[Biallystock]

aceshelman said:

> {quote:title=}{quote}Also in the USA whales are fish;
Not at any school or in any conversation I've ever heard.

I take it you've never read the "Great American Novel" then?

[Podesta]

Such a mass of confusion. For the life of me, I cannot even figure out why the speculative stuff has been brought up. Apple becoming the leading software vendor? The Mac OS v. Microsoft OS conflict still alive 50 years from now? DOJ forcing Apple to allow consumers to decide what hardware to run its software on? These flights of fancy are easily disposed of because all the indicia suggest none of these scenarios will occur. In fact, the personal computer as we know it likely will not exist 50 years from now.

Psystar's exposure is that it has no legitimate claim to using Mac OS X except as a purchaser of a license(s) who installs it on one or more Macs. That is the only legal relationship an OS X purchaser can have with Apple. All the behavior Psystar has engaged in beyond that is triable under several causes of action, as Apple alleges.

So, what of the freetards' cries of 'liberate the software!' The keening will mainly be ignored. Software will continue to be largely proprietary, and, believe it or not, bought and sold.

BTW, the FSF's screed against people buying the 3G iPhone was the most unintentionally funny thing I've read in a while. Trying to frighten people into not buying a relatively harmless item is bound to fail. The free software movement people will continue preaching to an ever declining choir.

[Barneski]

Podesta said:

Psystar's exposure is that it has no legitimate claim to using Mac OS X except as a purchaser of a license(s) who installs it on one or more Macs. That is the only legal relationship an OS X purchaser can have with Apple. All the behavior Psystar has engaged in beyond that is triable under several causes of action, as Apple alleges.

Isn't there a danger for Apple that the actual extent of their rights may be set by legal precedent here? That may not work out to Apple's advantage. Other companies thinking of trying something similar to Psystar - outside the US, too, where the laws are different - will be able to refine their approach based on the outcome. It's actually Apple that has more to lose than Psystar, because it could turn out that they can't legally enforce their EULA. Long after Nap...Psystar's gone and forgotten, they'd be feeling the effects of that.

[prolix876]

{quote:title=Podesta wrote:}{quote}

Quote

Psystar's exposure is that it has no legitimate claim to using Mac OS X except as a purchaser of a license(s) who installs it on one or more Macs. That is the only legal relationship an OS X purchaser can have with Apple. All the behavior Psystar has engaged in beyond that is triable under several causes of action, as Apple alleges.

What of the precedent set by Autodesk v. Vernor that I referenced in comment 27|m-651093], which throws EULAs on their heads? Given such ruling (which states that, essentially, if it looks like a purchase, it's a purchase, not a license) it would seem that Psystar is will within its rights as not merely a licensee but an owner of copies of Mac OS X.
> BTW, the FSF's screed against people buying the 3G iPhone was the most unintentionally funny thing I've read in a while. Trying to frighten people into not buying a relatively harmless item is bound to fail. The free software movement people will continue preaching to an ever declining choir.
I must agree with you. I read the "5 reasons to avoid an iPhone" with amusement, horror, and apprehension. Then I watched the [OpenMoko Train Wreck with nothing but amusement. I used to be a rabid Linux user and open-source programmer, but the FSF's zeal largely ruined that for me.

[Podesta]

Prolix, the case you cited, Autodesk v. Vernor, is not even remotely close to Apple's claims against Psystar. It was about an individual selling a used copy of a program on eBay. Used copies of OS X are resold on eBay every day. The license passes to the purchaser.

Psystar, a business, is selling non-Apple hardware preloaded with altered copies of OS X that allow the software to run on illicit computers. Psystar takes business away from Apple by selling computers that run the hacked software. It damages Apple's image and brand value by associating a degraded product with Apple. Violates the EULA. Ignores copyright. It is likely to turn out that Psystar does not legitimately purchase OS X licenses, except for the few used to make the illicit copies. And, on and on and on. To cut to the chase, Psystar is in the somewhat unusual position of lacking any kind of defense likely to withstand even minimal legal scrutiny.

[prolix876]

{quote:title=Podesta wrote:}Prolix, the case you cited, Autodesk v. Vernor, is not even remotely close to Apple's claims against Psystar. It was about an individual selling a used copy of a program on eBay. Used copies of OS X are resold on eBay every day. The license passes to the purchaser.

Psystar, a business, is selling non-Apple hardware preloaded with altered copies of OS X that allow the software to run on illicit computers. Psystar takes business away from Apple by selling computers that run the hacked software. It damages Apple's image and brand value by associating a degraded product with Apple. Violates the EULA. Ignores copyright. It is likely to turn out that Psystar does not legitimately purchase OS X licenses, except for the few used to make the illicit copies. And, on and on and on. To cut to the chase, Psystar is in the somewhat unusual position of lacking any kind of defense likely to withstand even minimal legal scrutiny.{quote}
Actually, check out the Psystar website (cached), where you'll see that Psystar doesn't modify OS X at all. OS X is only one of the operating systems they support, but (of course) the only controversial one. ;-) In fact, Ubuntu is the base OS and Leopard is a premium option. But, should a customer choose the OS X option (and what customer wouldn't?) the retail package of OS X is included with the system. Your statement that Psystar sells altered copies of OS X is wrong. They do not hack the software. They do in fact purchase valid copies of OS X (how else would each customer receive "the actual Leopard retail package with genuine installation disc"?).

What's more, the Autodesk case is quite relevant because it says that software isn't licensed at all but is bought and sold. This is a huge precedent to be set just six weeks before the Apple Inc v. Psystar Corporation case was filed.

Regarding the EULA: reread the Ars Technica article about the Autodesk case. The court ruled that the software is purchased instead of licensed; there cannot be an "End User License Agreement." The EULA, on its face, is completely unenforceable in such case. Particularly, the penultimate paragraph of the {quote:title=Ars Technica article says:}If Jones's ruling is upheld on appeal, it will have important consequences for the software industry, where the legal fiction that software is merely licensed is widely employed. In addition to discouraging the market for used software, software firms have also attempted to use the "licensed, not sold" theory to enforce restrictions on reverse engineering that would otherwise be fair use under copyright law. If software is sold, rather than licensed, then no license is required to install and use the software, and the terms of shrink-wrap licenses may not be legally binding. (my emphasis){quote}
Now, will the ruling stand? Probably not. But, in the meantime, until it's appealed and overturned, it's a big, big precedent.

[Biallystock]

Podesta said:

It is likely to turn out that Psystar does not legitimately purchase OS X licenses, except for the few used to make the illicit copies.

It is likely to turn out that Psystar are disgruntled islamic ex-Apple employees funding a terrorist attack on the USA.

By attacking Apple's "branding" they are striking at the very heart of our civilisation.

The whole enterprise has been created to maintain an international pedophile ring.

There I have established the beginning of "facts" which will only need repetition to make them "well known".