[dizzle]

>>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.>>

The one good thing about the DMCA is that it does get reviewed every three years. More technology laws need that kind of constant oversight since the landscape changes so m uch.

>>
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. >>

Let me check on that. I think you are right that it wasn't reported by Macworld, but it was reported by nearly every other major online tech news site. I can't stand Psystar, but that was libelous against them to report that they were so stupid to make such a claim. How did it happen then? Because the reporters didn't read the filings. One site reported it wrong, and like a row of parrots, everyone else repeated it.

>>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 >>>

It is a silly technicality. In this case though, Psystar wasn't claiming that, what they were claiming is that Apple DID copyright OSX but that it is abusing its copyright.

[dizzle]

>>"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. >>

In order to discuss a specific case, it is completely reasonable to expect that people know the specifics of the case. Your comment about this not being a court is a red herring. You seem to have adequate understanding of the relevant law as I said. But you really do not know if it even applies in this case because you quite frankly don't know what is being pled.

>>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.>>>

It does little good to assume motivations on another's part, such as our ignorant friend who played psychic about everyone's allegedly desperate need to go to law school. I don't have a professional need. I don't get paid to follow this case. As I have already demonstrated, I don't comment about specific cases that I am ignorant about i.e. Pirate Bay. I would give a general opinion about pirating but nothing about that case. I don't know the law in the country it is being tried, and I don't know any specific facts that may prove to be very important.

>>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. >>

Ignorant opinions make you sick too, as you were quick to point out with the pro-Psystar person. That is the difference right now between you and I. I don't care where the ignorance is found. With someone I agree with, or someone I disagree with. Anything else is hypocrisy. I choose to combat ignorance not by leaving but by exposing it. I do like your well-poisoning comment though, you have absolutely no basis from which to judge my motives. I haven't hid them. It is that the Internet is a breeding ground for ignorant jaw-flapping. Let me give you an obvious cure: don't waste your time on me if you want to insinuate snide little passive-aggressive attacks. I am quite straight forward in what I am saying.

>>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. >>

Pot. Kettle. Black. I did provide a link to properly documented and confirmed assesments. I do not think Macworld is the proper place to reproduce such large quantities of information. Did you bother to check it? Oh no, its easier to attack my professionalism. That is fine, you are entitled to your opinion, and to be blunt, I don't care. What I care about is something that is objectively true. I couldn't care less if you think I am the biggest jerk on the planet, that is your subjective opinion. It is objectively true that so far, no one else has even bothered to read the pleadings. That is not asking much at all, gasp that people actually know the facts of what they are talking about. Oh what an evil troll I am!

>>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. >>

Ad hom well poisoning. Again, I could care less what you think about my alleged "ego" (a comment which makes you just as bad as the Psystar troll). This isn't personal to me. I don't care if I am making friend and influencing people. I care that people do at least the minimum due diligence. I shut up on things that I don't have the time or interest to do due diligence on.

I could speculate now on my subjective opinions for your statements, but I won't. It is irrelevant. Ignore me if you think I am some egotistical troll, it won't bother me in the slightest. I find it to be the lowest common denominator to attack someone's person when they point out a deficiency in an understanding of the facts. The dog that yelps the loudest is usually the one that got hit with the rock.

It will take you about three hours to read the pleadings. You would likely find them very interesting as you appear to have a keen interest in this particular subject matter. Go read them. Get educated. I am not particularly brilliant, you may then offer some very valuable insights into the particular facts at hand. Despite your insults upon my PERSON, I would love to hear them, but show that you at least value having an informed opinion on this case.

Otherwise, speak in generalities. I have ignored generalities. There are general principles here which I am sure your life experience more than adequately equips you to speak on.

[dizzle]

FYI Apple has just filed its Answer to Psystar's Counterclaims.

http://news.worldofa...-counterclaims/

[MacPro2007]

Hello dizzle,
You wrote:
"Ad hom well poisoning. Again, I could care less what you think about my alleged "ego" (a comment which makes you just as bad as the Psystar troll). This isn't personal to me. I don't care if I am making friend and influencing people. I care that people do at least the minimum due diligence. I shut up on things that I don't have the time or interest to do due diligence on."

