The Cache: Technology Expert's Forum
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. September 18, 2019, 01:38:01 PM

Login with username, password and session length


Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Apple Wins Court Victory Over Mac Clone Maker Psystar  (Read 6660 times)
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« on: November 15, 2009, 10:00:37 PM »

http://www.pcworld.com/article/182218/apple_wins_court_victory_over_mac_clone_maker_psystar.html?tk=nl_dnx_h_crawl

 Angry  We're going backwards.  Was it the flight I just returned from or the ruling?  I don't know but for some reason I feel like  Vomit
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
kurdt
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


paha arkkitehti


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2009, 01:07:46 AM »

Yeaa! Justice for all! Cheesy
Logged

I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2009, 10:04:13 AM »

 Sarcasm
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2009, 01:32:26 PM »

In fairness ITTO, this is not backward - it is both correct and important.

The point here, is that Psystar DID in fact, break the law. The real deal then, is for this law to get challenged as un-Constitutional or monopolistic or equivalent ... you cannot really modify or eliminate laws until they are challenged. So this could be both a blow to Psystar and the galvanizing incident that changes the tide.

Note that there's a REALLY important assertion in this ruling: Psystar had claimed that they purchased a valid copy of OS-X and included the disk with each computer - when in fact, they purchased one copy and imaged that on the machines they sold. Frankly, on the stupidometer, this just PEGS the needle IMO. They converted the fight from a "Is copyright as applies to software and operating systems valid" argument to a pirating case.

It'd be nice to imagine Psystar is some Quixotic sacrificial lamb in the fight against IP (as you see it) ... but in this case, they just look bad. Really bad.
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2009, 01:55:51 PM »

Quote
Psystar had claimed that they purchased a valid copy of OS-X and included the disk with each computer - when in fact, they purchased one copy and imaged that on the machines they sold. Frankly, on the stupidometer, this just PEGS the needle IMO.

@stoopidometer - agreed.  The ruling actually had nothing to do with this but if the ruling didn't hold up THEN this would have been a completely stupid move on Psystar's part since this would have been the focus.  As it stands it doesn't even matter since any and all "copies" are lumped into the same bad bucket.

Quote
It'd be nice to imagine Psystar is some Quixotic sacrificial lamb in the fight against IP (as you see it)

Well I don't exactly see it this way.  For all I know Psystar could simply be a greedy company trying to make as many bucks as legally possible, like Apple.  They just happened to be trying to make money doing something that I have hopes will push the law towards rethinking the current approach to copyright law in general 
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
nop_90
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2203


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2009, 05:44:00 PM »

I agree with perks 100%.
Before 1935 in Germany Hitler had spoken about how the jewish role in german society needed to be readjusted.
But from just reading mein kampf and from his previous speeches it was uncertain how the jewish problem should be solved.
Thankfully after the nuerenburg laws where passed it soon was very clear what Jewish legal rights where, and how this readjustment would take place.

So like wise it is a very important step forward since it now clarifies what rights users and companies have when it comes to DMCA etc.
Logged
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2009, 06:59:15 PM »

Quote
So like wise it is a very important step forward since it now clarifies what rights users and companies have

In our case law system any ruling sets a precedent.  The higher the court, the more stable the precedent.  So Roe vs Wade is an extremely strong precedent set in 1973 regarding the reproductive rights of women.  Another precedent might involve the right to vote.  In each case, "moving forward" is quite subjective since any two people will see the strengthening of, or the reversal of each as a positive thing 

I had hopes that Apple's additional license restrictions would be thrown out of court in favor of the existing legal protections afforded software manufacturers.  Apple just moved the bar farther to the "restrictive" side which harms everyone, except for Apple of course.  I'm all for businesses reaping the benefits for their contributions and creations.  I'm just against allowing monopolistic practices for the sake of maximizing profits - with no other tangible benefit to consumers or other businesses.  That's what Apple does.  It's what Microsoft does.  They certainly don't need our help in this regard  D'oh!

