[Grapho]

shawend said:

Finally, I do not understand where this argument that Apple would have to support OSX on other platforms comes from. If the EULA section mandating Apple hardware were somehow struck down, Apple would somehow be FORCED to test, validate, and support OSX on other hardware platforms. This is simply NOT the case. Apple would NOT have to support other hardware or even test that OSX could or would run on any other hardware and no one could FORCE them to do so.

>
The issue of support would only come to play if Apple was forced to legally license their OS. If you are doing it through illicit means, you are right, they don't have to support you, and why would they.

Quote

Loading a "fiend's" CD into your iTunes library is not fair use it is THEFT! Fair use would be lading YOUR CD into YOUR iTunes library. If you purchase a pirated CD from a flea market in order to have done something wrong you would have to KNOW that the CD was in-fact pirated.

Well, if you take in to account that Apple subsidizes the development of OS X through the sales of Macintosh computers, then, no, you are not paying the full price of OSX, and that is what I find morally questionable. It would be almost like laying to a software developer to get them to sell you an upgrade to their software, when you never had the original.

Quote

In this case I am paying the creator of the original work for their work. Albeit, that I am breaching one of the conditions of that license. Apple is still getting the money. Is it legally wrong, probably. Morally equivalent to stealing music, NO WAY.

Yes, you are paying the creator, but if I go in to a store and switch price tags on items to be able to save money, I would also be paying, right?

[shawend]

Who is going to FORCE Apple to license OSX and HOW would they do this? The point is NO ONE can do this. It can not be done there is no bogeyman that is going to hold a gun to Steve and say license your OS to everyone under theses terms. That was my whole point. talking about that is a waste of time and a specious argument.

So the full price of OSX is the cost of the OS plus the Apple hardware? Wait, I just thought that was called silly! As for switching the price tags, that is called theft by deception!

Building a frankenmac using a purchased copy of OSX would actually be a contract dispute between Apple and whoever was doing it. If you build them to resell that gets a little more interesting. Ultimately it would still be a contract case there would just be more violations of the contract created by the EULA. Which is why Psystar is going to loose.

[Grapho]

shawend said:

Who is going to FORCE Apple to license OSX and HOW would they do this? The point is NO ONE can do this. It can not be done there is no bogeyman that is going to hold a gun to Steve and say license your OS to everyone under theses terms. That was my whole point. talking about that is a waste of time and a specious argument.

Did you miss the Psystar counter suit? This is EXACTLY what Psystar is after! A court of law can and has been the bogeyman, if you don't agree, just look how Apple's clam of copyright infringement flew out the window when they attempted to stop Microsoft from blatantly copping their OS down to the trash can. Why do you think that AT&T was forced to let their competition use their land line infrastructure, or do you think they all own their telephone poles? They do not do it out of generosity, they allow it only because a court made it so.

Quote

So the full price of OSX is the cost of the OS plus the Apple hardware? Wait, I just thought that was called silly! As for switching the price tags, that is called theft by deception!

You can try to rationalize all you want but the fact remains that OSX is Apple property. It has been developed with the sole purpose of selling Macs, not Dell or any other computer hardware. Why do you think that it sells for only $129 dollars? Just because it can work doesn't automatically make it open for the taking.

> Building a frankenmac using a purchased copy of OSX would actually be a contract dispute between Apple and whoever was doing it. If you build them to resell that gets a little more interesting. Ultimately it would still be a contract case there would just be more violations of the contract created by the EULA. Which is why Psystar is going to loose.

[shawend]

Apple's copyright claim against Microsoft "flew out the window" as you say because after FOUR years the court ruled that Apple had LICENSED the graphical user interface to Microsoft in perpetuity for Windows 1.0. Also after five years of legal wrangling Apple TOOK the 150 million from the Dark Lord Bill Gates and dropped the remaining claims. If five years of fighting in court is flying out the window than we obviously have the fastest legal system in the world.

Also, keep in mind that if Apple had been successful against Microsoft for look and feel then Xerox could site that as precedent in their claim AGAINST Apple. Apple made out pretty good in that legal encounter considering that they could have been forced to license the graphical user interface from Xerox or forgo the GUI and go back to CLI. Even then the court could NOT have forced Apple to license the interface from Xerox. The court could only have ruled that the interface was the property of Xerox. Thankfully, the court took the easy way out and freed the graphical user interface from the control of ANY single company. If Apple had one then Xerox most likely would have prevailed and OSX, Linux, and Windows would only exist as a CLI if they existed at all since Xerox would be in a position to effectively TAX every OS.

[Grapho]

I was not aware that Xerox ever attempted to go after Apple.

