Psystar Loses Appeal In Apple Case 258
The dispute between Mac cloner Psystar and Apple has been a long and twisty one; now, reader UnknowingFool writes that "Last week, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled mostly against Psystar in their appeal of their case with Apple. The Court found for Apple in that they did not misuse copyright by having conditions in the OS X license. Psystar won on one point in which some of the court orders should have not been sealed."
That's too bad... (Score:2)
Re:That's too bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not too bad - what do you think would happen to Linux's GPL if the court had ruled that all you have to do to ignore the distribution license is buy it from someone else? You can't just buy a copy of an OS, make a copy, and then sell the copy. For that you need a license. In the case of Apple, they obviously won't give Pystar a license. In the case of Linux, the GPL allows you to do this - but then you need to provide the source in a reasonable way.
Re:That's too bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't just buy a copy of an OS, make a copy, and then sell the copy.
As I understand it, this would only apply in Pystar's case if "installing OS X from it's original media" counts as "making a copy". IIRC, they purchased install media from Apple, installed it to non-apple hardware, then sold the hardware and the install media together.
So far as I can tell, selling the bare system, the install media, and the method of installation alltogether as a bundle should be A-OK (install media under first-sale), but pre-installing it then selling the same thing is somehow doubleplusungood.
Re: (Score:2)
It's much worse than that, it means that I can't buy a copy of OSX and install it on my own non-Apple hardware without violating their EULA which is now legally enforceable. What's more the court chose to look the other way as the software was being advertised as being sold when really it's being licensed and as a matter of course stripping a significant amount of consumer rights in the process.
I'm sure this will make those free market morons happy that consumers have even less choice than they previously d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure this will make those free market morons happy
Have you ever carried on a conversation with a libertarian or an objectivist, or whomever else you might classify as a "free market moron?" They would tell you that Psystar was in the right, that Psystar was contributing in a positive way to the economy and to technology (by lowering the price of hardware needed to run Mac OS X), and that Apple is abusing the justice system by using it to attack a legitimate competitor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet there's a lot of morons that will post about how if you don't like it don't buy it. Some people are morons and coddling and enabling them by pretending that they have a valid point just elevates their idiotic views to a level that's wholly unjustified.
It's why we have so many people bitching about how the President doesn't lead, leads us to socialism and is also a fascist.
Re:That's too bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you install your legally bought copy of OSX on some non apple hardware then probably yes it is illegal.
However,
making your own hackingtosh is not going to worry Apple. The words 'small fry' come to mind.
Paystar were trying to make a business out of it.
That was big enough to get Apple's attention.
In some ways this is similar to HP. you can get a 'hobby' license for VMS for free. Use that free copy of VMS on a commercial venture and the HP lawyers will be after you.
In some ways this is similar to Oracle. you can download a copy of their RDBMS for free. Use that copy in a production environment and Oracle's lawyer will be after you.
Notice a pattern?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's too bad... (Score:5, Informative)
The court should have ruled in favor of Psystar because copyright law is only supposed to kick in when somebody actually makes a copy, and Psystar didn't do that (installing the software doesn't count; there's a specific exception in the law allowing that).
Here is what Psystar did: The took OS X on an Apple machine, then modified it to run on a non-Apple machine by replacing the bootloader and some system libraries. Then they used that copy to mass install onto non-Apple machines. Then they sold the non-Apple machines. I don't see how you can argue that they didn't "copy" it. If Psystar did not sell the non-Apple machines, they are still within copyright laws. Selling them constitutes redistribution and copyright infringement. Copyright law clearly says that modification and redistribution require the permission of the copyright owner which Psystar did not get.
Re: (Score:2)
Replacing the bootloader and system libraries is perfectly legal. If it wasn't, then we'd be in a heap of trouble over GRUB, LILO and all those other bootloaders. On top of that, there is no law saying that folks can't replace any libraries on their computer that they want.
As for your assertion about redistribution, last i heard those copies were pristine installed by the end user. If you're argument were correct, then there'd be no reason why Psystar couldn't keep distributing the patch set and machines wi
Re:That's too bad... (Score:5, Informative)
As for your assertion about redistribution, last i heard those copies were pristine installed by the end user.
What part of "Psystar modified OS X to run on non-Apple machines, installed it on non-Apple machines and sold the machines" is not clear?
