We've been following the case of Mac cloner Psystar for sometimenow. Apple was just handed a summary judgement over Psystar, and as usual Groklaw has the scoop. Here is the order (PDF), though PJ supplies it in text form at the link above. "Psystar just got what's coming to them in the California case. ... It's a total massacre. Psystar's first-sale defense went down in flames. Apple's motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement and DMCA violation is granted. Apple prevailed also on its motion to seal. Psystar's motion for summary judgment on trademark infringement and trade dress is denied. So is its illusory motion for copyright misuse. ... So that means damages ahead for Psystar on the copyright issues just decided on summary judgment, at a minimum. The court asked for briefs on that subject. In short, Psystar is toast." Reader UnknowingFool adds, "There are still issues to be decided but they are only Apple's allegations: breach of contract, induced breach of contract, trademark infringement, trademark dilution; trade dress infringement, state unfair competition, and common law unfair competition. Even if Psystar wins all of them, it is unlikely to help them very much."
I know. They'll say, but, but, but... what if they hadn't used the master and just used each copy, then would it work? Sons, why do you think Psystar used the master copy? Because it's a business, and in a business, efficiency is money. That's why businesses set themselves up, to make money. The whole world is not with you on a holy war to destroy EULAs and the GPL. Even this rinkydink business wanted to make money. Theoreticals belong on message boards, not in business and definitely not in courtrooms, and even on message boards, everyone told you for years that this wouldn't work out if someone tried it. It's been tried. It didn't work out.... coming from Pamela, who revealed that Microsoft played no small role funding the SCO debacle though bogus license purchase.
If you follow patent troll cases for example, you would know that shell business are often set up by litigants for the sole purpose of facilitating a lawsuit. Once you've acquired your defunct IP, you set up a web site to demonstrate intent to sell a product. Sure it's not strictly necessary to test the patent but it can help when it come times to assess damages, and it garners judge and jury sympathies (especially if you can get it tried in the Texas east district).
So, who was behind Psystar? Dell perhaps? There's no chance in hell a startup box builder would go to these lengths to test a legal theory. Their vested interest in the supposed business was a pittance compared to the cost to fight this, so where'd they get the money?
Obviously, Psystar was staged for the exclusive purpose of being sued .
I know. They'll say, but, but, but... what if they hadn't used the master and just used each copy, then would it work? Sons, why do you think Psystar used the master copy? Because it's a business, and in a business, efficiency is money. That's why businesses set themselves up, to make money. The whole world is not with you on a holy war to destroy EULAs and the GPL. Even this rinkydink business wanted to make money. Theoreticals belong on message boards, not in business and definitely not in courtrooms, and even on message boards, everyone told you for years that this wouldn't work out if someone tried it. It's been tried. It didn't work out.... coming from Pamela, who revealed that Microsoft played no small role funding the SCO debacle though bogus license purchase.
If you follow patent troll cases for example, you would know that shell business are often set up by litigants for the sole purpose of facilitating a lawsuit. Once you've acquired your defunct IP, you set up a web site to demonstrate intent to sell a product. Sure it's not strictly necessary to test the patent but it can help when it come times to assess damages, and it garners judge and jury sympathies (especially if you can get it tried in the Texas east district).
So, who was behind Psystar? Dell perhaps? There's no chance in hell a startup box builder would go to these lengths to test a legal theory. Their vested interest in the supposed business was a pittance compared to the cost to fight this, so where'd they get the money?
Obviously, Psystar was staged for the exclusive purpose of being sued.
It makes you wonder. Incidentally, it's amazing how often "you're a conspiracy nut" comes from people who have no grasp of long-term strategy and really don't know the first thing about it. The person or group who works towards a goal in incremental steps (each of which has an excuse or plausible deniability) over longer periods of time is much more likely to get what they want than the person or group who goes for a short-term, win-or-lose, once-and-for-all type of showdown. That's particularly true when what they want to get is illegal, immoral, or goes against things like tradition, social convention, or public opinion. Recognizing this reality is the first step towards truly understanding business and politics.
Psystar isn't a front for anyone. That doesn't mean they haven't been used by real players.
The truly powerful don't need to do anything so unsubtle as conspiracy nuts like to believe. They can take existing bit players, and give them the right nudge for the same effect.
Psystar isn't a front for anyone. That doesn't mean they haven't been used by real players.
The truly powerful don't need to do anything so unsubtle as conspiracy nuts like to believe. They can take existing bit players, and give them the right nudge for the same effect.
That scenario would make Paystar a "useful idiot" as some call it, which provides added deniability for the people who pull the strings. That still falls under long-term strategy and plausible deniability. My observation was deliberately worded in a simple way because understanding of this topic is sorely missing in the general public. When the audience you intend to reach is unfamiliar with a topic, you don't usually start with the most advanced material.
Things like strategy, plausible deniability, propaganda techniques, and argumentation fallacies are either not taught in the public schools or are given only the most superficial treatment. Therefore, most people either don't know about them or have no real mastery of the concepts. When they see a politician talking about an issue, they don't immediately see patterns of influence and don't ask questions like "qui bono?" That the public schools don't cover these topics is no excuse for the widespread ignorance. People generally spend far more time educating themselves about things that have much less of an impact on their lives.
This means that the general population is easy prey for what is effectively a ruling class that does have this knowledge and is in the profession of using it. This population understands the actual realities of politics about as well as the average Roman citizen understood the intent of "bread and circus".
If Psystar was a stalking horse then the only reason that makes sense is that someone wants Apple to lock their OS to their hardware.
Apple doesn't seem too concerned by hobbyists building Frankenmacs. Their ever vigilant lawyers haven't been jackbooting down doors and dragging offenders to court.
There have been instances in the past where an OS-maker has turned a blind eye to, if not actually facilitating, its OS being pirated simply to deny a competitor marketshare. Maybe somebody was worried that Apple was moving in this direction.
However, if Apple is provoked into action by a startup selling Frankenmacs might they not decide to implement a TPM system to lock the OS to Macs-only?
No more hobby Frankenmacs and Apple is seen as not only closed software but closed hardware too. The Technorati would be incensed and Apple would wear the black eye forever.
I would speculate that Apple is not really threatened by Frankenmacs in general. The kind of hobbyist who is technically inclined and is willing to put something like this together is probably outside of their target audience. I have known people who bought Macs not because they were fans of Apple, but because they were dissatisfied with PCs loaded with Windows. They were not technically inclined and most of their PC problems could be put into two broad categories: configuration issues and malware. They found Macs to be a breath of fresh air not because they think Apple is "hip" and "cool" but because they found its GUI to be easy and intuitive and its underlying Unix system to be rock-solid stable and not prone to malware. They felt like they found something that "just worked" and felt like that is what they were paying a higher price for. I think of these folks as Apple's target audience.
For those reasons, TPM would be a rather extreme measure. They are, at least for now, taking the "other option" of going after commercial Frankenmac producers legally instead of technologically. The precendent this sets is quite likely to discourage other companies from doing the same. The only ones left who are building Frankenmacs are doing so personally and not commercially and for the reasons I mentioned above, are probably not Apple's main market.
