Free Republic

“Apparently you do not understand the law. The judge does.”

Contract law or copyright law?

Apple at least had full retail licenses of OS X for sale. They have “upgrade” versions for much less.

Software should be treated like any other product.

“The Apple Software License allows you to sell the product you buy... you are specifically allowed to sell the license you buy... you may not sell it and retain the right to continue to use it as well”

That doesn’t appear to be what Psystar was doing. They were buying retail licenses and reselling them. They were not distributing multiple copies of a single license, nor did I allege that such a thing was fine or legal.

“One license; one Apple branded computer. “

OS X is sold apart from Apple branded computers.

“... as Psystar has just learned to its expense.”

That a judge ruled does not make the judge right.

Immaterial, from a legal standpoint. OS X is available as a separate product.

Yes, for use on an Apple branded computer as an upgrade... in conjunction with a fully licensed previous version of OS X. This is established law. Apparently you do not understand the law. The judge does.

What I do not support is the concept that I am not allowed to sell a product I buy. I realize these arguments fail when directed at Reality Distortion Field(tm) operating around Jobs and his addicts....

The Apple Software License allows you to sell the product you buy... you are specifically allowed to sell the license you buy... you may not sell it and retain the right to continue to use it as well. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's that simple. One license; one Apple branded computer. Not one license; one generic computer. The latter is Microsoft's model, not Apple's. Both are legitimate business models. Both are legal. Both are enforceable and licensable... as Psystar has just learned to its expense.

Requiring OEMs to bundle IE with Windows is different from requiring bundled Apple hardware with OS X how?

Where is the third party OEM in the Apple equation? Microsoft was requiring 3rd parties to not only bundle Internet Explorer with their computers but was also threatening to cut them off from being able to purchase Microsoft's OPERATING SYSTEM, a requirement of the 3rd party's survival as a business, if they did not bundle IE with their computer, using Microsoft's overwhelming monopolistic position as a club to force them into accepting an unwanted product. That's a big difference.

Apple sells SYSTEMS... not bare computers. You cannot buy an Apple computer without an OS.

Was Psystar selling acutal legal copies of OSX which just happened to be tweaked to run on non Apple hardware? IOW, did Apple get $100 (or whatever) per Psystar machine?

Are they just ticked over the non-Apple hardware part, or are they each illegal copies of OSX?

They did no such thing. They provided a means to run purchased copies of Apple’s OS on non-Apple hardware. Perhaps you might be happier on a Jobs worship forum?

They did not. You misunderstood what was sold. One does not purchase a copy of OS X software. Apple does not sell the software. One purchases a LICENSE to run a specific version of OS X on an Apple branded computer under specific limited conditions, nothing more. Apple provides a copy of that version for you to install it on your Apple branded computer. You do not own that software; you own the limited license to operate the software. under that license.

You were saying ...

They have defined their “market” as something other than the “personal computer” market.

Well, the judge made his decision having to do with computers... :-)

---

I wasn’t talking about phones.

"Other" market areas other than computers involves the iPhone... :-)

---

You don’t remember the clone fight in the 90s, then....

I remember Steve Jobs setting everyone straight at Apple as to what Apple was actually doing -- i.e., making hardware to sell ... LOL...

Hence he scrapped the screwy idea of clones, since it in no way fit Apple's business model. Some phoney-baloney executive at Apple must have been listening to you, about clones, back then... :-)

---

Oh, I agree they are successful. I do not agree that putting fancy cases on Intel reference boards qualifies as “cutting-edge”. Microsoft had billions in the bank... often by using the same tactics.

Well..., there happens to be a whole lot of previously non-Mac Users who think differently about that... :-)

The stats from the Apple Retail Stores show that over 50% of the purchasers of Macintosh computers are from a previous Windows platform, having never owned a Mac before...

They've had enough with the "trash-ware" of Microsoft. They've found out that the superior hardware and software working together, that Apple provides -- is far better than their previous experience.

---

They just cost more. It’s a boutique computer trading on brand and image. The cult helps.

The cost factor is only relevant if you don't want your Windows computer to do anything useful... LOL...

Once you get all the stuff you want to do and/or need to do, on everything that you thought you could do in the first place -- you're spending what Apple just gives you ready to go on your machine... :-) The FReeper "Swordmaker" has posted plenty of previous posts on price comparisons, like-machine for like-machine. They're right in there together.