This is how I remember it. (copied from Wikipida)

>In December, 1979, Steve Jobs and a group of Apple Computer engineers toured the Xerox PARC laboratories and witnessed Xerox's research into the GUI as demonstrated on the Alto computer. It was this moment that Steve Jobs decided the future of computers was in the GUI, rather than the standard text-based interface.
>
>In return for $1,000,000 USD of pre-IPO stock, Xerox granted Apple Computer three days access to the PARC facilities. During this time, Apple Computer engineers studied the intricacies of the GUI or "WIMP" interface, and came away with the basis for Apple Computer's first GUI computer, the Apple LISA. (Popular folklore states that "Lisa" was Steve Jobs' first daughter; Apple maintains it means Locally Integrated Software Architecture.)

Did Xerox attempt to go after Apple in a later date?

[Grapho]

Also, I was under the impression that the $150,000,000 that Microsoft "invested" in Apple had more to do with code they ripped off from QuickTime, but I might be mistaken. But as I understood it, large chunks of QuickTime source code ended up inside one of Microsoft products, I don't recall exactly which one, but basically, Apple had a strong case against MS.

[shawend]

Also copied from Wikipedia:
In a twist midway through the suit, Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple, claiming Apple had infringed copyrights Xerox held on its GUIs. Xerox had invested in Apple and had invited the Macintosh design team to view their GUI computers at the PARC research lab; these visits had been very influential on the development of the Macintosh GUI. Xerox's lawsuit appeared to be a defensive move to ensure that if Apple v. Microsoft established that "look and feel" was copyrightable, then Xerox would be the primary beneficiary, rather than Apple. The Xerox case was dismissed because the three year statute of limitations had passed.

[Grapho]

Interesting. I bet Xerox kicks it self for lacking vision, just like IBM. Once hugh players, now in secondary roles. How the world turns.

[shawend]

Xerox definitely regrets what happened at PARC. My understanding was that the lady that was in charge of PARC found out the people from Apple were going to be allowed to tour PARC unrestricted. She went to New York I believe before the board of directors for Xerox and demonstrated an Alto. This showed off the mouse, graphical user interface, object oriented programming, networking, and wide area networking. The board listened and then the chairman supposedly asked one question. "How does all of this help us sell photocopiers?" Xerox developed most of the technologies that form the underpinnings of modern computers and they let it all go. The lack of vision was astounding.

[jman3001]

Basically, Apple stole from Xerox, Microsoft stole from Apple, the Apple name was stolen from the Beatles, and Apple zealots are pissed because Psystar has taken Apple's open source and are installing OS X on a computer.

Who owns UNIX?

OS X is a brand new OS for Apple, based on UNIX Open Source and looking more and more like a Wintel product everyday. You can't run OS 9 on any new MAC. So, it's all a hodgepodge of GREED and manipulation among corporations that are trying to control the marketplace through lawsuits.

My next complaint with Apple is that they left Firewire 400 off the new Macbooks. So, they lowered the price a little bit and left off a critical component for audio and video work. This forces anyone in my industry to plunk down at least $2000 for a Mac Book Pro which offers Firewire 800, which will not be compatible with products like the Apogee Duet, which is FW 400.

There a petition online for people to complain to Apple:

http://www.PetitionO...4/petition.html

[shawend]

Let's see where to start. Yes Apple stole from Xerox but Xerox did not make it too hard since they allowed a group of Apple engineers complete access to PARC. Then Xerox allowed a number of engineers from PARC to jump ship over to Apple. The a still fledgling Apple cut a deal with Microsoft that was not very smart. Water over the bridge and it makes a great story.

As for who owns UNIX that is pretty easy. Thanks to AT&T UNIX is owned by the Open Group. If you want to call your OS UNIX then they have to give their blessing.

As for not being able to load OS 9 or any other older Apple OS on the latest hardware, what is the point. I have a brand new HP and for the heck of it I loaded DOS 6.22 which worked great but when I tried to load Windows for Workgroups no luck. Does this indicate Microsoft's GREED. In a word NO! I just sold my original 1969 elCamino which I had to add LEAD additive to every other tank of gas because the engine was designed to work with leaded gas. The point is the world moves on and having an expectation that every new product will be one hundred percent backward compatible is both unrealistic and STUPID. If you want to run OS 9 get a G3 they are pretty cheap right now and the run OS 9 great.

As for the firewire port. I think that falls under inconvenient but TOUGH! As I think everyone will agree Apple is allowed to do whatever they want with their hardware line. This is not the world according to jman3001 and Apple does not need to seek your permission to omit or add whatever features they want. From my perspective most of the video people that I deal with buy MacBook Pro's already so this is pretty much of a "what's all the fuss about" issue. For me, I tend to agree since I have been buying MacBook Pro's myself. Also, there is more differentiation between the MacBook and the MacBook Pro than just the firewire port. Most of the non-video people that I do work for have no idea what that funny USB port is for and just tend to ignore it. So I think it's deletion from the base MacBook actually make sense.