Seriously, these specific users you talk about don't find Mac's GUI immediately "easy and intuitive" nor the underlying "Unix system" "rock-solid stable" nor do they even know. These are things Mac fanboys like to say, however.
Maybe I'm not part of Apple's target market - since I use a MacBook I inherited from my wife when she upgraded - but I like Apple for many of the same reasons I like Linux (or BSD for that matter). The convenience of being able to bust out a zsh shell counts for a lot when performing operations that are actually quicker and simpler when performed from the command-line than with a GUI. I was actually somewhat (pleasantly) surprised to find that OS X in fact comes with zsh "out of the box". I had figured this would be considered an unnecessary detail on a Mac, but obviously not.
Apart from that, life with Apple is a trade-off between having everything "just work" and having an inflexible GUI of Apple's choice rather than my own.
If Apple prevails on the remaining issues, we might find out. If Psystar is forced into bankruptcy, their records would be among the property transferred to the receivers.
Well, legally the court said in the ruling there are cases where using a master copy in the name of efficiency is acceptable. For enterprises, the use of an image to install an OS to a large numbers of computers for the sake of efficiency is fine. For example, a large company may install a volume Windows license from MS onto a bunch of computers or they may use a disc image to do an install and then replace the generic license key with a specific one after the install is over.
Psystar's use however was not because typically enterprises have agreements with the original copyright owner to do this when they buy enterprises licenses. Apple did not sell Psystar such a license and did not grant them the authority to do so.
Psystar bought from Apple a single OS X copy, installed it onto a Mac Mini, loaded it onto an X86 computer ("master copy"), made modifications to it, then used the master copy to install to other computers. Psystar said since they included a retail copy of an OS X DVD, this was all legal. The court however found that Psystar did not always include a copy and that even if it did, the computer copy was not always the same version of OS X as the DVD. (I think this meant the DVD was Leopard whereas the computer had Snow Leopard installed, etc).
Even if it was the same version, fair use does not allow for anyone to make multiple, unauthorized copies as Psystar had done. Likewise if a person made a copy (even several copies) of your software, music, etc, that might be fair use. If a person made 500 copies of each, that might not be covered.
Lastly since Psystar modified OS X to run on X86 computers, it is guilty of creating a derivative work without Apple's permission.
That's a bunch of crap, and if that's what the decision says then First Sale law is over, at least until it gets escalated, and it will. First Sale is critical to whole long lists of industries. Using copyright law to restrict transfer of an object [blogspot.com] is an abuse... First Sale law permits you to modify things you've purchased.
If Psystar modified the OS X software and then sold the modified software (along with the computer), then they've both created a derivative work and distributed it. This should be clear cut in the courts. There is a circuit split over whether attaching a postcard to a tile and then reselling it constitutes the preparation and distribution of a derivative work, but the split is over the question of whether simply gluing the card to the tile is enough to qualify as a derivative work. In this case, modifying the software is almost unquestionably enough to constitute the preparation of a derivative work.
First sale will allow you to resell a copyrighted work that you have purchased; if, however, it's been modified enough to constitute a derivative work, you'll run afoul of copyright law. If, in the Seventh Circuit's tile case, [resource.org] the defendant had made a new piece of artwork, e.g. a collage or something with a bunch of postcard, that would likely pass the threshold for a derivative work.
If all Psystar had done was resell copies of unmodified copies of OS X along with their Hackintoshes, the issue of derivative works wouldn't come into play at all. It would be more a matter of whether Apple's EULA matters, etc. By modifying the copies, however, they opened up a big can of worms.
Read carefully the full section, [cornell.edu] and you'll see that while it allows for the creation for "adaptations", it explicitly disallows resale of those adaptations if you don't have permission from the copyright holder:
(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.— Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.
"Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner."
Good point. In that case, Psystar needs to do something like the following: Sell a machine and a legitimate copy of Mac OS X to the end user. Have the end user authorize the installation of *that* copy on the machine, with any appropriate adaptations to make it work.
117(a) allows the owner to "authorize" the making of such adaptations necessary to the software on a machine, and 117(b) does not prohibit it.
The simple truth is that Psystar DID have to use an image method to perform the installs, and so this should be considered a minimum necessary step towards exercising First Sale rights to do as you like with something you've purchased; but I do agree that they should have been required to use an image based on the same version of OSX that would appear in the box. First Sale law permits you to modify things you've purchased. If I am not permitted to modify Apple software, then arguably I can't even use it. And if I'm not permitted to use images to deploy OSX, then I'm certainly not even going to consider using it in the enterprise. If Psystar isn't allowed to use a custom image, then I must assume I'm not allowed to either.
Good points and I totally agree with your points on the validity of the First Sale law and it's necessity. However, you're missing a crucial point. Pystar not only modified OSX, (as is allowed for personal use), but it sold this modified derivative product, which is not protected by the First Sale law. You can use a modified product, but you can't sell. That's why Pystar lost, and lost big. I personally think that these and other copyright restrictions are too strict, but it is pretty clear in this case (summary judgement and all that) that Pystar broke it.
I've been through the links and it just looks like a company wanted to sell a cheap Mac clone. I don't get what one or a firm would get in setting up a clone company just to get sued by Apple.
Microsoft is very happy with the status quo. Apple voluntarily limits itself to the tiny niche that is their own hardware. As is, they're absolutely no threat to Microsoft.
Oh really? Why then is Microsoft trying to clone everything apple is doing?
Zune, Microsoft Store, the new "iPhone killer" windows mobile, etc, etc
Apple could be a very serious threat to Microsoft if they changed their attitude towards businesses.
Microsoft's bread and butter is Windows and Office. The iPhone, iPod, App store that you mention do nothing to dent that. MS is just trying to build a bigger business by trying to get into those markets, not to counter a threat to their cash cows.
To innovate is not to generate something entirely unique from a vacuum. Innovation is defined as "making changes in something established by introducing new methods, ideas, or products."
Microsoft is accused of "cloning" because the methods, ideas, and products that they introduce do not generally constitute an improvement.
Agreed. Apple is very good at refining the little details that ultimately make the end user experience much better. Almost every competitor seems to miss this. Incredible attention to fine details is not something you can just copy and then hope to make a lot of money from. It's a motivation that has to come from within.
Lotus to VisiCalc, Netscape to Mosaic, Java to C++, Playstation to SNES, Apple Mac to Xerox Alto...the list goes on and on. It's what the entire industry does.
Dragging Apple down to their level in the public's eyes wouldn't be a bad strategy.
It's not, but I think it's unnecessary. MS just needs to stand back and let Apple do it to themselves. Anybody knowledgeable about tech knows that Apple is just as evil as MS, and that knowledge is beginning to filter out into the general public. I really anticipate a collapse of the 'cool' shell that apple has built around itself in the next few years, and they'll have to actually begin competing on merit. They might
keep holding your breath. That shell might and only might die when steve jobs leave the company. however apple is setting themselves up for a company without steve jobs.
