Judge Grants Apple’s Summary Judgement, Denies Psystar [Updated]

| News

Friday the 13th was an unlucky day for Psystar and its Mac clone business because Judge Alsup denied its motion for summary judgement and granted Apple's. The two companies have been fighting in court over whether or not the PC maker can build and sell Mac clones without Apple's permission.

Apple filed a lawsuit against Psystar in Northern California several months ago claiming the small PC maker was violating the Mac OS X end user license agreement, and that it was violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act with the steps it used to install the Mac operating system on PCs. Psystar claimed that it should be allowed to build and sell PCs with Mac OS X pre-installed and that Apple is overstepping its bounds by blocking companies from selling Mac clones.

In its motion for Summary Judgement, Apple argued that the licensing agreement for Mac OS X states that the end user owns the disc the software ships on, but only licenses the use of the operating system. Since Mac OS X is licensed instead of owned, users are bound by Apple's terms that prohibit installing and running the software on non-Apple hardware.

In its Summary Judgement filing, Psystar claimed that because users own the media Mac OS X ships on, they own the operating system as well. Owning the OS gives them the right to use it as they see fit, and in this case that includes installing it on Mac clones.

Psystar also filed its own suit in Florida claiming that Leopard and Snow Leopard are distinctly different products, and that the California case only addresses Mac OS X 10.5, not the newer Mac OS X 10.6.

Psystar, however, wasn't able to present a compelling enough argument, leading Judge William Alsup to deny its motion only a day after the the summary judgement hearing in U.S. District Court in Northern California.

"Judge Alsup found that Psystar's defenses were unavailing, because they had no basis in either law or fact or both," The Mac Observer's legal contact said.

The day went much better for Apple since Judge Alsup granted its motion. Based on Judge Alsup's ruling, Psystar infringed on Apple's copyrights when it sold PCs with Mac OS X installed, and it violated the DMCA by circumventing Apple's code that binds Mac OS X to Apple hardware.

"Winning of the copyright infringement would have been sufficient to win the day for Apple, but Judge Alsup also found that Psystar illegally circumvented the technical measures that Apple uses to protect OS X and trafficked in illegal circumvention technology," commented TMO's legal contact.

"According to Apple, Psystar has violated its exclusive right to copy Mac OS X. Psystar admits that it has made copies of Mac OS X and installed those copies on non-Apple computers," Judge Alsup said in his ruling. "In addition, when Psystar turns on its computers running Mac OS X, another copy of the software is made to the random access memory. Psystar has thus infringed Apple's reproduction right."

Judge Alsup added "Psystar argues that Apple misused its copyrights by continuing to prosecute allegedly 'invalid' copyright infringement and DMCA claims against Psystar. This argument is unavailing. This order finds that Apple's claims are valid and has granted summary judgment in favor of Apple on those claims."

In other words, the court ruled that Apple didn't misuse its Mac OS X copyrights and that Psystar had no grounds for invalidating those copyrights.

Despite Judge Alsup's strong ruling, this case isn't over yet. Apple's relief in the case hasn't been determined yet, and an injunction preventing Psystar from selling Mac clones hasn't been issued yet. Judge Alsup hasn't indicated whether or not Leopard and Snow Leopard would be included in any injunction, either.

Should the California court grant an injunction blocking Psystar from selling Mac clones that's broad enough to include all versions of Mac OS X, and also award Apple statutory damages, the PC maker could be ordered to surrender all of the profits it made from selling computers with Leopard and Snow Leopard pre-installed.

Judge Alsup's ruling also set the stage for the pending trial scheduled for January 2010. "Because neither party raised or fully addressed the contract, trademark, trade dress, and unfair competition issues, Judge Alsup reserved those issues for trial," TMO's legal contact said.

Now Psystar will have to try to convince the court that its parallel case in Florida should be allowed to move forward independently of Judge Alsup's summary judgement ruling -- a job that might be difficult for Psystar to manage.

"I think that the logic of Judge Alsup's opinion extends to cover all of Psystar's conduct in making Mac clones with either Leopard or Snow Leopard," TMO's legal contact said. "But we shall see."

A new hearing has been set for December 14, and Apple has until November 23 to file its formal briefing for relief.

[This article has been updated with additional information about Judge Alsup's ruling.]

Comments

Jeff Gamet

This is a pretty big blow for Psystar because Judge Alsup is saying that the evidence against the company is so strong that the ruling against it is simply a matter of law. I’m assuming that the Judge will issue an injunction that covers all versions of Mac OS X, too. At this point, Psystar should probably kick its damage control efforts into high gear.

John Molloy

So probably Psystar will file for chapter 11 again to keep their options open…

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Sigh-*. Take the result as it is and step back 10 feet. Does it bother any of you that Apple is relying on a low-level procedural mechanism of the CPU copying the software into RAM to claim a copyright violation through license infringement? Here we are in 2009 when the default for anything new and interesting (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) is “please copy and share” and Apple is in court with a “do not copy what you’ve purchased from us to something we don’t approve of” argument.

Some days I wish I had $50 million to burn. I’d create a free to download and copy operating system that didn’t suck and was simple and elegant. I’d acquire a few nice applications, port them and make them exclusive to Bosco (the name of the OS, hey it’s my $50m, I’ll name it after my dog if I like). And my operating motto would simply be “don’t be a dick”.

Joe Anonymous

“low level procedural issue”? Are you on drugs?

The court slammed Psystar 6 ways from Sunday. EVERY Psystar argument was negated.

I wondered how the mindless Apple bashers would respond and I guess that’s it: “Psystar didn’t do anything wrong-Apple only won on a technicality”.

Amazing how delusional people can get when it gives them the chance to bash Apple.

demjones

Bosco, it’s called Ubuntu Linux.

UrbanBard

Bosco, Apple is stating that it owns Mac OSX and has the right to control it in any way possible. Therefore, any mechanism attempting to skirt the law ant Apple’s rights are illegitimate.

If other prople choose to promote “please copy and share” that is their business.

This is all about Apple’s rights to control the conditions under which Mac OSX can be copied and used. Buying the installation DVD does not confer full and complete rights to modify or use Apple’s software.

It should be clear from this ruling that Psystar has no rights.

Even if you had $50 million, this does not indicate that you are competent to create an acceptable and efficient Operating System. This is very hard to achieve as NeXT Corporation proved. They had the world’s most advanced Operating system and they could not get enough users and developers to make it a commercial success.

There are hopes that Google will make the Chrome OS into such as success, but we won’t know about that for over six months. Google has spent far more than $50 million on the project and it could be for nothing. Microsoft spent $6 billion on the Longhorn OS and it had to throw away the code.

What this decision says is that when you do have a working Operating System, such as Mac OSX, then you must protect it from anyone who would misuse it.

You are acting as though Mac OSX is two diametrically opposed things: it is worth enough to steal but not worth enough to pay for. This says very little about Apple and a great deal about your morality.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@Joe… “low level procedural issue” is not “legal technicality”. It refers to something that 99% of Apple’s customers couldn’t begin to explain and probably couldn’t hope to begin to understand, mainly how software gets from a disk and onto the screen. And yet said customers are binding themselves to a shrink-wrap EULA and have no option to negotiate a contract they could be reasonably expected to understand. I’m not saying that people are stupid, but that most people have more important things to worry about than how a von Neuman architecture works. I know the political makeup of Mac users leans heavily left-Democratic. Most of you who fall into that are appalled at, for example, complicated mortgage contracts, to the point where you support a government that would step in and force lenders to renegotiate. And yet you sit idly by when a EULA is (in its context) far more restrictive and less understandable because it’s your beloved Apple who wrote the contract. Seems weird to me.

@demjones… Where should I begin with Ubuntu? How about the installation process of 9.10? If you, as a new user, read every word they put on the screen during that process, you’ll have read the equivalent of two months worth of the New York Times. That’s just one example of how Ubuntu pretends to be friendly and polished despite the fact that friendliness and ease of use got left out of its gene pool.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@UrbanBard… What you’re talking about are essentially moral rights in copyright as opposed to economic rights. The United States has a strong tradition of preserving economic rights, but moral rights really only come into play in our law in a very narrow realm of film. Moral rights are more of the French and German tradition. The economic right is the English and American tradition. It says that creators should get paid for copies. It says we creators have an exclusive right based in our right to make money to determine distribution. We don’t have a right to tell end-users they can’t deface our work or display it in a way that we might find objectionable.

Under copyright law, Apple does not control the conditions under which its software is copied! That is under its EULA, a contract. I am not, nor have I ever, advocated that anyone willfully violate either our copyright law or break contracts they have entered into. But I am saying that many contracts we all enter into are by their nature unenforceable without a heavy hand of a court and/or not in our collective interest to enforce. When courts are given opportunities to find such contracts invalid, I hope they will step up and do it. Because I hope that people and companies who use contract to assert rights they just don’t have (such as moral copyright) get slapped around occasionally. You’ve heard of domain squatters and patent trolls, right? There are contract trolls too. And they have left a huge stench in their wake in the computer industry.

