Posted on 12/15/2009 11:16:26 PM PST by Swordmaker
The fact that eBay complied with a demand from Microsoft would have little bearing on whether it was actually legal to resell the software. FWIW, Disney used to try and claim it was illegal for places like Blockbuster to rent their movies.
“The PowerMac PPC xServes did use Error Correcting memory. Flash in the pan? They were still in daily service as of this year last I heard.”
The first multi-million-dollar PowerMac cluster did not and was entirely removed from service.
“And you have no idea in what fields I work.”
Nothing even remotely technical. That much is clear.
“However, the all-new product still used the same APIs and not .NET, a fact that left many developers wondering why Microsoft was pushing .NET so hard when they don’t use it themselves on their flagship product.”
O2007 is heavily integrated with .NET. Just like Apple, they will develop APIs custom for their major projects.
I’m pretty sure Visual Studio is not used for Office, either.
“If they don’t get overturned and they are used in future and more cases, it becomes “right”... and that’s exactly how it works.”
No, it becomes precedent.
“And if such a thing reaches the Supreme Court, and they decide for it, it becomes what I would call “absolutely right” (in our own system of law).”
BS.
“In other words, that’s the way the legal system is going to define “right” from then on.... :-)”
Uh, no. They’ll define it as “legal”. Anyone who things the two are the same also believes in hypersonic helicopters, so one should consider the source.
By virtue of having written a program, a developer automatically retains the exclusive right for all of that under copyright. Except reselling it -- he doesn't have the right to restrict resale. Specifically, those two actions fall under the exclusive right of a copyright holder to create derivative works. No EULA is needed to protect against the end-user doing those things.
In the case of free (but not public domain) software, a license is given. That license is what lets others freely distribute the work, and make derivative works, without infringing on the author's copyright.
While all of that is technically true, it would be hard to find a FReeper who thought the Supreme Court interpreted the takings clause correctly because the decision was in direct opposition to the plain language and meaning, instead operating off of precedent and practicality.
No it isn't. The book does not come with a license you must agree to before starting to read it. If such a book does exist, and it might, it would be a very notable exception that would make it more like software and less like a book. But to equate ownership of OSX to ownership of a book is incorrect and misleading.
Sorry.
The bottom line here is that whatever restrictions that the software developers want to put on their software to make money is what they do... :-)
While all of that is technically true, it would be hard to find a FReeper who thought the Supreme Court interpreted the takings clause correctly because the decision was in direct opposition to the plain language and meaning, instead operating off of precedent and practicality.
And it's because that is true (technically or not...) -- that is why I say that it's a disagreement with the result -- of the law and the court's judgement -- that is the problem. This "understanding" of it -- then points to the perfection solution -- "change the law in order to get the desired result"...
No, it becomes precedent.
That's the "right" of the matter.... :-)
BS.
Just because you don't like the fact that a Supreme Court decision is final with the law and the courts -- doesn't make it any different. That's what is "right" in our legal system and that will be the final word.
You're only other alternative is to change the law -- which is one of the options that I was talking about. But, then..., you would have to get a super-majority on your side to change the law and/or the Constitution -- and at this point, you would get nowhere near that... :-)
Uh, no. They’ll define it as “legal”.
You can fiddle with the words all you want and it still won't change the fact that the "right" of the matter in our legal system -- is what you "can do" -- and the "wrong" of the matter is what you cannot do... LOL...
Hypersonic was what was reported. I was wondering myself. But apparently a rotor can reach very high velocities at the extreme ends of the blades that can excede Mach 1 which can cause turbulence and Air cavitation problems. The Mach5 was doing simulation of airfoil tip designs to minimize the problems. I am not an aeronautics expert by any means but that was what I was told by a Colsa rep at a Macworld conference in 2005 that they were doing with Mach 5. You can laugh all you want, but I can see how rotational velocities at the extreme end of helicoptor rotors just might exceed 1116 ft/second (Mach1) which in some circumstances and might be a concern. Even a civilian helicopter at peak rotation can reach about 1000 feet per second at the tips of the rotors. Do the math.
55ft. Rotor diam. X pi = 173 ft. Rotor tip circumference X 350 peak RPM = 60,550 ft/min/60sec = ~1000 ft/sec.
