From a little reading, it appears that the argument stems from the subversioning. Does one overarching patent cover 10.5.0, 10.5.1, etc etc.
Also, despite what we like, just for authoring the software, had they not filed a copyright claim (or in this case the 10.5 referenced doesn't cover 10.5.1 or whatever), they're only due damages associated with the loss, no lawyer fees etc. Considering they're buying the OS X software (again, debate about whether it's a full version or an upgrade), you have to wonder where the loss would come from.
You also have matters of fair use. Just as there are copyright and patent laws, there are also a number of laws that guarantee consumer rights. For example, purchased media can typically be transferred to another owner. I know a lot of software licenses explicitly state otherwise, but there's an argument to be made that these licenses violate consumer protection laws that are designed to prevent monopolization and non-resellable merchanise in exactly the manner of Apple's business practices.
There are very few legal entities advocating for consumers simply because consumers individually lack the resources to combat corporate-to-consumer anti-trust, but that doesn't change the fact that the laws are on the books and Psystar may have a case.
Hopefully they will see their day in court. I hope that Apple is forced to be more open. Their business model sucks.
If they were stealing anything, I'd have left this alone. They are, however, BUYING RETAIL LICENSES OF OSX.
I assumed that when you buy a product, repackage it, and claim it as your own, that it would be considered equivalent to stealing. (I'm sure there's a more relevant legal term for it rather than stealing if that is what you mean.) Also, reading from that last story, that is exactly what they did. Psystar took the Mac OS and then repackaged it as their own for a reduced price.
I assumed that when you buy a product, repackage it, and claim it as your own, that it would be considered equivalent to stealing. (I'm sure there's a more relevant legal term for it rather than stealing if that is what you mean.) Also, reading from that last story, that is exactly what they did. Psystar took the Mac OS and then repackaged it as their own for a reduced price.
They are not repackaging OSX. If they sold you a machine with Gr8OS on it and it looked amazingly like OSX, it would be repackaging it. If the case said "Not OSX" and contained an OSX disc inside, it would be repackaging it. They are (currently illegally) installing a legally-purchased copy of OSX onto non-Apple hardware and selling the hardware cheaper than Apple machines cost. OSX costs $130 or so. It costs the same from Apple as it does from Psystar - it's factored into the machine price.
If Apple can claim that their OS, which is just a hacked up Linux distribution, is proprietary to their hardware -- which it is not -- then WTF is to stop them from making iPods incompatible with software other than iTunes and making iTunes incompatible with PC's?
I mean, they wouldn't do it, but that's not wholly different from what's going on with OSX. They are claiming some sort of propriety when in fact there is none, and it's abusive to consumers and just flat out wrong.
I hope they lose in court, license agreement or not.
BuddyJ
Dept. of PropagandaOKC Icrontian
Comments
Also, despite what we like, just for authoring the software, had they not filed a copyright claim (or in this case the 10.5 referenced doesn't cover 10.5.1 or whatever), they're only due damages associated with the loss, no lawyer fees etc. Considering they're buying the OS X software (again, debate about whether it's a full version or an upgrade), you have to wonder where the loss would come from.
There are very few legal entities advocating for consumers simply because consumers individually lack the resources to combat corporate-to-consumer anti-trust, but that doesn't change the fact that the laws are on the books and Psystar may have a case.
Hopefully they will see their day in court. I hope that Apple is forced to be more open. Their business model sucks.
If they were stealing anything, I'd have left this alone. They are, however, BUYING RETAIL LICENSES OF OSX.
I assumed that when you buy a product, repackage it, and claim it as your own, that it would be considered equivalent to stealing.
They are not repackaging OSX. If they sold you a machine with Gr8OS on it and it looked amazingly like OSX, it would be repackaging it. If the case said "Not OSX" and contained an OSX disc inside, it would be repackaging it. They are (currently illegally) installing a legally-purchased copy of OSX onto non-Apple hardware and selling the hardware cheaper than Apple machines cost. OSX costs $130 or so. It costs the same from Apple as it does from Psystar - it's factored into the machine price.
They're not repackaging a damn thing. Please.
If Apple can claim that their OS, which is just a hacked up Linux distribution, is proprietary to their hardware -- which it is not -- then WTF is to stop them from making iPods incompatible with software other than iTunes and making iTunes incompatible with PC's?
I mean, they wouldn't do it, but that's not wholly different from what's going on with OSX. They are claiming some sort of propriety when in fact there is none, and it's abusive to consumers and just flat out wrong.
I hope they lose in court, license agreement or not.
I believe I understand fully now.