The slap on my morality was silly. Maybe I should just go with Greg Gurfeld’s standard disclaimer: ...and if you disagree with me, you sir are worse than Hitler. There, we’re even. grin

farmboy

Bosco, you’re being deliberately obtuse. Any purchaser of the Apple OS X disk can simply return the disk to Apple for a complete refund if they choose not to accept the terms of the EULA, which is actually written in fairly basic language (yes, I’ve read it). Psystar got slammed, and it was no “low level procedural issue”, whatever you think that is. Not all contracts are negotiable, some are simply take it or leave it. So what? You can’t negotiate your electric bill either

And I like the gratuitous political slant (simultaneously irrelevant and essentially bogus). Did you know John McCain and Rush Limbaush are Apple users? I’m not aware of a political litmus test to buy the machines. Maybe on the planet where you live.

And please enlighten us as to how a software EULA, costing almost nothing and for which there are numerous alternatives, compares to long, complex document using many Latin phrases and unknown acronyms, controlling the most expensive item people will ever buy? Yeah, where’s our outrage over a EULA…crickets…crickets…

farmboy

“many contacts…are unenforceable without the heavy hand of a court”? What? “Moral Copyrights”? Contract Trolls? That’s just bizarre.

Really, you are not a lawyer (obviously), or even especially informed as to contracts, copyrights, or even the legal traditions of other countries. So it would be best for you to not make such statements. It might be better to let people assume you are a fool than to simply remove all doubt, so to speak.

Nemo

Dear Bosco:  Just law allows a person to acquire property rights in his work.  Apple spent the resources to make OS X, and so the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. ?? 101 et seq., grants in authors certain exclusive rights so that they can benefit from their work, and society benefits, because people produce creative and useful work because they know that they can profit from their work.  Now, the law does not require you to charge for your work.  You can be like Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman and benefit by giving your work away or licensing it under a very liberal license, such as the GPL.  The law also protects your right to do that.  But, if you are like most people, who want a return for their work and who won’t do much work without the promise of fair return, the law protects your right to claim your work as your own, gives you the right to negotiate with others to use your work, and enforces the terms of that negotiation.  To most of us, that seems just right.

But you, Bosco, want to give away Apple’s work, not your work, as if Apple had no rights in its own work.  But it must or should be obvious that your approach is self defeating, for either the law will grant people property rights in their works of authorship and useful invention or the vast majority of people won’t author or invent creative and useful works.  And that would be a terrible loss for society.  So, from the point of view of public policy, it is that simple:  We either create and protect proprietary rights in authors and inventors, or we don’t get very many creative and useful works.  From the point of view of simple just, it is also clear that any just system must grant to a person the exclusive rights to control, use, and dispose of product of his effort and resources.  Apple isn’t asking for anything more than that, and Judge Alsup’s judgment for Apple does nothing more than affirm the policy, justice, and rights accorded to Apple and to each of us under the Copyright Act and the Constitution Of The United States.

If, Bosco, you demand a regime where you can expropriate another’s work for no other reason than you think that you or your designee should have it, I, for one, am glad that Judge Alsup said no to you.

UrbanBard

All law comes back to morality. Only a Socialist says that economic rights are not personal and moral rights. They say this based on the assumption that “all property is theft.”  They exempt the property that they steal from others through governmental actions, of course. This is because they think that everyone is the property of the government.

I suggest you look up English common laws, rather than German or French.

The first position is that a person owns themselves and what they create. Copy right law states that what a person creates during their lifetime remain theirs to sell or display. They can choose not to display or publish their works. If another steals their works and publishes it, economic damages can accrue, because the act of publishing cannot be taken back.

Thus, when Psystar copies and publishes Apple property in their computers, then Apple can ask the court to stop Psystar from continuing to steal their property and to assign damages.

The point is that the copy write holder have rights to tell end users how they may use their intellectual property. The problem is how practical it is to enforce the copy holder’s rights.

Since, so many people these days are amoral, then it will be necessary for Apple to introduce DRM to protect their right. This is a ticklish proposition, because Apple’s legitimate users have rights which Apple may not abuse.

Psystar was never a legitimate user. The courts will be nailing this proposition down.

In any disputation, the first person, who so devoid of logic and evidence to bring up Hitler, loses the argument.

Also, if you dislike the contract under which an article is sold, then don’t purchase the item. If you purchase a product with the intention of ignoring the conditions under which it is sold, then you become a scofflaw.

The best way of dealing with scofflaws is to refuse to sell to them again. And to publish their disrespect of other peoples rights.

When people lived in villages this was quite easy to do, since everyone knew everyone else’s business dealings. The event of the internet is making it cheap enough to return to this practice. Scofflaws will be held up as bad examples. There will be a price to be paid for violating other people’s rights.

John Molloy

It refers to something that 99% of Apple?s customers couldn?t begin to explain and probably couldn?t hope to begin to understand, mainly how software gets from a disk and onto the screen.

I am Mr high and mighty and I live in a alternate reality. Really Bosco drop it. Go troll on the Google boards or somewhere that might give a damn.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@Nemo. I do not want to give away Apple’s work. I want for Apple to be reasonable in how it enforces its rights. Look, let me try this again. What Apple wants to be able to do is ship hardware that is basically the same as commodity hardware with nothing special (and thus more costly to ship) that their OS installer might recognize and inform users that they are straying from the license. They want to ship software which admittedly (if you go by Mossberg’s column on Snow Leopard) does nothing to enforce or inform the user about whether they have complied with Apple’s wishes on upgrading. It may sound like arguing bridge bidding conventions, but I’d be much more comfortable if Apple relied on provisions of the DMCA to protect its software than on a contract that nobody reads.

I guess another thing that frosts my ass about what Apple is able to get away with is that smaller players can’t. There have been some recent discussions on REALbasic lists about software like REALbasic that phones home for license tracking. I’m fine with that and I’ve built a couple such systems. They definitely increase the ratio of legitimate users to pirates, and we assume that means that they increase revenue. And they would have the force of the DMCA behind them in court, although realistically, the companies involved are too small to spend their days in court. REAL Software was getting a lot of blowback from its own customers about the phone home protection. And I’ve experienced blow back over the same thing. The blow back is a cost of playing this software game. It’s a cost that Apple doesn’t have to pay, and in not paying it, they set a customer expectation that makes the cost higher for the rest of us. Call it jealousy if you will. I just think big companies shouldn’t enjoy market advantage from what amount to special legal privileges.

OK, I’m done. Enjoy your victory parade. grin

robinson

Where’s the evidence for the claim that “I know the political makeup of Mac users leans heavily left-Democratic. “

Glad the judge is batting this distracting fly away!

James

So, Bosco, basically you just used a whole lot of words to reiterate what you’ve already said before. You want to ride on Apple’s coattails. You think they should be lax in protecting their IP for your benefit. Ludicrous. You just don’t make sense.

Little guys? What do you think Apple was when they first started in the garage and their machines had wooden parts? What were they becoming before Steve returned? If you have a good product of your own you won’t be a little guy for long. When did we decide there was something wrong with accountability? And how would you feel about it if you did develop something with all of your heart and resources over a period of decades that was a tremendous success and someone else decided that they could waltz in and take it because you’d gotten too big? IP is not a moral issue. Thank Zeus our good Judge agreed with that statement.

UrbanBard

Bosco, you want to define what is reasonable to Apple? Apple is not allowed to define that for itself? Who died and made you King?

“They want to ship software which admittedly (if you go by Mossberg?s column on Snow Leopard) does nothing to enforce or inform the user about whether they have complied with Apple?s wishes on upgrading. “

Apparently, you have never installed Mac OSX. There is a specific place in the installer where you agree to the conditions or the installer will not proceed.

“I guess another thing that frosts my ass about what Apple is able to get away with is that smaller players can?t. “

That is irrational.  You are saying at Apple’s rights depend on someone else’s rights, not the law. An injustice to the owners of REALBasic allows an injustice to Apple? What kind of moral relativism are you trying to pull?

The problem of piracy is because of the lack of justice. If the pirates were hunted down and sued, then there would be less theft.

I-agree-with_notYOU

There is a much larger ethical issue for all you out there who/that can’t handle the word “moral” in this discussion.

up until recently the California Air Resources Board was considering legislation that would make it illegal for you to sell someone a kit to plug in their prius… recently, they backed off.
okay… anyone who thinks that the CARB should NOT have backed off, stand up… you should start to see some parallels between this and the psystar issue…

we’re basicallly talking about buying music CD’s and CARS with
DRM, or AnalogRM (teehee).... do you want that? Do you want someone to say you CAN’T REUPHOLSTER YOUR CAR, or put a seat-cover on it? I want to be able to make this many copies of a music CD that I purchase at my local “little guy”: 1 backup to be archived, 1 copy that goes in my cd binder that I use to rip/listen to/take with me; then I don’t know… myabe 1 each for every device I own that can handle a CD? If anyone who doesn’t want their digital OR physical information backed up anywhere, and the trust a single HD and nature’s (or whoever’s… ) weather patterns not to fail or cause too much moisture in their environment… also, please stand up…

also, can we have something more intelligent than just getting in on the fun and criticizing Bosco’s opinion, and even name calling, etc… please, please, add to the discussion… Nemo I think added to the discussion.

and speaking for socialists urbanbard, when you’re obviously not one of them, I would have to say you’re just being naive if you think that people own what they create…
but, to be sure anyone who thinks Obama = Hitler has lost the argument in my book. what were we talking about again?

love from me,
+)    (<—that’s a smiley over there on the left)

UrbanBard

Governments are, by their nature, amoral. That is, that their leaders believe that they can define what is moral and thus what is good and right.

