[mdawson]

You are absolutely right and it is the very points you bring to the table that those that support Psystar refuse to acknowledge.

[mdawson]

More likely a PC OEM than Microsoft. In many ways opening up OS X to generic PCs is the last thing that Microsoft wants. As it now stands, the price of entry for switching to OS X is the purchase of a new Mac. Were that to change, the price of entry would be much lower?albeit substantially more than $130 without the support of hardware sales?and Microsoft would find themselves with competition that has not existed in their backyard since the early-1990s. In the long run, OS X would become as problematic as Windows due to the large hardware base.

[trip1ex]

Psystar will have to sell their one-hitters and bongs without the key ingredient attached.

[DogHouseDub]

Could Apple nip all of this in the bud by raising the price of OSX to $1000 per license?

[mdawson]

Quote

cithrin wrote:

>

Quote

Look at the specs on a $500 Dell or HP machine.

A computer that costs $500 does not cater to the needs of power users regardless of OEM. People in the market for consumer-grade PCs do not need an expandable tower. Most computers sold today are far more powerful that the average computer needs and such persons were highly unlikely to ever do any hardware upgrades even when this was not the case. Apple recognizes this fact, is practically the only OEM that actually builds computers and therefore designs consumer-level desktops to serve that market.

Apple?s consumer systems are not cannibalized Mac Pros. Given that the iMac is the highest selling desktop Mac and Apple?s market growth over the past 5+ years, obviously there approach to designing consumer-level systems has hit the mark. Dell, HP, Gateway, et al., offer expandable towers in the consumer market segment because none of them actually make anything.

Quote

cithrin wrote:

>

Quote

This is not just about upgrades either. Yes I would like to be able to make minor upgrades, like HDD, and graphics. But just as important, is the ability to repair problems myself.

Again, this is completely atypical for most people in the market for consumer level PCs. Any mid-level tower system would be market toward those professional and power users for which the Mac Pro is overkill.

[mdawson]

I seriously doubt that making the purchase of a new Mac practically a necessity to get the latest version of OS X would be a particularly smart move.

[Wondercow]

[quote name='orgopete']
> [quote name='Wondercow']
> >

orgopete said:

> > While I am interested in the legal aspect of whether a software license agreement allows a company to specify anything they wish . . . Is there really no limit to what a business can specify in a notice on the door of a grocery store ("Caution-wet floor and no law suite zone") or a software license agreement?
> Orgopete, we've been through this in every other recent Psystar thread: a company cannot stipulate anything in a contract. This has been explained to you time and time again. It has likewise been explained in every thread that it is perfectly legal for a company to tie their software to specific hardware.
>
> Is there something that you genuinely can't understand? Perhaps if you can articulate the point on which your stuck we can clear it up for you.
I agree, it is amazing to me how stupid I must be. How can I not get it through my head that
>a company cannot stipulate anything in a contract. This has been explained to you time and time again.
AND
>it is perfectly legal for a company to tie their software to specific hardware.
It is me and the English language again. I forget that "tie" in this case does not mean "stipulate". I know it may look like it, but I am sure you will explain this again to me. For some reason, I just seem to be too damn stupid to grasp it. It is okay, I am sure you will repeat over and over about my inability to comprehend this simple fact.

Go for it.

Since I am so dumb, maybe some lawyers out there could explain to me why a company cannot stipulate anything in a contract. (I thought that was the point of a contract, oh dear.)

You obviously want to play the victim and pretend that I'm making fun of you, calling you stupid, etc. I'm not going to indulge that any more than to say YOU are the one responsible for that, not me. I have never called names or said anything to make you feel "dumb"--that's all on you.

If it makes you feel good about yourself to pretend that others think you"re "stupid" then you really need to work on a lot more than your understanding of contract law.

[patrickmacworld]

mdawson said:

The sale and use of marijuana is not typically done in the open, let alone advertised on the Web. Secondly, no one owns marijuana, its prohibition is just that: prohibition. What you stated is that Psystar purchased copies of OS X and can therefore do as they please; that is categorically false. You buy a box with a DVD and documentation, but the contents of that DVD are wholly owned by Apple and you are only permitted to use it under the terms that Apple stipulates because it is a licensed product.

Nicely put. I cannot argue against your argument. I know when I've lost :-) However, that does not change anything. Psystar is going to continue selling its products until the court orders it to stop doing so.

[mdawson]

Yes, they will because to do otherwise without a court injunction is an admission of guilt.

[smax013]

patrickmacworld said:

Psystar is not stealing the OS, it's buying legal retail copies.

