[UbuntuProgrammer]

"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)."
From quick inspection is appears that the quantity of the work is only a guideline as to whether or not there has been a violation and further I am talking for personal research purposes. The only way it will become an issue is if privacy rights of an individual are violated, as such I don't think you will find further qualification.
See: http://www.cb-cda.gc...info/act-e.html (#29) "Fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study does not infringe copyright." Conditions apply to areas but this area is of personal interest to me... I transcribe a lot of written work (notes I guess you'd say)... in some cases the entire work is copied... into a more usable form.
See: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Fair_dealing (That you for the clarification of terms it helped me understand it better.)

[UbuntuProgrammer]

About jman3001 and supply and demand. He should understand the issue would be more about brand and trade mark protection than anything else but that aside he was talking about HW not software... software does not have the same supply and demand rules as physical objects. The limited supply of software is artificial. Further copyright blocks the open market by preventing identical results (ie: Contrast this with the precious metal market).

[dizzle]

UbuntuProgrammer, then his comment is nonsensical. If it is only about hardware, then Psystar is irrelevant. There are tons of cheap hardware on the market, nearly any decent size hardware seller can put them out of business. It is about software, it is the software is at issue.

Here is what is frustrating to me. UP, you obviously know about Ubuntu. I know little to nothing. How would you appreciate it if I busted in on a conversation about very specific issues but refused to get educated about them? 90% of the people in this conversation don't know what they are talking about. This is a legal issue, not one of private "opinion." The law is publicly available for anyone here to read.

Let me ask who here in this thread besides me has read all the filings in this case besides me? There are public record. I don't think I am out of bounds in saying if you (not you personally, you meaning anyone) has not bothered to even know what the record says, respectfully, they are talking out of ignorance.

I could be wrong, but at least I know what the documents say and what the arguments are and what the law is that is being argued. I have read THOUSANDS of pages for this case and spend now about two hundred hours on it. At this point, I think I am qualified to say at least I know the issues, so it is very frustrating when people spout off ignorantly.

Again, not talking about you, just a general vent. His comment had to get back to software otherwise it was completely irrelevant. And of course software supply is articial, just like the number of printings of a book. The creator has the right to do so. Despite the crybabying that goes on, no we don't have the right to do just whatever we want with someone else's creative work. That might sound all nice and pie in the sky, but there would be a complete stagnation of people motivated to make innovations if their work was not so protected.

To be blunt. IMHO, both legally and morally, Psystar are nothing but thieving punks who have admitted that they don't have the talent to create something themselves so Apple should be forced to help them compete. That makes me sick.

Who is John Galt?

[dizzle]

Oh and let me state the obvious (at least it seems so to me, perhaps someone in corporate accounting can correct me), Apple can make any "win" completely irrelevant the day after the trial. How? Stop selling OSX off the shelve. Make it part and parcel of the hardware purchase requiring a previous license to upgrade. Problem solved.

If Psystar were to win, it would go against everything that the American free market stands for. It would not shock me, we are long down the road to socialism.

The Court's last Order was abysmal IMHO both logically and legally. I do not however have the proper qualifications to give an "official legal opinion" so my opinion is just that of an educated layperson. It was also very sloppily written. Judges don't normally write their own Orders, a law clerk writes them, and it was painfully obvious that a different law clerk with substandard care to detail wrote this Order than the one that wrote the other Order. The logic is convoluted and it misspelled Psystar as "PsyStar." I would be fired if I produced such sloppy work product. Also I think the Court made an appealable mistake in denying Apple the right (so it seems) to file a Motion to Dismiss. Immediately after the trial, Apple will appeal. or let me be more circumspect, I think they could appeal that point. That last Order is ripe to be overturned by a higher court. The Order even admits that it is going against established prior precedent.

[MacPro2007]

dizzle,
Without attacking you, I just want to point out that there are professions (like purchasing) which require a sufficient knowledge of COMMERCIAL LAW to qualify for the job. This case, Apple vs Psystar, is a matter of commercial law, an area easily understood by those otherwise qualified for such professions as I mention. No law degree required.

I'm a retired purchasing exec. I have always known and understood this and most other aspects of commercial law. Let me assure you, Apple is breaking no law - but under that law (actually, it's part of the U.S. Law Code) , Psystar certainly appears to be doing so.