The cool shell though is the fact they innovate the combined hardware/software, not just one piece of the pie, but making whole new pies. It has been shown time and time again MSFT only makes products good enough to beat the competition through brute force. Since just about everyone else gets their software from MSFT they start at a disa
It has been shown time and time again MSFT only makes products good enough to beat the competition through brute force
I wish advocates of alternative anything would just be honest. Microsoft has made products that are better than their competition and sometimes they are breathtakingly so. Bill Gates may have been a ruthless businessman, but when he was at the helm, Microsoft made some good stuff.
MS BASIC was way better than other BASICs made by other computer companies. String arrays? Geez, on Atari Basic you had to fake them.
DOS was better than CP/M. It was quicker to learn, and, had a pretty spiffy version of BASICA with it, for its day.
FoxPro (bought by MS), was way better than the dBase (bought by Borland). And, Access was a better desktop database than anything else out there.
Windows of the DOS extender series was better than any other DOS task extender series. For that matter, Windows 95 is hands down superior to Mac OS 8 and Mac OS 9 and Windows NT blew OS/2 completely out of the water. OS/2, single message queue on the desktop, puhlease.
Excel was better than Quattro, and I'm sorry, Word was better than Word Perfect for Windows, by far. My favorite Word Process was Samna AmiPro, which, probably would have ruled them all had Lotus not bought them and screwed it up.
Yeah, everyone can cry fowl over Netscape being destroyed by Microsoft, but Microsoft IE 4 had a fully programmable DOM and an AJAX XMLHttpRequest.. what did Netscape have... you could script a form, had document.write for everything else...a half-assed buggy email, and a billion bugs.
Visual Studio was way better than Borland's C++ IDE was by around 2.0 of Visual Studio.
It's pretty simple. Microsoft is good, at times, especially when Gates was running the show. And there were many times Microsoft, despite all of these "advantages", competed, and flopped... does anyone remember PhotoDraw? That little gem was actually pretty innovative, but, Adobe crushed it like an insect. Now we have Silverlight going up against Flash, and lo, Silverlight is still not reliable in Firefox and didn't have drop shadows. WTF. They lose, and deservedly so.
And, Microsoft lets the XP franchise languish, releases Vista way too early, and so loses market share to Linux. Microsoft prices things off, and so, WinNT Server loses to Linux. Microsoft, after a brilliant run from IE4-6 (yeah, one time, 6 was the best... almost 10 years ago?), but now, can't catch a clue with IE8 and so FireFox and now Google Chrome and Safari are now gradually crushing them.
And now Visual Studio seems ever more confused, while Eclipse and other IDE's start to look better, and I switched.
Conspiracies, monopolies, all of that, can be an advantage, but really, only for so long. In this society, it is product that matters,
And yet Apple is reaping profit hand over foot, during a economic depression. Why fix what isn't broken. They obviously have something that Microsoft does not. "Cool" and "Hip" will only go so far. If there is nothing of substance to back it up, then after a few months, the hotness has worn off, and people drop them in droves. This obviously is not happening. Apple continues to increase it's market share, even in these bad economic times.
I can guarantee you that if MS finds any manufacturer that isn't properly licensing Windows, they would be wiped from the map. The difference here being that MS licenses it's OS for resale. Apple does not. The only barrier to entry is to buy an Apple Mac, which are about the same price as any other comparable piece of hardware from a PC manufacturer (not a whole seller mind you, but a manufacturer).
If I recall, it's the Microsoft market share and profit that is shrinking. Apple is doing just fine on it's "1960's proprietary hardware business model', whatever that means. It's just a closed system, nuts to bolts. Nothing wrong with that. Thousands upon thousands of manufacturer's produce a closed product.
I hereby declare Psystar to be a reverse trojan horse. Apple created Psystar so they could sue themselves and once and for all crush any thoughts companies might have of trying to produce generic Apple-compatible platforms for OSX.
I hereby declare Psystar to be a reverse trojan horse. Apple created Psystar so they could sue themselves and once and for all crush any thoughts companies might have of trying to produce generic Apple-compatible platforms for OSX.
All this goes to show is that, contrary to the statements of some Slashdotters, Psystar did not re-install OS X as-is. They replaced key segments, including the bootloader and kernel extensions, in order to get it to install on commodity hardware. That makes Psystar the distributors of a derivative work, thereby violating copyright laws. This is not about the EULA:
"Psystar infringed Apple's exclusive right to create derivative works of Mac OS X," the ruling reads. "Specifically, it made three modifications: (1) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar's computers; (2) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files; and (3) adding non-Apple kernel extensions."
I fail to understand how Psystar is even within light years of being right on this issue.
Here...let me explain... First...get all teary...then start whining...then demand that everyone should give you what you want the way you want it because you want it to be that way. Then start stomping...screaming...crying...maybe rolling around on the floor. Basically...all you really need to do is throw a temper tantrum that would make a 2yr old proud and you will understand the entitlement mentality behind all of this. "I should get what I want, for the price I want, with the rules I want, because I want it that way." This is all driven by people who think that if they don't like the terms of an agreement that they can unilaterally alter them to meet their needs. These are the same people that dream up stupid shit ideas like "We reserve the right to alter this agreement at any time without notice" and then scream bloody murder when other like minded idiots lock them into a contract that says the same thing.
I don't like what the RIAA is doing. I haven't bought any RIAA music in almost 10 years now. I also haven't downloaded any music. I don't try to rationalize some weird shit reason that says it is ok for me to simply take what I want because they won't offer it to me on the terms I want. The same goes for software. I VERY rarely buy software, and I pretty much restrict most of my software to F/OSS stuff. There are a few software package that I have bought, but rather than downloading, I wait for a deal where I can pay the price I want, or I find another product. It is that simple. This insane entitlement mentality is getting disgusting, and is ultimately what drives much of behavior the whiners usually throw tantrums about. Tell me that the RIAA behavior is anything other than greedy entitlement bullshit...just the same as the idiots downloading music.
These battles are escalating battles between large groups of spoiled brats that think that they deserve whatever they demand on the terms they demand and they will go to great lengths to force their demands.
The court rejected 117. Partially because Psystar's lawyers suck. (emphasis mine)
The question is whether Psystar can rely on section 117 to escape liability. It cannot. As Apple pointed out, Psystar waived any Section 117 essential step defense when it failed to plead it. Psystar counters that it has not waived Section 117 because that provision is a limitation on a copyright owner’s exclusive rights rather than an affirmative defense. An earlier Ninth Circuit decision stated “Section 117 defines a narrow category of copying that is lawful per se” and “Section 107, by contrast, establishes a defense to an otherwise valid claim of copyright infringement.” Sega Enters. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1521 (9th Cir. 1992). Since then, the Ninth Circuit has expressly referred to Section 117 as a defense. See Wall Data Inc. v. L.A. County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 447 F.3d 769, 776 (9th Cir. 2006) (referring to Section 117 as an affirmative defense); Asset Mktg. Sys. v. Gagnon, 542 F.3d 748, 754 (9th Cir. 2008) (referring to Section 117 as a defense). As such, this order treats Section 117 as an affirmative defense.