There is a good reason to be concerned for high performance military copters. Especially if you want quiet copters. Now, do you want to keep ROTFLYAO?
Why should they have to do that? Just document the APIs they are keeping hidden from other publishers who could compete with Office.
What are you talking about? The version of OS X you bought was the same regardless of what processor it ran on until the release of Snow Leopard, as was the price.
Ask the Psystar and the Padraza Brothers if THEY agree now that it isn't " enforceable. Judge Alsup says it is indeed very enforceable.
I beg to differ. You seem to have a comprehension problem. What part of the words "hypersonic rotor blade" are you failing to understand? Do you think that is impossible that it is impossible for a portion of a helicopter rotor to reach a rotatioan velocity that can be faster than 1116 ft/sec??? I don't. Do you think it might be an issue in achieving silent helicopter flight? I do. Could the turbulence of the rotor tips be a major problem fir helicopter flight. You bet. Could modelling what happens in that turbulence be important? Of course.
READ THE DECISION.
So, who did YOU vote for???
Sorry, TChris, the judge DID NOT IGNORE Title 17, Section 109... an entire subsection of his decision addresses it. YOU are the one ignoring what he wrote and his decision on what it meant and what Psystar did that meant it did not apply.
Here is what Groklaw had to say (Full Article, including a text version of the Summary Judgement against Psystar), along with the quotation from the decision:
The court's message is clear: EULAs mean what they say; if you don't want to abide by its license, leave Apple's stuff alone.We have the order for you as text.
On the first sale defense, you'll find it in the section on distribution right and Section 109:
Apple contends that Psystar has violated its distribution right by offering and selling Mac OS X on Psystar computers to the public. Psystar admits that it has distributed Mac OS X (Chung Exh. 17 at 4).Catch that? Even if Psystar were the lawful owner of the copy, it still can't do what it did. The court quotes from Microsoft Corp. v. Software Wholesale Club, Inc.: "the first-sale doctrine does not apply to an admittedly counterfeit unit". So, no, you can't buy a copy and use it to go into a counterfeiting business, in effect. Terekhov's theory has bitten the dust and then had to eat some. Just like Daniel Wallace's anti-GPL theory did. Whoever is relying on their legal theories might want to buy a vowel and try to figure this puzzle out.But Psystar responds that its conduct is protected by the Section 109 first-sale doctrine. Section 109 provides that "the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord." 17 U.S.C. 109. This provision is a limitation on the distribution right. It applies only to an owner of a copy.
The parties spill much ink on whether Psystar was the owner or a licensee of the copy (i.e., the tangible copy) of Mac OS X that it purchased. Even assuming arguendo that Psystar was the owner of a copy, the first-sale defense fails here. Section 109 provides immunity only when copies are "lawfully made." 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. See Microsoft Corp. v. Software Wholesale Club, Inc., 129 F. Supp. 2d 995, 1006 (S.D. Tex. 2000) ("the first-sale doctrine does not apply to an admittedly counterfeit unit"); see also 2-8 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT § 8.12 ("if the manufacture of a copy or phonorecord constitutes an infringement of the reproduction or adaptation right, its distribution will infringe the distribution right, even if this is done by the owner of such copy or phonorecord").
Ergo, contrary to your ignorant and libelous assertion against Judge Alsup, the judge DID NOT CORRUPTLY IGNORE THE LAW. he honestly addressed it, and found Psystar in violation of the letter and spirit of the law.
That's strange.... the first team were the one's everyone was touting as the only one's that could possibly bring Apple down as they had gotten some kind of win once before. Then Psystar failed to pay them... and declared bankruptcy owing them $85,000...
The next guys were "cowboys" from Texas... who "thought differently" and opened a new Florida offensive case (in both meanings of the word) with much the same arguments the first guys used for defense in California that had ALREADY been tossed out of court: "Apple was an illegal monopoly in the OS X computer Market... only this time it's "Apple is an illegal monopoly in the over $1000 computer Market." Boy, do they think different...
The real "different thinking" was that they were willing to work on a contingency fee basis.
But, all in all... you are probably right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.