Posted on 12/15/2009 11:16:26 PM PST by Swordmaker
Yeah, you're probably right on that one.
Then read the license. . . remember, I told you that all you buy is the license. If I recall correctly, you cannot resell MS OEM licenses which are limited to the original hardware they were sold with. Apple allows you to resell OS X licenses so long as it is not being used on your current Mac because they will still be used on another originally licensed Mac. That makes it better than Microsoft's approach.
Anybody got a copy of MS's OEM license handy?
BAH! It is patently obvious that you have not even bothered to read the facts outlined by the judge in his decisions or the rest of the case. You don't know at all what you are talking about. There are copies of OS X existing on the Hard Drives of the Psystar Open Computers that are infringing copies. There are copies of OS X existing on Psystars Imaging stations that are infringing copies. There were several several Open Computers that were shipped to customers with OS X installed WITHOUT copies of OS X included. Often, there were copies of OS X on SHIPPED Open Computers that did not match the earlier versions of the sealed copies of OS X that were shipped with the computers, also a violations of copyright laws. All of these were enumerated in the decision.
Why don't you take an evening and read through the discovery, the decisions, the pleadings, etc., all of which are posted on Groklaw, before you expound on stuff you obviously don't know anything about instead of making assumptions that make you look foolish.
Did a judge make you pay a fine or send you to jail or something once upon a time? You seem to have a problem with authority.
“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???”
“Hypersonic” as in “5 times the speed of sound” at least. Depending on definition, it could include flow regimes at lower Mach numbers, but well above anything involving rotary wing air craft.
So, yes, I do. Quite impossible.
“Do you think it might be an issue in achieving silent helicopter flight? I do.”
Blue Thunder was a movie, not reality. You are way out of your depth here.
“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.”
I didn’t say it was a different VERSION of the OS. Geez....
“That’s the “right” of the matter.... :-) “
You continue to equate “right” with legal opinions.
A legal opinion may or may not be “right”.
“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.”
Ah, but it’s not. The Supreme Court is not intended to be the most powerful branch of government.
“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...”
You can “LOL” all you want, but what is legal has little to do with what is “right” or “wrong”.
“You seem to have a problem with authority. “
You seem to have a problem worshiping authority. One is not “right” merely by virtue of office.
You see, that’s that “logical fallacy” you are using. An “appeal to authority”.
Since you like “appeals to authority”, you can rest assured I am right on the subject of “hypersonic helicopter rotor blades”. I am an aeronautical engineer - an *authority* on the subject. Somehow, I think you’ll argue the point and claim I am wrong.
“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.”
That’s the *transonic* regime. The hypersonic regime is another ball of wax ENTIRELY. So, yes. I will laugh at the idea.
“Colsa rep at a Macworld conference in 2005 that they were doing with Mach 5”
Every G5 cluster I’ve encountered has been an unstable mess. The large clusters used for this type of work in industry and government are not OS X-based. COLSA got the idea from VT. Fortunately for everyone’s budgets, Mac clusters are rare. You see, the so-called bargain VT claimed in their price estimates compared to others was for the hardware alone. They compared against a Dell cluster in Texas being built at the time for $13 or so million, but in their press release negated to mention that that included a BUILDING and infrastructure and an endowed chair..... Typical for Apple PR, though.... Kind of like their lack of verifiable SPEC results for the G5 despite claims of “Pentium crushing performance”. Sure... the original Pentium maybe.
“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?”
Yes, I do. You heard very wrong and really need to look up terms you don’t understand.
“Why should they have to do that? Just document the APIs they are keeping hidden from other publishers who could compete with Office.”
They are in the process of doing that. However, quite a few of those libraries are built for the project. As in “part of Office” and not Windows APIs.
“So, who did YOU vote for???”
I voted for Bush, but not because I thought he was a conservative. At the time, I agreed with the lesser of two evils argument.
No longer.
And your problem is that the same court system that ruled on a book in 1894 have superceded that ruling for a different product with different circumstances in later rulings in the 100 years or so since and Microsofts licensing HAS been upheld several times including one in which eBay was ordered to remove such auctions under threat of a contempt citation.
You continue to equate “right” with legal opinions.
A legal opinion may or may not be “right”.
You sure are one mixed up dude... LOL...
You might have missed it, but this wasn't an "legal opinion" out of some lawyer's office... but a judge's decision in a case brought to a judge for just such a decision.
I have found out that there are some FReepers that do have a problem assimilating the "reality" that occurs around them in the real world. I can't help you too much with that one.
Ah, but it’s not. The Supreme Court is not intended to be the most powerful branch of government.
I see you have trouble reading, too... and I don't think I can help you there, with your reading skills either...
But, I will give you the rundown once again, that we've got three branches of government and when the Supreme Court makes that final decision, that's it. There are no more legal steps to take and that's the end of the road, as far as the legal system is concerned.
Now, if citizens want to change the law to get a different result, they are more than able to do so... but for you to convince a bunch of voters to help you out in this situation -- you're gonna have to get a better grip on reality... :-)
You can “LOL” all you want, but what is legal has little to do with what is “right” or “wrong”.
As I said, you've got big trouble with reading and comprehension. You'll have to go back and slow down this time and try it "word for word". It may come to you... LOL...
I said...
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...
Now, convince yourself any way you want, but when you "hit the legal system" -- you'll find out that as far as its concerned -- what you "can do" in the legal system is "right" and what you can't do in the legal system is "wrong"...