The problem is that bad consequences follow from bad (or immoral)  laws. Governments tend to use their control of the printing presses and educational establishments to blame everyone, but themselves, for the consequences. Million die, but it is never their fault, because their motives are pure.

Depressions just happen, they say. It can’t be the result of manipulating the money supply or ruinous taxes and regulations. Nor can it be from squandering the society’s wealth on bad public policy.

Periodically, the electorate must relearn that governmental actions have a high moral and economic price. And that the least government is the best government; that is the government which allows the population the most freedom.

But, Socialists are opposed to freedom and private property.

If people do not own what they create, then no one owns anything, not even themselves. If we own nothing there is no reason for us to create anything. This is why Socialist, Communist and Fascist societies impoverish themselves.

No, Obama doesn’t equal Hitler. Obama doesn’t have Hitler’s guts. Obama equals Jimmy Carter.

Ref Librarian

“I would have to say you’re just being naive if you think that people own what they create…”

Has anyone here heard of fan fiction? In that genre of fiction, they take characters and a world that someone else created and they write there own stories using them. Copyright owners don’t usually go after the little people who enjoy doing this and sharing what they wrote with a group….

Unless that person/persons start using their world and characters for profit. At that point the person who holds the copyright has no option but to go after the person and protect their copyright.

I don’t see Apple doing anything different that that.

I-agree-with_notYOU

I see your point Ref Librarian. Indeed it is not only possible, but happens all the time that ownership of a work doesn’t shift from the creator. But not only are there myriad counter-examples, but also the question of original ownership! You speak of fan fiction… so, in a university some guy has an idea, and then 5 other people spend several years implementing it… who is the creator? we give nary a glance to those five, known as graduate students, but all the credit goes to ‘some guy’, a professor… is the Professor the actual creator? At University of California, the following day a corporation owns the research, and is either not sharing with humanity or any relevant industry, unless they pay up, and not a single penny ever goes to any of those graduate students OR the state! Because the University is a profit making institution, even though it’s supposedly public, and all the profit goes into the pockets of the most highly ranked chancellors, and board members, merely a handful of people… are THEY the creators? who is responsible? Certainly tax-payers should get a rebate every time this happens… right? it’s a public university? they provided some funding support of the many decades.

UrbanBard

Fan Fiction is a sort of a compliment.

Of course, the polite thing to do is to ask permission.

Marion Zimmer Bradley has published a whole series of fan stories set in her “Darkover” universe. That universe was too Lesbian to appeal to me. Everything was about Power, adolescent anxiety and coming to age.

Eric Flint has had a delightful series of fan short stories in The Grantville Gazette based in his “1632” universe.

The problem that Apple is having with hackers and its EULA is that some of the people in the FOSS community have a decided socialist bent. They are anti-business. They want to place Apple and Microsoft in the same boat. The problem is that they aren’t producing much of value for anyone but themselves. I don’t see Linux Desktop going anywhere. This is because the FOSS community want to keep it hard to use.

UrbanBard

You are not being clear,  I-agree-with_notYOU. A University has the right to hire a professor to work part time to research a topic and to sell the research to whom ever they please. The professor gets the credit and the reputation while the persons, the University sells the research to, get the rights.

Humanity paid for nothing, nor did the relevant industry. So, why should they benefit?

Who is responsible? Why not let be the people who paid for the research, be responsible?

Then your problem is with Tax Funded universities? Usually, the laws are quite clear about this. If the University wants to take a profit, it must not commingle private and public funds.

But, any private institution can do research. Are you against that? The University can own a corporation that it does its commercial research.

How do you know that the chancellors are doing anything illegal?

dave00

To say that when you buy an Apple OS CD you only buy the plastic is absurd. You’re buying an OS, obviously. And to say that *using* an OS is a breach of copyright is also absurd.

I presume the article is only mentioning Apple’s more extreme arguments and that there are other more mainstream ones. Otherwise it just seems like another case of Apple’s legal bullying.

Ref Librarian

The question is not who does the work, it is who owns the copyright (or patent). They have the right to protect what they own. You may call someone who legally protects what they own a bully. I think they are smart, not to mention within their rights.

dave00

But Ref L, it’s not about protecting what they own, because when someone buys the OS CD Apple receives their full asking price. What they are actually protecting is their right to say: ‘OK you legitimately bought our CD but you can’t use it! Oh well, since you complain so much, we will let you use it, as long as you now buy one of our brand new computers as well!

UrbanBard

No, Dave, You buy the plastic disk along with the rights to use the intellectual property on the disk under certain conditions. Those conditions are that you will use that upgrade on only Apple hardware. You have to agree to those conditions before the installer loads the software now.

If you were buying the rights to modify the OS or the conditions, then Apple would be charging you much more than it is.

One way that Apple could nip the Hackintoshes in the bud is to charge a thousand dollars for the upgrade disk. Then when you register your Apple hardware you get a rebate for the difference between $1000 and $129. What that does is say, “If you want to create a hackintosh, okay, but the price for doing so is $1000.” The Hackers are so cheap that it wouldn’t be worth their while.

Ref Librarian

But Ref L, it?s not about protecting what they own, because when someone buys the OS CD Apple receives their full asking price. What they are actually protecting is their right to say: ?OK you legitimately bought our CD but you can?t use it! Oh well, since you complain so much, we will let you use it, as long as you now buy one of our brand new computers as well!

It is all about protecting what they own. Just like the copyright holders of books and fan fiction writers, Apple does not care if an individual jerry rigs something that will use their software for their own personal use, without making any money off of it. Just as soon as a person starts trying to make money (as Pystar is trying to do) off it, then they will move to protect what they own.

dave00

Urban:

I would be extremely surprised if Apple had the right to tell a PC user to unload a legit Mac OS on the grounds they only bought some plastic. IMHO they would have to sell you a legal agreement and be absolutely clear that you were buying a legal agreement and that you were *not* buying an OS.

Ref L:

They don’t *own* the right to say their software can only be used on a Mac. They own computer designs and software.

John Molloy

ok freetards, bog off. This is not Nam there are rules.

Ref Librarian

They do own the right to say that their software can only be used on a Mac. Anyone who buys the software agrees to it. If you don’t want to agree, don’t buy it. If you do buy, then you agree to their terms of use. You might resent the H out of it, but that is what you are doing.

Apple’s reputation is what it is because they control the Apple experience. i work daily with Microsoft software running on HPs and Dells and who knows what. It is a terrible experience. All the things we want to work together, do it very poorly. The reason that I own Macs at home is because I don’t want to struggle with my computer at home, too, as I might well have to do if Apple didn’t tell me that I must run their software on their machine. Do you know how many people buy Macs for the same reason I do? That is one thing that Apple is protecting.

And this is from a person who bought a German Apple clone in 1983! It was replaced within two years. The experience was not satisfactory, to say the least.

UrbanBard

Dave, Apple doesn’t have to tell anyone, it’s what the buyer agreed to. The conditions are on the box. It’s also what the user agreed to when they installed the software on the system.

Apple is just assuming that you are honest. And that you know what Intellectual Property is. You can’t be as dumb as you appear. You sound like you have never bought anything more complicated than a coke or a BIg Mac before.

When you purchase a car, you buy it under condition regarding the warranty. If you don’t live up to your maintenance schedule, then the dealer won’t fix the car when it breaks. Contracts bind both you and another party.

The DVD box is only an upgrade license for use on Genuine Apple hardware. If you use it on anything else, you are violating Apple’s rights. You might get away with it, since Apple isn’t actively looking for violators, but I believe that Apple will eventually get around to closing this loop hole.

Apple, with Mac OS X 10.6.2, recently bricked Hackintoshes with the Atom processor inside. The Hackers will get around this upgrade, but Apple has thrown down the gauntlet. This is just Apple’s opening moves.

Apple had every legal right to refuse to upgrade the software on computers it does not make. If you really owned the DVD and the Intellectual Property then you could sue Apple for bricking your PC. You would be laughed out of court.

Jim

Some days I wish I had $50 million to burn. I?d create a free to download and copy operating system that didn?t suck and was simple and elegant. I?d acquire a few nice applications, port them and make them exclusive to Bosco (the name of the OS, hey it?s my $50m, I?ll name it after my dog if I like). And my operating motto would simply be ?don?t be a dick?.


