Apple WTF
-
subject says it all really...
on a related note, have aread of this: http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/mac/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212501673
[ link fixed - mod ]
-
Scotland WTF
-
@Pol said:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/mac/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212501673
Since it's christmas time I'll blame the extra space in the link on Community Server and not the OP.
-
You don't have to register or file a copyright in order to have copyright protection.
-
@Havstein said:
I got no idea what you're a-jawin about. the link worked just fine for me. Took me to an article called Non-Working URL.@Pol said:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/mac/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212501673
Since it's christmas time I'll blame the extra space in the link on Community Server and not the OP.
-
@musigenesis said:
But you do have to register in order to sue for infringement.You don't have to register or file a copyright in order to have copyright protection.
-
Apple does have registered copyrights for OS X dating back several years.
-
@tariq said:
Apple does have registered copyrights for OS X dating back several years.
RTFA:Apple "is prohibited from bringing action against Psystar for the alleged infringement of one or more of the plaintiff's copyrights for failure to register said copyrights with the copyright office as required" by law, Psystar claims.
-
@bstorer said:
@tariq said:
Apple does have registered copyrights for OS X dating back several years.
RTFA:Apple "is prohibited from bringing action against Psystar for the alleged infringement of one or more of the plaintiff's copyrights for failure to register said copyrights with the copyright office as required" by law, Psystar claims.
-
@bstorer said:
@musigenesis said:
But you do have to register in order to sue for infringement.You don't have to register or file a copyright in order to have copyright protection.
I'm not sure what copyright has to do with this case. Isn't this really a case of licensing abuse? Psystar is violating the license agreement by installing on non-apple hardware, then violating it again by reselling it as an OEM.
I don't know that Apple has much to lose from Psystar. As long as they can disclaim technical support for users running on 3rd party hardware, I don't think they lose much money. These are mostly people who wouldn't be shelling out over a grand for a Mac anyway.
-
@savar said:
I'm not sure what copyright has to do with this case. Isn't this really a case of licensing abuse? Psystar is violating the license agreement by installing on non-apple hardware, then violating it again by reselling it as an OEM.
I don't know that Apple has much to lose from Psystar. As long as they can disclaim technical support for users running on 3rd party hardware, I don't think they lose much money. These are mostly people who wouldn't be shelling out over a grand for a Mac anyway.
How do you think licenses work? They are enforced via copyright. If Apple truly doesn't own the copyright for OS X (which seems unlikely -- this is probably a desperate tactic by Psystar) then they cannot enforce the terms of the license.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
If Apple truly doesn't own the copyright for OS X
It's not even an issue of whether Apple owns the copyrights, but whether they registered them. Without registration, they can't sue on those infringements. Worse, even if they drop the suit, register, and refile, because the infringement took place before the copyright registration, Apple would be unable to claim statutory damages or attorney's fees.
-
This kind of act makes me more scared of buying into apple then any other vendor (such as microsoft). Whats the point of buying apple products things when they go out of there way to ensure it does not work with other vendor ever ?
-
uh, wtf? they do have registered copyrights.
-
@Helix said:
Because that's part of the whole Apple mythology -- they control the OS, they control the hardware, and so the tight integration means they're gonna work together better than the companies without the tight control. At least, in theory.This kind of act makes me more scared of buying into apple then any other vendor (such as microsoft). Whats the point of buying apple products things when they go out of there way to ensure it does not work with other vendor ever ?
(Not saying I agree with the mythology, I'm just stating it...)
-
@AssimilatedByBorg said:
@Helix said:
Because that's part of the whole Apple mythology -- they control the OS, they control the hardware, and so the tight integration means they're gonna work together better than the companies without the tight control. At least, in theory.This kind of act makes me more scared of buying into apple then any other vendor (such as microsoft). Whats the point of buying apple products things when they go out of there way to ensure it does not work with other vendor ever ?
(Not saying I agree with the mythology, I'm just stating it...)
Yup, not sure why i posted the above - i thought that a whole heap of hardware vendors and gonna fight putting together a bunch of cheap hardware and help create the most popular *nix contender against windows. Cheap platform, with user support, semi-decent existing software ecosystem and decent existing userbase/potential consumers.
Then you reminded me that this would be based on a company that runs on self-generated folklaw.
mythology.. meh
-
@bstorer said:
@tariq said:
Apple does have registered copyrights for OS X dating back several years.
RTFA:Apple "is prohibited from bringing action
against Psystar for the alleged infringement of one or more of the
plaintiff's copyrights for failure to register said copyrights with the
copyright office as required" by law, Psystar claims.I trust the copyright office over TFA. Psystar is by this point well known for bending the truth to make claims (that are then tossed out of court). Taking their word as gospel is TRWTF.