Alternatively, if Section 117 is considered an affirmative defense, then Psystar argues it has pled it in its answer and raised the substance of its Section 117 argument in its interrogatory responses. Neither the answer nor interrogatory responses, however, refer to Section 117. And Psystar has not demonstrated any good cause for its failure to assert the defense after a year of litigation. Also, there has been no showing that its failure to do so will not prejudice Apple. As such, Psystar has waived the defense.
At all events, the assertion of Section 117 is so frivolous in the true context of how Psystar has used Mac OS X that a belated attempt to amend the pleadings would not be excused.
Jesus Fucking H Christ. You are like the 10th moron in this thread who quotes part (a) of that section, but is completely utterly incapable of reading on to part (b). If you actually read part (b), it expressly prohibits resale of the modified versions.
Are you all aiming for the Selective Reading of the Year Award or what?
In any other case the slashdot crowd would be raging and the megacorp who crushed the small upstart's website would be hacked, but wouldn't be visible because of the simultanious DDoS attack. Only because the megacorp is Apple and the rules with them are somehow different.
Seriously. Find me another case where Slashdot cheers a EULA being upheld. Find me another case where a DMCA attack is applauded. Listen up ya numbbuts, EULAs are always evil. The DMCA is always evil. Even when Steve Jobs is crushing a small competitor. What Pystar was doing may be illegal (I'd argue that point though) but I double dog dare any fanboy to stand up here and defend the MORAL position Apple took.
Either what Apple sells in those boxes are full copies of OS X or they are upgrades. Apple insists they are full copies when it suits their arguments AND equally insists they are mere upgrades when they need to crush Pystar. Make up yer fracking minds.
Then, license OS-X to whoever wants it (for an increased cost of course). Make it just another OS that people can buy if they want.
Why in the world would Apple want to do that? They would (like Microsoft) have to support every POS computer ever cobbled together. For a couple of bucks. Apple can barely do upgrades on the two dozen or so models they actively support - every time Apple brings out a point release or even a security fix, it manages to hose various systems.
If they had to support everything, it would look like.... Linux. Command line patches everywhere. Pleasant hours troubleshooting Bog-knows-what. Nope. They're smart doing exactly what they've set up.
So why was the iPod the one that took off? Because it was cool.
Undoubtably the iPod was and still is the coolest MP3 player. But you miss the point of WHY it became the coolest. Because it was the best. Because it had a great design, Because it had a great UI, because with iTunes it was the easiest to use. Normal people (i.e. not geeks) didn't want to piss about dragging MP3 files around to external disk drives, manually managing directory structures. They just want to rip their CDs in the easiest way possible and have the music appear on their iPods automatically. Let the computer take care of the administration grunt work.
It seems like Apple's insistence on doing computers they way they do is not based on a good business practice but just stubborn insistence.
Clearly you are entirely unaware of Apple's financial results, which even in the recession continue to outgrow pretty much everyone else. They don't need any business advice from you. They know far better than you do what is good for business.
No, you may try and convince yourself that it was some amazing new technology that sold the iPod but it wasn't, it was style.
I don't need to "convince myself". I know better than you do because I bought one, and I know why I bought one. You didn't make that choice, and you're imagining reasons for whay other people (that you despise) did so. Which is rather ignorant of you.
The Mac fanboy base like yourself isn't what has given them massive profits, there just aren't that many zealots out there.
The irony here is that you are the one who is arguing like an emotional sorority girl.
You're right. The single vendor lock-in is just killing them. They were doing so well when they allowed others to build Mac clones, they should just go back to doing that. Jobs was obviously an idiot for cancelling the scheme - if he hadn't the company may have been a household name by now, instead on teetering on the brink of disaster.
Even assuming I agreed with you regarding whether or not Apple gave licensing a "real" chance (which I haven't yet decided, but leaning towards not), I don't see any compelling reason for them to roll the dice (again) on such an experiment, considering both their present commercial performance AND reported customer satisfaction.
But, for the sake of entertaining a thought: what specific choices on Apple's part regarding the handling of licensing Mac OS would have constituted giving it a "real" chance?
Meh. Apple is pretty happy where they are. If their hardware suits you and fits your needs, buy it as necessary. Otherwise, avoid it. Many many people have a hard time doing that. If Apple finds themselves needing to change because of this down the road, they will. It's that simple.
If you're building a hackintosh, good for you. Tinkering with things like that can be fun. But please don't start acting like Apple is supposed to support you. Don't install it on production machines. The hacking part of the hackintosh is supposed to be half the fun anyway. But that is it.
So long as OS X is tied to a single vendor, it's absolutely irrelevant to any reasonable person
Windows is also tied to a single vendor - Microsoft. If they screw up - like they did with e.g. Windows ME and Vista - it doesn't matter how many OEMs can deliver the hardware to run it on. Linux is multivendor - and not tied to a specific hardware company - but compared to Windows and Mac it has strengths and weaknesses. It's not the only relevant one.
OS X is a decent operating system, but few people can be satisfied by a single hardware vendor. Might as well write off Apple as a player now, as it's unlikely they'll ever release the death grip and let the world play with OS X.
This statement seems silly on the face of it, and would benefit from some, you know, supporting evidence.
Mac's marketshare has been steadily increasing for quite some time now. Not to mention that I know lots o' Windows folks who swear by HP/Dell/Sony (pick one) for their personal computers, and Unix/Linux admins who will only buy Sun or SGI or whatever.
Even outside of the computer realm, people become enamored of particular brands all the time - be it automobiles, televisions, appliances... whatever. And once they lock themselves into that mindset, it is not easy for them to change their opinions.
OS X is a decent operating system, but few people can be satisfied by a single hardware vendor. Might as well write off Apple as a player now, as it's unlikely they'll ever release the death grip and let the world play with OS X.
Who are these few people that you speak of? If you mean slashdotters, that might be true. The average person buying a computer doesn't care. They mostly care if the computer they are buying will work for them. They should care more about these things but they don't.
Yes, we've heard the death knell of Apple before. That may have been closer to being true ten years ago when Apple was in deep trouble. Today they are sitting on $34 billion in cash. That doesn't account for total assets, that's just cash.
And to those who argue that all that matters is that open source is a better way to develop code, let this case be a warning message. Apple makes fabulous code. Of course, the BSD community did a lot of it for them, but Apple makes it all just work for end users, and they do that beautifully. So no one can argue that for end users it is not fabulous code. It is.
Huh? How is this case a warning message to the people who argue that FOSS is a better way to develop code? I think PJ has lost it and from reading the rest of the articles on the site, seems to have become a rabid anti-MS Apple fangirl.