And you’d burn through more than $50 million and have squat to show for it.
You’d have to continue to dump in money(or make revenue somehow) for NOTHING is PERFECT! Nor would be your Bosco…and yo’d have to support it.

IOW, a very flawed scenario.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

And you?d burn through more than $50 million and have squat to show for it.

But it would be my $50 million and I’d smoke some fine Cuban cigars while I did it! FWIW, Be, Inc. made it to an IPO on less than $50 million.

You might get away with it, since Apple isn?t actively looking for violators, but I believe that Apple will eventually get around to closing this loop hole.

One day it will hit you what Bosco was saying and you’ll slap yourself upside the head for taking so long to get it. Apple will not close the loopholes, because closing the loopholes will make things difficult for its customers who comply with Apple’s wishes. Apple wants this both ways. It wants everything easy, it wants to ship (cheap) commodity hardware. It doesn’t want to implement protection. And then it wants to sue a customer who purchases licenses because the customer doesn’t comply with all the license terms.

James

Ugh. Just to beat the dead horse a little more, copyright (which is different than patent, as has been pointed out), or sole ownership, which s legally binding, always automatically goes to the creator of a work; with most works, registration isn’t even a requirement. In this case that would be the entity “Apple” (there are too many details to go into regarding that here).

The weak arguments against IP and copyright only leads me to believe that many of those shouting the loudest have never created anything and therefore never investigated the laws concerning it from that perspective. Someone like Linus chose to pursue a different model for Linux from the very beginning. And no offense intended, I do think it’s a remarkable accomplishment, but to play Devil’s Advocate here: how long has Linux been in development now with no genuinely easily usable distro for the non-geek?

Anyway, I’m just happy that it’s all coming to a close and ended the way it did.

I-agree-with_notYOU

I think I’m done trying to participate in macobserver discussions, not because ‘freetards’ is too resemblant of a youtube discussion, not because dave can speak up a little bit more without me, and not even because it’s oblique, but because… well… 3 times the page has ‘autoreloaded’ and once upon the submit button: i have lost all that i’ve typed…

so to those of all viewpoints, goodnite, and goodluck.

UrbanBard

Bosco said:
“One day it will hit you what Bosco was saying and you?ll slap yourself upside the head for taking so long to get it. Apple will not close the loopholes, because closing the loopholes will make things difficult for its customers who comply with Apple?s wishes. “

Keeping the customers satisfied is partly why Apple has not been more stringent in protecting its rights. But, when the hardware changed to Intel processors, this necessitated that Apple’s software change, too. Major adjustments lie ahead, but Apple has no reason to clue you in.

“Apple wants this both ways. It wants everything easy, it wants to ship (cheap) commodity hardware. It doesn?t want to implement protection. “

It’s more complicated than that. Apple never had this problem 4 years ago, when it used PowerPC processors. It was the move to Intel processors which opened up the Hackintosh or clone threat.

Now, Apple is moving to the 64 bit kernel over the next year. 90% of Mac applications will be recompiled in 64 bit code in six to nine months. Apple, in 10.6.3 or .4, will boot into the 64 bit kernel by default and some impressive security enhancements will kick in: DEP, ASLR, and sand boxing.

I believe that Apple will use 64 bit Security to shut this issue down. Apple will sell it as a security enhancement for lost or stolen laptops, but it will freeze out the Hackintoshes too. Apple has had five years to plan for this move to Intel. I seriously doubt that they have neglected anything. There simply was no reason to say anything until all the parts of their security system was in place.

“And then it wants to sue a customer who purchases licenses because the customer doesn?t comply with all the license terms.”

Apple is not going to sue customers. It will simply refuse to install the OS on anything but Genuine Apple hardware.

The Snow Leopard DVD changed its procedures recently. It now installs the software into a virtual space before it starts asking questions. Why shouldn’t Apple start verifying that you have permission and authorization to install the OS? Why shouldn’t it verify that the hardware is genuine Apple? We genuine Apple users will have no problem complying with Apple’s increased security. After all, we are honest.

UrbanBard

“Someone like Linus chose to pursue a different model for Linux from the very beginning.”

Linus Torvalds said that if he knew that BSD was viable, then he would not have bothered to convert the Minix kernel into Linux. It was just that UNIX was up in the air because Berkeley University was in a law suit with AT&T at the time.

“And no offense intended, I do think it?s a remarkable accomplishment, but to play Devil?s Advocate here: how long has Linux been in development now with no genuinely easily usable distro for the non-geek?”

I have hopes for Google Chrome OS, myself. Google has every reason to make Chrome into a general purpose, secure, HTML 5 based Operating System for the casual user. The reason Google is writing Chrome is to prevent being sabotaged by Microsoft, but the Chrome OS would customize Linux for Web use. That alone would prevent Chrome from being geeky.

Google’s intent is to start with NetBooks and move up toward Apple’s upper half of the consumer marketplace. The goal is for Apple and Google to split the market between them. Microsoft would be frozen out, because both Chrome and the Mac are essentially malware proof. The same could not be said of Windows.

“Anyway, I?m just happy that it?s all coming to a close and ended the way it did.”

It’s good when the rule of law prevails, rather than politics or corruption.

B9robot

It all comes down to the UELA that clearly states every time you run the installer that OSX should only be used on Apple’s own products.
Bosco you don’t need 50 million dollars to develop an OS.
OSX is ready to run now! Buy a Mac!
It’s a lot cheaper than 50 million dollars too!

Bryan Chaffin

I think I?m done trying to participate in macobserver discussions, not because ?freetards? is too resemblant of a youtube discussion, not because dave can speak up a little bit more without me, and not even because it?s oblique, but because? well? 3 times the page has ?autoreloaded? and once upon the submit button: i have lost all that i?ve typed?


Sorry about the hassle. The auto-reload is not supposed to be on any page other than the home page, but it crept back in during a recent back-end update.  Stephen has it fixed for the next back-end update, which is coming shortly!

daemon

I’m concerned that the EULA has been upheld. The wording of these default contracts are obtuse and often require the end user to sacrifice many rights they would normally have otherwise with no corresponding benefit granted for these loss of rights.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

I?m concerned that the EULA has been upheld. The wording of these default contracts are obtuse and often require the end user to sacrifice many rights they would normally have otherwise with no corresponding benefit granted for these loss of rights.

I’m surprised nobody has answered this concern yet. We’re talking about Apple here. They would never use a long, confusing EULA to make users sacrifice their rights. This is the company that took tough stands against shaking babies and bobblehead politicians when morally bankrupt developers tried to corrupt the public mind with their applications. If this were Microsoft (hiss! boo!) it would be a different story. But Apple is looking out for us.

UrbanBard

Don’t you understand, Daemon? You think that you have rights which are nothing more than vapor. You believe that you own the intellectual property which comes on a DVD. Therefore, you may modify it at will and install it on any computer which you own.

This is not true; these are merely the lies which members of the FOSS community tell each other.

You only have the rights which have been granted to you. The rights, which you have, are based on the price which you paid. The problem with the hackers are that they are cheap bastards who have no respect for anyone else. They rely on the fact that they are few in numbers and it is very difficult for the copy right holder to find and punish them.

Psystar took your FOSS opinions into the marketplace and the court room where they lost. The EULA says what it means and the courts will back it up.

The only fig leaf you have now is your anonymity and that will not last forever. Apple threw down the gauntlet when it blocked Snow leopard from running on the Atom based NetBooks. The hackers will respond to the challenge and will be shot down again. Eventually, the hackers will run out of cover.

geoduck

I?m surprised nobody has answered this concern yet. We?re talking about Apple here. ...snip… But Apple is looking out for us.

Wow such deep sarcasm for such an early Sunday morning.
The fact is Apple is a Company. Companies are Organisms, not people. As such Apple has no moral dimension. Apple does what it does because it’s good for business. The same as MS, or GE, or Burt’s Taco Palace. Apple yanked the shaking baby app not because of any morel revulsion, but once they realized what it was they concluded it might cost sales. Apple in the PsyStar case is defending it’s IP against this, and whomever is bankrolling them, because they have concluded that if cloning were allowed to go unchecked it would cost them sales. No More, No Less. Apple has put some of the software it has developed out as FOSS. They did so not because of some altruistic hope. They did so because they have concluded that eventually it will add to the bottom line.

Corporations have no moral dimension. Zilch, nada, none whatsoever. It’s all about profit and loss. In fact let’s assume for a moment that Apple had let people build their own clones commercially. Steve Jobs and the Board of Directors would likely have been sued and possibly been brought up on SEC charges for mismanaging the company and endangering the stockholders investments. Apple had no choice it HAD to defend its IP against Psystar and anyone else that would use it without permission. That’s business and business is not about being nice or right or wrong or morality. It’s about the letter of the law. Technicalities if you will, but that’s the rules of the game.

UrbanBard

“I?m surprised nobody has answered this concern yet. We?re talking about Apple here. They would never use a long, confusing EULA to make users sacrifice their rights. “

A EULA is in legalese. It must be so, if it is to stand up in court. But, there is plenty of plain spoken English in the EULA. It clearly states that the Intellectual property on the DVD is to be used ONLY for the purpose of upgrading genuine Apple hardware. It lists the Apple hardware on which it will not be authorized. These limitations are on the Box you buy. It is on the paperwork inside. It is on the program which you agreed to before the software would install. Only someone who does not read would miss it.

