[orgopete]

jragosta said:

Frankly, this is just as bogus as the antitrust case (by using this silly logic, BMW should allow me to put their engine programming firmware into a Yugo because it would be 'wrong' to tie their firmware to hardware), and I expect that Psystar will be appropriately shot down.

I am sure I am not as knowledgeable as you, but I believe this description is exactly the case for patent misuse and would invalidate BMW from enforcing their patent. From my research, this seems a clear case of BMW trying to use their firmware patent to extend it to a non-patent part, the engine. I would suggest you should consult with an attorney before you should engage in this practice.

Quote

I just can't figure out why Apple doesn't label the retail boxes 'UPGRADE VERSION' in big letters. That would greatly strengthen their position, even overseas.

While this may be in interesting tactic, I fail to see how the knowledge that the boxes contain OSX in them would be hidden from the public for only a short amount of time.

I find that as I research the issues in the Psystar case, it is simply a question of patent law. I am not a lawyer and the particulars of this case are too complex for me to predict a priori who should dominate. Certainly it is an interesting case none the less.

[tech_head]

It's not patent law.
It's trademark and copyright.

By selling machines with MacOS installed "nameless" company tarnishes and confuses the brand identification of Apple. They further violate the license under which the product is sold.

Apple doesn't have to put code in to make other hardware unstable.
No other PC's ship with EFI they ship with BIOS which is different. You must hack the kernel to make the machine boot if it does not have EFI.

Apple is under no obligation to support "nameless" companies hardware.
Like I said before there is no way "nameless" company can win. Even if they win, they lose.
If they win, MacOS will require a piece of hardware in the system or there will be an encrypted ROM on new Macs.
It will be sold as an upgrade only and you will have to prove that you have an installed copy of MacOS to install the new version.

Apple will fight so they don't have to do those things, but if they lose, the way MacOS is installed and licensed will permanently change.

[Bryan]

My prediction remains that by the time this is over, Apple will be the one paying Psystar.

The entire concept of a license is BS as far as I'm concerned. Restricting what someone can and cannot do with a product they paid for is completely unreasonable. I'd personally like to see challenge after challenge until courts start overturning the validity of even having a EULA.

[orgopete]

Interesting. My account was hacked. I guess someone did not like what I have found in Wikipedia and other places.

Message was edited by: orgopete

[orgopete]

tech_head said:

It's not patent law.
It's trademark and copyright.

I stand corrected. I meant intellectual property rights in general. Because references often refer to one another, I was thinking in the more general sense.

Quote

By selling machines with MacOS installed "nameless" company tarnishes and confuses the brand identification of Apple.

I would have rejected this outright, but if the majority of American though Sadam started 9/11?
>They further violate the license under which the product is sold.
The court did not issue an injunction.

Quote

Apple doesn't have to put code in to make other hardware unstable.
No other PC's ship with EFI they ship with BIOS which is different. You must hack the kernel to make the machine boot if it does not have EFI.

Again, I am no expert, so I looked up EFI. In Wikipedia

Quote

{quote:title=Wikipedia: }{quote}Wikipedia: EFI

>The original motivation for EFI came during early development of the first Intel-HP Itanium systems in the mid-1990s. PC BIOS limitations ? were seen as clearly unacceptable for the larger server platforms Itanium was targeting. The initial effort to address these concerns was initially called Intel Boot Initiative and was later renamed to EFI.

So this becomes more interesting. I suggest anyone interested to read the Wikipedia article. They also note that EFI is now administered by a Unified EFI.

The Unified EFI Forum or UEFI Forum (where UEFI stands for Unified Extensible Firmware Interface) is an alliance between several leading technology companies including AMD, American Megatrends, Apple, Dell, HP, IBM, Insyde Software, Intel, Lenovo, Microsoft, and Phoenix Technologies.

The non-profit corporation has assumed responsibility for the management and promotion of the EFI specification, a bootloader and runtime interface between platform firmware and an operating system. The original EFI specification was developed by Intel and was used as the starting point from which the UEFI version(s) were developed. The goal of the organization is to replace the aging PC BIOS.

Some Wikipedia authors estimated that at the rate of integration of EFI into x86 units, 50% of computers will be equipped with EFI in late 2009 or early 2010.

As a novice, I always thought, how could they possibly hack the OS. It would appear that hacking the OS would be more a matter of finding the addresses of the code. If EFI is open source, then the hackers only need to find where it is located or where the OS should be found by EFI. While I note that EFI is listed with the words open source, elsewhere critics suggested an true open source BIOS should have been used. I'm not sure what that means.

Quote

Apple is under no obligation to support "nameless" companies hardware.