-
@tariq said:
uh, wtf? they do have registered copyrights.
First, you need to understand this: @http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ61.pdf said:Each separately published version of a computer program that contains new, copyrightable authorship must be registered separately, with a new application and fee. Registration of the first version may extend to the entire work if it contains no previously published or registered portions. Registration of any subsequent version covers only the new or revised material added to that version. The version of the work that is deposited should be the same version described on the application; thus, the title and dates on the application should correspond with those on the deposit copy.
As a result of that, a suit like this will involve many copyrights. Psystar's claim is that at least one of those copyrights isn't registered. No matter how much of the code is under a previous copyright, you simply cannot take action for infringement without a registered copyright. In this case, I'm not sure what the upshot is, though. I don't know if Apple can amend their suit to drop the unregistered copyrights and continue with the other ones, or if the entire suit has to be thrown out.
-
@savar said:
I'm not sure what copyright has to do with this case. Isn't this really a case of licensing abuse? Psystar is violating the license agreement by installing on non-apple hardware, then violating it again by reselling it as an OEM.
This, of course, brings up the question of whether this license is even legally valid. If I remember correctly, a US company sued Apple for this very agreement, but I've never heard the outcome.
And before anyone says he approves of this requirement, put it into perspective: What if Windows included a requirement that you could only use it on PCs manufactured by Microsoft themselves? All in favour, say "aye". *hears crickets chirping*
-
@bstorer said:
the entire suit has to be thrown out.
When it is, I'm sure there'll be a mob of hobos fighting over a used suit.
-
@AltSysrq said:
But the way this situation would likely not be allowed is because Microsoft would be illegally exploiting their monopoly on personal computer[1] operating systems (assuming it still exists today, in a legal sense) to unfairly harm hardware competitors.And before anyone says he approves of this requirement, put it into perspective: What if Windows included a requirement that you could only use it on PCs manufactured by Microsoft themselves? All in favour, say "aye". *hears crickets chirping*
The difference here is that Apple does not have a monopoly on operating systems, if the "relevant market" includes not just OS X, but also Windows & Linux. Indeed, courts threw out Psystar's claim of monopoly abuse, since the relevant market is not just OS X, but other operating systems too.
[1] by "personal computer" I don't mean IBM PC-compatible things only, but "personal computer" in the broader sense.
-
@AssimilatedByBorg said:
But the way this situation would likely not be allowed is because Microsoft would be illegally exploiting their monopoly on personal computer[1] operating systems (assuming it still exists today, in a legal sense) to unfairly harm hardware competitors. The difference here is that Apple does not have a monopoly on operating systems, if the "relevant market" includes not just OS X, but also Windows & Linux. Indeed, courts threw out Psystar's claim of monopoly abuse, since the relevant market is not just OS X, but other operating systems too.
We are not concerned with the software market here. The issue is that the Mac OS X license requires users to have Apple hardware --- what other OSs are out there does not matter (although I wouldn't be surprised if the license for Apple computers contains a clause like "Only an Apple-approved and -branded operating system may run on this hardware. Additionally, the user is required to bow down in the direction of Infinite Loop Drive at least five times a day."). In doing so, Apple locks OS X users into Apple hardware, even if they'd much rather purchase better-priced non-Apple-stamped hardware.
-
I lean free market (though will allow exceptions for certain circumstances) and you'd have to prove to me that allow this behavior does substantial harm. Most of the "potential harm" that I can see actually cuts the other direction. What if you want some Mac OS-only software? Isn't that much more likely to happen the other direction in the real world? What if you want super high end hardware? You can get that, too, for the PC. You can get higher-end than what comes with Mac OS and lower end. Granted, the law doesn't always follow common sense, but it seems to me that the burden of proof should be on Psystar here. Why should Apple be required to sell to people they have chosen not to? Either end users that don't want their hardware directly, or to Psystar as a reseller?
And as a response to AltSysrq, if Microsoft tried this directly I'd support the government stepping in in one of two ways. Either directly forbid it, or make a concerted effort to making ALL government documents available in a format besides .doc or .xls. I'd prefer they do that anyway, but I don't feel like it justifies a break in the free market mentality unless they well and truly abuse that position (more so than they already possibly are).
As for the claims of lack of copyright, I know that they have a copyright on 10.5 in general (presumably from the title 10.5.0, though it wasn't spelled out) and I'd be very surprised if they "forgot" to register 10.5.5. Even if they did, you can bet that 10.5.6 will be registered 20 different ways. They've really gotten desperate to put at least one chink in Apple's legal armor, giving slightly more credence to the theory Apple has been spouting about there being some bigger power funding this thing.