And she comes across as pretty weak in the law department as well. Look at how she skirts an important question
I know. They'll say, but, but, but... what if they hadn't used the master and just used each copy, then would it work? Sons, why do you think Psystar used the master copy? Because it's a business, and in a business, efficiency is money. That's why businesses set themselves up, to make money. The whole world is not with you on a holy war to destroy EULAs and the GPL. Even this rinkydink business wanted to make money. Theoreticals belong on message boards, not in business and definitely not in courtrooms, and even on message boards, everyone told you for years that this wouldn't work out if someone tried it. It's been tried. It didn't work out.
Erm what? Can't she shed some light on a very relevant and interesting theoretical instead of evading it just because it can be against her conclusion that Psystar got crushed? I don't see any insight in her article, just meaningless gloating that Apple won.
This comment surprises me (Score:5, Interesting)
I know. They'll say, but, but, but ... what if they hadn't used the master and just used each copy, then would it work? Sons, why do you think Psystar used the master copy? Because it's a business, and in a business, efficiency is money. That's why businesses set themselves up, to make money. The whole world is not with you on a holy war to destroy EULAs and the GPL. Even this rinkydink business wanted to make money. Theoreticals belong on message boards, not in business and definitely not in courtrooms, and even on message boards, everyone told you for years that this wouldn't work out if someone tried it. It's been tried. It didn't work out. ... coming from Pamela, who revealed that Microsoft played no small role funding the SCO debacle though bogus license purchase.
If you follow patent troll cases for example, you would know that shell business are often set up by litigants for the sole purpose of facilitating a lawsuit. Once you've acquired your defunct IP, you set up a web site to demonstrate intent to sell a product. Sure it's not strictly necessary to test the patent but it can help when it come times to assess damages, and it garners judge and jury sympathies (especially if you can get it tried in the Texas east district).
So, who was behind Psystar? Dell perhaps? There's no chance in hell a startup box builder would go to these lengths to test a legal theory. Their vested interest in the supposed business was a pittance compared to the cost to fight this, so where'd they get the money?
Obviously, Psystar was staged for the exclusive purpose of being sued .
Reply to This
Re:This comment surprises me (Score:4, Insightful)
I know. They'll say, but, but, but ... what if they hadn't used the master and just used each copy, then would it work? Sons, why do you think Psystar used the master copy? Because it's a business, and in a business, efficiency is money. That's why businesses set themselves up, to make money. The whole world is not with you on a holy war to destroy EULAs and the GPL. Even this rinkydink business wanted to make money. Theoreticals belong on message boards, not in business and definitely not in courtrooms, and even on message boards, everyone told you for years that this wouldn't work out if someone tried it. It's been tried. It didn't work out. ... coming from Pamela, who revealed that Microsoft played no small role funding the SCO debacle though bogus license purchase.
If you follow patent troll cases for example, you would know that shell business are often set up by litigants for the sole purpose of facilitating a lawsuit. Once you've acquired your defunct IP, you set up a web site to demonstrate intent to sell a product. Sure it's not strictly necessary to test the patent but it can help when it come times to assess damages, and it garners judge and jury sympathies (especially if you can get it tried in the Texas east district).
So, who was behind Psystar? Dell perhaps? There's no chance in hell a startup box builder would go to these lengths to test a legal theory. Their vested interest in the supposed business was a pittance compared to the cost to fight this, so where'd they get the money?
Obviously, Psystar was staged for the exclusive purpose of being sued .
It makes you wonder. Incidentally, it's amazing how often "you're a conspiracy nut" comes from people who have no grasp of long-term strategy and really don't know the first thing about it. The person or group who works towards a goal in incremental steps (each of which has an excuse or plausible deniability) over longer periods of time is much more likely to get what they want than the person or group who goes for a short-term, win-or-lose, once-and-for-all type of showdown. That's particularly true when what they want to get is illegal, immoral, or goes against things like tradition, social convention, or public opinion. Recognizing this reality is the first step towards truly understanding business and politics.
Reply to This
Parent
You're thinking too simplistically (Score:5, Insightful)
Psystar isn't a front for anyone. That doesn't mean they haven't been used by real players.
The truly powerful don't need to do anything so unsubtle as conspiracy nuts like to believe. They can take existing bit players, and give them the right nudge for the same effect.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:You're thinking too simplistically (Score:5, Insightful)
Psystar isn't a front for anyone. That doesn't mean they haven't been used by real players.
The truly powerful don't need to do anything so unsubtle as conspiracy nuts like to believe. They can take existing bit players, and give them the right nudge for the same effect.
That scenario would make Paystar a "useful idiot" as some call it, which provides added deniability for the people who pull the strings. That still falls under long-term strategy and plausible deniability. My observation was deliberately worded in a simple way because understanding of this topic is sorely missing in the general public. When the audience you intend to reach is unfamiliar with a topic, you don't usually start with the most advanced material.
Things like strategy, plausible deniability, propaganda techniques, and argumentation fallacies are either not taught in the public schools or are given only the most superficial treatment. Therefore, most people either don't know about them or have no real mastery of the concepts. When they see a politician talking about an issue, they don't immediately see patterns of influence and don't ask questions like "qui bono?" That the public schools don't cover these topics is no excuse for the widespread ignorance. People generally spend far more time educating themselves about things that have much less of an impact on their lives.
This means that the general population is easy prey for what is effectively a ruling class that does have this knowledge and is in the profession of using it. This population understands the actual realities of politics about as well as the average Roman citizen understood the intent of "bread and circus".
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Provocation? (Score:5, Interesting)
If Psystar was a stalking horse then the only reason that makes sense is that someone wants Apple to lock their OS to their hardware. Apple doesn't seem too concerned by hobbyists building Frankenmacs. Their ever vigilant lawyers haven't been jackbooting down doors and dragging offenders to court. There have been instances in the past where an OS-maker has turned a blind eye to, if not actually facilitating, its OS being pirated simply to deny a competitor marketshare. Maybe somebody was worried that Apple was moving in this direction. However, if Apple is provoked into action by a startup selling Frankenmacs might they not decide to implement a TPM system to lock the OS to Macs-only? No more hobby Frankenmacs and Apple is seen as not only closed software but closed hardware too. The Technorati would be incensed and Apple would wear the black eye forever.
I would speculate that Apple is not really threatened by Frankenmacs in general. The kind of hobbyist who is technically inclined and is willing to put something like this together is probably outside of their target audience. I have known people who bought Macs not because they were fans of Apple, but because they were dissatisfied with PCs loaded with Windows. They were not technically inclined and most of their PC problems could be put into two broad categories: configuration issues and malware. They found Macs to be a breath of fresh air not because they think Apple is "hip" and "cool" but because they found its GUI to be easy and intuitive and its underlying Unix system to be rock-solid stable and not prone to malware. They felt like they found something that "just worked" and felt like that is what they were paying a higher price for. I think of these folks as Apple's target audience.
