Hagar Posted July 19, 2008 Share Posted July 19, 2008 this lawsuit is {censored}. psystar alsready seeling it's headquaters. they will just disappear as company and will make new one, they actualy made it already, that new company like psystart, from florida, i'm sure it's founded by Pedraza too, this new company will work till apple will sue it, then they will close it and found new company again. Sounds like an awful lot of trouble to go to, just to sell a few PC's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxintosh Posted July 19, 2008 Share Posted July 19, 2008 they will just disappear as company and will make new one, they actualy made it already, that new company like psystart, from florida, i'm sure it's founded by Pedraza too, this new company will work till apple will sue it, then they will close it and found new company again. That's both ridiculous and speculative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark4181 Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 Technically speaking, shouldn't the argument be "We (the Gov't) will let you use this series of roads, but only if you drive this specific car" ??? Wherein roads are the Software OS, and the car is the hardware This is just another face of the liberal socialism that some on this site seem so fond of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John the Geek Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 The problem is that Apple doesn't view their OS and their hardware as separate products. The Mac having an OS is a concept invented before Jobs returned to Apple likely to distinguish it during the "OS wars" with Windows, etc. Before Mac OS 8 it was simply called the "System Software." System 6, System 7.1, etc. Apple doesn't sell it separately because it's an accessory to an Apple hardware product. You can upgrade your system software to the latest version via a boxed retail copy, but it's still an accessory to an Apple product. Apple doesn't license the Mac OS to Dell because Dell doesn't make Macs. Dell isn't going to make the next MacBook Air and they won't be releasing the next iPhone type device. Therefor they have little use for the Mac System Software. You may choose to view computers from the Wintel PC perspective but Apple does not, and no one can force them to. Being compatible with your Dell is a temporary situation because of the Intel adoption. Apple has always been a "whole widget" kind of company. You should expect your temporary compatibility to go away eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csim Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 Before Mac OS 8 it was simply called the "System Software." System 6, System 7.1, etc. Just for the sake of accuracy, 7.6 was the first version of the Operating System to be officially branded Mac OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Mills Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 I'm sure Apple is happy Yup, They just won I guess.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxintosh Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 Yup, They just won I guess.. No big surprise there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superhai Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 Apple doesn't sell it separately because it's an accessory to an Apple hardware product. They advertise the "retial boxed" Leopard as a "New Mac" to a Mac, that does not in any way mean an upgrade. Accesory could be, like buying a new Ferrari next to your Ferrari would also be an accesory for your old one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tienloc47 Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 I think Psystar would lose because they sell our hard work. C'mon think about it guys, this is where it all began and we work hard to support the community. Psystar stole our work (and Apple's) and sell them for their own goods without supporting (donate) this community. I dont think Apple would make osx a pc compatible os neither. That'd destroy the whole apple brand thing. Maybe they'll release a leopard-pc with less features and some hardware restrictions stuff too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John the Geek Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 They advertise the "retial boxed" Leopard as a "New Mac" to a Mac, that does not in any way mean an upgrade. Accesory could be, like buying a new Ferrari next to your Ferrari would also be an accesory for your old one. Yes, I know the slogan. It's like a new Mac in your Mac. That's the point, it's contains several UI paradigms new to Mac users, like multiple desktops, time machine, etc. It's still an upgrade since all Macs come with Mac OS already, and it's only sold for Macs which already have the Mac OS on them. You're telling me that's not an upgrade? They don't advertise it as an upgrade because they are all upgrades. There's no point in it. And no, your analogy is closer to saying it's a new engine for your Ferrari. Some people can get that engine to run in their Pinto, but there's usually more maintenance involved. Plus you own the Ferrari, you're only licensing the Mac OS. EDIT: Yeah, I know - your computer's a Lamborghini. Whatever. The point is still the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxintosh Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 It's still an upgrade since all Macs come with Mac OS already But that's not what an upgrade is Look at it this way; say you have a 2008 ford model x. Now you go and buy the same car, only one year newer - so it's a 2009 Ford model x. That's not an upgrade, that's a completely new and seperate product. The word 'upgrade' is subjective as it implies an improvement. Not all features in Leopard would be classified as an improvement. Time machine for example constantly has problems. We don't even use it anymore. It's not an 'upgrade' or an improvement as it causes more hassles then not having the feature (again, this is subjective). Leopard is a stand alone product. Technically that's not an upgrade. Win XP with SP2 would be an upgrade to win XP without SP2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 It strikes me that Apple need to redifine "Operating System" for their defence to work.. if os x (Leopard) is an operating system (which runs on macs and can be unofficially installed on other hardware) then it is much like any other product being used for something other than it's intended purpose - it