I really did not want (do not want) to drag the thread off in this personalized direction. But you initiated this diversion when you wrote that you "couldn't let me slide" - establishing your own definition of this thread and attempting to put yourself on a self-defined pedestal to which only you claim the right.

The quote (of yours) above is a self-indictment. It is you who initiated the ad hominem argument with your initial statement.

It's too bad, since I really admire your initiative to bring full (or at least more complete) information into this (or any) discussion. As I attempted to point out once already: you'd do better to just drop the personal judgmental stuff when "correcting" someone.

If you say you don't care if you're "making friend" (sic) or "influencing people" - then your only motive for bringing additional information to online fora is most likely that of enhancing your own self-perception in comparison to us "lesser beings."
So I was simply being accurate in my assessment of your motive based on that probability (which approaches or reaches 1.0).

Solely for emphasis: You have the opportunity to truly earn people's appreciation and admiration. You have only to drop your obvious-to-everyone egoism to do that. This is what I meant by professionalism. Professionals are often "disgusted" by things they encounter, by things they read or see people doing. But when that "disgusting thing" is done from innocent ignorance of a particular "right way" - professionals use restraint and some humility when stepping in to correct those people.

Your argument is that people are too lazy or lack initiative or lack knowledge of legalese (it appears) and fail to read particular documents which you have taken the trouble to read. The proper (established civilized) way for you to proceed in that case is to step forward and offer the details you find pertinent. You cannot reasonably assume that everyone is going to have the time to devote to the same things for which you have the time. This is the benefit of specialized knowledge and the benefit falls to those (like you) who've taken the time and made the effort so they can contribute through sharing to "better" the quality of discourse. So, for you, this is a win-win proposition because you'll then be less put off by "ignorant" discourse - and - have people's gratitude.

I do not mean to sound high handed myself and will apologize IF I come off that way. I don't agree with your statement that, "I'm not particularly intelligent" because (1) you demonstrate your intelligence quite well and (2) neither I nor anyone here (that I know of) has questioned your intelligence. This is not ad hominem, I'm not attacking you as a person - just pointing out that I recognize your intelligence, it was never a question in the first place.

Neither have I questioned your status as "a reliable source" - so if that was the impression you got, please drop it. In fact, my point is that it's a bit "excessive" for you to be taking people to task because they DO rely on you as a source! Pot-Kettle-Black! (written as a friendly tease, please do not be provoked)

Now, as far as I'm concerned, the original question of Apple vs Psystar has been settled - with your able help. Thank you for that. Thank you also in advance for accepting my offer of peaceable future discourse.
Regards,
MacPro2007

[dizzle]

There you go again.

I really did not want (do not want) to drag the thread off in this personalized direction. But you initiated this diversion when you wrote that you "couldn't let me slide" - establishing your own definition of this thread and attempting to put yourself on a self-defined pedestal to which only you claim the right.

Nonsense. When I said I couldn't let you slide that was in reference to the fact that I am not a hypocrite who will belittle the Psystar troll when the pro-Apple people are equally ignorant. You are the one who keeps reading ego into things. That says more about you than me. My self-definition is oh soooo ureasonable: actually read a case that you are commenting on. Please. It doesn't put me on a pedestal because I did something so basic. Anyone can join this alleged pedestral by merely reading the pleadings.

The quote (of yours) above is a self-indictment. It is you who initiated the ad hominem argument with your initial statement.

It's too bad, since I really admire your initiative to bring full (or at least more complete) information into this (or any) discussion. As I attempted to point out once already: you'd do better to just drop the personal judgmental stuff when "correcting" someone.

And you would do better to stop being lazy and just read the dag-blasted case before having an opinion. That is not unreasonable. It requires little special skill. Any skill it requires you most certainly have given your background.