For those reasons, TPM would be a rather extreme measure. They are, at least for now, taking the "other option" of going after commercial Frankenmac producers legally instead of technologically. The precendent this sets is quite likely to discourage other companies from doing the same. The only ones left who are building Frankenmacs are doing so personally and not commercially and for the reasons I mentioned above, are probably not Apple's main market.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Provocation? (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe I'm not part of Apple's target market - since I use a MacBook I inherited from my wife when she upgraded - but I like Apple for many of the same reasons I like Linux (or BSD for that matter). The convenience of being able to bust out a zsh shell counts for a lot when performing operations that are actually quicker and simpler when performed from the command-line than with a GUI. I was actually somewhat (pleasantly) surprised to find that OS X in fact comes with zsh "out of the box". I had figured this would be considered an unnecessary detail on a Mac, but obviously not.
Apart from that, life with Apple is a trade-off between having everything "just work" and having an inflexible GUI of Apple's choice rather than my own.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:This comment surprises me (Score:4, Interesting)
So, who was behind Psystar?
If Apple prevails on the remaining issues, we might find out. If Psystar is forced into bankruptcy, their records would be among the property transferred to the receivers.
-jcr
Reply to This
Parent
Re:This comment surprises me (Score:5, Informative)
Well, legally the court said in the ruling there are cases where using a master copy in the name of efficiency is acceptable. For enterprises, the use of an image to install an OS to a large numbers of computers for the sake of efficiency is fine. For example, a large company may install a volume Windows license from MS onto a bunch of computers or they may use a disc image to do an install and then replace the generic license key with a specific one after the install is over.
Psystar's use however was not because typically enterprises have agreements with the original copyright owner to do this when they buy enterprises licenses. Apple did not sell Psystar such a license and did not grant them the authority to do so.
Psystar bought from Apple a single OS X copy, installed it onto a Mac Mini, loaded it onto an X86 computer ("master copy"), made modifications to it, then used the master copy to install to other computers. Psystar said since they included a retail copy of an OS X DVD, this was all legal. The court however found that Psystar did not always include a copy and that even if it did, the computer copy was not always the same version of OS X as the DVD. (I think this meant the DVD was Leopard whereas the computer had Snow Leopard installed, etc).
Even if it was the same version, fair use does not allow for anyone to make multiple, unauthorized copies as Psystar had done. Likewise if a person made a copy (even several copies) of your software, music, etc, that might be fair use. If a person made 500 copies of each, that might not be covered.
Lastly since Psystar modified OS X to run on X86 computers, it is guilty of creating a derivative work without Apple's permission.
Reply to This
Parent
First sale doesn't allow you resell derivatives (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a bunch of crap, and if that's what the decision says then First Sale law is over, at least until it gets escalated, and it will. First Sale is critical to whole long lists of industries. Using copyright law to restrict transfer of an object [blogspot.com] is an abuse... First Sale law permits you to modify things you've purchased.
If Psystar modified the OS X software and then sold the modified software (along with the computer), then they've both created a derivative work and distributed it. This should be clear cut in the courts. There is a circuit split over whether attaching a postcard to a tile and then reselling it constitutes the preparation and distribution of a derivative work, but the split is over the question of whether simply gluing the card to the tile is enough to qualify as a derivative work. In this case, modifying the software is almost unquestionably enough to constitute the preparation of a derivative work.
First sale will allow you to resell a copyrighted work that you have purchased; if, however, it's been modified enough to constitute a derivative work, you'll run afoul of copyright law. If, in the Seventh Circuit's tile case, [resource.org] the defendant had made a new piece of artwork, e.g. a collage or something with a bunch of postcard, that would likely pass the threshold for a derivative work.
If all Psystar had done was resell copies of unmodified copies of OS X along with their Hackintoshes, the issue of derivative works wouldn't come into play at all. It would be more a matter of whether Apple's EULA matters, etc. By modifying the copies, however, they opened up a big can of worms.
Reply to This
Parent
No, it doesn't. (Score:5, Informative)
(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.— Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:No, it doesn't. (Score:4, Interesting)
"Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner."
Good point. In that case, Psystar needs to do something like the following: Sell a machine and a legitimate copy of Mac OS X to the end user. Have the end user authorize the installation of *that* copy on the machine, with any appropriate adaptations to make it work.
117(a) allows the owner to "authorize" the making of such adaptations necessary to the software on a machine, and 117(b) does not prohibit it.
Reply to This
Parent
Use != Sale (Score:5, Interesting)
The simple truth is that Psystar DID have to use an image method to perform the installs, and so this should be considered a minimum necessary step towards exercising First Sale rights to do as you like with something you've purchased; but I do agree that they should have been required to use an image based on the same version of OSX that would appear in the box. First Sale law permits you to modify things you've purchased. If I am not permitted to modify Apple software, then arguably I can't even use it. And if I'm not permitted to use images to deploy OSX, then I'm certainly not even going to consider using it in the enterprise. If Psystar isn't allowed to use a custom image, then I must assume I'm not allowed to either.
Good points and I totally agree with your points on the validity of the First Sale law and it's necessity. However, you're missing a crucial point. Pystar not only modified OSX, (as is allowed for personal use), but it sold this modified derivative product, which is not protected by the First Sale law. You can use a modified product, but you can't sell. That's why Pystar lost, and lost big. I personally think that these and other copyright restrictions are too strict, but it is pretty clear in this case (summary judgement and all that) that Pystar broke it.
Reply to This
Parent
I need a picture drawn for me. (Score:3, Insightful)
Psystar winning would be terrible for Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft is very happy with the status quo. Apple voluntarily limits itself to the tiny niche that is their own hardware. As is, they're absolutely no threat to Microsoft.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Psystar winning would be terrible for Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
But their shareholders are not. MSFT stock is shit over the past 5 years. Compare that with Apple. MSFT shareholders are very unhappy people.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Psystar winning would be terrible for Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple could be a very serious threat to Microsoft if they changed their attitude towards businesses.
"Higher volume, lower price"? Doesn't sound like Apple to me. "Corner the $1K-plus market!" Now that's more Apple's game.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Psystar winning would be terrible for Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
Now cram your system into 85 cubic inches, under 3 lbs., and make it use less than 100 watts.
Why would anyone looking for a cheap computer care about any of those things?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Psystar winning would be terrible for Microsoft (Score:4, Informative)
Oh really? Why then is Microsoft trying to clone everything apple is doing?
Zune, Microsoft Store, the new "iPhone killer" windows mobile, etc, etc
Apple could be a very serious threat to Microsoft if they changed their attitude towards businesses.
Microsoft's bread and butter is Windows and Office. The iPhone, iPod, App store that you mention do nothing to dent that. MS is just trying to build a bigger business by trying to get into those markets, not to counter a threat to their cash cows.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Psystar winning would be terrible for Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
To innovate is not to generate something entirely unique from a vacuum.
Innovation is defined as "making changes in something established by introducing new methods, ideas, or products."