If you're argument were correct, then there'd be no reason why Psystar couldn't keep distributing the patch set and machines with the end user left to procure a copy of OSX for themselves. This ruling goes way beyond that and bans the patchset as well as Psystar selling compatible software.
And where was Psystar getting the patch sets? They were taking Apple updates, modifying them, and redistributing them. The court has no problem with Psystar selling compatible software. Psystar was taking Apple's software and modifying it and redistributing it which is against what copyright law allows.
Re:That's too bad... (Score:5, Informative)
On top of that, there is no law saying that folks can't replace any libraries on their computer that they want.
And that's not what this lawsuit is about at all either. This is about someone making modifications to Apples copyrighted software and selling it. It has nothing to do with GRUB or LILO, it's nonsense to even drag them into this. The point is: Apple is selling some software available under certain conditions, if you modify their software in violations of their conditions you are breaking copyright law. This is why you cannot re-license GPL code under the BSD license unless you are in fact the copyright holder. This is inherently a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
They'd have to be morons indeed to be happy about this most emphatically anti-free-market ruling!
Non-moronic free-market advocates understand that government restrictions such as copyright itself (let alone constructs derived from it, such as EULAs) make the market less free.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, for actually getting it. There's plenty of free market morons out there that will suggest that the solution is for people to just not buy OSX rather than the real free market solution to the problem which would be to tell Apple to shut up and accept that they sold a copy and that the buyer gets to do with it what he or she pleases. It might be that they opt to use it for skeet shooting or on unlicensed hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that what Psystar were doing though?
Is it really as cut and dried as them buying one copy and selling multiple copies from that?
I thought they bought one copy *per customer*, installed and shipped it to that customer. The only transgression was that they installed it on non-apple hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
The nub of the case is that Apple licenses the software rather than sells it and has the right to control how the copy is used even after they sell it to the customer. Which is bullshit, bordering on fraud considering how the products are being advertised, but ultimately is now precedent.
The only upside to this is that if they're licensing the OS rather than selling it, those that lose their discs or where the discs are damaged should be able to make new copies from a friend to replace their disc or back up
Re: (Score:2)
The only upside to this is that if they're licensing the OS rather than selling it, those that lose their discs or where the discs are damaged should be able to make new copies from a friend to replace their disc or back up their discs for safe keeping as they're licensed rather than bought.
Ha! That's a good one!
You didn't think logic and the good of the consumer mattered in intellectual property law, did you?
Re: (Score:3)
The nub of the case is that Apple licenses the software rather than sells it and has the right to control how the copy is used even after they sell it to the customer. Which is bullshit, bordering on fraud considering how the products are being advertised, but ultimately is now precedent.
Hello? That is exactly how everyone from MS to IBM describes their software. The court of appeals noted that. Why single out Apple for something the entire industry does. Even in the case of open source software, it is the same. You don't own GPL software; you license it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they're the ones that brought the case to court. There's a lot of bad things in EULAs in general, but Apple is the one that brought the case to court that ultimately settled the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Need we point out that this lawsuit was against a distributor, not a user, of the software. In other words, this is the EXACT sort of case that the GPL relies on.
Re: (Score:3)
You can try pointing that out, but it's entirely irrelevant because an owner of a copy has the right under the First Sale Doctrine to re-sell that copy.
The situation the GPL relies on is entirely different, where the owner of a copy DUPLICATES IT and then distributes the new copies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you know any facts of this case? As I explained in numerous other posts to you and in the summary judgement [groklaw.net], Psystar made modifications then mass installed their modified copies onto non-Apple machines:
The copies at issue here were not lawfully manufactured with the authorization of the copyright owner. As stated, Psystar made an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X from a Mac mini that was placed onto an "imaging station" and then used a "master copy" to make many more unauthorized copies that were installed on individual Psystar computers. The first-sale defense does not apply to those unauthorized copies.
Even if Psystar had not used a mass install, they still modified OS X and then redistributed it. USC 117(b) [copyright.gov] says specifically that the copyright owner is the only one that can give permissions to do so:
(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.
Re: (Score:2)
You are not required to have a license to use GPL software; if you obtained the copy legally then it is yours, you own that copy, and you can do whatever you want with it within the bounds of copyright law. In fact, all software -- indeed, all products -- worked this way until this ridiculous court ruling.