“This is the company that took tough stands against shaking babies and bobblehead politicians when morally bankrupt developers tried to corrupt the public mind with their applications. If this were Microsoft (hiss! boo!) it would be a different story. But Apple is looking out for us.”

Apple is protecting itself and its legal rights, but that benefits Mac users, too. It costs money to pay for the research and development for Mac OSX. That money comes from hardware sales. Anyone who misuses the upgrade DVD is stealing money from Apple. Why is this so hard to recognize?

Ref Librarian

Apple is defending my investment in their company. If they didn’t, I wouldn’t be an investor long.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

A EULA is in legalese. It must be so, if it is to stand up in court.

Bullshit. I have actually paid for legal advice from real lawyers who were more than comfortable writing a simple, easy to read EULA in English that they would be more than comfortable taking to court, or more likely, more than comfortable writing a friendly letter to an infringer telling them to stop an activity. EULAs are much less a strictly legal issue these days and much more a customer support and relations issue.

Think about this for a moment… What happens if 1000 Psystars pop up? Just 1000 not terribly bright entrepreneurs who think they’ve found another loophole and realize that Apple can’t fight the war on 1000 fronts; no conspiracy needed. Say it’s 1000 Mac developers who go the XBMC/Boxee route of seemingly legally installing their software on the Apple TV. Or what if iPhone jailbreaking goes mainstream and an install exploit is found that just happens to not be covered or anticipated by the EULA. Is Apple’s defense of its market scalable? Curious what you all think.

Ref Librarian

I’m glad that you paid real lawyers rather than the fake kind. I’m sure that the Apple company is doing the same and they are smart enough to take the advice they are given.

I don’t think any of those other things will happen since Apple is defending itself so rigorously now. If it did not then people would believe that it wouldn’t defend itself and try to take advantage of it.

UrbanBard

Geoduck said:
“The fact is Apple is a Company. Companies are Organisms, not people. As such Apple has no moral dimension. “

You have some really weird beliefs. Companies are composed of human beings. Companies have their interests and their legal rights, but it’s employees can get their panties in a twist. A company may act as a whole, but the people inside those companies know that their jobs are on the line.

There is a moral dimension in that Apple has contracts with their customers, employees and vendors. If Apple neglects their side of a contract, those people will howl.

“Apple does what it does because it?s good for business. The same as MS, or GE, or Burt?s Taco Palace. Apple yanked the shaking baby app not because of any morel revulsion, but once they realized what it was they concluded it might cost sales. “

Apple has a reputation which it tries to maintain. How it acts is no different from a Mom and Pop Store. Apple has a responsibility to protect its customers from trash. When Apple makes a mistake, then it is morally and legally obligated to correct it. This is honest and good for business. It maintains the trust that people have in Apple. Why do you try to besmirch this?

Steve Jobs has been known to get perturbed at lower employee’s actions. Steve takes these things personally. He is quite persnickety about the products which Apple sells.

“Apple in the PsyStar case is defending it?s IP against this, and whomever is bankrolling them, because they have concluded that if cloning were allowed to go unchecked it would cost them sales. No More, No Less. “

The legal rules are clear. If a company does not protects its property, then it no longer owns it. Just like a country which refuses to defend its borders eventually stops being a country.

“Apple has put some of the software it has developed out as FOSS. They did so not because of some altruistic hope. They did so because they have concluded that eventually it will add to the bottom line.”

Your statement is partly true, but it has a derogatory, leftist spin. Are profits a dirty concept to you?

NeXT Corporation purchased a license to use BSD UNIX from Berkeley University in 1986, long before Linux was developed and the Free and Open Source community was ever dreamed up. NeXT created the NeXTstep Operating System in 1989 with Unix as its foundations. Even then, NeXT volunteered code back to Berkeley University. It did so for both selfish and unselfish reasons. It wanted what it developed to become a standard. More often than not, what it developed was ignored.

When Apple bought NeXT Corp in 1997, it tried to get Apple developers and users to adopt NeXTstep but the developers refused. Apple was forced, over the next five years, to create a hybrid between NeXTstep and the old MacOS.

In the process, it developed UNIX code which it returned to BSD organizations—FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD. Apple has adoped Open Source code. It has returned code based on the license of the source. The largest writer of Open Source code in the world is Apple Corp, just as it is the largest UNIX operating system. Apple, thus, need not apologize to anyone in the FOSS community, because is receives very little of its code from Linux.

“Corporations have no moral dimension. Zilch, nada, none whatsoever. It?s all about profit and loss. “

You have no understanding about Apple and what motivates its management. What other corporation talks about “Changing the World” but Apple?

“In fact let?s assume for a moment that Apple had let people build their own clones commercially. Steve Jobs and the Board of Directors would likely have been sued and possibly been brought up on SEC charges for mismanaging the company and endangering the stockholders investments.”

Apple would be sued by its stockholders, not an agency of the government. The Board of Directors and the upper management would be replaced at the next stock holder meeting. The Obama administration has no legal means to oust Apple’s management.

“Apple had no choice it HAD to defend its IP against Psystar and anyone else that would use it without permission. That?s business and business is not about being nice or right or wrong or morality. It?s about the letter of the law. Technicalities if you will, but that?s the rules of the game.”

It’s both about what is legally right and moral. Cloners and Hackers have no moral right to misuse someone else’s intellectual property.

The FOSS community are often repeating concepts which are factually and legally untrue. This court case with Psystar will put these concepts to rest. We do not yet know who the backers of Psystar are. If Apple had lost, many more companies would have jumped into creating clones.

UrbanBard

Bosco, Apple needed to defend itself against Psystar in court or it would cease having any rights.

Nothing that Psystar or the hackers have done should been a surprise to Apple. This is the logical outcome of Apple’s move to Intel processors, three years ago. Apple, likely, started working on this problem before it considered moving to Intel.

This is security loophole which Apple is bound to close. It is an old process from when the Mac was a stand alone system. Whoever was at the keyboard, and had an installer disk in hand, had total control. Apple has already started changing that process, but it will move slowly.

I do not believe that Apple had the technical means to defend itself from the Hackers so long as it was in the 32 bit kernel. I’m guessing at what the 64 bit kernel can do, since Apple isn’t talking much about it. But, between DEP, ASLR, sand boxing and encryption, I think that Apple can do quite a lot to shut down the hackers and cloners.

The problem is that Apple needs to be careful not to abuse the rights of its legitimate customers.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Bosco, Apple needed to defend itself against Psystar in court or it would cease having any rights.

If you are talking legal rights, more bullshit. You are confusing copyright and trademark. If you are speaking in terms of practicality—i.e. that the 10% or 20% of users that do pay will remain willing to pay—you’re also way off base. See Chris Anderson’s discussion of how Microsoft dealt with Chinese piracy in Anderson’s excellent book, Free (which, btw, is “free” from the iTunes Store as a podcast).

If you’re confused about who went to court first, it was Apple that brought Psystar into court. Apple was defending a countersuit which would not have been filed without Apple going to court first.

Ref Librarian

Yes, they did go to court because they felt that they needed to stop Pystar, ie. defend what it owns. That’s usually the way these things work. What is your point? That a company has to play by the rules of the country it is selling it’s products in and adjust what it does accordingly?

geoduck

You have some really weird beliefs. Companies are composed of human beings. Companies have their interests and their legal rights, but it?s employees can get their panties in a twist. A company may act as a whole, but the people inside those companies know that their jobs are on the line.

On the contrary. This is why governments have had to act to protect Whistleblowers. Slap-suits and other company actions have been used to shut up troublemakers that threaten the bottom line.  In my experience in both large and small corporations and government jobs,  people mostly will grumble about ‘the man’ but do nothing that would threaten their job, their income, or their retirement. Protecting the public requires a ‘cop on the beat’.

[quote}There is a moral dimension in that Apple has contracts with their customers, employees and vendors. If Apple neglects their side of a contract, those people will howl.

This is a legal obligation that Apple honours for business reasons. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Apple has a reputation which it tries to maintain. How it acts is no different from a Mom and Pop Store. Apple has a responsibility to protect its customers from trash. When Apple makes a mistake, then it is morally and legally obligated to correct it. This is honest and good for business. It maintains the trust that people have in Apple. Why do you try to besmirch this?

Because it is a myth. Apple has a company reputation that causes customers to consider their products. Target donates to charities because it gives it good standing so customers visit it’s stores. Wallmart kept up unethical behaviour until it got caught and it began to impact the bottom line. Now they are trying to clean their reputation, without changing the behaviour. Nestle’ kept selling infant formula in third world countries causing many health problems and simply ignored the public outcry. Enron knew they were stealing and the employees laughed about it. Corporations have a business model. If the appearance of morality is part of the profit model then they act ethically. If they can make money by trading with Iran or selling weapons to Saddam then that’s what they do. To correlate this to an earlier point, people will gravitate to a company that matches their personal ethics. This reduces the incidence of someone ‘getting their panties in a twist’.