Microsoft is accused of "cloning" because the methods, ideas, and products that they introduce do not generally constitute an improvement.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Psystar winning would be terrible for Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. Apple is very good at refining the little details that ultimately make the end user experience much better. Almost every competitor seems to miss this. Incredible attention to fine details is not something you can just copy and then hope to make a lot of money from. It's a motivation that has to come from within.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Because that's their business model (Score:5, Insightful)
Lotus to VisiCalc, Netscape to Mosaic, Java to C++, Playstation to SNES, Apple Mac to Xerox Alto...the list goes on and on. It's what the entire industry does.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not, but I think it's unnecessary. MS just needs to stand back and let Apple do it to themselves. Anybody knowledgeable about tech knows that Apple is just as evil as MS, and that knowledge is beginning to filter out into the general public. I really anticipate a collapse of the 'cool' shell that apple has built around itself in the next few years, and they'll have to actually begin competing on merit. They might
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
keep holding your breath. That shell might and only might die when steve jobs leave the company. however apple is setting themselves up for a company without steve jobs.
The cool shell though is the fact they innovate the combined hardware/software, not just one piece of the pie, but making whole new pies. It has been shown time and time again MSFT only makes products good enough to beat the competition through brute force. Since just about everyone else gets their software from MSFT they start at a disa
That's not true at all. (Score:5, Interesting)
It has been shown time and time again MSFT only makes products good enough to beat the competition through brute force
I wish advocates of alternative anything would just be honest. Microsoft has made products that are better than their competition and sometimes they are breathtakingly so. Bill Gates may have been a ruthless businessman, but when he was at the helm, Microsoft made some good stuff.
MS BASIC was way better than other BASICs made by other computer companies. String arrays? Geez, on Atari Basic you had to fake them.
DOS was better than CP/M. It was quicker to learn, and, had a pretty spiffy version of BASICA with it, for its day.
FoxPro (bought by MS), was way better than the dBase (bought by Borland). And, Access was a better desktop database than anything else out there.
Windows of the DOS extender series was better than any other DOS task extender series. For that matter, Windows 95 is hands down superior to Mac OS 8 and Mac OS 9 and Windows NT blew OS/2 completely out of the water. OS/2, single message queue on the desktop, puhlease.
Excel was better than Quattro, and I'm sorry, Word was better than Word Perfect for Windows, by far. My favorite Word Process was Samna AmiPro, which, probably would have ruled them all had Lotus not bought them and screwed it up.
Yeah, everyone can cry fowl over Netscape being destroyed by Microsoft, but Microsoft IE 4 had a fully programmable DOM and an AJAX XMLHttpRequest.. what did Netscape have... you could script a form, had document.write for everything else...a half-assed buggy email, and a billion bugs.
Visual Studio was way better than Borland's C++ IDE was by around 2.0 of Visual Studio.
It's pretty simple. Microsoft is good, at times, especially when Gates was running the show. And there were many times Microsoft, despite all of these "advantages", competed, and flopped... does anyone remember PhotoDraw? That little gem was actually pretty innovative, but, Adobe crushed it like an insect. Now we have Silverlight going up against Flash, and lo, Silverlight is still not reliable in Firefox and didn't have drop shadows. WTF. They lose, and deservedly so.
And, Microsoft lets the XP franchise languish, releases Vista way too early, and so loses market share to Linux. Microsoft prices things off, and so, WinNT Server loses to Linux. Microsoft, after a brilliant run from IE4-6 (yeah, one time, 6 was the best... almost 10 years ago?), but now, can't catch a clue with IE8 and so FireFox and now Google Chrome and Safari are now gradually crushing them.
And now Visual Studio seems ever more confused, while Eclipse and other IDE's start to look better, and I switched.
Conspiracies, monopolies, all of that, can be an advantage, but really, only for so long. In this society, it is product that matters,
Reply to This
Parent
Re:This comment surprises me (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet Apple is reaping profit hand over foot, during a economic depression. Why fix what isn't broken. They obviously have something that Microsoft does not. "Cool" and "Hip" will only go so far. If there is nothing of substance to back it up, then after a few months, the hotness has worn off, and people drop them in droves. This obviously is not happening. Apple continues to increase it's market share, even in these bad economic times.
I can guarantee you that if MS finds any manufacturer that isn't properly licensing Windows, they would be wiped from the map. The difference here being that MS licenses it's OS for resale. Apple does not. The only barrier to entry is to buy an Apple Mac, which are about the same price as any other comparable piece of hardware from a PC manufacturer (not a whole seller mind you, but a manufacturer).
If I recall, it's the Microsoft market share and profit that is shrinking. Apple is doing just fine on it's "1960's proprietary hardware business model', whatever that means. It's just a closed system, nuts to bolts. Nothing wrong with that. Thousands upon thousands of manufacturer's produce a closed product.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:So what if you own one of these machines? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hereby declare Psystar to be a reverse trojan horse. Apple created Psystar so they could sue themselves and once and for all crush any thoughts companies might have of trying to produce generic Apple-compatible platforms for OSX.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:So what if you own one of these machines? (Score:4, Insightful)
I hereby declare Psystar to be a reverse trojan horse. Apple created Psystar so they could sue themselves and once and for all crush any thoughts companies might have of trying to produce generic Apple-compatible platforms for OSX.
this should be modded "insightful"
Reply to This
Parent
Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X (Score:5, Informative)
All this goes to show is that, contrary to the statements of some Slashdotters, Psystar did not re-install OS X as-is. They replaced key segments, including the bootloader and kernel extensions, in order to get it to install on commodity hardware. That makes Psystar the distributors of a derivative work, thereby violating copyright laws. This is not about the EULA:
"Psystar infringed Apple's exclusive right to create derivative works of Mac OS X," the ruling reads. "Specifically, it made three modifications: (1) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar's computers; (2) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files; and (3) adding non-Apple kernel extensions."
I fail to understand how Psystar is even within light years of being right on this issue.
Reply to This
Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't like what the RIAA is doing. I haven't bought any RIAA music in almost 10 years now. I also haven't downloaded any music. I don't try to rationalize some weird shit reason that says it is ok for me to simply take what I want because they won't offer it to me on the terms I want. The same goes for software. I VERY rarely buy software, and I pretty much restrict most of my software to F/OSS stuff. There are a few software package that I have bought, but rather than downloading, I wait for a deal where I can pay the price I want, or I find another product. It is that simple. This insane entitlement mentality is getting disgusting, and is ultimately what drives much of behavior the whiners usually throw tantrums about. Tell me that the RIAA behavior is anything other than greedy entitlement bullshit...just the same as the idiots downloading music.
These battles are escalating battles between large groups of spoiled brats that think that they deserve whatever they demand on the terms they demand and they will go to great lengths to force their demands.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X (Score:5, Informative)
The court rejected 117. Partially because Psystar's lawyers suck. (emphasis mine)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X (Score:5, Informative)
Jesus Fucking H Christ. You are like the 10th moron in this thread who quotes part (a) of that section, but is completely utterly incapable of reading on to part (b). If you actually read part (b), it expressly prohibits resale of the modified versions.
Are you all aiming for the Selective Reading of the Year Award or what?