So I modify any and all GPL software and redistribute without releasing the source code. According to you I don't have to follow the GPL at all as I own whatever code it contains. Wouldn't that make the GPL useless? Copyright law is clear on this point; you must get permission of the copyright owner if you want to modify and redistribute. In the case of GPL, there are certain restrictions if you want to modify and redistribute. Apple does not license OS X to anyone to modify and redistribute. MS allo
Re: (Score:2)
To an extent yes, but first sale doctrine has always applied to matters like this. It's a rather radical reinterpretation of copyright law that you can't use a lawfully purchased copy because there's a mandatory license attached to it.
And what you're missing is that it doesn't matter whether you buy that copy from Psystar or directly from Apple, using the software in violation of the EULA is infringing upon Apple's copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
THIS IS NOT TRUE!
You are not required to have a license to use GPL software; if you obtained the copy legally then it is yours, you own that copy, and you can do whatever you want with it within the bounds of copyright law.
He said you don't own the software, he didn't say you don't own the copy. If i owned the software i wouldn't have to worry about the terms of the license because the owner of the software is the person that dictates the license.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's owning the copy that matters! That in itself means you don't need a license for anything other than copying.
You cannot entirely _own_ GPL'ed software unless it's you who wrote it. You are free to use it and redistribute it under the terms of the license, but it's not _your_ code.
Owning the software's copyright (what you mean when you say "owning the software") is just that: owning the right to create copies, and nothing else.
If I own the copyright to my source code/software I can also change the license. Not retroactively, but future releases. If Linus had demanded that every contribution to the kernel be his(Like the FSF demands), he could release Linux under the BSD license tomorrow
Re: (Score:3)
You own the copy and you can do whatever you want to with it within the bounds of the law. That copy is _yours_ to do with as you please.
The bounds of the law specifically say you cannot modify and redistribute without the copyright owner's permission. Apple never gave Psystar such permission. Psystar lost on summary judgement on that point which means their defenses were so weak, the judge did not feel the need to go to trial.
At least, that's how it's supposed to work (and does work for everything except software); this court decision was wrong.
If the court had decided that Apple cannot dictate terms of their software, it means the GPL has no enforceability. MS can copy parts of Linux into Windows 8, sell Windows 8, and never release the source code. Ora
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I don't understand is how were Psystar considered the "end user"? Surely they are just a reseller? Or are middle men banned under Apple law?
Re:That's too bad... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can Psystar just sell the hardware and OSX in its own box, and let YOU break the EULA?
Re: (Score:3)
Can Psystar just sell the hardware and OSX in its own box, and let YOU break the EULA?
Psystar _can_ not do anything, because they just lost their appeal against Apple, and now they have to cough up about two million dollars, mostly as fines for DMCA violation, which they can't.
If you ask whether Psystar could have just sold the hardware and MacOS X in its own box, and let YOU break the EULA, they could have done that. There would have been no copyright infringement (the court ordered them to pay $60,000 for making about 700-800 copies of MacOS X illegally, very cheap compared to what the
Re: (Score:2)
That's how the companies frame it though. You don't generally see boxed software that's licensed, every part of the transaction up until the point where you can longer decline is handled as a sale, then you get the software home and find out that they've fraudulently sold you a license rather than a copy.
If they aren't selling you a copy, then if I were to go into a store and take a box, then I'm not sure how they can complain about me stealing the software, after all, I just stole the box and the disc, I m
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How about a book? Can I publish a book with a license printed on it that says "this book may not be resold for more than $1" ?
How about a CD? Can I print CD's that say "for promotional use - not for sale" then sue someone who sells them?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know about your first example. Your second example is in fact common practice, so no need for a 'what if'.
However, I must point out that your book comes with an implied license - you are allowed to read it. You are not allowed to make a movie of it. You are not allowed to make an audio recording of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Try reading Bobbs-Merrill Co v. Straus [wikipedia.org] which is the basis for 17 USC 109 [cornell.edu]. Then you can read Universal Music Group v. Augusto [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright law itself does that, you dipshit!