But, I suppose some people do want their cars without heaters and/or radios, too. There are always a few like that, I supposed.

But, having computers be a good-looking device is nothing to sneer at. I mean, just because a lot of these "windows-types" want gauche and ugly machines doesn't mean that Macintosh users must imitate "ugly"... I'll leave the "ugly" to the Windows platform... thank you... :-)

“A boutique bigger than Dell.”

Still a boutique computer.

“As to the rest, delusional.”

Hardly. Just no Reality Distortion Field.

“You demand that Apple sell its OS on terms which they do not choose to meet.”

They sell their OS retail. The idea that a EULA - which can have ANYTHING in it - is considered enforceable as a contract and defense of copyright - is offensive to the very nature of copyrights. I demand that software be treated like any other tool.

“So install Linux on your PC - what’s the big deal?”

I have no interest in Psystar’s products. OS X is of little interest to me. Of course, eye candy and limitations aren’t something I’m willing to pay a premium for.

They just cost more. It’s a boutique computer trading on brand and image. The cult helps.

A boutique bigger than Dell. As to the rest, delusional.

“Their market in terms of this article is the computer market (like the computers they sell). In that market they have about 10% of the market. :-)”

They have defined their “market” as something other than the “personal computer” market.

“But, Apple has entered other markets, too, as you know, and they are competing there, too. But, this court judgement wasn’t about those markets...”

I wasn’t talking about phones.

“No, what you’re doing is confusing one kind of “business model” with another kind... LOL...”

You don’t remember the clone fight in the 90s, then....

“With your ideas, Apple would turn from a wildly successful company selling many cutting-edge hardware devices, supported by their superb software to complement that hardware, having “Billions” of dollars in the bank from their success — to your ideas making them a has-been company going out of business.... LOL...”

Oh, I agree they are successful. I do not agree that putting fancy cases on Intel reference boards qualifies as “cutting-edge”. Microsoft had billions in the bank... often by using the same tactics.

“I’ll be pleased to see you stay in the Microsoft sphere of influence so that Apple product users don’t have their quality of products diminished by your kind of ideas... :-)”

I’m primarily a Linux user. So are most in my field. We started with IRIX. When we had to pay a premium - SGI - it was because there was nothing else close in performance. With Apple vs anyone else, that isn’t even remotely true.

They just cost more. It’s a boutique computer trading on brand and image. The cult helps.

“Uh, no, the judge found that Psystar was in violation of copyrights and in fact had shipped Psystar Open computers with OS X installed in violation of several provisions of the copyright laws including making derivative works and multiple copies.”

In short, the Fair Use is dead and EULAs are now law?

“He also ruled that they were in violation of the copyright rights that Apple had spelled out in the software users license which he ruled WAS a valid contract. Finally, he ruled that Psystar cannot sell tools to be used to violate said valid contract or violate the copyrights of Apple.”

Considering a EULA as copyright is a perversion of the intent of copyright laws - including the Constitution.

No EULA can be a legitimate contract, as there can be no “meeting of the minds” before purchase. That this judge does not agree... well, judges also have said that Commerce is more than trade and the 2nd Amendment no defense.

“Was Apple evil for making software for that hardware, which was intrinsically incompatible with being run on a PC?”

No, they were not - for that.

For destroying the cloners? Yes.

You demand that Apple sell its OS on terms which they do not choose to meet.

They insist on terms which give them more credit for their initiative in identifying and implementing useful functionality than you are willing to grant.

So install Linux on your PC - what's the big deal?

You were saying ...

Define their market?

Their market in terms of this article is the computer market (like the computers they sell). In that market they have about 10% of the market. :-)

But, Apple has entered other markets, too, as you know, and they are competing there, too. But, this court judgement wasn't about those markets...

The iPhone is another product (i.e., hardware) in one of those other markets, the iPod is closely related and somewhat connected in the same market. Although the iPhone has a bit different market, they do converge in one area. The iTunes Store and the iPhone App Store is the "support market" that Apple developed to assist and complement their hardware sales, that being the primary market that they are in.

---

I think Apple is just - and their history with clones shows - scared to death of competition and unable to compete with said competition.

No, what you're doing is confusing one kind of "business model" with another kind... LOL...