Are you saying Apple doesn't have to support HP or Epson? At their own peril.
Like I said before there is no way "nameless" company can win. Even if they win, they lose.
You are talking Dell now right? I predict that if Dell sells OS X installed, they will do okay. I don't see them losing.
If they win, MacOS will require a piece of hardware in the system or there will be an encrypted ROM on new Macs.
It will be sold as an upgrade only and you will have to prove that you have an installed copy of MacOS to install the new version.
>
Apple will fight so they don't have to do those things, but if they lose, the way MacOS is installed and licensed will permanently change.
Really? I'll wait to see. Agreed and agreed.

[tech_head]

In the case of UEFI/EFI the specification is open but the drivers written to that specification are not.
Just like BIOS is software and has copyrights so does EFI. AMI, Award and others built companies on BIOS development.
Apple's EFI code just like BIOS for any machine by Dell, etc. isn't open source.

Apple could tie new versions of the OS to EFI code in the flash memory on the machine as a copy protection technique.
All Intel based Apple machines have an upgradeable EFI memory.
They then change the label on the box to indicate it's an upgrade only. Tie it to code in the EFI and you have a situation where the machine is the copy protection dongle.

Like I said. If Apple loses the suit, you will see the way MacOS sold and installed changed and "nameless" company will still be out of business.

Apple could bury code in video driver to only talk to an Apple card with an Apple ROM.
They could tied it to the ethernet MAC address in the machine.
iTunes authorization after install.

Since Apple controls the hardware AND the software, a company trying to make a clone can't win.

I said Apple is under no obligation to support "nameless" company. but that doesn't mean they don't have monetary motives.

I didn't mean Epson, et. al. because they aren't trying to make clones.

Don't get me wrong. I would have loved to buy a mid tower with HD drive bays, one optical bay, two PCIe slots, etc....
Roughly half of a MacPro. Apple doesn't make that machine so I bought a MacPro.
People that want to run MacOS ultimately will have to buy the machines that Apple thinks it can make cash on.
Some other company doesn't get to come along and decide it want's to augment Apple's product line.
Apple doesn't OEM it's software to system builders.

The current "nameless" clone company shows screen shots of MacOS.
They show pictures of the MacOS box.
They claim to fully support automatic updates on their machines.

So someone explain to me how this make sense and should be okay?

[aceshelman]

tech_head said:

Quote

The current "nameless" clone company shows screen shots of MacOS.
They show pictures of the MacOS box.
They claim to fully support automatic updates on their machines.

So someone explain to me how this make sense and should be okay?

Because "nameless" paid for the OS and put it on a computer. Apple didn't invent and patent the computer, but they do sell an OS that can, with mild effort, be installed on many computer setups. Now I'm going to buy/pull engines out of junkyard Fords and drop them in my home built chassis and sell them as AceMobiles. Of course Ford won't back a warranty on the engine, i'll do that for them.
Want one? It's a sweet ride.

[jragosta]

"The entire concept of a license is BS as far as I'm concerned. Restricting what someone can and cannot do with a product they paid for is completely unreasonable."

Tell me what you do for a living and how you'd feel if someone stole the fruits of your labor without properly compensating you.

[jragosta]

"Pystar can't hurt apple by selling their current machines with Mac OS X"

Actually, it does hurt Apple in a number of ways:

1. Psystar customers will undoubtedly call Apple for tech support - some or all of which is caused by the hardware. Apple ends up spending money on Psystar's problems. Even if they get rid of the customers quickly, it still takes time.

2. SOME Psystar customers might have bought a Mac if Psystar didn't sell them a cheap copy. Apple loses revenues.

3. Some people see OS X run badly on Psystar machines and blame it on the OS.

And any number of other ways.

[jragosta]

"I am sure I am not as knowledgeable as you, but I believe this description is exactly the case for patent misuse and would invalidate BMW from enforcing their patent. From my research, this seems a clear case of BMW trying to use their firmware patent to extend it to a non-patent part, the engine. I would suggest you should consult with an attorney before you should engage in this practice."

Hint: There's a difference between copyrights and patents. Look it up.

BMW has every right to refuse to sell their firmware to other companies.

""I just can't figure out why Apple doesn't label the retail boxes 'UPGRADE VERSION' in big letters. That would greatly strengthen their position, even overseas."
While this may be in interesting tactic, I fail to see how the knowledge that the boxes contain OSX in them would be hidden from the public for only a short amount of time. "

So much ignorance, so little time.....

The intent is not to hide anything from anyone. It is to make it so abundantly clear that even the stupidest moron can see that it's an upgrade version. Apparently "this version of Mac OS X can only be installed on Apple-labeled hardwre" is to complicated for some.