If you say you don't care if you're "making friend" (sic) or "influencing people" - then your only motive for bringing additional information to online fora is most likely that of enhancing your own self-perception in comparison to us "lesser beings."
So I was simply being accurate in my assessment of your motive based on that probability (which approaches or reaches 1.0).

Ahh the fallacy of the horns of a false dilemna. No my friend there is a third option. I don't care one way or the other. I don't need anonymous Internet commenters to make me feel better. Perhaps you are a person who cannot be unemotional. Fine. Don't project that on me. When I say I don't care, it means just that. You could think better or worse, I don't care. Let me let you in on something. This discussion is pretty much nothing to me. I co-own a theology debate forum with over 15K members. If I simply wanted some ego-stroke, I have my own forum to get it. The fact is that there too I don't care about being popular or looked up to or down upon. I simply have zero emotion about it. Stop projecting.

Solely for emphasis: You have the opportunity to truly earn people's appreciation and admiration. You have only to drop your obvious-to-everyone egoism to do that. This is what I meant by professionalism. Professionals are often "disgusted" by things they encounter, by things they read or see people doing. But when that "disgusting thing" is done from innocent ignorance of a particular "right way" - professionals use restraint and some humility when stepping in to correct those people.

Read my lips. I do not need or want anyone's appreciation or admiration. It is funny that you claim something is "obvious to everyone" when you are the only one squawking about it. Ubuntu and I have had a nonconfrontational exchange. He appreciated that if the subject were Ubuntu, I would actually do the requisite diligence to have a working knowledge of the issue before opening my mouth.

You can cure this problem easily. Go read the pleadings. Why are you so averse to gasp actually knowing what is being said. With your background you might easily pick up on something that others, including myself, have missed.

Your argument is that people are too lazy or lack initiative or lack knowledge of legalese (it appears) and fail to read particular documents which you have taken the trouble to read. The proper (established civilized) way for you to proceed in that case is to step forward and offer the details you find pertinent. You cannot reasonably assume that everyone is going to have the time to devote to the same things for which you have the time. This is the benefit of specialized knowledge and the benefit falls to those (like you) who've taken the time and made the effort so they can contribute through sharing to "better" the quality of discourse. So, for you, this is a win-win proposition because you'll then be less put off by "ignorant" discourse - and - have people's gratitude.

I have already done so. You are intelligent enough to understand the pleadings for yourself. There is very little "legalese" in them. Any legalese that anyone who actually takes the time to be confused about, I am glad to clear up. But not for people who want to have an opinion on something that they refuse to even read. Sorry fellow, but you can't tell me a book sucks if you haven't read it.

I do not mean to sound high handed myself and will apologize IF I come off that way. I don't agree with your statement that, "I'm not particularly intelligent" because (1) you demonstrate your intelligence quite well and (2) neither I nor anyone here (that I know of) has questioned your intelligence. This is not ad hominem, I'm not attacking you as a person - just pointing out that I recognize your intelligence, it was never a question in the first place.

That statement was said to show that I do not think I am some genius who has some esoteric knowledge. You likely, due to your background, would have something very meaningful to offer if you would actually read the case and apply your experience.

Neither have I questioned your status as "a reliable source" - so if that was the impression you got, please drop it. In fact, my point is that it's a bit "excessive" for you to be taking people to task because they DO rely on you as a source! Pot-Kettle-Black! (written as a friendly tease, please do not be provoked)

I am not provoked, if you haven't noticed, I am quite unemotional about these things. I didn't think anyone questioned me as a reliable source because I am not intending to be a source. I want people to not count on me or anyone else, but to read the documents firsthand. The news outlets have been proven to be unreliable on this case. Don't take my or anyone's word for what is going on.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, the original question of Apple vs Psystar has been settled - with your able help. Thank you for that. Thank you also in advance for accepting my offer of peaceable future discourse.
Regards,
MacPro2007

Well again you are right on the issue of Apple v. Psystar IMHO. I would love to see you apply the intuitive rightness you have to the actual facts. You would be very effective at arguing your position if you had some concrete facts about this case rather than generalities.