The only interesting part of this case to me is that Psystar appears to be kinda stupid: if they had just provided their computers with a purchased copy of OS X - without pre-installing that system - they'd be in at least a little better position. But nooo!!

Lawyers: do not often provide free legal advice on internet forums like this. Corporate executives usually don't do so either - but in this case, I have no "interest" or investment in either Apple or Psystar. Also, since I'm not an officer of either company (or any company since my retirement): I can offer you this bit of information in the spirit of peaceful discussion.

[dizzle]

MacPro2007:

First, I agree with you. But it would be completely hypocritical to let you slide simply because I agree with you. Have you read the pleadings, yes or no? If not, you really do not even know what is being pled. If you think that you are getting the nuts and buts from a pop magazine like Macworld, you are sorely mistaken. I am not criticizing the magazine; they shouldn't be expected to do anything further. But if you have not read the publicly available materials, you are speaking out of ignorance.

However, let me tell you though, as someone who HAS read the pleadings, that you are correct.

So thus far it appears that everyone in this thread has an opinion on a case that they know nothing about except what is reported in popular news outlets.

MacPro2007, do you have any idea of the impact of the Court's recent ruling allowing a declaratory action to proceed that is duplicative of an affirmative defense? No? Do you even know what a declaratory action is?

Did anyone bother to follow the link I gave wherein at least you could have the benefit of my summary of the pleadings?

I am sure everyone in here has some life experiences that they bring to the table. That is not the issue. How many people aren't simply talking out of their rear because they haven't even read the pleadings. They are available online. I have the transcripts (I purchased them out of my own pocket with some contribution from my editor but costing me personally well over $200) of each hearing before the Court. Anyone else? No?

I am just tired of so many people flapping their jaws on something they don't know about. You happen to be right, but it isn't because you have read the case file, or have you?

I believe Apple is right, and I believe Psystar is more than stupid. I believe they are immoral. The Court may decide otherwise, but if they do, it is my non-attorney opinion that they will be gravely wrong, that Apple will appeal, and ten years down the road, Apple will prevail. I could be wrong. But at least if I am I am wrong based upon an informed and educated opinion by doing the actual work.

Psystar wouldn't have a business just selling the box. Anybody can go buy the box and a much nicer box than the pieces of crap that Psystar is selling. The people that want to to do that are more sophisticated than the schomoes who are buying the Psystar boxes. A Mac tech here went to go service a Psystar piece of crap. It had packing peanuts inside the housing. Nice. The "tinkerers" and technologically sophisticated people are creating their own Hackintoshes, they don't need opportunists like Psystar to do it for them. I have seen nicer views on baboon rears than Psystar boxes.

[Wondercow]

UbuntuProgrammer said:

From quick inspection is appears that the quantity of the work is only a guideline as to whether or not there has been a violation and further I am talking for personal research purposes.

The quantity does vary which is why I said "typically" :-) Generally speaking though, one may not copy even most of a work--especially a written work. One may, however, copy, as needed, chapter one of a twenty chapter book, then chapter two, then chapter three.... That's not to say that it always would be illegal to copy all twenty chapters, just that the more one copies the greater the risk of running afoul of the Act, and one's justification will need to meet a higher standard.

(I did understand that in your case you are specifically speaking of research but I didn't explicitly restate that.)
>The only way it will become an issue is if privacy rights of an individual are violated, as such I don't think you will find further qualification.
Not at all--if one copies "too much" it's just that (there are also other exceptions but I'm going to keep this short). From the Wiki article you link:

The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC), a well established lobbying group representing the educational sector in Canada is of the opinion that making a copy of the following for the purposes of private study and research is fair dealing:
a periodical article of a scientific, technical or scholarly nature from a book or a periodical issue containing other works;
a newspaper article or entry from an encyclopedia, annotated bibliography or similar reference work; or
a short story, play, poem, or essay from a book or periodical containing other works.

Even the lobbying group asserts that only portions of longer works are valid (and that only short texts may be copied in entirety).

Quote

See: http://www.cb-cda.gc...info/act-e.html (#29) "Fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study does not infringe copyright." Conditions apply to areas but this area is of personal interest to me... I transcribe a lot of written work (notes I guess you'd say)... in some cases the entire work is copied... into a more usable form.