Your statement is partly true, but it has a derogatory, leftist spin. Are profits a dirty concept to you?

There is nothing wrong with profit. It’s the basis of the western economy. But don’t confuse profit and accountancy with ethics.

You have no understanding about Apple and what motivates its management. What other corporation talks about ?Changing the World? but Apple?

Changing the World is a great slogan but that’s a goal, not how a business is run.

Apple would be sued by its stockholders, not an agency of the government. The Board of Directors and the upper management would be replaced at the next stock holder meeting.

However given that level of corporate malfeasance I an very confident that the SEC (not the Obama administration) would look into the actions. They already looked into the backdating issue a few years back. Failing to protect the assets of Apple resulting in significant loss to shareholders would be a far more severe issue. I really feel that there would be inditements

It?s both about what is legally right and moral. Cloners and Hackers have no moral right to misuse someone else?s intellectual property.

I agree completely. I’m a writer and so have a natural bias toward the owners of IP, whether books, music, or software. (However I think the RIAA is a bunch of money grubbing Luddites).

The FOSS community are often repeating concepts which are factually and legally untrue. This court case with Psystar will put these concepts to rest. We do not yet know who the backers of Psystar are. If Apple had lost, many more companies would have jumped into creating clones.

Exactly and that’s why I’m thrilled at Alsop’s ruling.

UrbanBard

I’m not the one confused here, Bosco. Psystar abused both Apple’s copy rights and trademarks.

The EULA is a statement of Apple’s preexisting rights. Apple gained the copy right on the creation of its code. The EULA merely puts people on notice of where their rights end and the conditions under which Apple is allowing them to use their code. It creates a contract whereby the user agrees to abide with Apple’s rights. It is designed to avoid any moral or legal confusion, but some people are blind that other people have any rights.

“If you are speaking in terms of practicality?i.e. that the 10% or 20% of users that do pay will remain willing to pay?you?re also way off base. “

The percentage does not matter to the law. It is illegal to steal software. It may be impractical to prevent it. Bowing to the theft does not excuse it.

“If you?re confused about who went to court first, it was Apple that brought Psystar into court. Apple was defending a countersuit which would not have been filed without Apple going to court first.”

But it was Apple’s rights which Psystar was abusing, so I would expect that Apple took them to court.

When another company is stealing from you, that is what you do to stop it.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

When another company is stealing from you, that is what you do to stop it.

I’m just curious UrbanBand… Have you ever dealt with licensing your own software product? Or dealt with piracy? Or perhaps dealt with a school district a thousand times larger than Psystar the company that was misusing your software? Or maybe one where the tech support guy threatened to work around access to your license server? This kind of stuff happens more often than you’d ever believe, even when your EULA is clear, concise English. Some of these people, you can convert into customers. Some of them, you can’t. At the end of the day, business is about making money, not waving your disk at everyone in court. Again, read Anderson on how Microsoft dealt with the issue in China. It’s great instruction on thinking for the long term.

You do not lose your copyrights because you don’t notify or sue every infringer. You can legally lose a trademark (even a registered trademark) to dilution if you do not take recognized steps to defend it from misappropriation. Your post above where you say “Apple needed to defend itself against Psystar in court or it would cease having any rights” is incorrect as a matter of law. That is my point.

UrbanBard

What has Whistleblowers to do with this case? This is a clear case of Psystar stealing Apple intellectual property. What illegal act is Apple accused of?

” Protecting the public requires a ?cop on the beat?.

True, but the cop must enforce the law. It is Psystar, not Apple, who is the felon.

“This is a legal obligation that Apple honours for business reasons. Morality has nothing to do with it.”

You are assuming that morality, ethics and good business practices do not intertwine. Good ethics are good Public Relations. If a company acts abusively toward other people, they deservedly get a black eye.

The Kelo v New London, Connecticut was a bad black eye for Pfizer Corporation where they conspired with city officials to use eminent domain to steal poor people’s houses. Bad ethics and politics combined with bad business practices.

” Why do you try to besmirch this?

Because it is a myth. Apple has a company reputation that causes customers to consider their products. “

A good reputation may be false or true. If it is true, then it is not a myth. It takes great effort and cost to maintain a good reputation.

Ultimately, a company takes its methods of operation from its founders. If its founders are moral, then the company will continue to be so long after the founders have left. It took Hewlett Packard Corp 15 years to lose their way ethically, so the founders were forced to come out of retirement to set it right. The problem was that too many MBA’s rose to power.

If you want to generally indict American businesses then it is due to the rise of the MBA’s in them. These people know about nothing but money. Often, they have the ethics of varmints. Their worse problem is a very short time perspective. All they can see is boosting up the next quarter to keep the stock price high. The Federal tax code tends to force this perspective, though.

Apple does not act this way. Steve Jobs is unconcerned about market share. He believes that if Apple produces great products, then good will result from that. It has worked out

“If the appearance of morality is part of the profit model then they act ethically. “

What you are saying is that leaders may be unethical, dishonest or propagandistic. How is this different from any other human action? Why do you neglect that there are many corporations which act ethically? Why do you automatically assume the worst case?

Our political leaders are often unethical, dishonest or propagandistic. Do you hold the leaders of corporations to a higher standard?

“To correlate this to an earlier point, people will gravitate to a company that matches their personal ethics.”

This is true of politics. I suggest that you read “The Road to Serfdom” by F.A. Hayek. Many decent people were attracted to the NAZI movement, but they dropped out as it became increasingly unethical. Soon, only hateful people remained in the NAZI movement.

This holds true of Communism and the rise of the New Left in the US Democrat Party.

“There is nothing wrong with profit. ... But don?t confuse profit and accountancy with ethics.”

I don’t confuse anything, but there are honest ways of making a profit. The most common way is to deliver value to your customers and to keep the promises you make. It is moral to do that.

“Changing the World is a great slogan but that?s a goal, not how a business is run.”

Steve Jobs believes in both, so did Bill Hewlett and David Packard. Many authoritarians in companies do not. Perhaps, that is the only leaders that you have met. You, thus, expose your ignorance or bias.

“They already looked into the backdating issue a few years back. Failing to protect the assets of Apple resulting in significant loss to shareholders would be a far more severe issue. “

The issue was a failure to disclose information. You can back date employee options if you tell everyone about it. It looked as though the comptroller was stealing from Apple and she might well have been. No wonder she was fired.

There was, also, some question whether the Board of Directors had voted on Steve jobs employment package. This again goes to disclosure, since board meetings are public. This could be intentional or a mistake. It looked like great confusion. The Board Secretary and the Comptroller should have forced proper legal procedure and did not.

“The FOSS community are often repeating concepts which are factually and legally untrue. This court case with Psystar will put these concepts to rest.

Exactly and that?s why I?m thrilled at Alsop?s ruling.”

I’m glad that we can end on an agreement.

Ref Librarian

It seems to me that your point is that Apple shouldn’t have sued Psystar and should allow anyone who wishes to rip them off. I am, as a stockholder, pleased that Apple did sue Psystar and hope that they continue to protect what the company owns. If your hopes are dashed of turning a quick buck by ripping Apple off, so be it.

UrbanBard

“I?m just curious UrbanBand? Have you ever dealt with licensing your own software product? Or dealt with piracy? Or perhaps dealt with a school district a thousand times larger than Psystar the company that was misusing your software? “

No, I’m a writer. I’m approaching it from that angle. Companies may use different tactics to protect their rights. The courts are merely one.

” Some of these people, you can convert into customers. “

It’s hard to convert people who say that you have no rights. It’s like with shop lifters. The stores tried to ignore the problem until it got out of hand; it became a teenaged dare. The stores found that the only way to moderate it was to arrest and prosecute.

“You do not lose your copyrights because you don?t notify or sue every infringer. “

Apple is not suing every infringer, just Psystar. It has not been going after the Hackintoshes, but that may be under way. Blocking Atom based Netbooks is just a first step.

“You can legally lose a trademark (even a registered trademark) to dilution if you do not take recognized steps to defend it from misappropriation. “

Yes, I know all about Xerox and Kleenex. But, Psystar is violate both of Apple’s intellectual property.

“Your post above where you say ?Apple needed to defend itself against Psystar in court or it would cease having any rights? is incorrect as a matter of law. That is my point.”

If Apple hadn’t sued, how many more companies would have jumped in? There is PearC in Germany. Sometimes, a company must bark at offenders even if there is little that they can do.

As I said, I’m expecting Apple to apply a technical solution. The howls won’t be far off from that.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

It?s hard to convert people who say that you have no rights. It?s like with shop lifters. The stores tried to ignore the problem until it got out of hand; it became a teenaged dare. The stores found that the only way to moderate it was to arrest and prosecute.