Some other companies have a different kind of business model. Like for instance, with computers, Microsoft concentrates on software. That's their business model. The "hardware" for Microsoft is just to help them sell software... LOL...

Now, with Apple, they have a different "business model". For them, the hardware is what they are in the market for and selling. The software is to exclusively help their hardware sell and complement all aspects of that hardware, making it the best user interface and integration of any hardware sold in the market.

That's why it makes no sense for Apple to help another hardware company sell their hardware... LOL...

As I said, I'm glad you're not advising Apple or running Apple...

With your ideas, Apple would turn from a wildly successful company selling many cutting-edge hardware devices, supported by their superb software to complement that hardware, having "Billions" of dollars in the bank from their success -- to your ideas making them a has-been company going out of business.... LOL...

I'll be pleased to see you stay in the Microsoft sphere of influence so that Apple product users don't have their quality of products diminished by your kind of ideas... :-)

Psystar didn’t violate a “copyright” in reality, but provided a tool that could be used to violate a license agreement. You know, the unilateral software license agreement Apple imposes on you without your consent (the “you could take it back after opening the box” argument is nonsense) or approval and can change it at will?

Uh, no, the judge found that Psystar was in violation of copyrights and in fact had shipped Psystar Open computers with OS X installed in violation of several provisions of the copyright laws including making derivative works and multiple copies. Some Open computers were delivered without retail copies of OS X but the judge ruled that was irrelevant to the violation of copyright laws. He also ruled that they were in violation of the copyright rights that Apple had spelled out in the software users license which he ruled WAS a valid contract. Finally, he ruled that Psystar cannot sell tools to be used to violate said valid contract or violate the copyrights of Apple.

“Yes, a company that has 90% of the computer market is prohibited, legally, from doing what any company is legally able to do with 10% of the computer market... :-)”

Define their market? Apple’s PR states they aren’t in the personal computer market. In fact, they clearly define their product as something other than a “PC”. I think Apple is just - and their history with clones shows - scared to death of competition and unable to compete with said competition.

“I see you’re not very versed in our economic system and its laws...”

Yep, you’re a Mac user.

“[ ... it’s just like a socialist to operate within a tangled mind and a web of disinformation... :-) ... ]”

It’s just like a cultist to blindly follow and agree that everything Apple does is RIGHT!, even when they do the SAME kinds of things other companies are attacked for. Remember the clone deals? Remember what they did then? Oh, wait... Apple did it, so it’s all ok....

You can take your “socialist” insults and stuff them.

” I see you’re still mixed up on the facts and information, which probably contributes to your socialist ideas... :-) “

BS.

“First Apple is a hardware company, not a software company, and that’s by what they explain of themselves, so it’s not just me saying that. They’re in the hardware business.”

They’ve made a point of stating they are in the “Mac” business, not just the “computer” business or the “Personal Computer” business.

“NOW, maybe you’re not familiar with “business” — but it really does not make any business sense at all for Apple to make software to give away to their competitors to use on their hardware (i.e., the competitor’s hardware)... LOL... that’s a “laugh a minute” if you’re thinking you’re using some kind of “business acumen”... :-)”

I believe Psystar was purchasing retail copies of Apple’s OS, were they not? Where’s this “give” thing?

“But, leave it up to a socialist to think this and that a company should let other companies use it’s own support software on the competitor’s hardware — that support software which was made specifically to support Apple’s business.”

OS X is sold as retail product. Psystar was purchasing said product. IE specifically supported MSFT’s business and was made to. Same thing.

“It’s sure a good thing you’ve not running Apple...”

Apple apologists are amazing people. Mostly liberal people with superiority complexes, but amazing people nonetheless.

You were saying ...

Requiring OEMs to bundle IE with Windows is different from requiring bundled Apple hardware with OS X how?

I see you're still mixed up on the facts and information, which probably contributes to your socialist ideas... :-)

First Apple is a hardware company, not a software company, and that's by what they explain of themselves, so it's not just me saying that. They're in the hardware business.

And they make the specific software to support their own hardware -- that hardware being the primary focus and business of the company.

NOW, maybe you're not familiar with "business" -- but it really does not make any business sense at all for Apple to make software to give away to their competitors to use on their hardware (i.e., the competitor's hardware)... LOL... that's a "laugh a minute" if you're thinking you're using some kind of "business acumen"... :-)

But, leave it up to a socialist to think this and that a company should let other companies use it's own support software on the competitor's hardware -- that support software which was made specifically to support Apple's business.