It's been rightly pointed out that Apple can't get too much in the way of damages IF they didn't file the copyright. However, Psystar would STILL not be able to sell computers with OS X pre-installed. Not registering doesn't mean that the code is public domain. Not by a long shot, you're just limited in the TYPE of damages that you can sue for. Really Psystar, in reaching for this, basically admits that they have exhaused all possible ways that they could logically win. They're going for any minute chink now.
-
@AltSysrq said:
We are not concerned with the software market here. The issue is that the Mac OS X license requires users to have Apple hardware --- what other OSs are out there does not matter (although I wouldn't be surprised if the license for Apple computers contains a clause like "Only an Apple-approved and -branded operating system may run on this hardware. Additionally, the user is required to bow down in the direction of Infinite Loop Drive at least five times a day."). In doing so, Apple locks OS X users into Apple hardware, even if they'd much rather purchase better-priced non-Apple-stamped hardware.
Microsoft is a software company, and Apple is a computer company. They sell a bundle of products that aren't separable. This kind of bundling is common and legal in many scenarios. Printers and ink, shavers and blades, etc. It can be annoying depending on your position -- I hate the bundling of ink to printers -- but I don't mind the bundling of Mac OS to Apple hardware.
And you can actually run any OS you want on Apple hardware (legally speaking); getting them to boot on the newer hardware might be tricky, though. Of course, you still have to pay for the Mac OS license even if you don't use it.
-
@bstorer said:
Psystar's claim is that at least one of those copyrights isn't registered. No matter how much of the code is under a previous copyright, you simply cannot take action for infringement without a registered copyright.
Fortunately for Apple, it doesn't matter how much infringed material isn't registered; as long as [i]any[/i] material is, they have a basis for seeking statutory damages from Psystar. (And even without a registration before the infringment, they can still sue for actual damages; I believe there's still some question as to whether Psystar actually obtained licenses for all of the copies they sold.)
-
@ATimson said:
Fortunately for Apple, it doesn't matter how much infringed material isn't registered; as long as any material is, they have a basis for seeking statutory damages from Psystar.
Right. Statutory damages aren't going to wind up bankrupting whoever is behind this case (if it is indeed not Psystar by its lonesome), but it is still a win. Short of the Hand Of God personally intervening, Apple has basically won. It's just a matter of if Apple's legal position going forward is damaged in even the tiniest way or if it's an all-out win.
@ATimson said:
(And even without a registration before the infringment, they can still sue for actual damages; I believe there's still some question as to whether Psystar actually obtained licenses for all of the copies they sold.)
Given the link posted above, I'm not entirely sure about that. Granted, historical interpretation matters so much more than actual words in our legal system (I hate that just looking up the letter of the law doesn't necessarily mean anything) but the text of the above link would STRONGLY imply that if you change a single bit in the resulting binary, the entire thing is not registered. Yet another place where the law for software is stupid probably due to historical misunderstanding that was never important enough to fix. I don't personally think that changing a constant (which would without a doubt change the resulting binary at least one bit) makes a whole new program, personally.
But as I stated before, even if they aren't registered the binary's not public domain, Apple still has a right to stop them from selling going forward (they just can't sue for inflated sense of damages), and Psystar has still lost by any reasonable definition.
-
I think it's so cool that we have so many copyright lawyers on this board. Especially ones that have studied all the documents and evidence in such depth for this trial.
-
@savar said:
This kind of bundling is common and legal in many scenarios. Printers and ink, shavers and blades, etc. It can be annoying depending on your position -- I hate the bundling of ink to printers -- but I don't mind the bundling of Mac OS to Apple hardware.
And you can actually run any OS you want on Apple hardware (legally speaking)
Except that theres no attempt to make it illegal for you to put a Gilette blade on a Wilkinson Sword handle, or a HP cartridge in an Epson printer. You'll likey need to do a fair bit of fiddling to get it to work phsyically, but it's fully legal. Apple try to make it illegal for you to install OSX on non-Apple hardware.
-
@savar said:
Microsoft is a software company, and Apple is a computer company. They sell a bundle of products that aren't separable. This kind of bundling is common and legal in many scenarios.
Except that there is a legal precedent on this making it illegal. IBM used to bundle softwar + hardware until they got slammed for that. In fact, there is a current lawsuit concerning a similar issue; IBM claims that running z/OS on non-zSeries hardware is illegal. Of course, in that case the hardware itself is different (z/OS running under VM's when not in zSeries mainframes), but I'm pretty sure that if IBM loses this, Psystar would definitely win this one.If Apple truly wants its OS to run only in Apple hardware, they should return to PPC. Currently Macs are nothing more than overpriced PCs with an apple.