Reply to This
Parent
Keeping score on Groklaw bias (Score:5, Funny)
Let's see:
Anti-SCO - check
Anti-MS - check
New entry Pro-Apple - check
Reply to This
I'm confused (Score:4, Interesting)
In any other case the slashdot crowd would be raging and the megacorp who crushed the small upstart's website would be hacked, but wouldn't be visible because of the simultanious DDoS attack. Only because the megacorp is Apple and the rules with them are somehow different.
Seriously. Find me another case where Slashdot cheers a EULA being upheld. Find me another case where a DMCA attack is applauded. Listen up ya numbbuts, EULAs are always evil. The DMCA is always evil. Even when Steve Jobs is crushing a small competitor. What Pystar was doing may be illegal (I'd argue that point though) but I double dog dare any fanboy to stand up here and defend the MORAL position Apple took.
Either what Apple sells in those boxes are full copies of OS X or they are upgrades. Apple insists they are full copies when it suits their arguments AND equally insists they are mere upgrades when they need to crush Pystar. Make up yer fracking minds.
Reply to This
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it's unlikely they'll ever release the death grip and let the world play with OS X.
The real question is: do they even need to in order to maintain their ridiculous profit margins?
They've almost died on PC sales several times (Score:3, Interesting)
Their real profit these days is the iPod/iPhone/iTunes segment. Which they would make approximately zero on if they were only available to Mac users.
Re:Which is why their computer's confuse me (Score:4, Insightful)
Why in the world would Apple want to do that? They would (like Microsoft) have to support every POS computer ever cobbled together. For a couple of bucks. Apple can barely do upgrades on the two dozen or so models they actively support - every time Apple brings out a point release or even a security fix, it manages to hose various systems.
If they had to support everything, it would look like.... Linux. Command line patches everywhere. Pleasant hours troubleshooting Bog-knows-what. Nope. They're smart doing exactly what they've set up.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Which is why their computer's confuse me (Score:4, Insightful)
Undoubtably the iPod was and still is the coolest MP3 player. But you miss the point of WHY it became the coolest. Because it was the best. Because it had a great design, Because it had a great UI, because with iTunes it was the easiest to use. Normal people (i.e. not geeks) didn't want to piss about dragging MP3 files around to external disk drives, manually managing directory structures. They just want to rip their CDs in the easiest way possible and have the music appear on their iPods automatically. Let the computer take care of the administration grunt work.
Clearly you are entirely unaware of Apple's financial results, which even in the recession continue to outgrow pretty much everyone else. They don't need any business advice from you. They know far better than you do what is good for business.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Which is why their computer's confuse me (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't need to "convince myself". I know better than you do because I bought one, and I know why I bought one. You didn't make that choice, and you're imagining reasons for whay other people (that you despise) did so. Which is rather ignorant of you.
The irony here is that you are the one who is arguing like an emotional sorority girl.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right.
The single vendor lock-in is just killing them. They were doing so well when they allowed others to build Mac clones, they should just go back to doing that. Jobs was obviously an idiot for cancelling the scheme - if he hadn't the company may have been a household name by now, instead on teetering on the brink of disaster.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even assuming I agreed with you regarding whether or not Apple gave licensing a "real" chance (which I haven't yet decided, but leaning towards not), I don't see any compelling reason for them to roll the dice (again) on such an experiment, considering both their present commercial performance AND reported customer satisfaction.
But, for the sake of entertaining a thought: what specific choices on Apple's part regarding the handling of licensing Mac OS would have constituted giving it a "real" chance?
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Meh. Apple is pretty happy where they are. If their hardware suits you and fits your needs, buy it as necessary. Otherwise, avoid it. Many many people have a hard time doing that. If Apple finds themselves needing to change because of this down the road, they will. It's that simple.
If you're building a hackintosh, good for you. Tinkering with things like that can be fun. But please don't start acting like Apple is supposed to support you. Don't install it on production machines. The hacking part of the hackintosh is supposed to be half the fun anyway. But that is it.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:I agree, but it's not that simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:I agree, but it's not that simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So long as OS X is tied to a single vendor, it's absolutely irrelevant to any reasonable person
Windows is also tied to a single vendor - Microsoft. If they screw up - like they did with e.g. Windows ME and Vista - it doesn't matter how many OEMs can deliver the hardware to run it on. Linux is multivendor - and not tied to a specific hardware company - but compared to Windows and Mac it has strengths and weaknesses. It's not the only relevant one.
Re:Too Bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yeah, don't forget CUPS, WEBKIT, and a few other useful tools.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Darwin is not OS X (Score:5, Informative)
Grand Central Dispatch is interesting, written fro scratch by Apple, and open sourced. You lose.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
OS X is a decent operating system, but few people can be satisfied by a single hardware vendor. Might as well write off Apple as a player now, as it's unlikely they'll ever release the death grip and let the world play with OS X.
This statement seems silly on the face of it, and would benefit from some, you know, supporting evidence.
Mac's marketshare has been steadily increasing for quite some time now. Not to mention that I know lots o' Windows folks who swear by HP/Dell/Sony (pick one) for their personal computers, and Unix/Linux admins who will only buy Sun or SGI or whatever.
Even outside of the computer realm, people become enamored of particular brands all the time - be it automobiles, televisions, appliances... whatever. And once they lock themselves into that mindset, it is not easy for them to change their opinions.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Who are these few people that you speak of? If you mean slashdotters, that might be true. The average person buying a computer doesn't care. They mostly care if the computer they are buying will work for them. They should care more about these things but they don't.
Yes, we've heard the death knell of Apple before. That may have been closer to being true ten years ago when Apple was in deep trouble. Today they are sitting on $34 billion in cash. That doesn't account for total assets, that's just cash.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:The only thing lamer than this verdict (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly. WTF is up with this quote from TFA:
And to those who argue that all that matters is that open source is a better way to develop code, let this case be a warning message. Apple makes fabulous code. Of course, the BSD community did a lot of it for them, but Apple makes it all just work for end users, and they do that beautifully. So no one can argue that for end users it is not fabulous code. It is.
Huh? How is this case a warning message to the people who argue that FOSS is a better way to develop code? I think PJ has lost it and from reading the rest of the articles on the site, seems to have become a rabid anti-MS Apple fangirl.
And she comes across as pretty weak in the law department as well. Look at how she skirts an important question
I know. They'll say, but, but, but ... what if they hadn't used the master and just used each copy, then would it work? Sons, why do you think Psystar used the master copy? Because it's a business, and in a business, efficiency is money. That's why businesses set themselves up, to make money. The whole world is not with you on a holy war to destroy EULAs and the GPL. Even this rinkydink business wanted to make money. Theoreticals belong on message boards, not in business and definitely not in courtrooms, and even on message boards, everyone told you for years that this wouldn't work out if someone tried it. It's been tried. It didn't work out.
Erm what? Can't she shed some light on a very relevant and interesting theoretical instead of evading it just because it can be against her conclusion that Psystar got crushed? I don't see any insight in her article, just meaningless gloating that Apple won.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
please explain when psystar did create an altered derivative work?
Also you have the right to do whatever you want to software installed on your computer, the only thing that could possibly be illegal is distribution.