[Grapho]

jman3001 said:

Basically, Apple stole from Xerox, Microsoft stole from Apple, the Apple name was stolen from the Beatles, and Apple zealots are pissed because Psystar has taken Apple's open source and are installing OS X on a computer.

Who owns UNIX?

OS X is a brand new OS for Apple, based on UNIX Open Source and looking more and more like a Wintel product everyday. You can't run OS 9 on any new MAC. So, it's all a hodgepodge of GREED and manipulation among corporations that are trying to control the marketplace through lawsuits.

My next complaint with Apple is that they left Firewire 400 off the new Macbooks. So, they lowered the price a little bit and left off a critical component for audio and video work. This forces anyone in my industry to plunk down at least $2000 for a Mac Book Pro which offers Firewire 800, which will not be compatible with products like the Apogee Duet, which is FW 400.

You don't need to be a Apple zealot to know that Firewire 800 is backwards compatible with Firewire 400, all you need is a conversion cable.

Also the cheaper Macbook, does indeed still have Firewire 400. At least visit the Apple web site to see what really is going on before further making blanket statements. Besides, what do you care if you are getting all your new hardware from Psystar. I am sure they will come out to market with a killer laptop with all the ports you need.

[quote]There a petition online for people to complain to Apple:

http://www.PetitionO...4/petition.html

[mdawson]

Quote

jman3001 wrote:

>

Quote

Basically, Apple stole from Xerox, Microsoft stole from Apple, the Apple name was stolen from the Beatles, and Apple zealots are pissed because Psystar has taken Apple's open source and are installing OS X on a computer.

As usual, everything you post is categorically false. Apple did not steal anything from Xerox. The Xerox brass consented to Jobs and others having a three-day full access visit to PARC even after one of the PARC managers complained that Apple would take the concepts that they saw and run with them. Jobs liked and was fixated on the concept of the graphical user interface, which by the way is a computer science concept and can therefore no more be stolen than the algorithm for hashing can be stolen. Not a single line of Xerox?s code for the Alto is or has ever been in the Mac OS, so Apple did nothing more than develop a marketable product using a concept that Xerox allowed them to see.

Microsoft used some of Apple?s code base to undercut the introduction of the Mac with Windows 1.0. Gates was given access to the operating system?s code base under contract to order to develop Mac software not a competing operating system. Microsoft conducted a breach of contract by using Apple?s work against them, but instead of punishing Gates for being a conniving bastard, Sculley cut a deal with Microsoft killing any chance of Apple ever successfully winning a case against Microsoft. Had Sculley not capitulated, Apple very well could have buried, if not severely weakened, Microsoft 24 years ago. Of course, at then time Windows was such a piss poor implementation of a GUI that no one took it seriously.

Psystar?s actions are completely unrelated to what happened between Microsoft and Apple, let alone Apple and Xerox. Psystar did not take Apple?s code base to use as the basis for developing a competing OS, nor did they use to the general look and feel of OS X to create a bad copy. Psystar is illegally selling the Apple brand to undermine Mac sales by unlawfully selling non-Apple hardware with hacked copies of OS X pre-installed. You need to get that fact into your head once and for all.

Quote

jman3001 wrote:

>

Quote

OS X is a brand new OS for Apple, based on UNIX Open Source and looking more and more like a Wintel product everyday.

Yes, OS X is based on a UNIX mach kernel. And? It is still a unique product and Apple develops and sells OS X within the guidelines of the open source licensing. OS X is not BSD UNIX or Darwin so your attempt to label Apple as a company that just sells someone else?s product fails to be valid, much like everything else you post.

Quote

jman3001 wrote:

>
You can't run OS 9 on any new MAC.

So what. Mac OS 9 was declared dead six years ago and Mac users have had more than enough time to migrate away from the old OS. As shawend stated, expecting perpetual backward compatibility with obsolete products, let alone one that was never designed to run on x86, is stupid. It is a fact of all computing that you either keep up or you get left behind.

jman3001 wrote:
>
So, it's all a hodgepodge of GREED and manipulation among corporations that are trying to control the marketplace through lawsuits.

Protecting the Mac brand is not about greed or manipulating the marketplace. Apple has the right and a legal obligation to its shareholders to protect Apple branding, period.

jman3001 wrote:
>
My next complaint with Apple is that they left Firewire 400 off the new Macbooks. So, they lowered the price a little bit and left off a critical component for audio and video work. This forces anyone in my industry to plunk down at least $2000 for a Mac Book Pro which offers Firewire 800, which will not be compatible with products like the Apogee Duet, which is FW 400.