I've seen it and I've read it.... many times ;-)

Quote

See: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Fair_dealing (That you for the clarification of terms it helped me understand it better.)

Seen that too! And you're welcome ;-)

The problem with Canadian (and all Commonwealth) copyright is also its beauty: we don't have much in the way of formal, set rules. Everything's open to interpretation and what one may honestly consider to be fair dealing, another may not. But, as I said, it's also a thing of beauty; have you seen how long the Copyright Law of the United States of America is?

[dizzle]

Wondercow if you really want some insomnia-curing legislation, try reading the DMCA and the triennial reviews. Snore! I had the misfortune of having to do so in writing a piece on the jailbreaking issue right now (which is yet another case that 90% of commenters, including Apple web writers, have not bothered to read the publicly filed documents, and thus don't know what they are talking about).

As far as this case, let me remind everyone that the Apple web falsely reported that Psystar claimed that Apple neglected to copyright OSX. That was an absolutely FALSE allegation. Not one site published a retraction. Computerworld reported in at least two articles that this case was scheduled to go to trial in April. Bzzzt.

IOW, most reporting on issues that require quite a bit of reading is crap.

[Wondercow]

UbuntuProgrammer said:

About jman3001 and supply and demand. He should understand the issue would be more about brand and trade mark protection than anything else

Apple's angle is mainly copyright infringement.
>that aside he was talking about HW not software...
The hardware that is a means to the software. If it were all about hardware he has his choice of every computer that is not a Mac. He's after MacOS.
>software does not have the same supply and demand rules as physical objects. The limited supply of software is artificial. Further copyright blocks the open market by preventing identical results
That would technically be true of anything. Corvette ended production of the Stingray body design. Technically the only thing that "blocks the open market by preventing identical results" is copyright. Anyone with the skill could produce that body design himself....

At any rate, my point was that he's chastising us for being uneducated when he just showed everyone how woefully uneducated, unknowledgeable, and childish he really is (as if we couldn't tell already).

[UbuntuProgrammer]

dizzle: "UbuntuProgrammer, then his comment is nonsensical."
That's putting it nicely.
It is a legal issue but all you can hope for here is opinion, and mostly public. I'm glad you picked up on my name... for an OS that is at 5% (very hard to monitor for obvious reasons so I take that with a grain of salt too...) and then this is only a particular distribution... anyways I'm still impressed.
dizzle: "Let me ask who here in this thread besides me has read all the filings in this case besides me?"
Sure as hell not me. However I did not question the record nor do I recall supporting a claim for either side (I have not stake in either side). What I would like to ferment is a discussion about IP in this particular case, and the current state of IP. The court record is a "he said, she said" affair, which is one line of rhetoric out of many. For those who have debated out there, you will know that "winning" does not equate to sincere agreement and understanding. For this reason I feel the comments here will be more fruitful, and interesting. Law for the sake of law isn't my thing but I do commend you for your rigorous study of the matter.
dizzle: "That might sound all nice and pie in the sky, but there would be a complete stagnation of people motivated to make innovations if their work was not so protected."
I don't know about that. I've seen the work at the NRC (National Research Council of Canada) those guys are creating amazing things and they do it because it's who they are. Linux/GNU is expanding (both the user base and in functionality). My girl friend is part of a local actors group that acts because they like to. My brother plays the fiddle at public events. So... there will be new music, videos to watch, Operating systems that stay current, and scientists who are doing things with AI I wouldn't have believed... and this will all happen without protectionism. Your science books are littered with examples of people who worked ridiculously hard for next to no monetary reward.
dizzle: "To be blunt. IMHO, both legally and morally, Psystar are nothing but thieving punks who have admitted that they don't have the talent to create something themselves so Apple should be forced to help them compete."
I did see they said something to the effect of "creating an operating system being prohibitive"... I would think that goes without saying. Operating systems are technically very complicated but that aside the market is not quick to adapt...
Well this is a change of subject but: What do you think of the Pirates Bay case?
John Galt reminds me of the character K in The Castle by Kafka =)

[MacPro2007]

dizzle:
Thanks for the added info.

"No" - I have not read the pleadings. I didn't need to in this case because this forum is not a court of law, nor are we trying this case - and as I've said, "adequate understanding" of the law IS the pertinent level for such public, non-professional discussions.