Dangling OS X in front of consumers... Nope!!  Not without paying Apple for overpriced hardware!  Grin  Even if it was reasonably priced it doesn't matter.  Apple holds a monopoly on OS X and leverages this monopoly to the extent they can legally get away with.  Wouldn't it be great if all of the other hardware manufacturers teamed up and proved to the court that they were being unfairly kept out of the OS X market by Apple? Apple the software and hardware manufacturer?  That's called a monopoly. 

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
Quote
A monopoly is said to be coercive when the monopoly firm actively prohibits competitors from entering the field.

Quote
In economics and business ethics, a coercive monopoly is a business concern that prohibits competitors from entering the field, with the natural result being that the firm is able to make pricing and production decisions independent of competitive forces.[1] A coercive monopoly is not merely a sole supplier of a particular kind of good or service (a monopoly), but it is a monopoly where there is no opportunity to compete through means such as price competition, technological or product innovation, or marketing; entry into the field is closed. As a coercive monopoly is securely shielded from possibility of competition, it is able to make pricing and production decisions with the assurance that no competition will arise. It is a case of a non-contestable market. A coercive monopoly has very few incentives to keep prices low and may deliberately price gouge consumers by curtailing production.

Why is this literally "impossible?" Because of the copyright on OS X.  Therefore OS X can't possibly have a competitor unless it's different enough to be non-OS X.  So other hardware manufacturers are kept out of Apple's OS X "monopoly."  As a result, and as is the case with all monopolies, it's the consumers who are harmed - not Apple.  Break up this monopoly and business will thrive, consumers will benefit, and Apple will adjust to the fair playing field.
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2009, 07:12:23 PM »

Well, careful - first off, the ruling here was that Psystar violated Apple's copyright. Not anything like "additional license restrictions" - this one is a straight shot at the taking one version of the OS and imaging it on machines the sell ... which in any case, to my way of thinking, is a pretty clear legal fuckup.

Side note: can we stop with the "overpriced" scab pullers? You know they're not, it just muddies the conversation.  Smooch

"Apple holds a monopoly on OS-X" - no more than any corporation has a monopoly on their own products.. Your quote about a monopoly restricting competitors from entering the field does not hold water here: the field is computational capability (ie., everyone needs an OS to run a computer) but OS-X is absolutely unrequired to manage a computer. Apple is NOT the sole supplier of a particular kind of good or service - anymore than Cheerios has a monopoly on breakfast cereal. There are lots of different options for you to choose from - it's just that you WANT OS-X. The huge fallacy is that there is an "OS-X market" - no, there is an operating system market, and Apple, along with Windows, *n[i|u]x, Solaris, PIC, System 370 ... you name it are all competitors in that space.

I reject, out of hand, that because people crave OS-X and Apple controls it there is a monopoly. People can run/control computers as well or even better (according to VSloathe). What they have is a really attractive product, and a price and distribution lock... on their product. That's frustrating, but not a monopoly.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2009, 07:13:58 PM by perkiset » Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2009, 07:59:10 PM »

Quote
Cheerios has a monopoly on breakfast cereal.

If Cheerios was wildly popular and could only be legally consumed from a bowl produced by General Mills then yes, it would be monopolistic in nature  Police

Quote
no, there is an operating system market, and Apple, along with Windows, *n[i|u]x, Solaris, PIC, System 370 ... you name it are all competitors in that space.

Completely agree!  There is an operating system market.  There's also a hardware market, for Pete's sake.  However, in this special case the hardware market is monopolistically being prohibited from benefiting from a major player in the operating system market. 

But while driving home I had an epiphany and I know you're just dying to hear it!! Grin

Since Macs are appliances of art and therefore require software created by Apple to ensure the best user experience, Apple should be legally prohibited from being able to benefit from anyone else's software!  Yes it's unrealistic, but damn delicious no?  Imagine Apple after winning the settlement:

"You've won!  Nobody can run OS X on any other hardware than yours.  In addition, your hardware will be prohibited from legally being able to execute any other vendor's software unless and until your software is legally permitted to execute on other people's hardware!!!"

