Comments on: Psystar: We bought Mac OS fair and square

The Mac clone maker's latest argument is that having lawfully obtained the copies of Mac OS X that go on the Open Computer, it can do what it wants with that software.

[kool_skatkat]

if they succeed, maybe people will be able to do whatever they want with DVD, Blue-rays, software.... change it, charge for it... mmmm that will be nice. Imagine buying two movies, edit both into a new movie and reselling it. Cool!

[humanssssss]

"Imagine buying two movies" yeah ... but when u reselling the resulting movie, u have to pay the two movies AGAIN to sell a copy of it. Let's say you make a new movie from the movie. You want to sell your resulting movie to 10 people. It means you have to pay 10 movies to the original movie.

That's what Psystar is doing. Each computer they sold, they bought a copy of OSX.

[kool_skatkat]

if they succeed, maybe people will be able to do whatever they want with DVD, Blue-rays, software.... change it, charge for it... mmmm that will be nice. Imagine buying two movies, edit both into a new movie and reselling it. Cool!

[Nicholas Buenk]

A copyright system that allowed that would be a better one, as in the end it benefits everyone for derived works to be rewarded, as they have their own value.
See http://creativecommons.org/

[victor_sf]

Go, Psystar, go!

[Perry_Clease]

Yes, just go away.

[Nicholas Buenk]

I think Psystar has a case.
They aren't stealing anything, they are buying OS X from Apple.
It is rather, Apple is abusing copyright law, and trying to get the government to uphold their business model for them! It's not the governments job to force people to use a product in a certain way, to ban a companies competitors.
What psystar is doing is no different to the modbook really, they buy a Macbook and modify it into a tablet. Psystar buys OS X and modifies it to run on a PC. It is an abuse of copyright law to get the government involved in this.

[Perry_Clease]

"I think Psystar has a case.
They aren't stealing anything, they are buying OS X from Apple."

They are NOT buying OSX, they are buying a license.

[Nicholas Buenk]

I think buying is the right term to use. Software industry tries to call it a license, but it's BS and is just a legal excuse to restrict use of the software according to whatever they wish. Just because you have a EULA doesn't mean it's legally biding, if the EULA violates things like right of first sale and right of after sale modification, the EULA should be rejected.

EULA is an utterly ridiculous concept, you can't write a document and expect it to give you a blank check to violate whatever consumer right and law you wish and to immunise yourself from, and any liability you can think of.

They are buying a copy of OS X, with redistribution rights being restricted by copyright law. That is how it should be thought of, if the system is fair and just. (a EULA not being a part of copyright law, is not withstanding)

[Perry_Clease]

" just a legal excuse"'

Yes, the excuse is legal which is why what Psystar is doing is illegal no matter what excuse they use.

[grabacon9]

well in my opinion...apple will never get the revenue they need..cause they don't operate on pcs and maybe microsoft is responsible for this

[Nicholas Buenk]

Apple gets plenty of revenue. Apple is free to use whatever technical means they can to keep OS X off PCs, but they should not get the government to do that for them!

[imacpwr]

Why doesn't Psystar just set up the computer "for" OS X but leave the final installation of the OS up to the end user..?

[Perry_Clease]

Because anyone who has the skills, and wants to do that, can already make Hackintosh without the help of Psystar.

[clamenza]

Any other company doing what Apple does would be chased into the big ponds and allowed to drown. Only fanboys (and gals) can defend its behaviors, not just with the OS but everything else. Oooh, a pretty ipod. Sorry, what are you saying?

[Penguinisto]

Microsoft itself had better hope that Apple wins... if Apple loses, the the concept of EULA stands a very good chance of invalidation.

So,err, before you cheerlead too hard for your idols...

/P

[Perry_Clease]

"Any other company doing what Apple does would be chased into the big ponds and allowed to drown. "

By whom?

[ckurowic]

Look, everyone can STOP TALKING. Here is the effing bottom line: YOU DO NOT OWN ANY OF THE SOFTWARE IN YOUR POSSESSION. It has been LICENSED to you to USE. That is how they can tell you no copies, etc. The same goes for DRM'd music.

[solblack]

Please, Who is it harming?
Over price APPLE!
Good they are greedy.
I hope Prystar gets there way!

[ikramerica--2008]

Then don't buy an Apple.

How is Apple greedy? Because they want to make the user experience as streamlined as possible, and part of that comes from controlling the hardware?

They also include all sorts of new technologies "for free" before other companies do, they include hundreds of outdated drivers just so people can keep their old peripherals, and make them all plug and play when possible without even a silly pop-up window walking you through a needless installation.

They try to create stylish products that people want to own.

It's like saying that Toyota is greedy for forming Lexus and thus anyone should be able to steal a Lexus because they cost more than regular Toyotas and are harder to afford.

If you like a Camry, buy a Camry. If you like Vista, buy a cheap PC that can run it. But why do you care what price Apple charges for anything?

[ArtInvent]

I have to wonder if software 'licenses' have actually ever really withstood legal scrutiny. What is the difference between software and other forms of IP? Why should software makers be allowed to use restrictive and anti-competitive licensing when other IP creators are expressly disallowed from doing this?

Perhaps this case will finally settle the issue.

[unsivilaudio]

Half of you people aren't even reading the replies.

The real issue is whether or not software is bought as a "licensed" or "sold".

"As far as software goes, the court opinions are varied, the 7th and 8th Circuits tend to be the most sympathetic to the licensed not sold argument put forward by software companies etc, while other circuits tend to uphold first sale for software. SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc, SoftMan won the right to re-sell adobe software despite Adobe's claim their software is licensed not sold. There is also Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc, Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software, and Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology. Rulings in favor of first sale doctrine on software are not rare, you just have look out side the 7th and 8th Circuits."

I tend to agree with the later. Software is sold not licensed. You're ******* high if you think you're gonna tell me what I can or cant do with a product I bought from you. I believe the Psystar argument is solid, and will be very interested to see the outcome. BTW, I would be very surprised to hear if someone like Dell or HP was financially backing this legal argument.

[Penguinisto]

Agreed with the concept of sale versus license.

OTOH, good luck with finding a clear and precise precedent saying so. Then again, this case may do just that...

[8301]

Screw this. How much is a Psystar computer with a blank hard drive? I'll take care of the rest.

[sbexpert]

dose not matter, apple sells mac osx leopard as a retail version, does not say upgrade, i can buy the os a put it on what i want to.

[Reflautas]

This "software is licensed, not sold" argument is pretty much a red herring. Although Microsoft is a huge champion of it, the argument is flawed. First of all, there is no copyright protection in "software" as such. Copyrights protect "works of authorship." If a copyright owner licenses their work, they can only licence the rights Congress gave them: the rights of reproduction or distribution of copies, for example.

There is no question that the owner of a lawfully made copy of an Apple "work" is entitled, without Apple's consent, to sell it. There is no question that Apple alone has the right to authorize reproductions of its work from the disc to the hard drive. In effect, it sells a disc (to which Section 109 of the Copyright Act applies, giving the new owner of the disc the right to resell it), along with a license to reproduce the work from the disc onto the computer's hard drive. It sells the copy of the work, and licenses the reproduction of a copy of the work. The real question is whether it may be allowed to license the reproduction of the work only onto certain media (Apple products) and not other media. Think of it as an author of a poem that is very popular, who authorizes the reproduction of the poem to anyone who will pay $1, but then adding a limitation: "you may only reproduce it onto paper manufactured by me." That, I believe, constitutes a misuse of the copyright, for it leverages the exclusive right of reproduction of the work into the market for non-exclusive paper.