I'm sorry you didn't learn that at an earlier age. It can be disconcerting to have your worldview shaken up at a later age... :-)
Question: what gives them the power to make such restrictions?
Authors have tried. And guess what, such licenses were deemed unenforceable.
But to equate ownership of OSX to ownership of a book is incorrect and misleading.
In both cases the authors derive all of their rights from copyright.
Question: what gives them the power to make such restrictions?
LOL.... some of you guys are funny... :-)
Ummmm..., perhaps the long line of prior software developers who are ahead of them, doing the same thing, having made their money the same way....
I mean... some of y'all just don't get the concept of "reality"....
It's like some of y'all think that this concept just popped up at 10:30 PM last night and it's something that no one has ever heard of before...
Vernor bought his now 10 year old unopened copies of Auto-cad software from an architecture company, CTA, that got them as part of a settlement from Autodesk in 1999. That company did not need them and proceeded to resell them without ever opening or installing them to Vernor. Vernor did not open them or install the either. They are a unique case in that Vernor never saw or agreed to the SLAs.
The courts have now held, as of September 30, 2009, that his position was that of a middle reseller, not a licensee. Autodesk's appropriate case should have been against the original licensee, CTA, who had agreed to a license when they accepted the copies, as part of the settlement, that precluded them from transferring the licenses. CTA, ignoring the licenses, DID sell their unwanted copies left over from their installs to Vernor.
Vernor, in an attempt to prevent Autodesk from again attempting to protect their copyrights pre-emptively sued Autodesk. Even the decisions you post don't say what you think they say:
From your own link in the Vernor v. Autodesk case:
Indeed, the Copyright Act itself declares that the first sale doctrine does not “extend to any person who has acquired possession of the copy or phonorecord from the copyright owner, by rental, lease, loan, or otherwise, without acquiring ownership of it.” 17 U.S.C. § 109(d); Los Angeles News Serv. v. Tullo, 973 F.2d 791, 799 n.8 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing § 109(d) and noting that licensees cannot authorize sales).
The judge in this case ruled that the transfer of the Autocad program to CTA was a sale because Autodesk did not allow it to be resold, meeting the "Wise test," by the buyer after they acquired it.
That does NOT apply to Apple's OS X, whose licenses are similar to those in the MAI cases discussed by the judge that the Ninth Circuit ruled were Licenses and NOT sales, because Apple specifically allows for the one time resale of the license to use OS X by each licensee so long as any work copies are not retained on the computer or in the previous users custody. As such, it meets the test of not being a sale but a true license.
It might help if you read some of the scholarly analysis of these cases... and even some of the reasons why Vernor itself was only finally concluded this September 30th... and is being appealed because of inconsistencies with other the other cases in the Ninth Circuit and the judges decision to ignore the later MAI cases that were more pertinent to software than the Wise case—a unique case that the judge stretched way out of context, which was not pertinent at all to digital content.
The Wise case related to Vanessa Redgrave being allowed to keep a VIP copy of "Camelot" for her own personal use, and being charged a "fee" of $401.49 for the print, and that in the agreement, the studio, although severely restricting the use, prohibiting any future transfer, allowing only in home showing, the legal department neglected to clearly retain title for the studio, something that had been always included in every other VIP print ever provided, the courts ruled it a "SALE" instead of a "license"— which opened the door for a man named Woodrow W. Wise to make copies of "Camelot" on 35mm film and sell them to collectors... until he was arrested for copyright infringement. However, his conviction on the count for Camelot was reversed because of the Vanessa Redgrave "first sale" problem. They got him on a bunch of others though.
You still have not done the math on the rotational speed of those helicopter rotor tips have you?
It still cost 1/5th cost of the next lowest priced of the top ten fastest supercomputers. That's a lot of bang for the buck... and they recovered every penny of the investment to be used for the upgrade by reselling the 1100 PowerMacs for more than they paid for them.
After it proved the concept, and was rated as the third fastest supercomputer in the world, it was upgraded to use xServes to take up less space... and less energy. The upgraded version was still in service as of 2008, five years later, but way down the list. From what I hear, stability had little to do with the decision to upgrade.
Do you have any documentation for your claims?
And the xServe solution made of Apple Mac Xserves was still three times less expensive than any of the top ten and was still the seventh fastest. That still belies your claims of "hype" and being "screwed.".
It still cost 1/5th cost of the next lowest priced of the top ten fastest supercomputers. That's a lot of bang for the buck... and they recovered every penny of the investment to be used for the upgrade by reselling the 1100 PowerMacs for more than they paid for them.
After it proved the concept, and was rated as the third fastest supercomputer in the world, it was upgraded to use xServes to take up less space... and less energy. The upgraded version was still in service as of 2008, five years later, but way down the list. From what I hear, stability had little to do with the decision to upgrade.
Do you have any documentation for your claims?
And the xServe solution made of Apple Mac Xserves was still three times less expensive than any of the top ten and was still the seventh fastest. That still belies your claims of "hype" and being "screwed.".
I'll accept your definition... but as I was using it, I was meaning it as faster than the speed of sound. Not as five times faster. I probably should have been using "supersonic" instead. My apologies. I beg your forgiveness. I plead 60 year old faulty neurons. . . and recovering from a bad cold. ;^)>
Sorry. Are we now on the same page?
Actually, in re silent helicopter flight: I have seen some amazing footage lately of helicopters that are very much quieter than what they were just ten years ago... and little winglets at the end of their rotors are a lot of the reasons for it apparently. A lot of the noise of a helicopter comes from the ends of the rotors. I also saw some things being done with variable length rotors...
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.