Yes, omitting FireWire from the MacBooks was a bad call on Apple?s part, but that is where any correctness on this matter by you ceases. First of all, the MacBooks are not professional-grade laptops, so you point about pros having to pay $2000 for a MacBook Pro is as weak as your Mac Pros are too expensive bilge. Any audio or video professional should be using a pro-level system, period. Secondly, for anyone that makes a living on their computers, professional systems pay for themselves very rapidly in increased productivity. Saving a few hundred dollars at point of purchase will cost a professional much more in production losses because they intentionally purchased an underpowered system. If you actually were any kind of ?industry? professional, such a simple concept would not need to be repeatedly explained to you.

Lastly, you, as usual, demonstrate your utter ignorance about anything by stating that you cannot use FireWire 400 devices with the MacBook Pro?s FireWire 800 port. Backward compatibility with older protocols is an inherent part of the FireWire spec. The fact that you can use FireWire 400 devices on a FireWire 800 port has been common knowledge since FireWire 800 was introduced. If you were the long time Mac user that you ?claim? to be, then you would know this fact.

[dbutenhof]

jman3001 said:

Basically, Apple stole from Xerox, Microsoft stole from Apple, the Apple name was stolen from the Beatles, and Apple zealots are pissed because Psystar has taken Apple's open source and are installing OS X on a computer.

"Mac OS X" is not "Open Source". It contains a substantial amount of open source, but if you add up all of that open source and build your own system to run (which you can, freely and without restriction), what you have is X11 open source graphics on a GNU runtime on a Darwin kernel, which is a variant of OpenBSD running on top of a mach Microkernel. You can run it on X86, or PowerPC, or port it yourself to anything you want.

If that was what Psystar had done, there would be absolutely no issue, legally or morally. (Though it would have made far more sense to use Linux with Gnome or KDE, for which you'd find lots of pre-built application binaries.)

What makes Mac OS X unique is not the Open Source components, but all of the Apple proprietary software built on top of it. That's what you pay for, and that's what Psystar is NOT paying for. It's not open source, and the license terms under which Apple chooses to make it available -- their own choice and nobody else's business -- specifically disallows what Psystar is doing.

You've made it clear you understand nothing and will refuse to be educated or listen to reason, but your rants are getting progressively more ignorant as you go. Desperation?

Quote

Who owns UNIX?

The UNIX brand, as someone already pointed out, is exclusively licensed by The Open Group, which works with the IEEE Computer Society (through the POSIX standards arm) to define and extend the associated open industry standard definition of POSIX and UNIX. Apple chose to spend engineering and testing effort for Leopard to gain the Open Group UNIX brand; one of few UNIX family systems to do so. This is a big deal, but has nothing really to do with the implementation; it's a big deal for application developers who can depend on a vast number of UNIX family APIs and data definitions working across all of these systems.

But what they license is the UNIX trademark -- a brand name. They have nothing to do with the code. They don't care whether its OpenBSD, or Darwin, or Solaris, or HP-UX, or AIX; or whether the heritage of the code is System V or BSD or something else entirely. It's all about the defined interfaces and commands, and how they behave for applications.

Quote

OS X is a brand new OS for Apple, based on UNIX Open Source and looking more and more like a Wintel product everyday. You can't run OS 9 on any new MAC. So, it's all a hodgepodge of GREED and manipulation among corporations that are trying to control the marketplace through lawsuits.

Yes, clearly, anybody who sells something you'd like for free, or for less, is greedy. So you're in audio and video? I'm sure that you, being a considerate and ungreedy person, would be thrilled if someone simply took the product of your hard work and deployed it for their own purposes and profit without your permission. You would think this is completely fair, as there are people who'd like to see it and distributed it commercially as they wish, for their own profit, without your tedious and inconvenient copyright restrictions. Or are you hypocritical on top of everything else?

Quote

My next complaint with Apple is that they left Firewire 400 off the new Macbooks. So, they lowered the price a little bit and left off a critical component for audio and video work. This forces anyone in my industry to plunk down at least $2000 for a Mac Book Pro which offers Firewire 800, which will not be compatible with products like the Apogee Duet, which is FW 400.

Apple doesn't have to make every system for professional audio and video. Why, if you look really hard, I'll bet you'll even find a couple of "Windows compatible" hardware systems from other vendors that lack Firewire. And many of the vast throngs of people who have no idea what Firewire is will probably be happy to save a few $$ on a system that doesn't have it. I wouldn't buy it, and clearly you wouldn't either. That's cool; Apple didn't make it for us.