I don't know about you, but I shamelessly consider myself an Apple fangrl. Because of that, I overcompensate to be sure I am being fair to "the other side." I find myself defending Psystar against false allegations from people who are just ignorant. I would rather eat dog vomit than defend Psystar, but I value the truth even more.

As far as I am concerned, there has been peaceable discourse. I have no emotional investment or ego need here. I insist, as I do in all discussions, that the people who are talking not be ignorant. As you now know, I am involved heavily in theological debate. People come at me all the time disagreeing with my position and yet when pressed they don't even know what my position is despite the fact that I have numerous published works and a podcast. They just can't be bothered.

I see this the same way. Psystar IS wrong. Learn specifically why.

PS: I find it ironic you used the word "egosim" considering my John Galt reference. If you mean "egoism" as Ayn Rand did, then I am proudly egoist. I don't think you meant it in the way she did however. She agonized over that world in her introduction to the Fountainhead. If you interested in Rand's work at all, the audible.com versions of her work are quite good.

[dizzle]

MacPro2007

I wrote my post on lunch break with attorneys breathing down my back. It came off more blunt than I intended as I was getting annoyed by the interruptions on my break. Please ratchet down the bluntness level when you read it, I should not have taken my annoyance out on you, I apologize for that.

I do wish you would read the pleadings. You would really be able to demolish some arguments of the people who are arguing law and ecomonics based on "I want" and "me, me, me." Trust me, none of those people will read the case. They don't care about the facts. They care about their own wants. But if they had a lawsuit, I bet they wouldn't want a jury to decide issues that way. But since this is a corporation it is okay to be unfair. At least that is how many people see it. So many "pro-Psystar" people would scream like a stuck pig if a lawsuit of their own were treated that way. All of a sudden rights would become important.

An analogy from my Christian background. Sin on another looks like it needs judgment. Sin on yourself looks like it needs grace.

Very few of these people if they invented anything would want to be ripped off. It is a classic case of "when they came for the Catholics, I didn't say anything because I wasn't a Catholic. When they came for the Jews, I didn't say anything because I wasn't a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to say anything."

[orgopete]

I am going to do something stupid. I am going to ask a question.

dizzle said:

Ahh the ad hom attack. First, it is you my blustery ignorant friend that doesn't understand LAWFUL ?

Clearly, I am not a lawyer and will be outmatched.

Quote

FYI Apple has just filed its Answer to Psystar's Counterclaims.

http://news.worldofa...-counterclaims/

Filing 55: "Order Approving Stipulated Protective Order Subject to Stated Conditions" order of judge Alsup,
Am I missing something?

I concede dizzle is the expert. Now to the questions. I understand the prevailing opinion is that Psystar is the underdog and unlikely to win. The IP lawyer at the University of Buffalo that MacWorld quoted also confirmed this opinion. I did not ask any further questions of him.

Perhaps you (dizzle) could explain how or why in the description of "copyright misuse" by Frischmann and Moylan, they say, "For example, copyright holders who use their copyrights to gain leverage through licensing provisions that broaden the scope of their copyright may be misusing their copyright even if the leveraging is insufficient to raise antitrust concerns." (page 10)

I believe Judge Alsup already ruled that this was not an antitrust issue. I agree. However, F and M are stating in their opinion that if the Apple is using their copyright and EULA to leverage their license beyond copyright law, antitrust issues needn't be established. I do not dispute that Psystar is violating the terms of the EULA, but is the EULA enforceable? Why?

Question two. As another option for resolution, in AutoDesk v Vernor, the court found that first sale doctrine should be applied to the sale of AutoDesk software and thus the license agreement on its use (subject to copyright law) did not bar Vernor from reselling the software in direct opposition to the AutoDesk license. Does this mean that Psystar or its customers not be bound by the Apple license agreement (while remaining consistent with copyright law)?