Technically, I don't believe that is true. To my knowledge, Apple does NOT sell a "retail" license of their OS. They sell "retail UPGRADE" licenses, which would require the purchaser to have a previous version of the OS to use the "new" one that they bought. The only other way to get a license for the Mac OS is to by a Mac from Apple or a used Mac with the OS from someone else. Unlike Micro$oft, Apple is NOT in the retail OS market and as such they don't sell OEM or regular retail licenses...they only sell "upgrade" licenses.

[DogHouseDub]

mdawson said:

I seriously doubt that making the purchase of a new Mac practically a necessity to get the latest version of OS X would be a particularly smart move.

Agreed, but via some sort of upgrade pricing scheme, they could raise the price of a standalone copy to $1000 (which no Mac owner would need because their Mac had an OS installed) and keep the upgrade price at $129.

[smax013]

Artifex said:

I am as far from an expert on contract or copyright law as can be, but doesn't Psystar (and the new clone-maker in Germany) have to click the "I Agree" button accepting the terms and conditions of the license agreement every time they install OSX just like the rest of us?

When a company or an individual creates something for profit, it is the copyright holder who determines the usage and exploitation of the created item. Apple's usage agreement for the OS they created seemed clearly spelled-out.

If I sell a piece of art created for a book jacket or movie poster 1-sheet, the usage rights in the contract with the publisher or ad agency are specific. It may not then be used again for a kid's happy meal box at some fast-food joint because the art had already been paid for once.

Personally I think Psystar gave up any right to fight the usage rights contract they entered into with Apple when they clicked the "I Agree" button and used whatever hacks and crowbars are necessary to load OSX on those happy meal boxes they sell.

But then again, I know nothing, so don't mind me...

True...to a degree. You are kind of mixing up copyright and contract, but they are two different things.

To my knowledge, Pystar has yet to violate Apple's copyright on the Mac OS software. They are potentially violating the contract that they enter into with Apple by purchasing the Mac OS and agreeing to the EULA. But, then such provisions have yet to be fully tested in court and thus it is unclear if Apple's provisions in the EULA that matter in this case are technically legally enforceable or not. Lots of companies try to put provisions in their EULA that may ultimately be deemed unenforceable (I believe provision that prevented copying of a legally purchased software package for backup purposes has been taken to court and be ruled to be legally unenforceable...i.e. you have the right to copy a software install disk for backup purposes for a software title that you have legally purchased the right to use). And they are potentially violating the DMCA in getting the Mac OS to work with their computer since I believe Apple still has some sort of ROM chip that is needed for the OS to work.

[smax013]

patrickmacworld said:

bq. Save the sophistry. I can guarantee right now, you'd be suing in a hot minute if someone did something similar to you.

I never said I would not. All of us try as best as we can to defend what we believe is ours to defend. But, while I'm suing I would not expect the other party to stop doing whatever its is doing. I live in a real world. Just because marijuana is illegal in a lot of places does not mean that there is no one selling it nor that there is no one buying and smoking it.

But, you would almost certainly ask the court to issue an injuction to stop them from selling it. You might realize that the court might not grant the injunction and "realize" that sales might continue, but you would almost certainly exercise your legal options/right to try to stop it and believe that they should not be able to continue to sell it.

To use your marijuana analogy, while you realize in the real world sales of such stuff will take place, you might also believe that they should not.

The point is that this author might believe that Pystar is in the wrong and should stop selling...but could also realize that it matters little what he/she believes. In the end, it is an opinion piece (kind of disguised as a factual news piece) and the author was offering an opinion.

[smax013]

orgopete said:

.

If there are any skiers out there, check the agreement on your lift ticket. You agree to not sue the resort even for the resort's negligence. If you were injured by their faulty maintenance, will you really tell you lawyer that you don't want to sue because you agreed not to? Is there really no limit to what a business can specify in a notice on the door of a grocery store ("Caution-wet floor and no law suite zone") or a software license agreement?

No, there are limits. And that is what the courts are for. A lot of people try to improperly limit their liability or limit the rights of their customers...and they can get away with it until someone takes them to court and a court rules that their provisions are unenforcable. And while you can legimately cede some of your rights when you enter into a bidding contract, there are also some situations where a state or other jurisdiction has passed a law that prevents people from being required/forced to cede some of their rights in order to enter into a contract. In other words, there could be a law in some juridictions that would prevent said ski resort from "forcing" you to relinguish your right to sue them for negligence...and in other juridictions, it might be a legally binding "contract" provision and your only choice would be to not ski there if it bothered you.