Now THAT would rock!
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2009, 08:07:53 PM »

@ your epiphany: ROFLMAO well played, but silly  Smooch

@ Cheerios and an GM bowl: Hmm, well said. I'll have to consider that. On first glance though, I'd disagree - since there are lots and lots of bowl manufacturers, I'd simply say that this is their right to do in a free market - albeit profoundly bad as a business plan. As many have said about Apple's business plan.

But bad or not, that is not a monopoly - it's just a restriction that you would have to agree to if you want to eat Cheerios.

If you want to eat Cheerios, you must eat them from this bowl. Not monopolistic at all. UTTERLY anathema to one such as you, that abhors any sort of restriction or direct edict about how you live your life, I get it - but it's no monopoly. Now if Cheerios was THE ONLY breakfast cereal in the world, and you were pretty much required to eat breakfast cereal, you'd have a different situation. But given the length of the aisle at my local Safeway, I doubt you could make that case.
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2009, 08:38:27 PM »

Quote
But bad or not, that is not a monopoly - it's just a restriction that you would have to agree to if you want to eat Cheerios... If you want to eat Cheerios, you must eat them from this bowl. Not monopolistic at all. UTTERLY anathema to one such as you, that abhors any sort of restriction or direct edict about how you live your life, I get it - but it's no monopoly. Now if Cheerios was THE ONLY breakfast cereal in the world, and you were pretty much required to eat breakfast cereal, you'd have a different situation.

Identical to Microsoft Windows, in every way, throughout it's entire history.  You can't possibly claim that Microsoft had anything close to a monopoly and maintain your current assertion.  Was there ever a time in the history of computing where Unix was NOT a choice over Windows?  OS2 anyone?  In other words, your entire argument is null and void unless you also concede that Microsoft has never had anything close to a monopoly.  The logic just can't work both ways and hold any reasonable ground IMO.  Since I know you've been an avid supporter of the need to regulate Microsoft's "monopoly" on the PC operating system market, I just can't see these positions living harmoniously within a consistent macro-business view 

@Overpriced: (prices subject to change, but are accurate as of 7:28PST, 11/16/2009)

MacPro:
Quote
Memory

    * 3GB (3x1GB)
    * 6GB (3x2GB) [Add $150.00]
    * 8GB (4x2GB) [Add $250.00]
    * 12GB (3x4GB) [Add $1,350.00]
    * 16GB (4x4GB) [Add $1,850.00]

 ROFLMAO

However for this thread, being overpriced as I previously mentioned, is completely irrelevant.  Simply prohibiting others from competing in the OS X executable hardware market is the point.  So, even if Apple had hardware prices that were comparable or even less than others of matching specs, this would still fall squarely in the monopolistic bucket.  Why?  Just ask Dell and they'll be happy to inform you of this reality.  Dell (HP, Acer, etc.) can't possibly play in the OS X playground which gives Apple, their hardware competitor, an unfair advantage.
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2009, 08:57:03 PM »

Identical to Microsoft Windows, in every way, throughout it's entire history.  You can't possibly claim that Microsoft had anything close to a monopoly and maintain your current assertion.  Was there ever a time in the history of computing where Unix was NOT a choice over Windows?  OS2 anyone?  In other words, your entire argument is null and void unless you also concede that Microsoft has never had anything close to a monopoly.  The logic just can't work both ways and hold any reasonable ground IMO.  Since I know you've been an avid supporter of the need to regulate Microsoft's "monopoly" on the PC operating system market, I just can't see these positions living harmoniously within a consistent macro-business view 
I disagree. There is a large and prominent assertion that if you want to do business, it must be MS Windows. Period. I run into this virtually everyday. Now - since I know how to avoid them with Mac and Unix machines their monopoly does not affect me - but since Windows is on something like 78% of all computers in the world, that's pretty damning. Mac holds a position of about 5% worldwide and by some measurements, as much as 10% in the US. I do not think it is correct to play them against each other because their situations are utterly different. This is not a slam on Windows, but simple fact: Windows ubiquity makes for something much closer to a monopoly than Apple.