Yep, that's a socialist idea all right.

It's sure a good thing you've not running Apple...

I would say “Fair Use is dead” in response, but the ruling on Rebel EFI seems to be more about the incompetence of the Psystar counsel than on any facts. The judge just swallowed every assertion Apple made about it, and granted the injunction.

You were saying ...

Did you support the lawsuits against MSFT? If so, you’re a hypocrite.

Yes, a company that has 90% of the computer market is prohibited, legally, from doing what any company is legally able to do with 10% of the computer market... :-)

And that could be the reason that Microsoft got hammered... a novel idea, huh?

I see you're not very versed in our economic system and its laws...

[ ... it's just like a socialist to operate within a tangled mind and a web of disinformation... :-) ... ]

“Microsoft and AAPL are different companies with different business models.”

Immaterial, from a legal standpoint. OS X is available as a separate product.

“Was Apple evil for making software for that hardware, which was intrinsically incompatible with being run on a PC?”

No, they were not - for that. For destroying the cloners?
Yes.

“Ummmm..., if you’re talking about free enterprise and companies being wildly successful in our capitalistic economic system.... I think the right board is right here....”

I said nothing about appropriating other company’s products or any “public good”.

What I do not support is the concept that I am not allowed to sell a product I buy. I realize these arguments fail when directed at Reality Distortion Field(tm) operating around Jobs and his addicts....

Did you support the lawsuits against MSFT? If so, you’re a hypocrite.

It’s interesting that Microsoft was sued for “bundling” with IE and Windows - requiring IE to be installed, but Apple continues to get away with something similar and continues to be the same bad corporate citizen - just like Jobs.

Microsoft and AAPL are different companies with different business models. Microsoft is a software outfit that does sell some hardware; Apple is a systems house which does sell software. Big PC makers including Dell, Gateway, HP, et al depend on Microsoft continuing to license Windows to run on their products, whereas Apple sells computers which are able to run Windows but is sold with OS X installed and without any Windows license.

As it happens, Apple used to sell computers which were not capable of running Windows, and is delivered those computers with an OS which could not run on a PC. Was Apple evil, in your opinion, for selling computers which could not run Windows? Was Apple evil for making software for that hardware, which was intrinsically incompatible with being run on a PC?

If Apple is evil for not licensing the use of its OS on non-Apple computers now, it must have been just as evil when it wasn't selling an OS which even could run on non-Apple computers. But then, you (unless you're working for Microsoft or Red Hat) aren't selling an OS that will run on PCs, either. Does that make you evil too?

“It sounds like you’re learning how to become a good socialist, with your socialist ideas... LOL...”

You do know the legal definition of a contract, right?

I find it fascinating the things that Apple fans will excuse for Apple, but accuse Microsoft.

Requiring OEMs to bundle IE with Windows is different from requiring bundled Apple hardware with OS X how?

You were saying ...

Psystar didn’t violate a “copyright” in reality, but provided a tool that could be used to violate a license agreement. You know, the unilateral software license agreement Apple imposes on you without your consent (the “you could take it back after opening the box” argument is nonsense) or approval and can change it at will?

It sounds like you're learning how to become a good socialist, with your socialist ideas... LOL...

You were saying ...

They provided a means to run purchased copies of Apple’s OS on non-Apple hardware. Perhaps you might be happier on a Jobs worship forum?

Ummmm..., if you're talking about free enterprise and companies being wildly successful in our capitalistic economic system.... I think the right board is right here....

[it's definitely not the board for socialistic ideas of taking a company's ideas/products/etc and appropriating them for the "public good"... LOL...]

Off topic but of interest to you: The Backdating Molehill Revisited discusses backdating of stock options. Talks of the case of Henry Nicholas III, not Steve Jobs, but it seems applicable - and congenial to your viewpoint.

“Why don’t you ask Microsoft for documentation of the secret APIs in Windows they use for their Office products - then come back and tell me who’s being proprietary....”

Ah, the “secret APIs” nonsense.

It’s interesting that Microsoft was sued for “bundling” with IE and Windows - requiring IE to be installed, but Apple continues to get away with something similar and continues to be the same bad corporate citizen - just like Jobs.