The right to prevent upgrade versions from being installed without a previous version being present is well accepted and established by the court - without any need to resort to EULA. If Apple sells their retail boxes as upgrades and Psystar tries to install them onto their hardware, Apple would have put them out of business long ago. It's a slam dunk.

"I find that as I research the issues in the Psystar case, it is simply a question of patent law. I am not a lawyer and the particulars of this case are too complex for me to predict a priori who should dominate. Certainly it is an interesting case none the less."

It's a good thing you're not a lawyer - you'd starve.

It is not about patents. It's about copyrights and trademarks.

[mdawson]

Quote

Bryan wrote:

>

Quote

My prediction remains that by the time this is over, Apple will be the one paying Psystar.

Apple is going to ultimate have to pay Psystar for a product that Apple has spent 25 years, millions of man-hours and hundreds of millions of dollars designing, developing and maintaining. Really? It must be fun living in your world where people are permitted to profit off of other?s work with no accountability and the penalty falling on the ones that did the work.

Quote

Bryan wrote:

>

Quote

The entire concept of a license is BS as far as I'm concerned. Restricting what someone can and cannot do with a product they paid for is completely unreasonable.

Then maybe you need to learn the difference between buying and licensing. Products you buy do not come with terms of use because ownership is transferred to you upon purchase. All software comes with an end-user license agreement so obviously you are not buying anything, but instead paying a licensing fee. Ownership of software remains with the developer and the developer has every right to state how that software can be used within reason. Apple has the same right to dictate the terms of use for OS X as the owner of an apartment complex has the right to dictate the terms of residency in a lease.

[Wondercow]

aceshelman said:

>Exactly. Pystar can't hurt apple by selling their current machines with Mac OS X. A bunch of you seem to think the DOOM IS TOO FULL OF DOOOM! but really, those Psystar buyers weren't going to buy Apple machines. And if Apple really wants to put a torpedo in Psystar it can do it easily by offering a mid tower at a reasonable price (i.e. more expensive than Psystar's but worth every penny for the genuine apple experience). This is "good for apple" IMO and everyone's cries of DOOM over this are way over blown.
While Psystar is unlikely to steal a significant portion of Apple's business they will take some. However, the bigger picture is that a Psystar win means that Dell can sell MacOS computers (and anyone else for that matter). Do you honestly think that Dell selling MacOS systems won't harm Apple?
Message was edited by: Wondercow to fix the quote

[Wondercow]

Bryan said:

My prediction remains that by the time this is over, Apple will be the one paying Psystar.

The entire concept of a license is BS as far as I'm concerned. Restricting what someone can and cannot do with a product they paid for is completely unreasonable. I'd personally like to see challenge after challenge until courts start overturning the validity of even having a EULA.

They don't restrict what one may do w ith a purchased product: people are free to melt the CD, scribble all over the box, cut up the stickers, or even make a papier-mache sculpture from the inserts. What we buy is everything that is not the software.

[mdawson]

Quote

aceshelman wrote:

>

Quote

Pystar can't hurt apple by selling their current machines with Mac OS X. A bunch of you seem to think the DOOM IS TOO FULL OF DOOOM! but really, those Psystar buyers weren't going to buy Apple machines.

If you were an actual legacy Mac user, or had memory spanning back more than five years, perhaps you would know better than to make such a patently false claim. As the old saying goes, ?Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.? Apple gave their blessing on Mac clones in the mid-1990s and the result was near disastrous for the company. Permitting other OEMs to make Mac clones worked against Apple when Apple set the rules for the hardware so it obviously will not work with any mom and pop OEM assembling PCs as they please. The previous clones were guaranteed to work seamlessly with the Mac OS; generic PCs with hacked copies of OS X are not.

As to what Psystar buyers may or may not have purchased anyway, those seriously considering Psystar systems now are more likely to be those with some degree of tech saavy, otherwise they would not know about Psystar in the first place. Left unchecked, several other leeches would start selling so-called OS X-compatible systems, including the better-known OEMs. That would lead people that would have otherwise seriously considered a Mac to buy another PC because they falsely believe that Macs cost too much. Apple also runs the risk of having longtime Mac users buying other PCs just as they did in the mid-1990s with the sanctioned clones.

Quote

aceshelman wrote:

>

Quote

And if Apple really wants to put a torpedo in Psystar it can do it easily by offering a mid tower at a reasonable price (i.e. more expensive than Psystar's but worth every penny for the genuine apple experience).

Again statements based on false premises. First of all, the price myth about Macs has been long since dispelled. Even the PC press admitted as much years ago. Any Wintel PC that is truly comparable to any given Mac will cost as much if not substantially more than that Mac. Secondly, regardless of the company, a (perceived) hole in a product line does not entitle any other company to jump in using someone else?s brand, regardless of how much you want it.