Sony has no right -- or at least, didn't have any right until this terrible precedent was established -- to tell you how to use your own property within the bounds of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the definition of copy, and this is where we get into the mess of EULAs. You should not need a copyright license to use a product that you purchased for its intended purpose. OS X does not run from the install DVD, it needs to be copied onto a hard disk to run. This technicality is what allows the EULA to exist. The court found that this is not a misuse of copyright, which means that it's a strong legal precedent saying that you can put any term in the EULA that you want. This is a probl
Re: (Score:2)
Image, for sake of hypothesis, that they had purchased a legitimate retail DVD, for each system, loaded it into the system's optical drive, and then slapped a skeletal little script
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose the closest analogy would be selling a Linux laptop with nVidia drivers preinstalled, which would be violating the GPL.
Why wouldn't that fall under the system libraries exception?
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose the closest analogy would be selling a Linux laptop with nVidia drivers preinstalled, which would be violating the GPL.
Hmm, what about almost every Android phone, which come with proprietary kernel modules? I don't think the whole distro becomes subject to the GPL just because it has a GPL kernel.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, see 17 USC 117 (a). The license agreement exists because the software publisher puts it there.
No, the court found there was no misuse of copyright because the terms did not prevent Psystar from creatin
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I'm pretty sure the Court of Appeals judges know more about USC 117 than you do./p.
Re: (Score:2)
No !
Trade laws define the rules that protect consumers by defining their rights and obligations. Even if many politicians are corrupted, this limits the way consumers can be screwed.
A EULA can not restrict, it can only extend our rights. Otherwise, it is outlaw.
Vocabulary shift is the general way to manipulate. License if the term used by the bad guys. When I go to the store to buy a software, I do not
Re: (Score:3)
I do not rent it and I may use it in any legal manner.
That's just not true.
Copyright itself is completely artificial - don't look for any sense of order or justice in it. Humans share information naturally - it is unnatural to restrict it.
In that context, why are you arguing with these judges on the interpretation of the law? Maybe the law should be changed to do as you say - only allow the EULA to extend additional rights. I'm fine with that. I happen to think non-commercial copyright should be abolished and commercial copyright should be set to a short term,
They didn't need good lawyers (Score:4, Informative)
There was never any question that Pystar was in the wrong. Their activities were blatantly and obviously illegal.
Their whole market was based on selling hardware to run software that wasn't licensed to run on that hardware.
Their lawyers would have had to be completely incompetent buffoons to lose the case.
Re:They didn't need good lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
AFAIK this is the first instance where a court has backed Apple's ridiculous claims that they can tie the use of their OS to their hardware by simply adding a clause to their EULA. In the past it wasn't possible for the simple reason that they were using an incompatible architecture.
I'll interpret this as I should, evidence that the justice system in the US is broken and desperately in need of reform.
Re: (Score:2)
I can think of at least one way Apple could have dealt with this even if they hadn't relied on the EULA.
In order to have a useful business model, Psystar needed to advertise "runs Mac OS X". Which is a trademark of Apple. Obviously Apple aren't going to sue an authorised reseller for using their trademark, by Psystar were never an authorised reseller.
Other companies have already done something similar to kill grey-market products (cf. Sony and Lik-Sang, Levis and Tescos)
Re: (Score:2)
Cool, so I can take GPLv3 licensed software and make a Tivo box!
I mean, I don't have to actually follow the licence, right? That seems to be what you're saying.
I'll make my Tivo box and then sell it and I'll save money on the OS because I can get Linux for free.
Oh what's that? You want the source? Why should I give that to you? I mean, it says I have to in the licence, but I can ignore that, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of reform do you suggest...that license agreements between parties shouldn't be held to mean what they say?
That software is sold, not licensed. Personally I don't like the idea that anyone can tell me where I can or can't install any software I buy.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I assume you also disagree with the GPLv3?
If Apple had lost this case then what chance does any other software licence have?
Just because you disagree with their terms doesn't mean you can just ignore them, or say a court is wrong for "siding" with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I assume you also disagree with the GPLv3?
If Apple had lost this case then what chance does any other software licence have?
Just because you disagree with their terms doesn't mean you can just ignore them, or say a court is wrong for "siding" with them.
Then I assume you also disagree with the GPLv3?
The GPLv3 is not a software license. It does not restrict the end user in any way whatsoever. It's a distribution license. If the courts declare it invalid, that doesn't mean you can suddenly go around using GPL code anywhere, it means you don't have the right to distribute it at all.