I am aware that copyright misuse is a rarely used precedent and is not codified by state or federal law. Therefore, as others have suggested, that even if the legal issues favor Psystar, the court may well rule against them. Also, as others have already stated, Apple has developed the software and may be entitled to reasonable measures of protection.
Message was edited by: orgopete

[Wondercow]

orgopete said:

(Others may have more information than I since 1) I'm not American and 2) I don't have my brain set to "think mode"--I'm just killing time while I wait out a massive headache.)
>I do not dispute that Psystar is violating the terms of the EULA, but is the EULA enforceable? Why?
As far as Apple's suit is concerned, they're not arguing the merits of the EULA. Apple is suing Psystar for copyright infringement due mainly to that facts that 1) Psystar is not authorized to sell Leopard and 2) Psystar modified Apple's code (portions of Leopard). In general EULAs are enforceable.

Quote

Question two. As another option for resolution, in AutoDesk v Vernor, the court found that first sale doctrine should be applied to the sale of AutoDesk software and thus the license agreement on its use (subject to copyright law) did not bar Vernor from reselling the software in direct opposition to the AutoDesk license. Does this mean that Psystar or its customers not be bound by the Apple license agreement (while remaining consistent with copyright law)?

The court's decision in AutoDesk v. Vernor was that one element and only one element of the EULA was unenforceable; the remainder of the EULA did not infringe on any other rights of the consumer and thus stands in full force.


As a whole, the software can be resold under First Sale Doctrine (FSD). Since FSD doesn't apply to licenses, a distinction must be made with respect to the resale of the software--meaning that in order for Vernor to win on FSD he must own something. Thus, since a portion of the transaction is a sale, resale has to be allowed. However, FSD does not decide whether what is sold contains a license or not, e.g. the software on the disc is licensed while the disk itself is owned. The contention that the package as a whole, including the media, was licensed is invalid, and so it was rejected by the court.

Without getting into the personal side of this discussion, I think what dizzle is suggesting is that people without a background understanding commonly make the error of overextension, i.e applying a law (decision, ruling, etc.) that is narrow or specific in intent to a greater range of circumstances. The language used in the court's decision is "not merely a license" ( emph. mine ). In fact, I'll refer you to the ruling (the PDF to which you linked):
bq. That issue is not to be conflated, however, with whether Mr. Vernor or his customers are bound by the License. Given the ?nontransferable? terms of the License, and Autodesk?s failure to cite authority for the proposition that the License binds downstream transferees, the court will not consider the issue further in this order" ( Order, p. 19, ll. 25-8 ).
The court issued no decision with respect to the EULA because it was not necessary to reach a decision on the complaint. Further, the judge explicitly states that Autodesk loses because they can't sustain their contention that the denial of transfer/resale is valid--nothing more.

So, that leaves us with Mr Vernor allowed to resell the software but anyone to whom Mr Verner sells his legal copies is still bound by the EULA. Thus, Psystar's customers are still bound by Apple's EULA.
Message was edited by: Wondercow to fix reference

[mdawson]

Quote

orgopete wrote:

>

Quote

However, F and M are stating in their opinion that if the Apple is using their copyright and EULA to leverage their license beyond copyright law, antitrust issues needn't be established. I do not dispute that Psystar is violating the terms of the EULA, but is the EULA enforceable?

First of all, a license has nothing to do with copyright law. Apple owns OS X and therefore has the exclusive right to dictate the terms of use for a product that is only made available to the general public through licensing and is not offered to any OEM in any form whatsoever. The latter is the reason Dell, whose CEO has expressed an interest in doing exactly what Psystar is doing from the day the first Intel Macs were introduced, HP, Sony, Gateway, et al., are not pulling this stunt. The major Wintel OEMs know they would have their behinds handed to them in court; hence the reason many, including Apple, are of the opinion that Psystar is a cover for other parties.

As to the EULA, it is a contract. Contract law is well established. If I write up a document of terms of use for something I own and you agree to those terms by signing the contract, then you are legally obliged to comply with those terms and I have the legal right to enforce those terms or sue you for breech of contract. The only exception would be the enforcement of those terms that are found to be illegal. Should such terms be found, only those terms are invalidated, not the contract as a whole.