@Overpriced: (prices subject to change, but are accurate as of 7:28PST, 11/16/2009)
Dood. Try prices of a MAC like we're talking about. The 21" iMac at 1099 is, for the value, a pretty fine value, if not downright a deal. A 27" starts at 1699. And I can go get RAM anywhere else I want. Really, here I agree with you utterly, but am not restricted: if I want the convenience of Apple inserting the ram stick for me, I'm going to pay for it. But I am not restricted to doing so.


However for this thread, being overpriced as I previously mentioned, is completely irrelevant.  Simply prohibiting others from competing in the OS X executable hardware market is the point.  So, even if Apple had hardware prices that were comparable or even less than others of matching specs, this would still fall squarely in the monopolistic bucket.  Why?  Just ask Dell and they'll be happy to inform you of this reality.  Dell (HP, Acer, etc.) can't possibly play in the OS X playground which gives Apple, their hardware competitor, an unfair advantage.
Um, if Dell wants to write software for the Mac they can. Note that you can run anyone else's software on the Mac, even Bootcamp Windows. Virtualize anything. And all kinds of software runs on it. That's akin to saying that BMW is monopolistic because VW is not allowed to take BMW engines and put them into VW cars as BMW logo'd engines. I disagree that the inability of you to have OS-X exactly the way you want it is a monopoly. Perhaps that's plenty enough reason for you to dislike Apple and vote with your feet and wallet - and more power to you meng. Really, I am 100% behind that. But just because you can't have that product exactly the way you want it, does not make for a monopoly. Consider this: try to purchase a Mercedes high-end sedan with a manual transmission and hand-roll windows. Can't be done. Does that make them monopolistic against manual transmission vendors and window makers?
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2009, 09:08:35 PM »

Quote
since I know how to avoid them with Mac and Unix machines their monopoly does not affect me

What monopoly?

Quote
Windows ubiquity makes for something much closer to a monopoly than Apple.

I may completely agree with you here.  The only question is this: exactly how much of a monopoly does Apple in fact have?  If you are talking percentages then I'm totally with you.  And you know how I feel about M$ - way monopoly concern that calls for definite monopoly watch from regulators.  But how could Apple be utterly free from this same monopoly watch when M$ is boxed into a total monopoly view??
« Last Edit: November 16, 2009, 09:10:48 PM by isthisthingon » Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
nop_90
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2203


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2009, 09:16:51 PM »

Honestly I find the entire case very stupid from both apple's perspective and psystar. Not to say "eastern values" are perfect either. But "western values" are always very boolean. Right / Wrong. "Eastern values" are analog different grades of right and wrong. Not to say one is better then the other. Both have thier good parts.

Psystar knew from legal presidents in USA what the attitude was about DCMA etc. So why the fuk did they open thier company in USA.
Why did they not open thier company in HK or Asia where for these matters anything goes. Then ship the computer to USA without OSX on it.
Included in the computer would be a CD which contains nothing besides a bootloader (kinda like an linux network install disk).
You pop the disk in (which contains no apple code) up pops a nice warning, "In your country what u are doing might be illegal", user clicks "yes"
Goes onto the Psystar server in Asia downloads all of the OSX code and installs it on user's puter.

Honestly Psystar is like stupid americano who gets married in PH. Before u get married the official tells you there is no divorce in PH. There is only annulment but only under special circumstances. As a result generally speaking who ever is the one who files for the annulment gets slammed by the judge. Attitude is that couples should work their problems out. One expat filed for annulment, (very complex here can take years). Until the annulment has been done, he now has a restraining order against him from going near the house. Now he is crying  ROFLMAO Well you knew the rules, you should have gotten married some where else.