There's a fundamental difference here. I didn't say I'm against copyrights (although I am against infinitely long copyrights), and I have absolutely nothing against Apple dictating the terms of how copies of their software
Re: (Score:2)
The GPLv3 is not a software license. It does not restrict the end user in any way whatsoever. It's a distribution license. If the courts declare it invalid, that doesn't mean you can suddenly go around using GPL code anywhere, it means you don't have the right to distribute it at all.
You have it backwards. All copyright owners can dictate how their work is modified and distributed. Apple refuses to allow others to modify and redistribute OS X. GPL allows it but puts conditions on it. JK Rowling can write another Harry Potter book, copyright it, and refuse to sell it.
Re: (Score:2)
Their activities were blatantly and obviously illegal.
Really? When last I checked, they were building clones of Apple computers, and making it possible to install Mac OS X on those clones. How is that obviously illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
I think he may be referring to using drive imaging to quickly provide preinstalled OSX (pretty much what HP, Dell and the rest do to have preinstalled Windows. And i suspect Foxconn also do so for the computers the produce for Apple).
Had they instead shipped the system with no OS installed, or installed each from the boxed copy they packed alongside (and bought legally from Apple), then Apple may have had a harder time showing breach of copyright.
Anyways, all this will be a moot point now that Apple will pr
Re: (Score:2)
Apple provide a copy on thumb-drives and if I wanted to; with the copy I downloaded from the App store I have used it to install on other machines. People cleverer than me will get it to work on non-Apple hardware.
Re:They didn't need good lawyers (Score:4, Informative)
The Apple license explicitly forbids installation on non-Apple hardware. You may not agree with those terms, but that does not give you the legal right to IGNORE those terms.
Re:They didn't need good lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
Their activities were blatantly and obviously illegal.
violating a licensing agreement is not "illegal"
Their whole market was based on selling hardware to run software that wasn't licensed to run on that hardware.
The real problem is that Apple's market is based on selling software with terms that dictate what hardware you use it with.
What else can you SELL and then dictate how it be used to the customer? If I as a copyright holder sell you a copy of my CD do I get to dictate what brand CD player you use?
Yet apple gets to sell software, and then dictate what brand of hardware you use it with. And if you don't do as they say, then they argue the software is "unlicensed" (since when do you need a license to use something you bought?!). By "buying" it you have the right to use it.
But then if you install it you are making a "copy" and violating copyright law. And that makes it illegal.
Except that you don't actually need a license to install software you bought a copy of. The act of purchasing a copy gives you the right to install it.
You don't need an explicit license to put the software you bought on a hard drive for use, or for that copy to be copied into ram for use, or for portions to be copied into l1/l2/l3 cache for use, or for portions to be swapped out to disk during hibernation.
So it is absolutely an abuse of copyright law to argue that the copy Psystar made to install the software is unlawful "distribution".
That the courts went along with Apple's whole licensing installation copies farce is a tragedy.
Re: (Score:2)
"(since when do you need a license to use something you bought?!)"
Since copyright got extended to industrially stamped audio recordings, at least. It is one of those dirty little topics that they do not want to talk about, that what your getting for your money is a time unlimited license to enjoy the recording in the format it is sold to you.
Re:They didn't need good lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
What else can you SELL and then dictate how it be used to the customer?
Well, I'd think all software released under the GPL and similar licenses would qualify. Particularly GPL3 which was explicitly created to prevent released software from being run on non-compliant hardware. You don't like Apple restricting what hardware their software can run on? Fine, but any loss for Apple in that area is a direct blow to the enforceability of the Open Source license of your choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, a developer is allowed to charge for the binary, but again has
Re: (Score:3)
No. GPL puts zero restrictions on what you DO with the software.
So I can make a Tivo with it then? With a locked bootloader? Using GPLv3 software?
Re: (Score:3)
No. GPL puts zero restrictions on what you DO with the software.
So I can make a Tivo with it then? With a locked bootloader? Using GPLv3 software?
When dealing with GPL zealots, you have to be very precise in your language, even when they are not.
Of course you can make a TiVo with a locked bootloader using GPLv3 software. What you can't do is distribute it.
But that said, distribution is something one DOES with the software, which means that the grandparent was also imprecise.
It's better to say that the GPL doesn't restrict what you do unless the thing you want to do is distribute.
Re: (Score:2)
No. GPL puts zero restrictions on what you DO with the software.
Have you actually read the GPL? One of the major restrictions is that if you modify and redistribute, you must also release source code of the modifications.