Piracy of bits is nothing like shoplifting. Pay attention: I’m not making a freetard argument here that it is much less serious. But they are so dissimilar that to analogize misses the root problems and solutions that work. When you sell software, you are selling something that a lot of people could make available to your customers for free at very little cost and practically no risk to themselves. This is called reality. Laws and courts and 64 bit kernels are not going to do anything to change reality.

You can deal with that reality like a jerk or you can deal with it constructively. There are harsh economic consequences when your brand becomes synonymous with being a heavy handed jerk.

Nemo

For those who doubt that Apple had to move against Psystar, know that the law of intellectual property requires, inter alia, that holder of the right must take reasonable measure to police and enforce its rights or the law shall deemed those rights waived.  While the doctrine does not require Apple to respond to every minor trespass on its rights, where, as is the case with Psystar, a person infringes on one’s IP rights in a manner that is public and of sufficient scale to significantly impair the economic value of the IP rights at issue, the owner of the IP rights must seek to enforce his/its rights in court or risks that the court will deem those rights waived.

As for those who would try to overwhelm Apple with a strategy of letting a thousand Psystar’s bloom, know that willful infringement of a copyright is a federal felony when done for the purpose of personal financial gain, when a person produces one or more infringing copies that have a value greater than $1,000.00, or when you infringe on a work intended for commercial distribution by uploading the infringing work on a computer network.  17 U.S.C ? 506.

xmattingly

The default for anything new and interesting (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) is ?please copy and share? and Apple is in court with a ?do not copy what you?ve purchased from us to something we don?t approve of? argument.

Attempting to draw an analogy between social networking/viral marketing to commercially copyrighted IP? Jesus, son… here’s another analogy for you: if brains were computers, you should trade in your cheap-ass Dell for something more reliable, ‘cause your motherboard is fried.

The economic right is the English and American tradition. It says that creators should get paid for copies.

So you kinda sorta understand why Apple is vigorously defending its IP, but you’ll turn a blind eye to that and bitch about the Evil Empire to everyone within earshot anyway. And by the way, that’s not the whole picture. It’s not merely about getting paid for copies, it about ascertaining limits of use within a licensed provision.

We don?t have a right to tell end-users they can?t deface our work or display it in a way that we might find objectionable.

Huge, glaring difference between an individual cracking Apple’s OS and toying with it and a couple of thugs doing the same, then selling their wares on the open market for profit.

I?d be much more comfortable if Apple relied on provisions of the DMCA to protect its software than on a contract that nobody reads.

Alsup ruled in Apple’s favor on BOTH counts. Perhaps you’d have been more comfortable, had you not read the ruling while standing on your head.

I just think big companies shouldn?t enjoy market advantage from what amount to special legal privileges.

Not special privileges. Law.

I know the political makeup of Mac users leans heavily left-Democratic.

As IF political leaning has one iota of relevance to your platform of choice, but I’ll bite: I use Macs exclusively, and I’m Libertarian. No wonder your complaint stems from blatant theorizing of copyright law, suggestion of conspiracy between big corp. and the U.S. court system, and self-contradiction. You might name your $50 million vaporware the Brainless Equation.

UrbanBard

“Bosco said:

UrbanBard said: It?s hard to convert people who say that you have no rights. It?s like with shop lifters. The stores tried to ignore the problem until it got out of hand; it became a teenaged dare. The stores found that the only way to moderate it was to arrest and prosecute.

Piracy of bits is nothing like shoplifting. “

Of course it is. In both cases, it is petty theft from people who are scofflaws.

Pick pocketing a little pretty and disobeying a EULA bears little risk. It became a fad. It was only when the risk and penalties increased that young people stopped doing it so much. I expect Apple will start laying on the risks and penalties soon. It will do so without losing its cool. It will simply shut you down.

“Pay attention:...they are so dissimilar that to analogize misses the root problems and solutions that work.”

No, You are just not smart enough to see the similarities. Or you are blind enough to avoid them.

“When you sell software, you are selling something that a lot of people could make available to your customers for free at very little cost and practically no risk to themselves. “

This is my point. The only reason it is becoming a fad is that there is so little risk. But, I expect that to change.

“This is called reality. Laws and courts and 64 bit kernels are not going to do anything to change reality.”

We will find out, shortly, who has a better grasp on reality.

Apple has thrown down the gauntlet to the hacker community—that is reality. Apple didn’t have to do that. It wouldn’t have done so unless it was ready to pounce.

“You can deal with that reality like a jerk or you can deal with it constructively. “

Apple is unlikely to take any business lessons from Microsoft.

“There are harsh economic consequences when your brand becomes synonymous with being a heavy handed jerk.”

Apple is not becoming any more heavy handed than it did with the iTunes Music store. Apple asked people to stop stealing music and then gave them a convenient way to buy music.

The point where we differ is that I think most people want to be honest. They don’t want to either steal music or software.

The problem is that there is a group at the FOSS community who have persuaded themselves that it is okay to steal Apple’s OS. I don’t believe Apple will cooperate with that.

UrbanBard

Thank you, Nemo, for laying down the law.

UrbanBard

Thanks for your input, xmattingly. I couldn’t agree more.

I would add only one thing. Apple’s traditional market niches have been in the Graphics, Design and the Education markets. These markets tended to lean left politically. So, Bosco was correct in his assertions fifteen years ago.

But, with the introduction of the iMac, Apple started appealing to the upper half of the consumer market. These are young, middle class, professionals who routinely vote independent or Libertarian. Apple sells 92 percent of the laptops costing more than a thousand bucks. And 75% of its computers sold are now laptops. This alone would make Apple centrist.

Apple has been making a major move to capture the Small to Medium sized Business markets. These people tend to be center right like most of the country.

So, what constitutes Apple’s customer base has changed over time and has been slowly moving toward the right.

At best, you could say that Bosco is way behind the times.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

For those who doubt that Apple had to move against Psystar, know that the law of intellectual property requires, inter alia, that holder of the right must take reasonable measure to police and enforce its rights or the law shall deemed those rights waived.?

Bullshit Nemo. You are talking about trademark law. You do not lose your copyright because you don’t take reasonable measures to police or enforce. All you need to do is stick a notice on your goods. With digital goods, the DMCA gives you additional standing and avenues of recourse if you add explicit protection mechanisms (aka “locks”).

You know guys, if you’re gonna call me stupid, please have your facts straight. You too UrbanBard. It is so frigging laughable that somebody who doesn’t know thing one about writing or selling software is calling me stupid in the same breath as saying there will be technological solutions to prevent illicit copying.

UrbanBard

You need to take a class in business law, Bosco. You are speaking from a lack of knowledge.

You can lose physical property if you do not protect it.  The courts have taken the position that if you allow someone to violate your property rights long enough to set up an expectation, then you cannot change your mind later.

I don’t believe you are stupid, Bosco, nor did I say so. You are merely bigoted and ignorant.

xmattingly

I wouldn’t exactly call pointing out Bosco’s inconsistencies and flawed logic a genius move, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

On the other hand, any perceived political correlation with the majority of Apple’s market segment is completely absurd. It has far less to do with income level or career (neither of which is a determinant, generalized or otherwise, for political affiliation), than with what type of product a person or business is willing to pay for.

Obama owns a gas guzzler. Warren Buffett drives a fairly cheap car. Consumerism is a mixed bag.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

You can lose physical property if you do not protect it.? The courts have taken the position that if you allow someone to violate your property rights long enough to set up an expectation, then you cannot change your mind later.

Cool. Now that Ted Landau owns the iPhone OS, maybe he can license it to the rest of us! Collect your fanboy pin. I’ll remember not to bother with you anymore.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

The point where we differ is that I think most people want to be honest. They don?t want to either steal music or software.

OK, I’ll bite one more time. The “insider number” on the average number of times songs from the paid music services get shared with people who didn’t purchase is 10. There de facto business model of these services is just to sell enough copies to be profitable. When Apple started its iTMS, I welcomed the DRM as a way to have a large catalog available conveniently and safely. The proprietors of this site, Bryan in particular, were adamantly hostile to the DRM regimes that popped up. The online music industry has realized that the copies are not the value proposition, that copyright is just a component of why customers will buy the digital goods. And so you’ve seen the end of DRM on music. A similar evolution is happening with video, to the point where the first Blueray disk I purchased a couple weeks ago has a special disk with a digital copy I can put on my iPhone.

Software is going the same way. Developers are already giving away a lot of the bits, whether they intend to or not. There is no technical fix. As a developer, you have two options. Sit and whine and sue or move up the value chain and stay in business. New question fanboys… If Apple has to sue Psystar, what does that say about Apple’s value proposition that it could be undercut so drastically as to supposedly threaten one of its core businesses?

John Molloy

OK, I?m done. Enjoy your victory parade.

Er why are you still here?

gslusher

Sigh-*. Take the result as it is and step back 10 feet. Does it bother any of you that Apple is relying on a low-level procedural mechanism of the CPU copying the software into RAM to claim a copyright violation through license infringement? Here we are in 2009 when the default for anything new and interesting (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) is ?please copy and share? and Apple is in court with a ?do not copy what you?ve purchased from us to something we don?t approve of? argument.