Quote

orgopete wrote:

>

Quote

As another option for resolution, in AutoDesk v Vernor, the court found that first sale doctrine should be applied to the sale of AutoDesk software and thus the license agreement on its use (subject to copyright law) did not bar Vernor from reselling the software in direct opposition to the AutoDesk license.

AutoDesk v. Vernor has no bearing on Apple?s case. Apple is not precluding private citizens from selling off an unaltered copy of OS X that they are not using. You have the right to sell a copy of OS X that you purchased to someone else, but because it is copyrighted material, you are also required to transfer the license in full; meaning, you must remove that software from your computer. No matter how many change of hand occur, anyone using that copy of OS X is still bound by the license because Apple still owns the operating system.

[dizzle]

Clearly, I am not a lawyer and will be outmatched.

Since I am not an attorney that statement is meaningless.

Filing 55: "Order Approving Stipulated Protective Order Subject to Stated Conditions" order of judge Alsup,
Am I missing something?

Obviously you didn't go to the article. Until you can be bothered to actually DO something that is directly related to this case, I am not going to go out of my way to spoon-food you. Hint: Justia.com is not up to date. It takes about a week for it to catch up to real-time. I pay for up to the minute updates. However, I give you the benefit of my wallet by providing copies of up to the minutes pleadings, and filing 56 is available at that article if you bothered to read it.

I concede dizzle is the expert.

I have no tolerance for passive aggressive crap. I never said I was an expert. I am not. Do not concede I am something I don't claim.

I will not answer your questions in any detail until you get up off the pot and tell me if you have read the actual filings? Yes or no. It isn't difficult.

Now to the questions. I understand the prevailing opinion is that Psystar is the underdog and unlikely to win. The IP lawyer at the University of Buffalo that MacWorld quoted also confirmed this opinion. I did not ask any further questions of him.

No, Psystar is unlikely to win because they are WRONG. It has nothing to do with them being the underdog.

Perhaps you (dizzle) could explain how or why in the description of "copyright misuse" by Frischmann and Moylan, they say, "For example, copyright holders who use their copyrights to gain leverage through licensing provisions that broaden the scope of their copyright may be misusing their copyright even if the leveraging is insufficient to raise antitrust concerns." (page 10)

You did not even bother to see if I wrote on this already have you? I am not going to spoon-feed you. Here is a hint: the relevant case law on leveraging is completely factually distinguisable. For example the case of Triad Systems (I purposefully did not insert the citation since it is in the filings, and I want to see if you are familiar with the filings). You are aware of that case right? If you haven't read the cases that Psystar is using, why do you think law review/law treatise articles are relevant. They are secondary sources to be used AFTER the case law is analyzed.

I believe Judge Alsup already ruled that this was not an antitrust issue. I agree. However, F and M are stating in their opinion that if the Apple is using their copyright and EULA to leverage their license beyond copyright law, antitrust issues needn't be established. I do not dispute that Psystar is violating the terms of the EULA, but is the EULA enforceable? Why?

You again have shown you haven't read squat. Psystar is still back-dooring in anti-trust issues because they can't establish leveraging without showing applicable markets, and they are relying upon theories of markets and sub-markets that the Court has rejected so far. Further, they are not using their EULA to limit the use of its hardware which is required for Psystar's argument to work that they are using their software copyright to extend to hardware. They aren't. It is creative, but it is false. They are attempting to create new law. Yes the EULA can be enforceable. Why? Because it is a contract.

Question two. As another option for resolution, in AutoDesk v Vernor, the court found that first sale doctrine should be applied to the sale of AutoDesk software and thus the license agreement on its use (subject to copyright law) did not bar Vernor from reselling the software in direct opposition to the AutoDesk license. Does this mean that Psystar or its customers not be bound by the Apple license agreement (while remaining consistent with copyright law)?