just voids the warranty, rather like if I buy a baseball bat & break it over someone's head, it won't be covered because it was sold as a sports accessory for the playing of baseball, not for hitting people with. I still went into the shop, paid money for it & walked out with it, just as I did with my copy of leopard... Likewise I could buy an outboard motor & use it for mixing paint... How far can Apple go in telling us what we can & can't do with something that is definitely being sold as an operating system? If I go out & buy leopard am I seriously expected to destroy all copies & ask for a refund because of a EULA that pops up during install, long *after* I bought it? What if I install via pacifist or an install script so that I don't have to click the EULA "Agree" button? would that make a difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poco Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 I don't really mind if Apple wins or loses. If they do great if they don't great. iPoco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxintosh Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 I don't really mind if Apple wins or loses. If they do great if they don't great. Same here. It's win-win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John the Geek Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 But that's not what an upgrade is Look at it this way; say you have a 2008 ford model x. Now you go and buy the same car, only one year newer - so it's a 2009 Ford model x. That's not an upgrade, that's a completely new and seperate product. The word 'upgrade' is subjective as it implies an improvement. Not all features in Leopard would be classified as an improvement. Time machine for example constantly has problems. We don't even use it anymore. It's not an 'upgrade' or an improvement as it causes more hassles then not having the feature (again, this is subjective). I agree with you that an "upgrade" is subjective. However, you don't get to define what an upgrade for Apple is. They do. To further your car analogy, an upgrade is when you get better equipment when you buy the car. (A GPS, iPod Output, etc.) That's their definition of upgrade in the vehicle market. Getting a new car is just buying a new car. It can still be an upgrade and they give you less features, they can make it unstable, whatever. It still doesn't change the definition of what they choose to consider it as. If you don't think it's worth it - you aren't obligated to upgrade. I don't consider Vista as much of an upgrade, but Microsoft's not changing their packaging over it or anything. Leopard is a stand alone product. Technically that's not an upgrade. Win XP with SP2 would be an upgrade to win XP without SP2 Leopard is an upgrade because Apple defines it as such. Again, you, nor Microsoft, get to define what upgrade for Apple means. Microsoft sells boxed upgrades, and they even install full systems if no prior version is installed. (Some of them, not all of them do this.) Again, just because the Vista Ultimate Upgrade DVD installs a full OS doesn't change the fact that it's still an upgrade license. It strikes me that Apple need to redifine "Operating System" for their defence to work.. if os x (Leopard) is an operating system (which runs on macs and can be unofficially installed on other hardware) then it is much like any other product being used for something other than it's intended purpose - it just voids the warranty, rather like if I buy a baseball bat & break it over someone's head, it won't be covered because it was sold as a sports accessory for the playing of baseball, not for hitting people with. I still went into the shop, paid money for it & walked out with it, just as I did with my copy of leopard... Likewise I could buy an outboard motor & use it for mixing paint... Except that you don't license a baseball bat, nor an outboard motor. You do license software. There is no warranty on a software license, implied or otherwise. How far can Apple go in telling us what we can & can't do with something that is definitely being sold as an operating system? If I go out & buy leopard am I seriously expected to destroy all copies & ask for a refund because of a EULA that pops up during install, long *after* I bought it? What if I install via pacifist or an install script so that I don't have to click the EULA "Agree" button? would that make a difference? Apple owns the product, and by law can dictate the terms of it's use. It has the right to tell us all we have to uninstall it immediately if they wanted to, even if we had Macs. That is their right as the owner. We only bought the hardware. They reserve the right to revoke the software at any time. Microsoft recently revoked all licenses of Internet Explorer for Macintosh as part of our campus agreement. Our University had to go around and delete every version of it remaining on any Mac to be in compliance with the license. As far as skipping the EULA. Ignorance of a software license does not protect you from the consequences of violating it. The legal system as always sided against the ignorance defense. (Ignorance of the law does not exclude you from it.) So saying I didn't know I was only supposed to install it on Apple-Labeled hardware wouldn't go very far. A history of visiting this site wouldn't help your defense much either. =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxintosh Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 you don't get to define what an upgrade for Apple is. They do. No they don't. The dictionary does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinTD Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 You're both wrong, in a sense. Typically, when a terms definition is disputed in a court case, the court refers to a) the common meaning of the term in the context being questioned, or the actual meaning (via the current dictionary) of the word in it's given context. As I stated before, the common understanding of a software upgrade is one where an original product is required prior to being allowed to install the new one; whether it be a simple provision requesting the old product key, actually having a copy of the old product installed, or requiring you to insert the old product disc before installation. In all these cases, you need to prove you owned a previous product. Leopard, as with other Mac OSX versions, does not do this. It just installs. The dictionary meaning of upgrade: up·grade Audio Help /n. ˈʌpˌgreɪd; adj., adv. ˈʌpˈgreɪd; v. ʌpˈgreɪd, ˈʌpˌgreɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[n. uhp-greyd; adj., adv. uhp-greyd; v. uhp-greyd, uhp-greyd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, adjective, adverb, verb, -grad·ed, -grad·ing. –noun 1. an incline going up in the direction of movement. 