practices and economics, please return to school. And while you're at it get that Law Degree you so desperately wish you had.
End of discussion.

[dizzle]

Ahh the ad hom attack. First, it is you my blustery ignorant friend that doesn't understand LAWFUL economics A competitor doesn't rip off the product, they come up with their own. Which is what Apple did in the face of consumer dissatisfaction with Vista. They didn't take Vista, modify its code somewhat, and say "Okay here is a better version of Vista - supply and demand you know."

Second, are you a psychic? If not, what are your qualifications as to anyone's desparate desires? Are you a lawyer? I am not, but unless you are a lawyer, or work in the law, I will go toe to toe with you any day. I have over twelve years of experience in the legal field as a legal assistant. I am not qualified to practice law due to not going to law school BY CHOICE. You couldn't pay me enough to be a lawyer. I make a very comfortable salary as a legal assistant without the stress that comes with being an attorney for which the pay increase does not pass the rewards test.

If you are not an attorney, or if you don't have legal experience, you should really stop insulting other people in that manner. As far as I can see right now, there are no attorneys in this thread. As far as I know, I am the only one who actually works in law. Do you? Perhaps you do. Your ignorant economic statement doesn't show it.

[Wondercow]

jman3001 said:

What we're seeing is the natural course of "Supply and Demand".
...
For those that don't understand basic common business practices and economics, please return to school.

Oh that's good! You OBVIOUSLY don't understand the very term you use to put us down!

The principle of supply and demand states that the demand for Product X counterbalanced by the amount available will naturally regulate the price of Product X in an open and free market. That is, as demand increases the supply (generally) decreases and prices rise; as the supply increases the price declines to the point of equilibrium.

Or, as OS X defines it: the amount of a good or service available and the desire of buyers for it, considered as factors regulating its price

Instead of posting here you should spend some time upgrading your own edification.

[mdawson]

All jman3001 does on these boards since he joined is talk trash. Every single one of posts is nothing more than FUD, ad hominem, misinformation, inaccuracies, anecdotal references, anti-Apple rhetoric, pro-Psystar propaganda and quite possibly, in terms of his (alleged) years long always bad experience with Macs and Apple in general, outright prevarication. If I did not know better I would think he worked for Psystar and joined these board with sole intent of sowing the seeds of discontent to get people to buy Psystar's crapware. His arguments have been repeatedly shredded yet he insists on continually posting his indefensible dribble.

You should have been around back in late August when he kept this thread going for several months with his mindless rants. It would have been nice to have someone with legal experience shut him down months ago, but then he as clearly demonstrated that the only thing he cares about is what he wants and anyone that dares disagree with his desires is nothing more than an uninformed Apple fan boy.

[Grapho]

jman3001 said:

What we're seeing is the natural course of "Supply and Demand".

Apple fails to supply an adequately priced desktop and the consumer finds an alternative.

This is always the way the consumer market works. Apple has failed as a company and others have picked up the gauntlet.

For those that don't understand basic common business practices and economics, please return to school. And while you're at it get that Law Degree you so desperately wish you had.

End of discussion.

The same can be said of cocaine. The government criminalizes it's distribution and sale and others have picked up the gauntlet.

For those that don't understand basic common illicit business practices and shady economics, please return to school or prison. And while you're at it get that Law Degree you so desperately wish you had. :-)