Re: (Score:2)
The major restriction is on the redistribution part. I can modify all I want and not redistribute, and that's fine too. This "modify and not redistribute" might be called "using" the software.
Under copyright law, you never had any license of redistribution in the first place. The GNU GPL is a license which stipulates you must also redistribute your changes if you redistribute at all. That is, you're allowed to download and install and use Linux whether or not you accept the GPL. But you can't distribute Lin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No it does not. It gives you the right to RETURN the software if you decide you don't agree with it's license. It does NOT give you the right to IGNORE the license.
Re: (Score:2)
So it is absolutely an abuse of copyright law to argue that the copy Psystar made to install the software is unlawful "distribution".
Um, what?!?!
/. has its own view of what copyright should be but let's at least recognize what it actually is. Psystar didn't have a leg to stand on - they were making illegal copies of OSX and selling it. That is about as close to the the pure definition of copyright infringement as one can get.
That is pretty much the pure purpose of copyright law - to prevent people/companies from illegally copying your material and selling it on their own.
I know
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That. Is. Copyright. Infringement.
Odds are Apple wouldn't have been able to sue for copyright infringement _IF_ the versions of OSX on the systems had each been bought and paid for. They weren't, however. They were copies made from a single copy.
That. Is. Copyright. Infringement.
Really, is it that hard to understand?
Re: (Score:2)
Except that I can buy a licensed copy Windows, install it on a computer, and then sell that computer to you without it being considered a violation of copyright law. The question here is whether or not Apple can use copyright law to prevent you from installing a licensed copy of Mac OS X on a computer without an Apple logo; the courts have ruled that Apple can do this and that it is not overstepping the bounds of copyright law. It was not obvious that Psystar could not installed legally purchased copies of Mac OS X on a non-Apply computer prior to this case, because it was not clear that a license that forbids such installations is legally enforceable.
Technically you licensed Windows from the OEM. As a consumer, MS and OEM don't really care that you did so. However if you had a business that refurbished old computers, there are violations of the license agreement that come into play depending on who originally bought Windows. That's why many ebay sellers and second hand dealers wipe out Windows and explicitly tell you that the computer does not come with Windows installed.
The question was never if Apple can prevent consumers from installing on OS X on
Re: (Score:2)
The question was never if Apple can prevent consumers from installing on OS X on hackintoshes
Hm...if my memory serves me, that was exactly what Psystar was accused of illegally doing, installing Mac OS X on a hackintosh, as well as transferring the computer to someone else. Psystar claimed that the EULA was not enforceable, and the court ruled against them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
PSYSTAR DIDN'T MAKE ANY COPIES!
All it did was preinstall the software -- which is specifically allowed by 17 U.S.C 117 -- and resell the original copy.
Re: (Score:2)
What I'd like to know is what, if any, effect 17 U.S.C 117 does have in reality. By face value, it should mean the owner of a copy of a computer program is allowed to use the copy without infringing copyright, i.e. installation and copying to RAM should not result in infringing copies as long as you bought a legal copy of the software (as Psystar did), but has anyone ever won a lawsuit based on that point?
Ownership is the issue. Most software is licensed (or so sayeth the EULAs, and while there's some disagreement in the authorities, the courts are generally agreeing; see, e.g., Vernor v. Autodesk, 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir., 2010) (en banc review declined; I don't believe there's been a decision yet on the petition for a writ of certiori to the Supreme Court). Opinion: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1537762.html [findlaw.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such implication when you buy a book, why do you think there is? Can you make a movie or play from your copy of the book? No. Can you read it aloud in public? No. Can you make an audio recording of someone reading the book? No.
You can do whatever you want with the physical 'book', such as burning it. What you can do with the contents of the book is very much restricted. Same with software - if you want to destroy the media the software came on, go for it. Nobody will stop you.
hypothedical question? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft have already got legal history of being a monopoly.
Being a monopoly isn't per-se illegal, but abusing it is. So it wouldn't be a great stretch to say "the rules would be different for Microsoft".
Appple doesn't sell OS-X (Score:3, Informative)
They used to sell full versions before Lion (Score:2, Insightful)
When Snow Leopard released in 2009, you could buy both an upgrade option (~$29 and there were other assorted family packs of upgrades) and if you didn't have Leopard (10.5), there was a full version option (it was the Mac Box Set ~$169), which came with bundled with iLife and iWork since Tiger wasn't considered an upgrade option for the Snow Leopard installer. Tiger also had a full install box you could get for ~$199 back when it released a few years before.