Legal cite please? You do know that simply saying Jones v. Smith is dumb right? Please give me the citation so that I can read the case for myself. Also do you think you are more qualified than Psystar's lawyers? Why would you argue a case that they haven't even cited? Oh yeah, that's because you have no idea what cases they cited. Gotcha. I have read each and every case they cited.

Give me a correct citation for that case, and I will read it. Is it a state case? Is it a Federal case? What level of Court is it? You do realize that all of the makes a difference right? What jurisdiction is it in? You are regurgitating crap you read on the Interwebz. It might be right, but I am not interesting in interacting with ignorant copying and pasting.

I am aware that copyright misuse is a rarely used precedent and is not codified by state or federal law. Therefore, as others have suggested, that even if the legal issues favor Psystar, the court may well rule against them. Also, as others have already stated, Apple has developed the software and may be entitled to reasonable measures of protection.

You are wrong. Copyright misuse is a very common affirmative defense. You keep saying that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means (thank you Montoya!). Do you even know what precedent means? Because if you did, you wouldn't have used it in that statement. And what do you mean by Federal law? Simply legislation? Or common law? Or court law? The legal issues DON"T favour Psystar. Fact. Now there is an area where there is controversy in this case concerning copyright misuse that is rare, and in which this Court set itself up for an automatic appeal by Apple once the case is done, but I am not going to spoon-feed you.

Let me help you again.

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

That is everything I have written on the subject. You don't need to read each article. You could bother to read the ones where I went into detail on the issue of copyright misuse and gave summaries of the case law that the actual parties are using. What a concept!

CORRECTION: I see you did provide a link to the case you cited. I apologize for missing that. I will print out that case from work and read it. I am still an old-fashioned legal assistant, I hate reading case law online. I need either the Case Reporter or some physical feel of paper in my hands. I have to be able to write on it.

[dizzle]

I obviously didn't close a blockquote somewhere. Hopefully the response can still be followed. It didn't post something though that I did say. I am NOT a lawyer.

[mdawson]

I would go back and edit your previous post, dizzle. It is (somewhat) difficult to follow.

[dizzle]

As far as Apple's suit is concerned, they're not arguing the merits of the EULA. Apple is suing Psystar for copyright infringement due mainly to that facts that 1) Psystar is not authorized to sell Leopard and 2) Psystar modified Apple's code (portions of Leopard). In general EULAs are enforceable.

You picked up something important and interesting. First let me correct you on one point. Apple is arguing the merits of its EULA; however, that is not their primary offense. People wonder why Apple waited so long to file suit. They waited so that they gave Psystar enough rope to hang themselves and get cocky. They waited until Psystar modified Apple's updates and hosted them at their own site. But they are arguing the EULA, and it is taking more of a primary role as the case roles on.

Question two. As another option for resolution, in AutoDesk v Vernor, the court found that first sale doctrine should be applied to the sale of AutoDesk software and thus the license agreement on its use (subject to copyright law) did not bar Vernor from reselling the software in direct opposition to the AutoDesk license.

Do you have a citation for that case? And you are generally correct that most contracts are severable in which the unenforceable part can be excised with the rest remaining.

The court's decision in AutoDesk v. Vernor was that one element and only one element of the EULA was unenforceable; the remainder of the EULA did not infringe on any other rights of the consumer and thus stands in full force.
As a whole, the software can be resold under First Sale Doctrine (FSD). Since FSD doesn't apply to licenses, a distinction must be made with respect to the resale of the software--meaning that in order for Vernor to win on FSD he must own something. Thus, since a portion of the transaction is a sale, resale has to be allowed. However, FSD does not decide whether what is sold contains a license or not, e.g. the software on the disc is licensed while the disk itself is owned. The contention that the package as a whole, including the media, was licensed is invalid, and so it was rejected by the court.

You are correct. And Psystar did something very sneaky in their filings to the Court. When requoting back the filings they inserted the convenient ellipsis where the word "license" appeared.

There is a pdf link to the decision? For some reason I am not seeing a link.

[dizzle]

Thanks, my eyes are bad this morning, I didn't see his link or the edit button.