It does little good to start playing high-handed because you (and you alone so far) have what you imply is a professional need to read those court documents. If reading these offered opinions on this Mac users forum makes you "sick" - then the cure for you is obvious: just leave. Unless of course, your real motive for being here is to demean others. In which case: you are a troll and not someone I care to waste my time on.

You would represent yourself better if you'd merely pointed out that I was correct in my assessment - but that you had taken the trouble (coincidentally or otherwise) to read the court documents - to PROPERLY DOCUMENT AND CONFIRM what I specified as a non-professional but "informed" assessment. This is what PROFESSIONALS do, if they are in fact interested in behaving professionally. Professionals do not go out of their way to demean others: as you've tried to do to me and, by association, other participants in this discussion.

Just try to be informative in a positive way - serving your own ego in public is just as nauseating to us as you claim we are to you. :-)

[Wondercow]

dizzle said:

Wondercow if you really want some insomnia-curing legislation, try reading the DMCA and the triennial reviews.

Yeah... I won't touch that with a(n) pole! The truly sad reality is that our government, i.e. Canadian, is trying to get a similar act put through. It's not quite so draconian, restrictive, and convoluted, but it's still more than we have now. Much more.

Quote

As far as this case, let me remind everyone that the Apple web falsely reported that Psystar claimed that Apple neglected to copyright OSX.

I hadn't read that--I suppose it wasn't reported by Macworld. The funny thing is, though, in Berne Convention signatory nations one need not apply for copyright protection. Since 1989 (in the U.S.) Apple wouldn't need to register nor even display the ? symbol; as soon as the work is created (and fixed) copyright naturally applies. On the other hand, you guys have that silly "'U.S. origin' work must be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office before the owner files suit for copyright infringement" business going on ;-)

[UbuntuProgrammer]

Wondercow: But, as I said, it's also a thing of beauty; have you seen how long the Copyright Law of the United States of America is?
That's pretty big.
Wondercow: the problem with Canadian (and all Commonwealth) copyright is also its beauty: we don't have much
in the way of formal, set rules.
This I like very much, law is about intention let us exercise our judgment and understanding!

[dizzle]

>>It is a legal issue but all you can hope for here is opinion, and mostly public. I'm glad you picked up on my name... for an OS that is at 5% (very hard to monitor for obvious reasons so I take that with a grain of salt too...) and then this is only a particular distribution... anyways I'm still impressed.>>

I plan on setting up Ubuntu on a VM some day, or perhaps with a netbook.

>>dizzle: "Let me ask who here in this thread besides me has read all the filings in this case besides me?"

Sure as hell not me. However I did not question the record nor do I recall supporting a claim for either side (I have not stake in either side). What I would like to ferment is a discussion about IP in this particular case, and the current state of IP.>>>

That is my point, one cannot discuss IP in this particular case if one has not read this particular case. If you notice, I have stayed out of the discussions that are more generalized, particularly Canadian law of which I know nothing.

>>I don't know about that. I've seen the work at the NRC (National Research Council of Canada) those guys are creating amazing things and they do it because it's who they are. Linux/GNU is expanding (both the user base and in functionality). My girl friend is part of a local actors group that acts because they like to. My brother plays the fiddle at public events. So... there will be new music, videos to watch, Operating systems that stay current, and scientists who are doing things with AI I wouldn't have believed... and this will all happen without protectionism. Your science books are littered with examples of people who worked ridiculously hard for next to no monetary reward.>>

Remove the ones who do, and you will see that it is the ones who do it for profit that allow the environment for the ones who don't. And don't fool yourself. Let's take Mozilla for example. They make money. They just do it a different way and aren't above playing dirty to keep their profit model.

>>I did see they said something to the effect of "creating an operating system being prohibitive"... I would think that goes without saying. Operating systems are technically very complicated but that aside the market is not quick to adapt... >>>

Yeah that is the statement I am referring to. If you know of that statement, you know more than nearly everyone else in this thread about what was specifically said.

>>Well this is a change of subject but: What do you think of the Pirates Bay case?>>>

I am ignorant of it, so in line with my own philosophy, I don't really have an opinion as I have not read enough to have an informed opinion. I have a feeling it is beyond my ken to understand fully.

>>>John Galt reminds me of the character K in The Castle by Kafka =)>>

Is that any relation to Kafka on the Shore?