It has only been with the new Lion release that
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me explain this slowly: Show me any case where you could have bought a new Apple computer without an OS, OS X or OS 9 or otherwise. All Apple computers by Apple has had an OS installed when they were sold. Since 2001 or so that was OS X. Before that it was OS 9, 8, etc. With the clones it was iffy. If you buy a retail version of $NEW VERSION of OS X today to replace $PREVIOUS INSTALLED VERSION, it's an upgrade.
All Dells are sold with windows. There are all operating systems you can buy to put on a dell are upgrades of windows." (well, at one point they were, then you could get the N option with no OS and now its getting harder to get desktop/laptops from them without it).
The last time I checked, enterprises can order Dells without Windows which defeats your
Re: (Score:3)
They're both still upgrade licenses, just upgrades
To those opposed, what about software upgrades? (Score:5, Insightful)
To my mind, software upgrades are an economically efficient and pro-user offering. They are good for both the production and use side of the equation, allowing users to pay directly for the additional cost of development since their last version rather then all the original work and value that went into the product. They allow developers to reward their own supporters and more efficiently allocate resources. Additionally, "upgrades" should be (again, from a user perspective) simply full versions, identical, except cheaper and for existing users. This is how all commercial software I use works as well.
However, the entire concept of upgrades depends completely on legal licensing: that I can have a clause that says "you may not use this unless you previously owned a full version". I already see a number of posts, both here on Slashdot and on other forums (such as the comments with the Ars Technica article on this story), that are enraged at the result, and that argue that Psystar was "adding value" by "lowering hardware costs". The underlying argument is that, if a piece of software is sold, that should be that. However, how do those of you who argue for that square it with upgrading? Do you simply agree with the App Store take, where upgrades don't exist at all? Or do you have some other way of squaring things away?
As things have existed, Mac OS X offerings have all been upgrades and have been priced accordingly. There seems to be a reasonable consideration on both sides here: buyers pay less money, but in exchange have the restriction of needing to have a Mac as Apple has chosen to build their development around an integrated model. Do some of you think that such integrated models should be illegal, regardless of what benefits they offer? Should Apple be required by law to sell a "full" version of Mac OS X, and would you actually be willing to pay what that might cost (ie., if they said "full version, $400")? I'm genuinely curious about people's thoughts around this.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, genuinely, and without sarcasm, if we live in a country where we can be forced to buy health insurance, I think that Apple should be forced to sell full versions of their software. Once we throw freedom to engage in commerce as we see fit out the window, there are a whole host of pro-consumer regulations I'd love to see enacted.
Re: (Score:2)
However, the entire concept of upgrades depends completely on legal licensing
No it doesn't; you could sell what amounts to a bunch of patches, using previously installed components of the system that did not change. Making it robust is a technical challenge, but isn't the entire argument that we are paying for people to solve technical challenges?
9th Circuit is all screwed up (Score:2)
They have Augusto, where a CD that is mailed to DJs with a sticker that says "promotional use only, not for sale" still counts as a sale and the doctrine of first sale applies:
Re: (Score:2)
I predict Vernor will fall if it makes it to the Supreme Court. It totally conflicts with Bobbs-Merrill vs. Strauss and 17 USC 109 and common sense. If it walks like a sale and talks like a sale then it is a sale.
Just like Windows, AIX, Oracle, Solaris, etc, buying OS X is not a sale; it is buying a license. The Ninth Court says that these terms are clear in the license agreement. You may disagree but that is they way it has been forever. Just like downloading Linux is not owning it; the GPL also is a license.
Re: (Score:3)
On the one hand the 9th Circuit that just mailing a disc to a DJ counts as a sale because it has been "placed into the stream of commerce" even though the publisher of the says it isn't. On the other hand they say a disc that's sold in a store in a box like anything else that is sold in stores doesn't count as a sale because the publisher says it isn't. What is the difference?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is the difference?
When you install software, you make a copy of it.
Re: (Score:2)
When you play a CD you make a copy of it too. How does that affect whether the transaction where you acquire that CD counts as a sale or not? p.s. Making a copy to install software, to use it, or make a backup is not infringement, see 17 USC 117.