2. an increase or improvement: an upgrade in the year's profit forecast. 3. a new version, improved model, etc.: The company is offering an upgrade of its sports sedan. 4. an increase or improvement in one's service, accommodations, privileges, or the like: If the ship isn't full we'll receive an upgrade to a deluxe stateroom. 5. something, as a piece of equipment, that serves to improve or enhance: a full range of upgrades available for your computer. –adjective 6. uphill; of, pertaining to, on, or along an upgrade. –adverb 7. up a slope. –verb (used with object) 8. to promote to a higher grade or rank: He has been upgraded to senior vice president. 9. to improve or enhance the quality or value of: to upgrade property by landscaping it. –verb (used without object) 10. to improve the quality, value, effectiveness, or performance of something: Buy this basic computer and upgrade whenever you're ready. Regarding the comment on EULA's being law. They are not. They are a one sided contract which requires you to accept their terms either by opening the package or clicking the "OK" button. In either case, if you do not agree, you are supposed to return the software which should you fail to do so further indicates your acceptance of the terms. However, the biggest reasons courts do not uphold these is the First Sale Doctrine which basically says you are buying the software, not the license. The point of contention is what exactly are you buying? The software, or the license? It's 50/50 in the courts now. If you think about, how many people run around installing XP or Vista on multiple coomputers? In theory, the only thing prohibiting you from doing so is the EULA. So, why should MS's be upheld and not Apple's? Regardless, it's way too early to tell at this time which way the worm will turn regarding EULA's ... I would suggest we all watch this closely as this will have a profound effect on EULA's in general once it is decided. I placed in bold the meaning which would likely pertain to software. By this meaning Apple could claim that the software is an upgrade. The affirmative defense would be referring to the common meaning when talking about software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John the Geek Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 As I stated before, the common understanding of a software upgrade is one where an original product is required prior to being allowed to install the new one; whether it be a simple provision requesting the old product key, actually having a copy of the old product installed, or requiring you to insert the old product disc before installation. In all these cases, you need to prove you owned a previous product. Leopard, as with other Mac OSX versions, does not do this. It just installs. And as I stated before, there are versions of Windows that do none of those things but are still classified as an upgrade. I have a copy in my office. There is no software standards board that states how a system upgrade has to behave. Besides, let's say you're right and Apple loses that defense. Do you think they'll pat you on the back and start selling more copies of OS X for Dells? Hell no. They'll make it a Software Upgrade package you will have to buy on iTunes or something stupid like that. You won't get what you want, and you'll only have succeeded in making everyone's life more difficult. You can argue semantics all you want, but in the end it's still Apple's software and they get to decide what you do with it legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running With Scissors Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Good luck Psystar. I hope Apple get slammed for restricting OS X to Apple computers. If they lose it it wont be long until it is tested in a court that favors consumers not corporations, like the European Court of Justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelbb Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Nobody seems to get it but Apple don't need to prove that the EULA is lawful or whether a copy of Leopard is an upgrade or not. They have strong legal grounds to wind up the Psystar business on the basis of "passing off" & doing damage to the Apple brand with their shoddy imitations. This is regular commercial law & doesn't have anything to do with computers. It's the same as Volkswagen going after a company making cars & calling them "Beetles" or Fender suing a company making a guitar & calling it a "Stratocaster". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxintosh Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 it's still Apple's software and they get to decide what you do with it legally. That's not the issue. No one is saying it's nots Apples software, or that they don't get to decide how it's used. We're discussing what the term 'upgrade' means, and that is one thing that Apple doesn't get to vote on. The court will decide how that term will be used, not Apple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulin Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 If a company sells a dvd rom and tells me I can't install it on something I get this urge to go "fu, i'm installing this on my washing machine, refrgerator and toaster, and I'll have the microwave act as a router/server!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
netkas Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 That's both ridiculous and speculative http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/appletell/~3/341703050/ evil here is psystar. not apple. I'm afraid in trying to stop psystar-cloning they may shut down osx86 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxintosh Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 evil here is psystar. not apple. Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cain. Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 I do not see how it could be technically possible to install an upgrade without anything to upgrade. That's pretty much the definition of 'stand-alone' to me, since well... that's what it does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts