# Ballsy move du Jour: Psystar licences their hack



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Just when you thought it couldn't get more interesting...

Makes me think that this guy is Psystar's founder.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

"At Psystar, we say when you're in a hole, KEEP DIGGING!"


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Are the guys that run Psystar related to the guys at Pirate Bay?


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

This whole situation does seem wierd to me. It's one thing for them to be selling PCs with OSX installed, which I also think is wrong, but to start selling the hackintosh kit, not even giving it away, this could be a big mistake, even for their current legal case.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Psystar just gets their kicks by being so defiant.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lars said:


> Psystar just gets their kicks by being so defiant.


Ya I noticed, that is why I asked if they are related to the guys from Pirate Bay... they all seem to be cut from the same cloth.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

Is pirate bay another apple rip off? Sorry, if this seems stupid, but I have never heard of them.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

DR Hannon said:


> Is pirate bay another apple rip off? Sorry, if this seems stupid, but I have never heard of them.


They are a torrent site.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

I've said it since the beginning of this whole Psystar thing, and I still think it will come to pass:

I think Apple will be the one paying money to Psystar in the end. Either to buy them, or to just pay them to go away. The more Psystar dances around like a crazy dog, the more likely the latter seems to me. At some point Apple is going get tired of playing a game that doesn't look like it will ever end.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

The danger with Psystar at the end of the day is they could win, the true stupidity though remains Apple entrusting Mac OS X to Intel EFI and not proprietary firmware.

EFI was discredited long before the first Intel Mac shipped. 

The very idea of "software licensing" is coming under significant challenges as it is being successfully argued that software isn't licensed but sold. It isn't the name - it is the characteristics of the transaction that define the sale and what obligations might bind the buyer. 

The really interesting question remains, who is it that is interested enough in this issue to fund Psystar?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Trevor... said:


> The very idea of "software licensing" is coming under significant challenges as it is being successfully argued that software isn't licensed but sold. It isn't the name - it is the characteristics of the transaction that define the sale and what obligations might bind the buyer.


Totally agreed. the very idea that software is just a license is ludicrous. If you buy a physical manufactured product at the retail level, it's physically yours. You didn't rent it, license it, etc, you bought it. Thank God courts are finally starting to smarten up to this, and are throwing out the software manufacturers divorced-from-reality claims.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

bsenka said:


> Totally agreed. the very idea that software is just a license is ludicrous. If you buy a physical manufactured product at the retail level, it's physically yours. You didn't rent it, license it, etc, you bought it. Thank God courts are finally starting to smarten up to this, and are throwing out the software manufacturers divorced-from-reality claims.


Is it really so simple as this? Software is after all intellectual property, and while one can certainly argue that the copy you pay for, and only that copy, is your property, it is more difficult to assume that the right to reproduce it is included. The fact that it is digital makes it possible to replicate infinitely, which drives down the value of the original product.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mc3251 said:


> The fact that it is digital makes it possible to replicate infinitely, which drives down the value of the original product.


Why would it being "digital" make any difference? One can entirely use a product like MasterCAM, import whatever they want into it, and dump it to a CNC machine and make a exact clones. Does that mean a car or manufactured goods are also intellectual property, and hence, should be consigned to onerous licensing schemes and EULAs which limit or remove the end owner's right to use the product for whatever? Maybe Ford can write into the license that one has to use Esso Gas only, and can only carry wood on a Tuesday.

Not that I support Psystar, but really, I think it points to the very real fact that all operating systems should comply with an open standard method of drive partitioning, and open standard boot sequence, and open standard ways of allowing multiple boot schemes as well as unlimited virtualization. People should be free to do what they wish with their machine, so long as they comply with the law (rather than being forced to comply with some hooey of an EULA).


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Possible or not, copying a car is a lot more difficult, or as they say, everyone would be doing it.
It's like the copyright laws on music or videos. If an artist creates a song, shouldn't they own the rights to it in some manner? If they can only sell it once at which point the person who bought it can sell it over and over, that hardly seems fair.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mc3251 said:


> It's like the copyright laws on music or videos. If an artist creates a song, shouldn't they own the rights to it in some manner?


Sure, but that only happens if the artist takes the hard path and goes entirely Indie. Otherwise, it is the record companies that score large, and give the artist virtually nothing - and in some cases, the record companies even try to steal the artists name, like in the case of Prince.

I also think that there is a difference, since an artist is making an end product that stands; while many software companies engage in anti-competitive practices in order to impede competition. Stuff like multiple booting and virtualization do not impede for even one moment on profits or rights, but rather, stifles the ability of a user to select from an array of products depending on their need and application. No one is saying that this will allow unbridled piracy of warez, but rather, would entirely allow any system to run whatever operating system they choose - and thus, copyright would certainly apply to the OSes that are used, while freeing up the ability to run an operating system of choice on a system of ones choice.



> If they can only sell it once at which point the person who bought it can sell it over and over, that hardly seems fair.


No one is talking about buying a CD then becoming a music store doling out that product. If the point of a purchase is to purchase the right to a set of music, and the purchase price is all about royalties and paying for the work itself - then it shouldn't matter one iota if the user decides to migrate that media to any other media for their own personal use - since they have purchased the right to that product.

Thus, the concept of perfect digital copies simply doesn't matter, since it is the right of any end user to play the music they purchased on whatever equipment they choose, so long as they are not engaged in the distribution of that product since that would obviously contravene the concept of paying royalties.

My point about cars is that it just isn't "digital" works that can be exactly reproduced, but rather, pretty much any manufactured article. If one wanted and was patient enough, they could build an exact replica of any car. It is obvious that the costs would be far greater than just going out and buying the real article - but it serves as an example that it is not only music or video that can be digitally reproduced, but all sorts of goods. And no manufacturer places an EULA on a car, nor do they regulate what kinds of roads you are allowed to drive on, or what gas you can use, or what you can put into that car - so the software industry and the music industry should play by the same rules.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> Why would it being "digital" make any difference? One can entirely use a product like MasterCAM, import whatever they want into it, and dump it to a CNC machine and make a exact clones.


The average person can't clone a car or any other manufactured and assembled product and you know it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bsenka said:


> Totally agreed. the very idea that software is just a license is ludicrous. If you buy a physical manufactured product at the retail level, it's physically yours. You didn't rent it, license it, etc, you bought it. Thank God courts are finally starting to smarten up to this, and are throwing out the software manufacturers divorced-from-reality claims.


All you buy is a disk. That's it, the rest of the money pays for your license to use what is contained on that disk within the use restrictions contained in the EULA. If you think you can pay only $129 to *"own"* OS X and Apple's associated development costs etc., you are dreaming in technicolor. Licensing is the way it should be and for it to be otherwise would kill innovation and drive software developers out of business. How could they ever afford to develop their products if the first guy who bought it would have the right to do whatever he pleased with the software and/or the code?

It is naive to think that as a consumer you paid your hard earned $129 so I "should have the right to do what ever I please with it". Ya right, what about the company that spent hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars developing it, those who actually created it? They don't have any right to limit what you can do with *their* product. Let's get real.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> My point about cars is that it just isn't "digital" works that can be exactly reproduced, but rather, pretty much any manufactured article. If one wanted and was patient enough, they could build an exact replica of any car. It is obvious that the costs would be far greater than just going out and buying the real article - but it serves as an example that it is not only music or video that can be digitally reproduced, but all sorts of goods. And no manufacturer places an EULA on a car, nor do they regulate what kinds of roads you are allowed to drive on, or what gas you can use, or what you can put into that car - so the software industry and the music industry should play by the same rules.


But it is a moot point because the manufactures of these products know that no one is going to do this. The digital era has created a new paradigm for the "products" that are made thus the notion of "intellectual property" to think that they should have to play by the "same rules" as those that still operate in the industrial age is nonsense because they are two completely different paradigms.

The analogy of they don't dictate what road you drive on or what gas you use in not analogous precisely because in one case you are buying a manufactured tangible product that is yours. In the case of software you are not buying the code you are paying for a license to use it under certain restrictions. And again without those restrictions it would kill development and innovation.

I am really getting sick to death of the blubbering spoiled rotten consumer who think that because they lay down 1 or 2 hundred bucks they should have the right to do whatever they please with what a developer has worked long and hard on and in many cases invested thousands (and in the case of the big boys) hundreds of thousands and even millions to create.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

This might be related to the discussion at hand.

US court says software is owned, not licensed

US court says software is owned, not licensed | Pinsent Masons LLP


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jfpoole said:


> This might be related to the discussion at hand.
> 
> US court says software is owned, not licensed
> 
> US court says software is owned, not licensed | Pinsent Masons LLP


This will be undoubtedly be contested and brought to a higher court (this was only a district court).

They pretty much admitted this by saying:



> The Court said that it had to follow that case's precedent because it was older than another conflicting ruling, and that it could not choose a precedent based on the most desirable policy.
> 
> "The court’s decision today is not based on any policy judgment. Congress is both constitutionally and institutionally suited to render judgments on policy; courts generally are not," the Court ruled. "Precedent binds the court regardless of whether it would be good policy to ignore it."


This is far from over.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2009)

What's annoying about PyStar licensing their software is that they are using open source software in the first place. They are using the Chameleon bootloader, which is one of the key things that they are trying to "license" to others. It will be interesting to see where this all goes. I have a feeling that the new lawyer advised them that if they want to further push the boundaries they need a tangible non-hardware based "product" and this is it ...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mguertin said:


> What's annoying about PyStar licensing their software is that they are using open source software in the first place. They are using the Chameleon bootloader, which is one of the key things that they are trying to "license" to others. It will be interesting to see where this all goes. I have a feeling that the new lawyer advised them that if they want to further push the boundaries they need a tangible non-hardware based "product" and this is it ...


No one said Psystar wasn't a scam... beejacon


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

This discussion seems to more about the debate of morality of what Psystar is doing versus the legal implications.

The Car example. Making a knock off car for yourself, that is an unclear area of legallity, however making a knock off car and selling it in the way in which Psystar is doing, will be challenged immediately, and has been in the past. Eitherway its not very comparable.

As for Psystar itself, the challenge is whether or not Apple can dictate the use of its product, and whether or not the OS and the Hardware are the complete product, that can be upgraded, among other issues. However, the legal issues also involve the EULA in general and whether they are legal. It is a cotnract people agree to, just because one part of the contract does not necessarily invalidate the rest of it.

I don't think it would be such an issue legally, if Psystar was selling their hardware product standalone, and selling the OS, and giving away the hack. That is legally less of a problem. The issues with licensing their hack, that could actually be more illegal than selling preinstalled on the the hardware.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Psystar is still a scam...


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> ^^^
> Psystar is still a scam...


Ya.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

screature said:


> All you buy is a disk. That's it, the rest of the money pays for your license to use what is contained on that disk within the use restrictions contained in the EULA. If you think you can pay only $129 to *"own"* OS X


Nobody has ever said for $129 you own the rights to an operating system. But it is increasingly being found that you own a single copy of that operating system and all first sale rights that go along with it. 

Purchase, Lease, License, Rent, Borrow. These are all words with very specific meanings and characteristics. You can't call a transaction a license when it has all the characteristics of a purchase or any other combination of the above.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

screature said:


> All you buy is a disk. That's it, the rest of the money pays for your license to use what is contained on that disk within the use restrictions contained in the EULA. If you think you can pay only $129 to *"own"* OS X and Apple's associated development costs etc., you are dreaming in technicolor. Licensing is the way it should be and for it to be otherwise would kill innovation and drive software developers out of business. How could they ever afford to develop their products if the first guy who bought it would have the right to do whatever he pleased with the software and/or the code?
> 
> It is naive to think that as a consumer you paid your hard earned $129 so I "should have the right to do what ever I please with it". Ya right, what about the company that spent hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars developing it, those who actually created it? They don't have any right to limit what you can do with *their* product. Let's get real.


Thankfully, courts are becoming more rational than your argument. 

You bought it, of course you own it. Of course you can do whatever you want with it. The very idea that the software companies would have the gall to try to put limits on what I can do with it is patently offensive.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

I am just guessing based on his location and position he might be an Adobe employee.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Trevor... said:


> Nobody has ever said for $129 you own the rights to an operating system. But it is increasingly being found that you own a single copy of that operating system and all first sale rights that go along with it.
> 
> Purchase, Lease, License, Rent, Borrow. These are all words with very specific meanings and characteristics. You can't call a transaction a license when it has all the characteristics of a purchase or any other combination of the above.


Ok, cool. Thats fine if you want to make your own hackintosh, but it is very different if you are selling it the way it is being sold.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

bsenka said:


> Thankfully, courts are becoming more rational than your argument.
> 
> You bought it, of course you own it. Of course you can do whatever you want with it. The very idea that the software companies would have the gall to try to put limits on what I can do with it is patently offensive.


Emphasis on the word "patent". You know what the deal is when you buy the product. There is no gall involved. If you don't like the rules, you don't have to buy the product.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

fjnmusic said:


> If you don't like the rules, you don't have to buy the product.


My $129 says I make the rules.


----------



## mac_geek (May 14, 2005)

bsenka said:


> My $129 says I make the rules.


Just because you're allowed to buy a gun doesn't mean you're allowed to shoot it.

Lots of things we purchase come with legal restrictions on usage.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Emphasis on the word "patent". You know what the deal is when you buy the product. There is no gall involved. If you don't like the rules, you don't have to buy the product.


Not quite - since the EULA is inside the package, and once you open the package, you own it...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mac_geek said:


> Just because you're allowed to buy a gun doesn't mean you're allowed to shoot it.
> 
> Lots of things we purchase come with legal restrictions on usage.


Of course, if one buys software, one should be entitled to run the software on a computer...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

bsenka said:


> My $129 says I make the rules.


Sure it does. So does mine. And the EULA you accept when you install the software says you can make all the rules you want, as long as they fall within the parameters of the EULA. One of my rules is that nobody installs software on my computer except me. Every piece of software has an EULA, even freeware. Why are you so certain of your entitlement to do otherwise?


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

It's a debate that can rage on endlessly. The software on that disc is the intellectual property of someone else. They invented it, they figured it out, they did the work and the testing necessary to make it work. They invested money, time, and energy into it. They did this so that they could sell its use and capabilities to others, to create a return on their investment. I realize this is stating the obvious, but some of the statements in this thread just seem obtuse to me.
I do think that I should be able to use it in whatever way I want, within limits, and one of the most important limits is that I don't get to resell it and steal the profits from the entity that created and owns it.
Of course at some point we get commoditization, which is a whole new argument.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mc3251 said:


> It's a debate that can rage on endlessly. The software on that disc is the intellectual property of someone else. They invented it, they figured it out, they did the work and the testing necessary to make it work. They invested money, time, and energy into it. They did this so that they could sell its use and capabilities to others, to create a return on their investment. I realize this is stating the obvious, but some of the statements in this thread just seem obtuse to me.
> I do think that I should be able to use it in whatever way I want, within limits, and one of the most important limits is that I don't get to resell it and steal the profits from the entity that created and owns it.
> Of course at some point we get commoditization, which is a whole new argument.


:clap: :clap: :clap: It is amazing to me what some people think they should get for $129.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I just think OSX should run on whatever machine - and perhaps we can get rid of the scurvy of Windoze at long last...


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

I really don't understand why this is a cause for such passion for some people, I can't imagine the same outrage could be found on Autodesk oriented message boards. 

IP Products are becoming more common, it is only natural that consumer rights will evolve to reflect that. Were this not Apple - I doubt a single one of you would care. 

Were the target Sony or Microsoft I bet you would be cheering.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Trevor... said:


> Were the target Sony or Microsoft I bet you would be cheering.


No, not really. In a similar matter to the psystar case I would support my current sentiments. On a personal usage level, I don't really believe that some of eula is all that big of a deal, and apple does care not too much on the personal usage, this more about the commercialization of the problem.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ertman said:


> ...and apple does care not too much on the personal usage, this more about the commercialization of the problem.


+1 I think that is right.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

screature said:


> +1 I think that is right.


I think Apple would have a tough time making a case against an individual for having a Hackintosh, since Apple does not build machines in the categories that are the usual targets for such enthusiasts. Even harder when OSX is based on the MachOS, which is based on BSD - which is free to start with.

As for the cost - OSX comes on a DVD, which is like a dollar, with some packaging, so like, three dollars - so they are entirely making a huge heap of cash to start with.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

The question, even where Psystar is concerned is nothing more than is software licensed or sold? As Psystar too is merely reselling a product they themselves bought retail. 

The very existence of the "hackintosh" itself is nothing more than stupidity as Apple "secured" Mac OS X on Intel with EFI and not proprietary firmware.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> I think Apple would have a tough time making a case against an individual for having a Hackintosh, since Apple does not build machines in the categories that are the usual targets for such enthusiasts. Even harder when OSX is based on the MachOS, which is based on BSD - which is free to start with.
> 
> As for the cost - OSX comes on a DVD, which is like a dollar, with some packaging, so like, three dollars - so they are entirely making a huge heap of cash to start with.


Cmon Evan you know that you aren't paying just for the expense of the disk you are paying to cover the cost of development, salaries, etc. You should also know that within Apples business model OS X is pretty much a loss leader for hardware sales.

Did you ever watch the movie Flash of Genius? If you did you will know that it wouldn't be hard for Apple to defend their OS despite it being based on pre-existing "technology"


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

fjnmusic said:


> Every piece of software has an EULA, even freeware. Why are you so certain of your entitlement to do otherwise?


Because I don't recognize them as having any right to even have a EULA in the first place. Their rights consist solely of expecting me to actually pay for their product, they do not have any right to tell me what I can and can't do with it after that.

Try to imagine a world where other products used the logic the software makers do. You buy a bunch of groceries, and you open a package at home and notice that inside it says "by opening this package you agree not to serve this with broccoli". No rational person is going to think that it a binding agreement. The idea that a EULA is binding is equally ludicrous.



mc3251 said:


> I do think that I should be able to use it in whatever way I want, within limits, and one of the most important limits is that I don't get to resell it and steal the profits from the entity that created and owns it.


Make copies and sell them, no. That would be counterfeiting. Reselling the exact unit that you bought, of course you can.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

screature said:


> Cmon Evan you know that you aren't paying just for the expense of the disk you are paying to cover the cost of development, salaries, etc. You should also know that within Apples business model OS X is pretty much a loss leader for hardware sales.
> 
> Did you ever watch the movie Flash of Genius? If you did you will know that it wouldn't be hard for Apple to defend their OS despite it being based on pre-existing "technology"


+1
This is what I meant when I referred to obtuse statements in this thread, Evan. It is just silly to suggest that the cost of an OS disk is limited to the blank disc and packaging.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Trevor... said:


> I really don't understand why this is a cause for such passion for some people, I can't imagine the same outrage could be found on Autodesk oriented message boards.


AutoDesk isn't limiting the user to very specific machines - though it would be most excellent if they would actually support OSX. AutoCAD will run on any laptop, mini tower, tower, or whatever - so long as one meets the video and CPU requirements. They also do not demand specific software that can run along side it - really, you can have anything loaded on the machine and AutoCAD will still run.



> Were the target Sony or Microsoft I bet you would be cheering.


What would make me cheer is if all Operating System had to be Open Source, so that people could fix the problems and maintain the systems in the time after the developers get bored and abandon it for some other set of buggy, ill conceived applications.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

screature said:


> Cmon Evan you know that you aren't paying just for the expense of the disk you are paying to cover the cost of development, salaries, etc.


Sure, but my point is that Apple scores plenty of cash with their Operating System because an OS is cheap to produce. There are profits beyond the bare OS itself, like the integration of iTunes with the iTunes store, etc.

Plus, once they sell a few thousand copies, they are scoring profits, from the millions that update to the newest, and from the people that end up buying an Apple simply because it works (unlike the competition that offers dreck with the worst pile of poo ever called an OS).

I still think that people should be able to run an OS on whatever machine, especially when Apple does not make machines for key markets, like a mini tower for home enthusiasts, or a netbook or 12" laptop for those that want to hit HotSpots. Not saying that Psystar is good - but they are making a point - that it is high time for Apple to make their OS legitimately available to the masses.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> ...that it is high time for Apple to make their OS legitimately available to the masses.


It already is... when they buy a Mac.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

The cost of making the DVD, the hardware, development, etc aside. This case is about the commercialization of the Hackintosh, the legitimacy of the EULA, protection of their products, and a few other things. People are missing the point, that it is not about the individual peron, its not about Joe Somebody buying it and installing it on their Dell Mini.

What is also being missed is that Psystar is not just selling their Hackintoshes, but there is potential harm in what they are doing to Apple's business. This harm is not just from a direct loss of sales, but also an indirect loss of sales. Remember the MacClones? While the clones did take away from Mac sales, their main mark was left when many were also poorly built, and harmed the reputation of the Mac product.

People may not like restrictions to protect business, but if they were not there, than I doubt Apple would even be around now.



Btw, Apple is not a loss leader in hardware sales, but the premium does not really exist like people think it does.

Personally, I hope that they never do release it as a general OS, because then you would see the ultimate decline of the OS itself (similar to windows).


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bsenka said:


> Because I don't recognize them as having any right to even have a EULA in the first place. Their rights consist solely of expecting me to actually pay for their product, they do not have any right to tell me what I can and can't do with it after that.
> 
> Try to imagine a world where other products used the logic the software makers do. You buy a bunch of groceries, and you open a package at home and notice that inside it says "by opening this package you agree not to serve this with broccoli". No rational person is going to think that it a binding agreement. The idea that a EULA is binding is equally ludicrous.
> 
> ...


Aren't you the rebel. 

Your analogy doesn't hold up. The world does exist with arrangements like the one Apple has with it's EULA. 

Here is a better analogy. It is more along the lines of renting a car. Just because you pay for the use of it, regardless of how much you pay, does that mean the car is yours? If you were to choose to be a rebel in this regard in the same manner as you are with Apple's EULA I think you would find yourself behind bars pretty quickly.

Just because you pay to use something doesn't make it yours and this is exactly the case with your *use* of OS X. You pay to have the privilege to use it, the disk you buy it on is yours the OS is Apple's and they have the right to tell what you can and can't do with it. Just like when you rent a car, some companies will restrict you from leaving Canada and you can only drive it here. Same sort of deal.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

screature said:


> Aren't you the rebel.
> 
> Your analogy doesn't hold up. The world does exist with arrangements like the one Apple has with it's EULA.
> 
> ...


Really? What's the return time for my boxed Snow Leopard? What are the late fees? Are there per-click charges?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bsenka said:


> Really? What's the return time for my boxed Snow Leopard? What are the late fees? Are there per-click charges?


:lmao: :lmao: It's analogy, obviously the details vary, that is why it is called a EULA.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Thing is, the Psystar case goes beyond EULA, especially with Psystar now using Apple trademarks and copyrights in their advertising. Psystar makes themselves look like they are an Apple authorized dealer, and they aren't. They aren't allowed to use the Apple trademark. They are just digging themselves deeper in a hole they are never going to get out of.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Kosh said:


> Thing is, the Psystar case goes beyond EULA, especially with Psystar now using Apple trademarks and copyrights in their advertising. Psystar makes themselves look like they are an Apple authorized dealer, and they aren't. They aren't allowed to use the Apple trademark. They are just digging themselves deeper in a hole they are never going to get out of.


Yes I completely agree.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

I also agree. While far be it from me to defend Apple's rights (they have plenty of lawyers who do just that), fair is fair after all.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Kosh said:


> Thing is, the Psystar case goes beyond EULA, especially with Psystar now using Apple trademarks and copyrights in their advertising. Psystar makes themselves look like they are an Apple authorized dealer, and they aren't. They aren't allowed to use the Apple trademark. They are just digging themselves deeper in a hole they are never going to get out of.


They're showing a retail box of Snow Leopard because that's what the computers ship with. Nothing wrong with advertising a product that you sell. Nothing wrong with buying a product from one source, and reselling it bundled with your products.


----------



## Orion (Apr 16, 2004)

I suppose it's nit picking at this stage, but at the bottom of Psystar's support FAQ page the disclaimer states that you understand that "Apple Computers, Inc." will not support the machine. To my knowledge Apple has never been known by the plural and had already changed its name by the time Psystar came into the market.

I don't have a copy of their EULA or any of their paperwork, but if they have that same wording in their customer contracts I would think that they are missing a key disclaimer. And, no, I am not a lawyer.

Second note:
From Psystar's description of what they send to you and when, again from a technically picky POV, the copy of OSX they send to you cannot be used to restore the computer without more software from Psystar. To get this software you have to fill out a form and send off for it (no charge).

I find it odd that something necessary to the re-installation of the OS is not included in the original box, although I suspect it is done this way to avoid being accused of selling someone else's IP illegally (the question of reselling a sealed box of software aside).

Third note:
Nowhere that I have found on the Psystar site (yeah, I looked reeeeeeally hard *cough*  ) do they mention anywhere any of the usual, "OSX is a trademark of..." etc.. Even Amazon posts such notices and so do many (if not all) resellers of other companies products.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

screature said:


> It is more along the lines of renting a car. Just because you pay for the use of it, regardless of how much you pay, does that mean the car is yours?


But the rental isn't yours - you are only borrowing it.

An OS, on the other hand, is a purchased item. It's not rented - you own it, and it is not borrowed or anything like that.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> But the rental isn't yours - you are only borrowing it.
> 
> An OS, on the other hand, is a purchased item. It's not rented - you own it, and it is not borrowed or anything like that.


No it's not yours. Its Apple's, you just buy a license to use it. That is how it is like renting it, it's not your's you pay for the right to use it within certain restrictions.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

Once again, the word LICENSE means something when describing a transaction.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Trevor... said:


> Once again, the word LICENSE means something when describing a transaction.


It DOESN'T mean you can do whatever you want. Does a driver's license mean you can do whatever you want when you are on the road, or whatever you want with your car? Hardly. It means you can legally drive a car within the restrictions of the rules of the road. A EULA means you can legally use *their* software within the limitations of the EULA. What's so hard to understand?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

It always amazes me when people can't get there heads around the transactions and licensing of software and the laws created because of its uniqueness. Unique in that it isn't a physical piece of hardware, that its essentially 0's & 1's. 

It's like, I bought Mac OS X, now its mine! Give your head a shake!!! 

We live in a civil society where we develop laws. I bought property with a house. Because its my property, can I say... It's mine, I can do what I want! Then start huge bon-fires. 

With the grocery analogy.. Yes you can eat it with cheese and potatoes... But try taking that over the border!

Software is sold with licenses because it is a unique product that requires a unique way of selling it. Why is that so hard to understand? Don't like it? Don't buy it!

Pystar is a leech in the tech world. The sooner they go out of business the better. tptptptp


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

A drivers license is a permit issued by the state, a software license is how the software industry prefers to describe an instance of a piece of software. 

If the target wasn't Apple nobody would muster a great deal of passion on the subject. Nobody was worked up into a righteous frothing anger when Autodesk was defeated in court on the licensed vs. sold matter last year. 

The only thing I find interesting about Psystar is somebody is spending alot of money for a high-profile showdown. But who?


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

ehMax said:


> It always amazes me when people can't get there heads around the transactions and licensing of software and the laws created because of its uniqueness. Unique in that it isn't a physical piece of hardware, that its essentially 0's & 1's.
> 
> It's like, I bought Mac OS X, now its mine! Give your head a shake!!!
> 
> ...


:clap:



Trevor... said:


> A drivers license is a permit issued by the state, a software license is how the software industry prefers to describe an instance of a piece of software.


Splitting analogical hairs much? a License has nothing to do with how to describe software. It is the vehicle of how it is sold, which includes all the rights, privileges, and restrictions (as seen in the EULA) that go with the use of it. This isn't smoke and mirrors, it is a contractual obligation of the enduser (the EU in EULA) to follow the clauses outlined in the agreement (the A in EULA), when they agree to it (as defined in the EULA).



Trevor... said:


> If the target wasn't Apple nobody would muster a great deal of passion on the subject. Nobody was worked up into a righteous frothing anger when Autodesk was defeated in court on the licensed vs. sold matter last year.
> 
> The only thing I find interesting about Psystar is somebody is spending alot of money for a high-profile showdown. But who?


I have already said I would be arguing this point whether adobe, MS, Sony etc. Its not just Apple. It is tough to work up a righteous frothing over a court decision, as it is the application of the law regarding EULA enforceability, and whether moral or not, is the legal standing of the arguement. I would also point out that the court decision was not to strike down EULAs entirely but only portions, or individual clauses. This is common in many legal contracts, and by deeming a particular clause to be invalid/unenforceable does not negate the entire contract.

As already stated. If you can not agree, to the EULA, then you should not be using the software. A disagreement with the EULA does not necessarily mean that it is legal ok to do whatever you want with your purchase to the license for that particular software. But as I stated before, I am sure that on a personal level you can do whatever you want with your licensed software, but it is still not necessarily legal.

With the Psystar case, I wonder how they could be affording to do all this, obviously interested 3rd parties, but still.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

ehMax said:


> Software is sold with licenses because it is a unique product that requires a unique way of selling it. Why is that so hard to understand? Don't like it? Don't buy it!


You should work for their marketing departments, "Please do not buy our product!"


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

ertman said:


> Splitting analogical hairs much? a License has nothing to do with how to describe software. It is the vehicle of how it is sold.


And once again, the world LICENSE has a specific meaning - LICENSING does not describe the transaction by which the extreme majority of software is obtained by end users. 

This was the heart of the Autodesk fiasco. Autodesk said the reseller was violating the license agreement - the federal court said there was no agreement to be broken. You can't make an cherry pie was a banana and roast beef. It is either a licensing arrangement or it isn't. 

This was first litigated more than a century ago a copyrighted work in a physical form is a good that can be sold, resold and resold again in its singular form and the original seller retains minimal rights after that first sale. That is why the idea of "licensed not sold" is so appealing to various industries as a concept. But like the Autodesk fiasco the courts won't just take the vendors word for it.

That is why the software industry tends to be squeamish about litigating in non-piracy matters. In the Autodesk case it was a reseller who took Autodesk to court. The consequences are a little greater for Apple than others. Even big bad Microsoft is reluctant to go after the grey market after some "success" in Europe that only opened them to some unwelcome scrutiny.



> I have already said I would be arguing this point whether adobe, MS, Sony etc. Its not just Apple. It is tough to work up a righteous frothing over a court decision, as it is the application of the law regarding EULA enforceability, and whether moral or not, is the legal standing of the arguement. I would also point out that the court decision was not to strike down EULAs entirely but only portions, or individual clauses. This is common in many legal contracts, and by deeming a particular clause to be invalid/unenforceable does not negate the entire contract.


The courts decision was the software in question had been sold and not licensed, based on the characteristics of the transaction. That made any other restrictions or obligations irrelevant.

I don't personally believe I am in violation of any EULA of any software I use. But I am extremely interested in the developments concerning end-user ownership of digital products.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

screature said:


> No it's not yours. Its Apple's, you just buy a license to use it. That is how it is like renting it, it's not your's you pay for the right to use it within certain restrictions.


So why would I buy it is I can't own it? It sounds a lot like going out and buying a car, but nor being allowed to do anything with it because you really aren't buying a car, you are buying a license to have the car sit in your driveway.

In other words, why would someone buy something they can not own?


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Trevor... said:


> And once again, the world LICENSE has a specific meaning - LICENSING does not describe the transaction by which the extreme majority of software is obtained by end users.


Not sure of your point. If most do it one way, it can't be done another way.



Trevor... said:


> This was the heart of the Autodesk fiasco. Autodesk said the reseller was violating the license agreement - the federal court said there was no agreement to be broken. You can't make an cherry pie was a banana and roast beef. It is either a licensing arrangement or it isn't.
> 
> This was first litigated more than a century ago a copyrighted work in a physical form is a good that can be sold, resold and resold again in its singular form and the original seller retains minimal rights after that first sale. That is why the idea of "licensed not sold" is so appealing to various industries as a concept. But like the Autodesk fiasco the courts won't just take the vendors word for it.
> 
> That is why the software industry tends to be squeamish about litigating in non-piracy matters. In the Autodesk case it was a reseller who took Autodesk to court. The consequences are a little greater for Apple than others. Even big bad Microsoft is reluctant to go after the grey market after some "success" in Europe that only opened them to some unwelcome scrutiny.


Yes, this Autodesk example is great for legal arguments of EULA's but the Autodesk case is not similar to the one between Psystar and Apple, and it to did not strike down EULA's. That case was about specific issues unrelated to my argument, and had to do with different issues that were deemed unenforceable by the court, but once again has nothing to do with the specifics of this particular issue. Just because one clause is thrown out does not necessarily negate and entire agreement.




Trevor... said:


> The courts decision was the software in question had been sold and not licensed, based on the characteristics of the transaction. That made any other restrictions or obligations irrelevant.


I don't actually believe that this is necessarily correct. While the software may "sold" does not mean that it is free from restrictions, that case had to do with specific restrictions being challenged and won. The EULA has yet to be deemed completely illegal... at least in NA court as far as I am aware.

I find it interesting the use of some of the examples used to demonstrate specific points, and while they may be limited to the point, people believe that extending the example beyond its intention (to demonstrate a specific point) to prove its false. Basically and EULA is a legally binding contract between the End User and the software maker, until the courts deem it unenforceable/invalid, much like many other agreements people enter into on a daily basis.

I too am awaiting to see the results of this case to see the results. But legally, as it currently stand Psystar is in the wrong, hence their challenge in court.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> So why would I buy it is I can't own it? It sounds a lot like going out and buying a car, but nor being allowed to do anything with it because you really aren't buying a car, you are buying a license to have the car sit in your driveway.
> 
> In other words, why would someone buy something they can not own?


Technically if it were thought of a license, wouldn't your analogy be closer to leasing a car? Where you are restricted in its use.

Now if a piece of software is "sold" completely outright to you, a car is not software, and this analogy is not very comparable, and does not present any real useful information about the treatment of software.

My general thought is that software is licensed, well sort-of. I think that it is a quasi-licensed/sold product, that software companies are trying to address with EULA. While I do think that a person buys a piece of software, they own that piece and can resell, install on newer hardware, etc. However, I also think that there are some rights that the software companies have with how the software is used. What rights do they have? I don't know for sure, but that is why there is courts and that is why I await the solution to the Psystar case.

An example of my point of the quasi-relationship. As a company, I can buy a copy of AutoCad, but I don't think its my right to install my single copy on a hundred PCs (although the cost of of AutoCad is insane, but it is beside the point).


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Trevor... said:


> And once again, the world LICENSE has a specific meaning - LICENSING does not describe the transaction by which the extreme majority of software is obtained by end users.


And what exactly do you think license means? The freedom to do what ever you want? This is only ONE of the meanings of license. Here is what license means:



> license |ˈlīsəns|
> noun ( Brit. licence)
> *a permit from an authority* to own or *use something, do a particular thing*, or carry on a trade (esp. in alcoholic beverages) : a gun license | [as adj. ] vehicle license fees.
> • *formal or official permission to do something* : logging is permitted under license from the Forest Service.
> ...


When you buy a DVD with software on it this is merely the means by which the owner of the software distributes the software to you that you are paying for the right or permission to use. The licence, as with any license, has certain restrictions.

I can almost guarantee you that the Autodesk ruling will be overturned by a Superior court being that the precedent that they used to make their ruling was antiquated and not truly relevant to the situation that software represents. It is a new (relative to a copy of of a film) paradigm.

If it is not overturned there will again almost certainly be new legislation created to properly address the new paradigm that software and other intellectual property represent. Again the court itself recognized and and acknowledged as much when the said:


> The Court said that it had to follow that case's precedent because it was older than another conflicting ruling, and that it could not choose a precedent based on the most desirable policy.
> 
> "The court’s decision today is not based on any policy judgment. Congress is both constitutionally and institutionally suited to render judgments on policy; courts generally are not," the Court ruled. "Precedent binds the court regardless of whether it would be good policy to ignore it."


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> So why would I buy it is I can't own it? It sounds a lot like going out and buying a car, but nor being allowed to do anything with it because you really aren't buying a car, you are buying a license to have the car sit in your driveway.
> 
> In other words, why would someone buy something they can not own?


This is just deliberately obtuse, Evan. 
When you buy a copy of software, it is always with the understanding that there are some limits on how you can use it. The purchase of a SINGLE COPY of a software title usually allows you to use it on a single machine at a time (for instance), although there are some exceptions, obviously, depending on the software's EULA. Why is it so hard to understand that if you buy a SINGLE COPY you can use it as you wish as long as you don't use it to generate additional copies that you didn't pay for. It shouldn't be hard to understand why a company or person who has invested much time and money in developing something doesn't want to simply give it away.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

ertman said:


> Technically if it were thought of a license, wouldn't your analogy be closer to leasing a car? Where you are restricted in its use.


Sure - if the software was leased, and would need to be returned at the end of the lease period. Plus if software was leased, their would need to be a down payment followed by monthy payments, since a lease is an agreement to rent for some set period of time with a set of terms that are agreed to.

The problem with EULAs is that they put them inside the box, and once the box is opened, so you can read the EULA - it's too late, because if you choose to reject the EULA, you are stuck with it because the company will not take it back.



> Now if a piece of software is "sold" completely outright to you, a car is not software, and this analogy is not very comparable, and does not present any real useful information about the treatment of software.


It is exactly the same, since you are paying full price for the product. It is not a lease, there is no return date, or anything like that. You pay for it, you open it, you own it, and really, you can do anything you want with it - as evidenced by the fact that Micro$loth is no longer allowed to force a user to run Internet Exploder. They could easily put that term into their EULA, that Internet Exploder is an absolute requirement for the functioning of their OS - but the courts rejected that, stating that users should have free will to use whatever browser they choose, and that those clauses of the EULA were illegal and unenforcible.

I am not saying that Psystar is some kind of upstanding citizen - but their point is that once a person purchases OSX, a person should be able to run it, and that placing unequal restrictions on what machines it can or can not be used on is the same kind of anti-trust situation that the Evil Empire dug for themselves when they completely intergrated Internet Exploder into their kernel, while providing traps for any other browser that would impede operation of the machine.

I think the core of the argument will come down to Apple needing to split their OS, so that the core of OSX, based on the MachOS which is based on BSD, comes under GPL and thus, users should be able to run it on any machine - while Aqua can be restricted as Apple sees fit, even though it runs on top of a BSD based kernel. Perhaps what will end up happening in the end is that Apple will have to provide means by which a user can run any shell ontop of the MachOS kernel, so long as the kernel has been purchased, so a Mac could end up with some other shell, like Gnome or KDE - as it occurs with the free Darwin distribution that Apple releases.

Of course, I think Psystar will end up in flames, not because of OSX, but because they are contravening the GPL for distributing code and software for their own profit.



> However, I also think that there are some rights that the software companies have with how the software is used. What rights do they have? I don't know for sure...


I think it is pretty nebulous myself - and one will actually have to look at the evidence, rather than prattling about EULAs - because the case will not be about EULAs (otherwise Apple would entirely fail because they, like other software makers, do not have a way of returning an opened product if the user disagrees with the EULA, because the EULA is inside the box...) but rather, any infringments on copyright that Psystar may have engaged in to get their product to work.



> As a company, I can buy a copy of AutoCad, but I don't think its my right to install my single copy on a hundred PCs (although the cost of of AutoCad is insane, but it is beside the point).


No, but AutoDesk allows you to install AutoCAD on a single machine of your choice - while Apple is saying that you can not install OSX on say, a mini-tower, or a netbook, or a desktop of your choice, even though the machine meets all of the technical specifications (like proper CPU speed, proper memory size, proper hard drive space). It might be OK for Apple to say you can only use OSX on an actual Apple Mac - if they made a wide range of machines that people would want to use, but it is sketchy while Apple ignores large segments of the market and does not offer such machines.

I think this is the argument that Psystar will use - that none of the machines that their "system" is targetted for are even produced by Apple. But I think it will come down to the actual evidence, and what exact means that Psystar used to hack the installer so that OSX could be wedged on any machine.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mc3251 said:


> When you buy a copy of software, it is always with the understanding that there are some limits on how you can use it.


Sure, that is not being argued - the argument is that are the limits that Apple imposes actually legal. No contract will be held as valid in the courts if it contains patently illegal clauses or terms. For instance, no matter how good the contract is, you can not purchase a human as a slave - because it is illegal. Same with interest rates, and no matter what the contract is, it is illegal to charge more than 60% per annum, and hence, any such contract will be rejected.

In this case: one side is saying that they can impose any clause, that the software can only run on a specific type of machine, even those machines are a monopoly within their own market; while the other side is saying that it is software, and once purchased, can run on any type of machine that meets the minimum specifications, especially since the company does not make a range of machines suited for the needs of the users.



> The purchase of a SINGLE COPY of a software title usually allows you to use it on a single machine at a time (for instance),


Of course, this is not in dispute. Psystar is not purchasing a single copy then pirating it all around - but rather, is purchasing OSX from Apple at full price, then adding their software so that OSX can run on any machine. Single license versus multiple licenses is not an issue at all, since Psystar is not actually pirating OSX - the are buying it from Apple.

I think the case will entirely be about the software Psystar is adding - because it obviously hacks the copyrighted codes of the OSX Installer. If it was just about Apple wanting their OS to run only on their systems - they will loose because that would be using a monopolistic position within a market to their own anti-competitive advantage.

But hacking the Installer, and hacking the Software Update system - that is the cornerstone of any case Apple makes, because then they will clearly be on higher ground legally, since those will carry copyright. I think that the issue of running Aqua on an alien system is also a strong case, since that will carry copyright; while an attempt at defending the BSD based kernel is a weak case that is weakened further by the fact that anyone can download Darwin for free and compile it and run it on any machine.



> Why is it so hard to understand that if you buy a SINGLE COPY you can use it as you wish as long as you don't use it to generate additional copies that you didn't pay for.


No one misunderstand that - the case has nothing to do with that since Psystar is simply reselling OSX, like any other reseller - except that they are adding code that unlocks the Installer and Updater - which is the core of the case.



> It shouldn't be hard to understand why a company or person who has invested much time and money in developing something doesn't want to simply give it away.


It is not being given away - Psystar is buying OSX from Apple and reselling it. Apple is entirely scoring their cash on the sale of OSX. The issue is entirely about the hacking of the Installer and the Updater, and the use of Aqua (as opposed to the OSX kernel) on non-Apple machines - since that is the core of the copyright.

This is not a case of piracy, at least to our knowledge, since Psystar is actually purchasing each copy of OSX from Apple through legitimate means. It is the hacking of the code that comes into question, since these carry copyrights.


----------



## shooting_rubber (Mar 22, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> No, but AutoDesk allows you to install AutoCAD on a single machine of your choice - while Apple is saying that you can not install OSX on say, a mini-tower, or a netbook, or a desktop of your choice, even though the machine meets all of the technical specifications (like proper CPU speed, proper memory size, proper hard drive space). It might be OK for Apple to say you can only use OSX on an actual Apple Mac - if they made a wide range of machines that people would want to use, but it is sketchy while Apple ignores large segments of the market and does not offer such machines.
> 
> I think this is the argument that Psystar will use - that none of the machines that their "system" is targetted for are even produced by Apple. But I think it will come down to the actual evidence, and what exact means that Psystar used to hack the installer so that OSX could be wedged on any machine.


I don't understand the problem... If Apple makes computers and they make the software and they choose for the consumers to only allow the software on Mac's then that is their choice. Who cares if you don't think Apple doesn't make a wide variety of machines... They're really only ignoring the mini-tower and the netbook market. I don't even understand the netbook market anyways. I would never work on a screen smaller than 13 inches anyways. You wouldn't be able to get any work done. Even for browsing the web I still think it is too small. You can buy refurbished MacBook's for $900.00.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

shooting_rubber said:


> I don't understand the problem... If Apple makes computers and they make the software and they choose for the consumers to only allow the software on Mac's then that is their choice.


The argument can be made that within a market, Apple has a monopoly. Monopolies are not prohibited, but rather, using the monopoly to impose anti-competitive measures against their customers. I think you state the problem in your own sentence: "they choose for the consumers".



> Who cares if you don't think Apple doesn't make a wide variety of machines...


It doesn't matter what anyone thinks - it is the case that Psystar is putting forth, that Apple is using anti-competitive methods to maintain a monopoly by restricting the OS to proprietary hardware, and not allowing other makers to obtain a license to use their OS on other hardware, and that the machines that Psystar is targetting are those machines that Apple does not make or offer to their market.



> They're really only ignoring the mini-tower and the netbook market. I don't even understand the netbook market anyways. I would never work on a screen smaller than 13 inches anyways.


Again, that is your personal opinion - and entirely goes contrary to the market, which has gravitated to any number of diminutive machines, like Netbooks or SmartPhones. Not everyone wants to lug around some giant and heavy wide screen laptop monster. It's a market where Apple can bring out one of the thinnest laptops, the MBA, and many people still complain that it is too big, bulky and heavy.

The mini-tower is simply the dumbest move on the part of Apple, since it was a form factor that they long offered. I think it really impedes some users that want to have some peripherals, an extra drive, and some options when it comes to video cards - without the overkill of the desk sized MacPro and it's high costs. It was long a popular form factor in Apple's lineup, and it would be entirely so easy for Apple to create such a machine, at a mid-price point which would offer much better design and capabilities than any PC equivalent (which will be made of inferior plastics and look like poo), while giving something to people that are turned off by the poor video options and lack of space for a second drive of the iMac, or turned off by inferior GMA graphics of the MacMini... But that is a whole other argument altogether.

When it comes down to it, Psystar is simply trying to make an anti-trust case against Apple - which they will lose simply because they hacked the Installer and Updater functions, and purloined Aqua; not because some EULA states something that is in contravention of the law.



> You wouldn't be able to get any work done. Even for browsing the web I still think it is too small. You can buy refurbished MacBook's for $900.00.


Again, it's an opinion that is not supported by the hordes of people using iPhones or iPod Touches, nor those that are waiting to see if the iTablet comes to fruition. People want small and portable, and that generally means that a MB is far too large for today's portable market. People use Netbooks simply because they want a machine that is extremely portable and can do lightweight tasks. Plus, for the price of a MB, one can buy three typical Netbooks. Not that a Netbook is good for a power user, but then, a power user wouldn't bother with diminutive machines like the MB - when really, the MBP is the baseline machine...


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

screature said:


> And what exactly do you think license means? The freedom to do what ever you want? This is only ONE of the meanings of license. Here is what license means:


And the sale of the disputed Autodesk software wasn't any one of those things. And not only was it a sale, it was a secondary sale diminishing their rights even further.



> When you buy a DVD with software on it this is merely the means by which the owner of the software distributes the software to you that you are paying for the right or permission to use. The licence, as with any license, has certain restrictions.


And that distribution model means the software is being SOLD not LICENSED. Hence the very issue.



> I can almost guarantee you that the Autodesk ruling will be overturned by a Superior court being that the precedent that they used to make their ruling was antiquated and not truly relevant to the situation that software represents. It is a new (relative to a copy of of a film) paradigm.
> 
> If it is not overturned there will again almost certainly be new legislation created to properly address the new paradigm that software and other intellectual property represent. Again the court itself recognized and and acknowledged as much when the said:


It is a challenging issue because it is so rarely litigated that there is no great body of precedents to draw upon that are terribly specific to the Psystar affair.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> Sure - if the software was leased, and would need to be returned at the end of the lease period. Plus if software was leased, their would need to be a down payment followed by monthy payments, since a lease is an agreement to rent for some set period of time with a set of terms that are agreed to.


Thats not how ALL leases work Evan. And the Licensing agreement is closer to a Lease than an outright selling.



EvanPitts said:


> The problem with EULAs is that they put them inside the box, and once the box is opened, so you can read the EULA - it's too late, because if you choose to reject the EULA, you are stuck with it because the company will not take it back.



Nope, not true. You can actually return software where you have not agreed to the EULA, but that would have to be taken up with the manufacturer, in possible conjunction with the local store.





EvanPitts said:


> It is exactly the same, since you are paying full price for the product. It is not a lease, there is no return date, or anything like that. You pay for it, you open it, you own it, and really, you can do anything you want with it - as evidenced by the fact that Micro$loth is no longer allowed to force a user to run Internet Exploder.


Ummm.. MS and internet Explorer has nothing to do with above point. You are taking dissimilar things and say they are the same and that they back up your points.... somehow?




EvanPitts said:


> They could easily put that term into their EULA, that Internet Exploder is an absolute requirement for the functioning of their OS - but the courts rejected that, stating that users should have free will to use whatever browser they choose, and that those clauses of the EULA were illegal and unenforcible.


And that would raise Antitrust issues... and that clause of the EULA would be deemed illegal. The coursts did not reject you hypothetical EULA, once again arguing about dissimilar points.



EvanPitts said:


> I am not saying that Psystar is some kind of upstanding citizen - but their point is that once a person purchases OSX, a person should be able to run it, and that placing unequal restrictions on what machines it can or can not be used on is the same kind of anti-trust situation that the Evil Empire dug for themselves when they completely intergrated Internet Exploder into their kernel, while providing traps for any other browser that would impede operation of the machine.


Not necessarilly true. You may disagree with it, thats fine. But you are agreeing to the contractual obligations, which it is your duty to follow, until it is deemed invalid by a court. This contractual relationship exists whether you view it as fair or existant. People enter into contractual obligations all the time, and you must abide by those agreements, whether you agree with them or not. You do have a choice, you do not have to follow your contractual obligations, but their could be penalties. As for the EULA of Snow Leopard or any software, go ahead do whatever you want with them, all the power to you, but as it stands now, EULA are contracts, and it is up to the courts to determine their legitimacy.



EvanPitts said:


> I think the core of the argument will come down to Apple needing to split their OS, so that the core of OSX, based on the MachOS which is based on BSD, comes under GPL and thus, users should be able to run it on any machine - while Aqua can be restricted as Apple sees fit, even though it runs on top of a BSD based kernel. Perhaps what will end up happening in the end is that Apple will have to provide means by which a user can run any shell ontop of the MachOS kernel, so long as the kernel has been purchased, so a Mac could end up with some other shell, like Gnome or KDE - as it occurs with the free Darwin distribution that Apple releases.


Isn't that called Linux.... but seriously that makes no sense. If they did that, people would still complain about how Apple is limiting them in how they use the software, so we would be arguing about this again, listing the same point.

The point that is also up for debate is whether OSX is a truely a seperate standalone OS. This is what i appears, as you can buy newer versions, but it can also be argued that OS and the hardware are one product, and that upgrading the software is no different than adding ram.



EvanPitts said:


> Of course, I think Psystar will end up in flames, not because of OSX, but because they are contravening the GPL for distributing code and software for their own profit.


Which I believe is also one of my points regarding the actual Psystar case.




EvanPitts said:


> I think it is pretty nebulous myself - and one will actually have to look at the evidence, rather than prattling about EULAs - because the case will not be about EULAs (otherwise Apple would entirely fail because they, like other software makers, do not have a way of returning an opened product if the user disagrees with the EULA, because the EULA is inside the box...) but rather, any infringments on copyright that Psystar may have engaged in to get their product to work.


Which was my actual point aside from prattling on about EULAs




EvanPitts said:


> No, but AutoDesk allows you to install AutoCAD on a single machine of your choice - while Apple is saying that you can not install OSX on say, a mini-tower, or a netbook, or a desktop of your choice, even though the machine meets all of the technical specifications (like proper CPU speed, proper memory size, proper hard drive space). It might be OK for Apple to say you can only use OSX on an actual Apple Mac - if they made a wide range of machines that people would want to use, but it is sketchy while Apple ignores large segments of the market and does not offer such machines.


Apple limitation is specific to their hardware, I may even agree with you, on your own personal computer, but not to sell the setup as a product.



EvanPitts said:


> I think this is the argument that Psystar will use - that none of the machines that their "system" is targetted for are even produced by Apple. But I think it will come down to the actual evidence, and what exact means that Psystar used to hack the installer so that OSX could be wedged on any machine.


It may not need to require any technical information regarding hacks. There could be other legal issues with Psystar harming Apples business, among the other things including intellectual property, innovation and competition.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

ertman said:


> Thats not how ALL leases work Evan. And the Licensing agreement is closer to a Lease than an outright selling.


Except for the fact that when you buy software, you are buying the software, not renting it.  My point is that it is a product being sold, and that the purchaser should be able to use the software for whatever legal purposes they want; rather than renting it for a specific purpose.



> Nope, not true. You can actually return software where you have not agreed to the EULA, but that would have to be taken up with the manufacturer, in possible conjunction with the local store.


Stores will not accept returns on opened box software, at least any stores I have seen, even if it is over the EULA. Perhaps manufacturers would, but I have never seen it.



> Ummm.. MS and internet Explorer has nothing to do with above point. You are taking dissimilar things and say they are the same and that they back up your points.... somehow?


I do not see any dissimilarity. Micro$loth claimed that IE was a requirement for Windoze, and that they had to exclude the operation of other browsers because of grevious damages that would happen to Windoze. This was entirely rejected by the courts, and M$ agreed to separate Windoze from IE dependencies, and thus, regular web browsers can run on new versions of Windoze. In fact, the EU took it one step further, disallowing M$ to force install IE, so if someone in Europe wants IE for some reason, it is an optional install, or they download it like they would do any other browser.

This is similar to Apple, where they are attempting to force people to have Apple hardware in order to run their OS - even though that is anti-competitive, and even though their hardware can run other operating systems. But this is for the courts to decide.




> The coursts did not reject you hypothetical EULA, once again arguing about dissimilar points.


They did actually, but anti-trust ended up not being invoked because M$ settled out of court simply because they were going to lose large. Not only were they going to lose the legal case and face consequences; but corporates were rejecting M$ - which lead to M$ working to purge all of the hidden features and hooks in their OS because people wanted "trusted software". This program is not completed, since Windoze still has Ali Baba inside of it, though in a much reduced and fairly inert form.



> But you are agreeing to the contractual obligations, which it is your duty to follow, until it is deemed invalid by a court.


One can not enter into an illegal contract or illegal clauses, it is void ab initio...



> People enter into contractual obligations all the time, and you must abide by those agreements, whether you agree with them or not.


It's not an agreement if one does not agree. That is called coersion, and such contracts are void because it is fraudulent.



> ...but as it stands now, EULA are contracts, and it is up to the courts to determine their legitimacy.


And that is the process that is now in play.



> The point that is also up for debate is whether OSX is a truely a seperate standalone OS. This is what i appears, as you can buy newer versions, but it can also be argued that OS and the hardware are one product, and that upgrading the software is no different than adding ram.


But any ram you purchase and add to your Mac is something you own - and if you want, you can remove that ram and put it into any machine, like a PC, so long as it is compatible. Even if it is ram sourced by Apple, you can use it in any machine running any system, so long as it is physically and electrically compatible.

It is shown that the OS and the hardware are not one product. The hardware can run a variety of systems, like Windoze or Linux or whatever. It is also shown that the OS can entirely run on other hardware, like hackintoshes - which demonstrates that it is not some inate limitation of the OS (like the requirement that DOS had of needing BIOS to run, or OS9 needs a PPC with appropriate firmware - and hence, won't run on machines that do not have such things, like DOS won't run on a VAX and OS9 won't run on a Sun workstation). It is hard to make a case that OSX and the hardware are one integrated continuum, especially when it can be demonstrated that OSX will run on a Dell Mini 9 (or whatever it is called), with only the removal of certain hooks that obfuscate the Installer...



> Apple limitation is specific to their hardware, I may even agree with you, on your own personal computer, but not to sell the setup as a product.


I entirely think that is the case, that Psystar is reselling this as a product.



> It may not need to require any technical information regarding hacks. There could be other legal issues with Psystar harming Apples business, among the other things including intellectual property, innovation and competition.


I think it would be a hard case, to show that a penny ante operator like Psystar is doing harm to business, especially when they are reselling OSX rather than pirating it. Nor are they stealing intellectual property - in fact, Psystar could actually claim patent protection since they "improved" OSX by making innovative changes that allow it to run on a wide variety of machines. I think the only thing that goes against Psystar is the hacking of the code - which would go against the copyright protection of the Installer and Updater, and perhaps with Aqua - since that is the only proprietary portion of OSX that differs from the freely available Darwin...


----------



## WestWeb (Jul 11, 2009)

Apple just needs to let a few 300 Lb gorillas with baseball bats loose in the Psystar office building, that would solve everything. Heck they could even film it and sell copies of the video on iTunes to recoup their losses. 
"THE FIGHT OF THE CENTURY: 
Apple's Gorillas w/ Baseball bats vs. Psystar's Office folk w/ staplers.
_See The CARNAGE!_"

 Anyways... Apple makes such a damn good OS I don't think we want it to be reduced by Psystar to a level resembling that of windows. How would you like to have to choose between:
- Snow Leopard: Home edition $100
- Snow Leopard: Small Business edition $200
- Snow Leopard: Corporate edition $500
- Snow Leopard: Home Office edition $150
- Snow Leopard: Artist edition $250
- Snow Leopard: Professional edition $550

And then after lot's of research and indecision you finally choose one just to find that your having compatibility issues with one of the other editions. YAY!

:lmao: I mean really, go back to windows if this sounds like a good system to you; quit trying to push a world of third party $#%@ ups on the rest of us. Apple makes a really good product(computer and software) because they don't let other separate groups of people come up with different sets of ideas that suit them and then try to mash them all together into some sort of half ass, unsatisfactory sea of choices where the average chooser will always regret even making a decision. 

BOO PSYSTAR! I hope you go under. Apple is doing a damn fine job without you instigators messing up their plans and pushing them to be more like Microsoft. I paid a lot of money to specifically have hardware and software that was put together, and developed, by one group of people so that it all works seamlessly, effortlessly, and without ANY issues, at all. I am sick and tired of Microsoft and their third-party mentality of "Sure! Have at 'er". It just doesn't work, you will always end up with a problem: because, someone somewhere along the line forgot to account for something somebody else did somewhere else along the line. Usually you will be the one fixing the problem too: Not Microsoft, they didn't cause one of your drivers to conflict with a completely unrelated piece of software, it was just their flawed framework that allowed the driver and unrelated software to communicate in the first place. 

Please Apple, whatever it takes, don't go down that road... Or I'll :-(


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> Except for the fact that when you buy software, you are buying the software, not renting it. My point is that it is a product being sold, and that the purchaser should be able to use the software for whatever legal purposes they want; rather than renting it for a specific purpose.


Thats your belief. When infact you are buying the media which contains the software, and the media is a distribution method, and you have actually purchsed the rights to use the software for any "legal" purpose which you have agreed to in using it.



EvanPitts said:


> Stores will not accept returns on opened box software, at least any stores I have seen, even if it is over the EULA. Perhaps manufacturers would, but I have never seen it.


Already said that, thanks for the restatement.




EvanPitts said:


> I do not see any dissimilarity. Micro$loth claimed that IE was a requirement for Windoze, and that they had to exclude the operation of other browsers because of grevious damages that would happen to Windoze. This was entirely rejected by the courts, and M$ agreed to separate Windoze from IE dependencies, and thus, regular web browsers can run on new versions of Windoze. In fact, the EU took it one step further, disallowing M$ to force install IE, so if someone in Europe wants IE for some reason, it is an optional install, or they download it like they would do any other browser.
> 
> This is similar to Apple, where they are attempting to force people to have Apple hardware in order to run their OS - even though that is anti-competitive, and even though their hardware can run other operating systems. But this is for the courts to decide.


But these are completely different issues and points. The IE issue is not relatable to this diecussion regarding sperability of the OS and the hardware. That is an issue that has been in debate for many years. Is the OS and hardware seperate products, or are they infact parts of one overall product. You may think that they are seperate, I think that they are not, as can be evidenced by the fact they do not make standalone PC's with Only linux or Windoze (For you EP) installed, even though they can be. Either way, that is what is upto the courts to decide. If they decide that the restriction to Apple hardware is unreasonable, than that is correct, and no arguing by myself, or you would change that, but whether you disagree with the policy, currently it is a legitmate policy





EvanPitts said:


> They did actually, but anti-trust ended up .....


I believe that was a fictional EULA clause as you stated "They could easily put that term into their EULA,...." that means it wasn't and what you are arguing and defending was MS's argument of having IE tied to the OS, which is not an EULA clause.





EvanPitts said:


> One can not enter into an illegal contract or illegal clauses, it is void ab initio...


Pointless.. you saying it is illegal doesn't make it so. Thats an opinion not a court ruling.




EvanPitts said:


> It's not an agreement if one does not agree. That is called coersion, and such contracts are void because it is fraudulent.


Wrong. While they are legally dicey, these methods are legit. There is no coersion, as you do indeed have a choice to accept the agreement or not, and you do agree to it, buy installing the software. This is simple contractual law. There are plenty of examples of this, and I am sure you have agreed to contracts without ever needing to read the terms before using.




EvanPitts said:


> And that is the process that is now in play.


This is in referrence to my point the legitimacy of the EULA is upto the courts to decide. Which is obvioulsly my point this entire time, where I have been arguing substance of this versus the opinion that it doesn't exist and I can do whatever I want with my software.



EvanPitts said:


> But any ram you purchase and add to your Mac is something you own - and if you want, you can remove that ram and put it into any machine, like a PC, so long as it is compatible. Even if it is ram sourced by Apple, you can use it in any machine running any system, so long as it is physically and electrically compatible.


Your obviously missing the point and arguing symantics trying to confuse the issue. The whole point of that was to demonstrate how the software can be viewed as being a component of the product, and the analogy was taken out of context and beyond its relatable scope of the argument at hand.




EvanPitts said:


> It is shown that the OS and the hardware are not one product. The hardware can run a variety of systems, like Windoze or Linux or whatever. It is also shown that the OS can entirely run on other hardware, like hackintoshes - which demonstrates that it is not some inate limitation of the OS (like the requirement that DOS had of needing BIOS to run, or OS9 needs a PPC with appropriate firmware - and hence, won't run on machines that do not have such things, like DOS won't run on a VAX and OS9 won't run on a Sun workstation). It is hard to make a case that OSX and the hardware are one integrated continuum, especially when it can be demonstrated that OSX will run on a Dell Mini 9 (or whatever it is called), with only the removal of certain hooks that obfuscate the Installer...


You do realize that this does not actually defines them as being seperate products right? All that states is that they are two components that can be seperate, but together make a completely different product. Which is an argument that is always contested.

Are you also saying that aslong as the companies make it impossible for you to use another product etc..... wait isn't that your anti-trust argument you made about IE? is it ok or not?




EvanPitts said:


> I entirely think that is the case, that Psystar is reselling this as a product.


Didnt you just say that it can't be a seperate product? The problem is all the business and legal implications of this.




EvanPitts said:


> I think it would be a hard case, to show that a penny ante operator like Psystar is doing harm to business, especially when they are reselling OSX rather than pirating it. Nor are they stealing intellectual property- in fact, Psystar could actually claim patent protection since they "improved" OSX by making innovative changes that allow it to run on a wide variety of machines. ....


So it is ok to harm to business of the other guy is big enough?
I don't believe I said they were stealing or pirating, just infringing on the EULA, which is currently a legal cotnract until a courst says otherwise.
Good luck getting patent protection on that.




EvanPitts said:


> I think the only thing that goes against Psystar is the hacking of the code - which would go against the copyright protection of the Installer and Updater, and perhaps with Aqua - since that is the only proprietary portion of OSX that differs from the freely available Darwin...


In your own words they are, breaking copyright protection, distributing aqua without permission etc...

Which then makes it illegal? So your saying its ok as long as it is legal, and now your saying its likely not legal...? fill me in on this logic jump.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

ertman said:


> Thats your belief. When infact you are buying the media which contains the software, and the media is a distribution method, and you have actually purchsed the rights to use the software for any "legal" purpose which you have agreed to in using it.


That is the point - since Psystar is not advocating any illegal uses of the software in question, nor are they engaged in piracy by making profits while Apple gets nothing. Apple is making all their cash, since Psystar is distributing a legitimate version of OSX. The dispute is to whether or not Apple has the right to limit a legitimate user to using only certain machines, or if the legally purchased software should be entirely allowed to run on whatever machine, so long as the end activities are legal. That is the question for the courts.



> The IE issue is not relatable to this diecussion regarding sperability of the OS and the hardware.


No, but it does present a precident since it is an issue of the separability of the OS and software - which clearly did not go the way M$ intended. Now those that are stuck with Windoze do have the advantage of at least having a real web browser, like FireFox or Safari, rather than the old IE only game.

I do not see how OSX can be considered to be coupled to the hardware - since it is obvious that the hardware can run a number of other operating systems, and since OSX can run on a number of other hardware systems. It seems to me that Apple is putting in a clause which may be indefensible - just like when M$ forced users to use an inferior web browser, not because there is any advantage to IE, but because they specificially placed hooks within the OS that were meant to impede other browsers, and did so to engage in anti-competitive practices.

For an analogy, GM can not limit you to a GM only engine if you owned a GM car. You can, with whatever modifications you wish, put a Ford or Chrysler engine in a GM. All GM can say is that it will not be covered under warranty. They can not prosecute you for doing such a thing, nor could they prosecute a dealer or shop who would resell such a car, so long as the end purchaser has not been deceived.



> ...as can be evidenced by the fact they do not make standalone PC's with Only linux or Windoze... installed, even though they can be.


That is just a preference on the part of the company - there is no technical impedance in doing so. It is just like if you buy a PC, you will most probably have a preinstalled version of Windoze, rather than say, Debian. It is the preference of the company, and does nothing to say that the hardware is coupled to the OS.



> Pointless.. you saying it is illegal doesn't make it so. Thats an opinion not a court ruling.


What I am saying is that if there is an illegal clause within the contract and the courts make that finding, then the clause is void ab initio, and if there are significant damages, there will be restitution as well as the possible invalidation of the entire contract.



> The whole point of that was to demonstrate how the software can be viewed as being a component of the product, and the analogy was taken out of context and beyond its relatable scope of the argument at hand.


However, we are not talking of a specialized OS that has specific requirements, such as the iPhone or some such device - but rather, an OS that does not have specific requirements and can run on a wide range of machines.

The point is, if say, OSX required a Mac because of firmware requirements, and Psystar did something that would allow a conventional machine to emulate those requirements, then it is clear that it is a significant contravention of copyright. But in this case, Psystar has not done such a thing, but rather, used some code that unlocks impediments that have been intentionally placed into the system. The question then becomes that of does the OS actually require these impediments for some kind of functionality, or do they simply exist to maintain a monopolistic position using anti-competitive measures.



> You do realize that this does not actually defines them as being seperate products right? All that states is that they are two components that can be seperate, but together make a completely different product. Which is an argument that is always contested.


And that is why there is a case - since clearly this does not hold true, since it has been demonstrated that a non-Mac machine is able to run OSX in the same manner as a Mac, with the exception of impediments that were placed there by design. OSX on a PC make a distinct combination when compared to Windoze on a PC; while OSX on a Mac is not distinct when compared to OSX on a PC.



> Are you also saying that aslong as the companies make it impossible for you to use another product etc..... wait isn't that your anti-trust argument you made about IE?


The measure of anti-trust is clear, and only applies when such things are used to maintain a dominant monopolistic position - rather than when done to be competitive. It is up to the courts to decide whether or not it is fair that users of OSX are subjected to a monopoly which forces them to use a Mac, rather than an equivalent, competitive machine of one's choosing; or if it is all about OSX on a Mac versus Windoze on a PC. I think the fatal flaw is that OSX is not comparable to Windoze at all, that OSX has become it's own market entirely dominated by Apple.



> The problem is all the business and legal implications of this.


The only implications I would see is that Apple would really have to tool up because if OSX became available legitimately on PCs, they'd be selling it by the truckload, and would shove Windoze off the cliff except in those pockets where OSX lacks applications.



> Which then makes it illegal? So your saying its ok as long as it is legal, and now your saying its likely not legal...? fill me in on this logic jump.


I am saying that in my opinion, it is illegal for Apple to sell an OS and limit people to a specific set of hardware (though it would be entirely legal to only provide support their OS on their hardware) because it is done solely to maintain a monopolistic position within a market; while it is illegal for Psystar to contravene the GPL in which they are reaping profits off of existing free and open code software.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> The argument can be made that within a market, Apple has a monopoly.


Apple does not have a monopoly on any market. It can certainly be reasonably argued that there are plenty of other personal computer choices available to the consumer. In fact, Microsoft prides itself on Apple's small marketshare of the desktop PC market. The smartphone category might be a different story, but even then, customers are free to choose from many other different types of smartphones. 

Apple could only be considered to be anti-competitive or monopolistic if they did something to _force_ you to buy an iPhone. Even prohibiting Google Voice is not monopolistic, since customers are still free to choose a different smartphone. Apple does not _have_ to approve every app that's submitted, for that matter, nor do they _have_ to explain why. Of course, it _looks_ a lot better if they can be transparent in their approval process, but there is no requirement for them to do this. 

Customers can vote with their feet, and they can also choose not to buy an iPhone if they do not want to give their money to A,T&T (or, for the last year and a bit in Canada, Rogers). A monopoly exists when customers are forced to buy your product because a) it's a necessity, and b) you're the only game in town. Like staple foods, or like that guy selling air on Mars in that Total Recall movie. That's a monopoly.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Ok, so these posts are getting a bit long in both of us replying to what eachother have to say.... so I'll try to sum up my reply to your post in shorter more concise statements.

While I can understand and do somewhat agree with your position, legally it is pretty clear. I may not support you opinion on what rights a purchaser of software has, I am simply stating and apparently restating that a EULA is a legally binding contract, and while some clauses are deemed to be invalid, the EULA has not yet been deemed invalid, and in particular the claused to which we are arguing has yet to be struck down. It comes down to legal contracts, the EULA is a legally binding contract, until the courts have decided otherwise. 

Troting out other examples of how other companies have been hit by Antitrust investigation, how some other companies have had court rulings against them for specific, non-relatable issues, has no impact on this specific case, nor the legitimacy of specific EULA terms.

I also don't think my point regarding seperability of the OS and the hardware is being remotely understood. I can't say this anymore, this is an issue that is highly debated. Its obvious that the OS can be installed on other hardware, and it is obvious that the hardware can accept other OSes, but non of that has anything to do with my point of whether the package of software and hardware can be considered a product in itself. You have your opinion, I have mine. I present why I think it the way I do, you state that it is the preference of the company, which views it as a seperate product. Does OSX make a Mac a Mac?, does the hardware make a Mac a Mac?, or is it both? Either way, this is something I stated the court would end up deciding eventually.

Using the idea of monopolies is completely irrelevant and incoherent. Saying Apple has a monopoly on Macs makes no sense, its like saying Sony has a monopoly on Playstation 3s. In the OS world, MS is king, in the hardware world Apple is not dominate. In your world, OSX has become a market in itself, but only through breaking contractual law. Not only does this argument have no substance, it takes away from the rest of your argument.

As with Psystar, this is up for the courts to decide, I have stated my thoughts on the legal implications of this, you have stated that in your opinion that there are no legal implications. I am no lawyer and I hope that you are not lawyer, because there are many legal implications of Psystar's actions, you may not agree, but thats your opinion, but that has nothing to do with actual legal implications. I think that there would be less problems if Psystar had just sold the hardware without OSX installed, but allowed you to add OSX as an accessory.

Its fine for you to disagree with my opinions, but ignoring the existence of the current legal requirements of OSX because you disagree with it on a personal level, doesn't mean that the current legal requirements do not exist.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Another point worth pondering: how does the argument that you bought a physical DVD hard-copy of a software program and therefore you own it hold up in an age of electronic delivery? Many times today one simply downloads the software one wishes to use and there is no actual "hard copy" of it anywhere, except as a bitstream amid complex circuitry. Do I still "own the software" or is it more appropriate to say I agree to the terms of the license to use the software? If I don't like the terms, I am free not to use it.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

ertman said:


> I am simply stating and apparently restating that a EULA is a legally binding contract.


No it isn't.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

bsenka said:


> No it isn't.


ok, I am listening.... how?

I can tell you how it is, but I would like to hear how its not, without listing non-directly relatable court decisions, or opinions on how unfair you think it is etc...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

ertman said:


> Troting out other examples of how other companies have been hit by Antitrust investigation, how some other companies have had court rulings against them for specific, non-relatable issues, has no impact on this specific case, nor the legitimacy of specific EULA terms.


Actually, it does since the courts use precedents all of the time as part of the decision making process.



> ...but non of that has anything to do with my point of whether the package of software and hardware can be considered a product in itself.


However, you ignore the fact that Apple does sell the software as a separate product, and that is what Psystar apparently did, was to resell the software that they had purchased legitimately from Apple.

The whole thing may have been different if Apple only bundled the software with the hardware, and that they were integrated together, like the iPhone and it's OS. If Apple was to make the iPhone OS a separate product that one could purchase, and it would run on other Smartphones that meet technical specifications, then Apple would have a weak position in that case.

The issues with Google Voice were very much different from anything anti-trust or anti-competitive. That application was rejected simply because it didn't meet technical specifications. Once Google issues a properly functioning application that meets specifications, then Apple will be compelled to approve it, or they will be open to a tort action because rejection of it would be anti-competitive.



> Does OSX make a Mac a Mac?, does the hardware make a Mac a Mac?, or is it both? Either way, this is something I stated the court would end up deciding eventually.


The issue is clear - since OSX can run on other systems with no problems (next to hooks embedded in the Installer, and perhaps issues with drivers); and since a Mac can run other Operating Systems straight up. Neither OSX or a Mac has a total dependency upon each other; as opposed to the iPhone and it's OS, where each is dependent upon each other.

The court, in this case, may not even tackle this problem, since the main crux of the case is that Psystar might have impinged on copyright by hacking the Installer and Updater - articles that are not derived from the MachOS kernel, and hence, not covered under the BSD license.

The use of the Aqua shell will also be a point of dispute, since Aqua is proprietary to Apple and is trademarked - and is not available on any other OS, or non-Mac platform, and is not derived from previous works like KDE or Gnome, which are covered by the GPL.



> In your world, OSX has become a market in itself, but only through breaking contractual law.


OSX is a market onto itself. No other OS approaches it in functionality or usability, though one could argue that all of the base functions are equivalent to that of Linux, and that the main difference is that Aqua is a substantially different shell than Gnome or KDE.

I think the problem that Apple has is that they are limiting an operating system to proprietary machines - even though that OS is entirely capable of running on other non-proprietary machines, and that Apple does this in order to increase profits by engaging in anti-competitive measures.



> I think that there would be less problems if Psystar had just sold the hardware without OSX installed, but allowed you to add OSX as an accessory.


Not that I think Psystar is in the right - but the case does bring up certain questions, mostly about the right of a purchaser to use a purchase for whatever legal purposes they wish to engage in. Otherwise, a EULA could embed any kind of draconian, anti-competitive clauses into it, like regulating what software you are allowed to run, etc.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Another point worth pondering: how does the argument that you bought a physical DVD hard-copy of a software program and therefore you own it hold up in an age of electronic delivery? Many times today one simply downloads the software one wishes to use and there is no actual "hard copy" of it anywhere, except as a bitstream amid complex circuitry. Do I still "own the software" or is it more appropriate to say I agree to the terms of the license to use the software? If I don't like the terms, I am free not to use it.


The way I look at it - if you pay for it, then you own it, whether you have a physical copy purchased at a store, or downloaded and installed it.

I think a license that regulates the number of machines is entirely fine, but to dictate what machines it can or can not run on because of the nameplate on the front is outrageous. Of course, there are minimum technical specifications - that is different. I think people would be protesting if M$ dictated that their new Windoze 7 would only run on HP and Sony machines, simply because they decided to have a hate-on for all other PC makers...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> The way I look at it - if you pay for it, then you own it, whether you have a physical copy purchased at a store, or downloaded and installed it.


So I suppose if you pay to live in an apartment that makes it yours... Or if you layout a couple of grand to lease a car, etc., etc.... AGAIN, just because you pay to use something doesn't necessarily make it yours...


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

ertman said:


> ok, I am listening.... how?
> 
> I can tell you how it is, but I would like to hear how its not, without listing non-directly relatable court decisions, or opinions on how unfair you think it is etc...


Just because a company says the agreement they tried to force on me through the back door is binding doesn't make it so. No more than me telling you that by reading this sentence you agree to pay me $500/mo in perpetuity is binding on you.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bsenka said:


> Just because a company says the agreement they tried to force on me through the back door is binding doesn't make it so. No more than me telling you that by reading this sentence you agree to pay me $500/mo in perpetuity is binding on you.


Are you trying to tell me you weren't aware of the EULA before you bought your latest version of OS X?

The EULA is available for all to see at: Apple - Legal. If you aren't aware, you have no one to blame but yourself. Caveat emptor.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> Actually, it does since the courts use precedents all of the time as part of the decision making process.....


Yes, courts do use precedents all the time, even to the point so they don't have to create it. However, the IE example is not a legal precendent that is directly relatable to this argument, and cannot be used in good conscious to rule on the issue of Apple restricting their OS to use on Apple hardware.

Again, you are mistaken, Psystar is not being sued because they are reselling OSX, your point has no basis.

You can actually purchase the ipod OS.... does that mean they should sell the OS seperately to be used on other products?

The OSX DVD is a means of distribution, your argument is lacking, you would prefer it Apple only sold the computer with the OS installed, and then you would have to download several GB to upgrade your OS? That would be fun on dial-up. 

Why do you bring up nonsensical points such as the Google one... it has nothing to do with what we are discussing, you are trying to strengthen your points with information that is not related.

As for the issue of the what is a mac, it is up for debate. It does not require a dependency on the software or hardware, your ignoring my point and attacking the a related point that I already conceded, but does not have any direct implications to my point. The crux of the Psystar case is not them messing with the installer and violating copyright, that is a legal argument that Apple is against Psystar in the case and it is not Apple sole complaint.




EvanPitts said:


> The use of the Aqua shell will also be a point of dispute, since Aqua is proprietary to Apple and is trademarked - and is not available on any other OS, or non-Mac platform, and is not derived from previous works like KDE or Gnome, which are covered by the GPL.


Are you saying that it is not acceptable to use OSX on other computers, this goes back to your logic jump. You cannot say its acceptable to use OSX on any hardware, and then say it is not because they would be violating copyright/trademark.



EvanPitts said:


> OSX is a market onto itself. No other OS approaches it in functionality or usability, though one could argue that all of the base functions are equivalent to that of Linux, and that the main difference is that Aqua is a substantially different shell than Gnome or KDE.


Once again you are making an error in your argument. You cannot argue that it is a market in itself because it is superior to other alternatives. There is no basis for your argument.



EvanPitts said:


> I think the problem that Apple has is that they are limiting an operating system to proprietary machines - even though that OS is entirely capable of running on other non-proprietary machines, and that Apple does this in order to increase profits by engaging in anti-competitive measures.


I don't think Apple's success in the last few year would agree with your statement. Apple creating a computer using decent components and good operating system is not anti-competitive. That statement is ludicrous and has no basis as already discusses. I am not trying to dismiss you view, its perfectly acceptable, I am only dismissing your application of facts that you are using in your argument, as they are based on fallacies.



EvanPitts said:


> Not that I think Psystar is in the right - but the case does bring up certain questions, mostly about the right of a purchaser to use a purchase for whatever legal purposes they wish to engage in. Otherwise, a EULA could embed any kind of draconian, anti-competitive clauses into it, like regulating what software you are allowed to run, etc.


I agree, and that is exactly why this case is interesting, and that is part of Psystar's arguments but if there are any-competitive terms, then they would be deemed invalid in court action, and would not be enforceable. I too await to see the results of this case, as it can have profound implications for us all.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

bsenka said:


> Just because a company says the agreement they tried to force on me through the back door is binding doesn't make it so. No more than me telling you that by reading this sentence you agree to pay me $500/mo in perpetuity is binding on you.




It is completely different think alittle more critically. You first have to know what a contract is... 

Contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The EULA has to be agreed to before installing the software, there for you accept the terms and conditions. How legal are the terms and conditions of an EULA, well that is up to the courts to decide. How fair are they? That is upto you to decide, and you can choose to install or not.

Apple's EULA a contract? maybe.... why?

-Apple makes an offer
You can purchase and install this software if you agree to the terms and conditions (EULA), and payment for the software.

-You Accept the terms and condition
This is done upon installation.



Why your statement is not a contract?

You make a statement.
No offer

Acceptance.
You force acceptance, therefor illegal, and not legally binding.


There is no backdoor forced accpetance, you can walk away at anytime, you do not require OSX, you choose to install it.



APPLE-http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx106.pdf said:


> APPLE INC.
> SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MAC OS X
> Single Use, Family Pack and Leopard Upgrade Licenses for use on Apple-branded Systems
> PLEASE READ THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT ("LICENSE") CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THE APPLE SOFTWARE.* BY USING THE APPLE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, UNLESS YOU RETURN THE APPLE SOFTWARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLE’S RETURN POLICY. *IF YOU ARE ACCESSING THE APPLE SOFTWARE ELECTRONICALLY, SIGNIFY YOUR AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE BY CLICKING THE "AGREE " BUTTON. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE APPLE SOFTWARE AND CLICK “DISAGREE”. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE, YOU MAY RETURN THE APPLE SOFTWARE WITHIN THE RETURN PERIOD TO THE APPLE STORE OR AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTOR WHERE YOU OBTAINED IT FOR A REFUND, SUBJECT TO APPLE’S RETURN POLICY FOUND AT  Apple - Legal . FOR APPLE SOFTWARE INCLUDED WITH YOUR PURCHASE OF HARDWARE, YOU MUST RETURN THE ENTIRE HARDWARE/SOFTWARE
> PACKAGE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A REFUND.





Get it yet?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

ertman said:


> Get it yet?


Absolutely I get it that you are wrong.

I bought the item in the store, it's mine. I don't agree to the terms, I don't even recognize their right to HAVE terms, but I'm installing it anyway, too bad for them. There is no contract.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

bsenka said:


> Absolutely I get it that you are wrong.
> 
> I bought the item in the store, it's mine. I don't agree to the terms, I don't even recognize their right to HAVE terms, but I'm installing it anyway, too bad for them. There is no contract.




Nope.... your misinformed.

Ignorance is no defence, and non-recognition changes nothing. It may be too bad for them, but it is your mistake in thinking contracts don't extist because you refuse to believe in them.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

ertman said:


> Get it yet?


Actually, the problem is that there is no way to prove _who_ accepted the EULA. Was it you or someone else in your household? Probably, but probably does not hold up in a court of law. Clicking an OK button could be done by anyone, even a chimpanzee or a very adept shi-tzu. This is why a signature is usually required in order to form a legally binding contract. This does not tuen the EULA into a free-for-all, however, since it is still a contract. It is just difficult to prove with whom the contract has been made. The name on the sales receipt or the credit card statement would be a good start.

But there's also a chance that you may have purchased the software as a gift for a friend. Then your name is on the receipt, although the EULA would have been agreed to by your friend, who for all intents and purposes, shall remain anonymous.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

ertman said:


> Nope.... your misinformed.
> 
> Ignorance is no defence, and non-recognition changes nothing. It may be too bad for them, but it is your mistake in thinking contracts don't extist because you refuse to believe in them.


A EULA isn't a contract. It's wishful thinking on the manufacturer's part.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

fjnmusic said:


> Actually, the problem is that there is no way to prove _who_ accepted the EULA. Was it you or someone else in your household? Probably, but probably does not hold up in a court of law. Clicking an OK button could be done by anyone, even a chimpanzee or a very adept shi-tzu. This is why a signature is usually required in order to form a legally binding contract. This does not tuen the EULA into a free-for-all, however, since it is still a contract. It is just difficult to prove with whom the contract has been made. The name on the sales receipt or the credit card statement would be a good start.
> 
> But there's also a chance that you may have purchased the software as a gift for a friend. Then your name is on the receipt, although the EULA would have been agreed to by your friend, who for all intents and purposes, shall remain anonymous.


Your argument is flawed, if it is on your computer it is your responsibility, because either you or you a person authorized by you have agreed to install it. You do not need video proof of who accepted it, only that it was accepted, which is evidenced by installation. You can't say that you never agreed to it and then continue to use it. Ignorance like this would never hold up in court, although in this example it is nearly impossible to ever go to court for this specific issue.

The perception of a signature being required to formalize a contract is flawed as it is not necessarily required by law. This signature requirement is a mistake the general public makes when considering entering into a contract. This is similar to the misinformed error, that companies have to negotiate all the terms and conditions of a contract with every person they wish to have a contractual relationship with.

But wait theres more.... if you purchase the software for a friend, and your name is on the reciept, and he installs it on his computer, congratulations, your not liable for the terms and conditions of the agreement. He has accepted terms, it doesn't matter if he paid for it or is given it.



bsenka said:


> A EULA isn't a contract. It's wishful thinking on the manufacturer's part.


Its wishful thinking on yours.

Saying it is not a contract doesn't make it so. I would like to see people try that with a credit card and cardholder agreement, that doesn't require signatures and what not to be enforceable. The fact that they consider it a contract and you agree to it through accepting terms and use, makes it a valid contract. It would become invalid if the terms would be judged invalid through court action etc. On a whole, EULA's have yet to not be considered contracts by courts, only portions of them, and until they are entirely deemed illegal, or the core parts considered illegal, then they are valid.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

From the Wikipedia article on software license agreements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement:



> The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Some courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found some EULAs to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C.... Other courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable... No Court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.
> 
> The 7th Circuit and 8th Circuit subscribe to the "licensed and not sold" argument, while most other circuits do not[citation needed]. In addition, the contracts' enforceability depends on whether the state has passed the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) or Anti-UCITA (UCITA Bomb Shelter) laws. In Anti-UCITA states, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has been amended to either specifically define software as a good (thus making it fall under the UCC), or to disallow contracts which specify that the terms of contract are subject to the laws of a state that has passed UCITA.


So, depending on where you live (at least in the United States) determines whether the software you've purchased is licensed or sold. Also, no court has ruled on the validity of EULAs in general so it's entirely possible that certain clauses in Apple's EULA may be unenforceable (such as only running Mac OS X on Macs). It's up to the courts to decide.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jfpoole said:


> From the Wikipedia article on software license agreements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement:
> 
> So, depending on where you live (at least in the United States) determines whether the software you've purchased is licensed or sold. Also, no court has ruled on the validity of EULAs in general so it's entirely possible that certain clauses in Apple's EULA may be unenforceable (such as only running Mac OS X on Macs). *It's up to the courts to decide.*


And for proper legislation to be written. Most country's (US and Canada included) copyright laws date back several decades (if not much longer) before the digital era and "intellectual property" and consequently the law is woefully inadequate and does not reflect the new paradigm.

That is precisely why there were nation wide consultations on copyright reform this past summer in Canada. In Canada at least new legislation will hopefully begin to address some of the realities in a way that is fair both to the copyright owner and the end user.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

jfpoole said:


> From the Wikipedia article on software license agreements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement:
> 
> 
> 
> So, depending on where you live (at least in the United States) determines whether the software you've purchased is licensed or sold. Also, no court has ruled on the validity of EULAs in general so it's entirely possible that certain clauses in Apple's EULA may be unenforceable (such as only running Mac OS X on Macs). It's up to the courts to decide.


I completely agree, but until a court says the terms and or entire eula is considered unenforceable then it is a legally binding contract, which is my point, not whether it's fair, or whether anyone follows it.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

ertman said:


> I completely agree, but until a court says the terms and or entire eula is considered unenforceable then it is a legally binding contract, which is my point, not whether it's fair, or whether anyone follows it.


Some courts have ruled that some EULAs are invalid (they were considered contracts of adhesion since there was no possibility to negotiate the terms of the contract; they were presented as a take it or leave it proposal after the sale). 

Which, really, is what bugs me about EULAs. They're presented as "take it or leave it" agreements that you can only read AFTER you've purchased the software. If you don't agree with the EULA and you want to return the software, well, good luck. I know a number of retailers refuse to accept returns of opened software.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

jfpoole said:


> Some courts have ruled that some EULAs are invalid (they were considered contracts of adhesion since there was no possibility to negotiate the terms of the contract; they were presented as a take it or leave it proposal after the sale).
> 
> Which, really, is what bugs me about EULAs. They're presented as "take it or leave it" agreements that you can only read AFTER you've purchased the software. If you don't agree with the EULA and you want to return the software, well, good luck. I know a number of retailers refuse to accept returns of opened software.


+1

I have never seen a store that would accept a software return based on a disagreement with the EULA. Most companies will set a pretty high bar to cross, and more often than not, one will end up stuck with the software because of the company's flat out refusal to accept a return, or will charge an outrageous restocking fee.

An EULA is fake because I as a consumer has zero chance of negotiating any different terms...


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

jfpoole said:


> Some courts have ruled that some EULAs are invalid (they were considered contracts of adhesion since there was no possibility to negotiate the terms of the contract; they were presented as a take it or leave it proposal after the sale).
> 
> Which, really, is what bugs me about EULAs. They're presented as "take it or leave it" agreements that you can only read AFTER you've purchased the software. If you don't agree with the EULA and you want to return the software, well, good luck. I know a number of retailers refuse to accept returns of opened software.




But... you can read it online before purchasing such software. A member here was kind of nice enough to post, not necessarily convenient, but it is easier than taping a multi page document to the package. I agree that many retailers will not accept open software, and since that is the case, it would likely be required that the manufacturer to accept a return (this is a bit fuzzy, but would have to be the case in-order to enforce the EULA)

I also believe that some of these courts decisions have been regarding specific terms of the agreement, or agreements of specific products, as I think there has been no cases where EULA have been deemed illegal and therefor unenforceable (only applicable to NA).



EvanPitts said:


> +1
> 
> I have never seen a store that would accept a software return based on a disagreement with the EULA. Most companies will set a pretty high bar to cross, and more often than not, one will end up stuck with the software because of the company's flat out refusal to accept a return, or will charge an outrageous restocking fee.
> 
> An EULA is fake because I as a consumer has zero chance of negotiating any different terms...


Your probably right about the retail stores, but then it is up to the manufacturer, and I can see your point of how this is unfair, but I believe that in-order for the EULA to be enforceable, at the very least the manufacturer would have to accept a return. So what you are saying is a good point. Also the EULA for OSX snow leopard is posted on Apples website.

For the last time EP, it is not necessary to negotiate all terms of a contract with every customer, this would be impossible etc.... This is a common mistake people make. When was the last time you negotiated your cardholder agreement, banking agreement, Cell agreement and so on.... and on.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

ertman said:


> But... you can read it online before purchasing such software.





> PROSSER
> But Mr. Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.
> 
> ARTHUR
> ...


Even if having the EULA available is sufficient notice of the terms of the EULA (which I'm not convinced it is) you still can't negotiate the terms of the EULA which makes it a contract of adhesion which means it's subject to special scrutiny under the law.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

jfpoole said:


> Even if having the EULA available is sufficient notice of the terms of the EULA (which I'm not convinced it is) you still can't negotiate the terms of the EULA which makes it a contract of adhesion which means it's subject to special scrutiny under the law.


Yes and no. It would definately fall under special scrutiny, especially since most would not think to look for information, even when aware that there is an EULA for the product. While they may not know the specific terms of the EULA, they are readily available on their website. So i do believe that their should be special scrutiny and even challenges of the EULA, but the person accepting the terms also must accept some responsibility too. Also, the negotiation of terms are not required in all contracts, including one such as this such as this.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

ertman said:


> When was the last time you negotiated your cardholder agreement, banking agreement, Cell agreement and so on.... and on.


Are you kidding? ALWAYS. Don't ever accept the terms thrown at you for those types of services. You tell them what you will and will not accept, and get them to draw up new papers. For my cell phone for instance, I insisted on a plan that was no longer offered, and I insisted that the clause that gave them the right to raise my rates or change my plan be removed. They made the changes on the spot, no argument.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
I did the same thing with my bank when they wanted to pull the plug on my bank account, because as we all know, Savings and Chequing accounts are "obsolete". They were prepared to send me packing - but then I told them that I would be moving my investments as well, which is when they "reconcidered".

I don't know if Apple would change the terms of their EULA, but really, if I could get over my disgust of of the bloat and waste of their new OSX versions - there are terms I'd like to change, like the term where they can provide me with a decent OS without crud like Spotlight, put Find back into Finder, and let me run it on a machine that isn't the size of a desk...


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

bsenka said:


> Are you kidding? ALWAYS. Don't ever accept the terms thrown at you for those types of services. You tell them what you will and will not accept, and get them to draw up new papers. For my cell phone for instance, I insisted on a plan that was no longer offered, and I insisted that the clause that gave them the right to raise my rates or change my plan be removed. They made the changes on the spot, no argument.


Are you kidding?. You did not even change any of the terms, you changed your plan. I am guessing you have never actually read the cellphone contract you have agreed to. Changing you plan does not equate to changing the terms of use. your plan is the price of the service, better plan does not equal a change in its terms of service. This would be like negotiating a better price for a product, but the limitation on its use is unchanged.



EvanPitts said:


> ^^^
> I did the same thing with my bank when they wanted to pull the plug on my bank account, because as we all know, Savings and Chequing accounts are "obsolete". They were prepared to send me packing - but then I told them that I would be moving my investments as well, which is when they "reconcidered".
> 
> I don't know if Apple would change the terms of their EULA, but really, if I could get over my disgust of of the bloat and waste of their new OSX versions - there are terms I'd like to change, like the term where they can provide me with a decent OS without crud like Spotlight, put Find back into Finder, and let me run it on a machine that isn't the size of a desk...


Also once again, you did not change any of the terms of use of the account, you only negotiated to keep your account, the terms of use on the account remained. The specifics of the restriction of use of the account remained unchanged, as they pnly reconsidered releasing your account. Also the any banking fees are also not part of the terms of use of the account this is a payment for the service, not a change in the conditions of the service along with its restrictions. At best you are negotiating price or even providing the service, but you are still restricted by the same terms you had previously accepted.

Regarding EULA. These are non-negotiable, take it or leave or violate, like others have said the legality of the EULA is up to the courts to decide, and legislation to guide. How has negotiating with MS to create a decent OS gone for you... not well? because you can't negotiate the conditions of the product, you can only buy or not buy that puts pressures on the company to create a product that you want. Unfortunately if you are the only one 

Also, I am running OSX on a laptop, and a version of it on my ipod touch, both of which are smaller than a desk, are they not?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> ^^^
> I don't know if Apple would change the terms of their EULA, but really, if I could get over my disgust of of the bloat and waste of their new OSX versions - there are terms I'd like to change, like the term where they can provide me with a decent OS without crud like Spotlight, put Find back into Finder, and let me run it on a machine that isn't the size of a desk...


:lmao: :lmao: They are only bloat to you because you choose to continue to run an antiquated system. That is your choice, but don't blame Apple because you refuse to adapt to the new realities that are staring you in the face.

A lot of people like the "bloat" that you hate. I don't think you are at all a typical user, if you think Apple should adjust their OS just to accommodate you, it is time to get over yourself.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ertman said:


> Regarding EULA. These are non-negotiable, take it or leave or violate, like others have said the legality of the EULA is up to the courts to decide, and legislation to guide. How has negotiating with MS to create a decent OS gone for you... not well? because you can't negotiate the conditions of the product, you can only buy or not buy that puts pressures on the company to create a product that you want. Unfortunately if you are the only one
> 
> Also, I am running OSX on a laptop, and a version of it on my ipod touch, both of which are smaller than a desk, are they not?


+1 :clap:


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

ertman said:


> Are you kidding?. You did not even change any of the terms, you changed your plan. I am guessing you have never actually read the cellphone contract you have agreed to. Changing you plan does not equate to changing the terms of use. your plan is the price of the service, better plan does not equal a change in its terms of service. This would be like negotiating a better price for a product, but the limitation on its use is unchanged.


Did you read my post? I absolutely did read the contract, and I objected to one of the clauses in it (the one that says they reserve the right to change the rates and or change plans). I had that entire section removed from the contract.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

bsenka said:


> Did you read my post? I absolutely did read the contract, and I objected to one of the clauses in it (the one that says they reserve the right to change the rates and or change plans). I had that entire section removed from the contract.


Congratulations!

However, I wonder if this a promissory note or is it in the actual contract, I don't doubt you, it just that the phone companies have been rather slimy about this stuff, appreciate it if you could send a copy of the contract this way for my own benefit. Because on my last viewing of a cell contract, it had stated that no changes to the agreement can be made, written or oral, by any sales agent, representative, or employee. Also, did this negotiation happen to change the limitation on how you can use your phone etc.

Assuming that is true, they don't have to negotiate every term of every contract with every customer, which I believe has been my point. They could have said no, and there isn't anything you can do about it, except either accept the agreement as is or walkaway.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

screature said:


> :lmao: :lmao: They are only bloat to you because you choose to continue to run an antiquated system. That is your choice, but don't blame Apple because you refuse to adapt to the new realities that are staring you in the face.
> 
> A lot of people like the "bloat" that you hate. I don't think you are at all a typical user, if you think Apple should adjust their OS just to accommodate you, it is time to get over yourself.


+1 Personally I don't find it bloated at all. When I look at what an entry level mini can do on 1 GB of RAM I am amazed. Just try to run Vista on an entry level PC and see how happy you are. Now that's bloat.


----------