Maybe Apple is over priced. But there is absolutely no proof that "piracy" with cheaper inferior products affects the sale of legit products. In the "market" you can find pirated cartier bags, rolex watches, you name it. Mean while you can there are tons of "real" rolex, omega, cartier stores in the luxary malls that do a booming buisness. There are even "pirated" cars going around. http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Jeepneys . You often see a "jeepney hummer" on the street. Again the guy who buys a pirated hummer can not afford the real thing. No one knows the real statistics but the jeepney works supposedly make like 500-1K "hummers" a year. But on the other side of the coin there is a fairly brisk sale of hummers with military generals and politicos. If hummer would go after the jeepney works all it does is make people upset.

About the only people who profit from these stupid court cases is the lawyers. How long has this stupid case been going on for ?. I am pretty sure that this court time could have been used to decide more important things.

Biggest problem in the western court system is lack of fuking common sense. So lets say there is the case of spousal abuse. Well there could be 1 senario where the spouse is just abusive. As in he beats up his wife for no particular reason. In this case the judge will come down on him like a ton of bricks. But quite often the situation is not as clear cut. So the judge might decide to separately interview each party. He finds out from the husband that sometimes the wife just goes ballistic on him. The wife will just scream at him for like 12 hours straight. Finally he just does not know what to do so he smacks her one. He then pulls the wife aside. He finds out from her, that she feels "unappreciated". She works really hard, but it just seems like the husband does not care about her. So he goes back to the husband. He finds out that the husband appreciates his wife, but does not tell her. Also it is kind of hard when she is constantly screaming at him.

So the judge will then order them to go to councialling together. He will then tell them they are both in the wrong. Husband for smacking wife. Wife for being a bitch. He will tell them to come back in 6 months so he can see how things are going. He will then give them the lecture about marriage etc. And that when they both married each other they loved each other etc.

So in the psystar / apple case. Judge could decide they both are being stupid. Order psystar to pay apple a fair royalty for the OSX OS. For apple well make pystar clearly state that the "pirated" machine is not going to work as well as the "real thing". And so if u buy a psystar machine, and they like the OSX, well have psystar recommend to the user that they could buy the "real thing" and have psystar get a comission. That way both sides are unhappy but both sides will win.
Logged
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2009, 09:27:44 PM »

Quote
Note that you can run anyone else's software on the Mac, even Bootcamp Windows. Virtualize anything. And all kinds of software runs on it.

And likewise wouldn't it be fair if you were legally permitted to run anyone else's software on a PC, say um... OS X for example?

Here's the deal with the artificially imbalanced market picture.  Apple hardware enjoys an extremely unfair advantage over all other PC hardware purchasable on the planet: it's the ONLY hardware that will permit the execution of OS X, again only on this planet.  So why is this an unfair advantage?  Why would other competing hardware vendors have any conceivable disadvantage compared to Apple?  I'm a little tired so I think I've maxed out my capacity for rhetorical examples of this unbelievably obvious truism. 

Quote
You pop the disk in (which contains no apple code) up pops a nice warning, "In your country what u are doing might be illegal", user clicks "yes"

Precisely.  Nice observation nop.

Quote
About the only people who profit from these stupid court cases is the lawyers.

Initially yes.  But in the long run they secure future profits and set precedents for similar, anti-competitive practices the suit initiators hope to profit from IMO.

Quote
Biggest problem in the western court system is lack of fuking common sense.

 ROFLMAO Ditto


Quote
So in the psystar / apple case. Judge could decide they both are being stupid. Order psystar to pay apple a fair royalty for the OSX OS. For apple well make pystar clearly state that the "pirated" machine is not going to work as well as the "real thing". And so if u buy a psystar machine, and they like the OSX, well have psystar recommend to the user that they could buy the "real thing" and have psystar get a comission. That way both sides are unhappy but both sides will win.

 Applause  Like that approach.  But yes, western courts are about as stupid as they come 
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Perkiset's Place Home   Best of The Cache   phpMyIDE: MySQL Stored Procedures, Functions & Triggers
Politics @ Perkiset's   Pinkhat's Perspective   
cache
mart
coder
programmers
ajax
php
javascript
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Seo4Smf v0.2 © Webmaster's Talks


Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!