Bosco:

That is NOT what the judge said. I don’t know if you’ve read the judgment, but here’s a bit of it, essentially as quoted in the TMO article:

“According to Apple, Psystar has violated its exclusive right to copy Mac OS X. Psystar admits that it has made copies of Mac OS X and installed those copies on non-Apple computers. In addition, when Psystar turns on its computers running Mac OS X, another copy of the software is made to the random access memory.  Psystar has thus infringed Apple?s reproduction right.”

[Emphasis added]

Not the “in addition.” That refers the “reproduction right.” It’s only part of the argument. You act like it was the sole argument.

As I expect that you are an attorney (like me and, probably, most of the posters here), it might be wise to listen to the one poster here whom we know IS an attorney (Nemo). It might also be prudent to actually read the entire judgment. It’s only 16 pages (double-spaced). You can get it at DocStoc. It’s free to read online. You can download it free by registering. (I use a yahoo.com email account for such sites, to avoid pestering emails.)

gslusher

As I expect that you are an attorney

Old age and typing too fast—that should, of course, be “As I expect that your are NOT an attorney…” Wish we could edit, again.

Nemo

Dear Bosco:  If I meant to limit my statement that the law requires the owner of a copyright to reasonably police and enforce that copyright, I would have said so.  The obligation to reasonably police and enforce one’s rights under the circumstances applies to copyright, patent, and/or marks.  The principle that one can waive one’s rights is common ideal in the common law.  For example, under the doctrine of adverse possession of realty, if the owner of the real property does not move to evict an open and notorious squatter within a period of time, 15 to 20 years in most jurisdiction, then owner’s title shall be deemed waived and shall be vested in the squatter.  The idea is that the law does not permit a person to sit on his rights and then unfairly spring them on an unsuspecting person.  See Nimmer on Copyright. 

The copyright mark merely puts the world on notice that the expression set forth in the tangible medium is copyrighted and subjects the infringer to all the penalties of the Copyright Act.  It, however, does not void the venerable doctrine that sitting on one’s rights risks losing those rights under the equitable doctrine of waiver.

Bosco, I am going to start charging you and Daemon for law school.  After all it cost me nearly $80,000.00 nearly twenty years ago for law school, and I think that I should get some return, unless you take the view that my work, like Apple’s, should also be available for free.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Like Happy Birthday, right Nemo? In the world of software, where products—even operating systems—move exceedingly fast and have very short lifetimes by traditional copyright standards, you would never, ever, ever be subject to any abandonment argument. Please cite a case for us which applies here. I’ve just given you an opposite example.

UrbanBard

“UrbanBard said:... The courts have taken the position that if you allow someone to violate your property rights long enough to set up an expectation, then you cannot change your mind later.

Cool. Now that Ted Landau owns the iPhone OS, “

Apple is protecting the iPhone; that is why each iPhone update wipes out jail breaking and downloaded apps. The courts don’t say that you have to be efficient at protecting your property, but you have to try to do so.

UrbanBard

“UrbanBard said: The point where we differ is that I think most people want to be honest. They don?t want to either steal music or software.
OK, I?ll bite one more time. The ?insider number? on the average number of times songs from the paid music services get shared with people who didn?t purchase is 10. “

I said that people WANT to be honest. I never said that they succeed.

Besides, there are other legal way to get music on an ipod. The most common way is to buy CD’s.

” A similar evolution is happening with video, to the point where the first Blueray disk I purchased a couple weeks ago has a special disk with a digital copy I can put on my iPhone.”

Blueray is almost dead and Video downloads is not yet common and will be.

“Software is going the same way. “

No, Apple is going to change the game, but it has some logistical problems to clear up, first. No Hurry..

” If Apple has to sue Psystar, what does that say about Apple?s value proposition that it could be undercut so drastically as to supposedly threaten one of its core businesses?”

What core business is that? Why are you so obtuse? Why can’t you make a case rather than hurl vague assertions?

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

I said that people WANT to be honest. I never said that they succeed.

I really don’t care what you think you said. All evidence indicates that you’re clueless when it comes to piracy. You’re clueless on the prevalence. You’re clueless on technical measures, really clueless, like stay away from the KoolAid clueless. You’re also clueless on legal requirements to protect copyright. You’re clueless on Blueray. Maybe Psystar wanted to be honest too, but the EULA restrictions were too onerous. Did you ever consider that? And weren’t you the guy who said you can’t sell to people who cheat you? Wrong. Do you even know what you think?

I can guaranfreakingtee that if you ran a software company, you would have a stroke the first day from seeing that all your wishes and assumptions about customers are pure fantasy. Even when you make it simple and obvious, lots of people will ignore your wishes and many will walk right up to you and skirt around the edges. In that environment, you have a couple of options. (1) You can make sure Nemo gets a return on investment for his education or (2) you can figure out how to make money anyway.

And since you can’t think through the inconsistencies of your whole Apple fanboy position, let me spell it out for you. Psystar was not a threat because they dared to challenge the EULA and Apple had to defend the honor of its one sided shrink wrap “contract”. Psystar was a threat because their offerings and price points point out that Apple’s machines are overspec’d and too expensive for a very significant portion of the market. If Apple wanted to make Psystar and Hackintoshers go away, it could ship a $50 Mac OS X Lite. Make it work on only one core. Problem solved. Goodwill of the community and the marketplace restored.

UrbanBard

Bosco, it is clear that you will listen to no one. The courts are against you, the law is against you, morality and ethics are against you. You have the soul of a weasel.

At best, you can say that the world is full of thieves and villains. I agree with that. The world is, also, full of sophists who provide false arguments which justify theft. Are you in training for a position with the Obama administration?

You say that there is no technical fix to hacking. I say that this position merely indicates your vast ignorance. It was a technical issue which opened Apple up to Hacking and Cloning. So long as Apple stayed with PowerPC processors, it was safe from your ilk.

Apple has had four plus years to work on this problem. Neither of us know what moves it will make.

Apple is starting its moves against the hackers. It has won against Psystar, but so long as it is easy and risk free to violate Apple’s rights, then some people will attempt to do so. Others, like yourself, will give them moral excuses.

I do not know what technical fix Apple is likely to use. It will place hackers in the same category as malware writers. What beefs up Apple security against the malware writers can be used against the hackers, too.

I can see the weak points which Apple is likely to fix. DVD’s will need to go, as will installers which allow the person at the keyboard total control. The same is true of software downloads which don’t verify the authority and permissions of the user. Signed certificates will be a part of this, but those protections could take many guises. Anonymity is bound to vanish; we will be forced to prove who we are—what authority and permissions we have.

The Mac grew from being a stand alone system where the user had total control. That is pass?. We have computers, before us, which are more powerful than a Cray computer from ten years ago. It is time that we give our computers the same security which a Cray would have. It is too bad that this will cause legitimate Macintosh users inconvenience.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

It is too bad that this will cause legitimate Macintosh users inconvenience.

OK, I get the joke now. Glad I could play the straight man. And I’m glad the coffee that just went through my nose wipes up nicely from my MBP screen. Nicely done UB!

brett_x

Bosco - I’m not sure I follow you completely on this, though I do tend to agree with most of your assertions (the parts that I understand, anyway). How would you feel if Apple tied installation of Mac OS X to a hardware key/chip on the computer? Would that be better than leaving it open and easy to install on non-authorized computers and fighting it out in court?

UrbanBard

“Psystar was a threat because their offerings and price points point out that Apple?s machines are over spec?d and too expensive for a very significant portion of the market.”

Apple’s marketing plan positions itself to satisfy people who value quality, durability, panache and ease of use. This places the Macintosh in the creative markets, the upper half of the consumer market and the SMB market. Apple chooses to leave the lower half of the consumer market, Government and Big Business markets alone because each niche has special problems which cost more than they are worth.

Apple would besmirch its trade name if it compromised its quality. Apple would rapidly become as shoddy as the rest of the computer marketplace; it is making excellent profits in a down economy by refusing to follow your advise.

You want to steal Mac OS X for use on PC’s. Cannot you see that Apple created a “Good” OS by not following Wintel toward the cheapest possible price? And that if Apple followed your advise then there would be no more improvements to Mac OS X. You would kill the goose that laid the golden eggs.

“If Apple wanted to make Psystar and Hackintoshers go away, it could ship a $50 Mac OS X Lite. Make it work on only one core. Problem solved. Goodwill of the community and the marketplace restored.”

I expect Google’s Chrome OS to satisfy this function. It will be more secure than Windows and good enough for light duty web use. It won’t compete with Apple, because it will be overloaded with Advertisements.

Anyone who wants to do serious computing will buy a Mac. Microsoft will be forced back into its Government and Big business niche, because they will have IT professionals who can keep Windows from imploding from the malware.

Terrin

I am unsure if this is true. Regardless, this case wasn’t about that. Apple does own the right to say who can profit from the software. Keep in mind, Apple isn’t suing a person who installed it’s OS on a hackintosh. Apple is suing a company who is trying to make money on Apple’s work in direct competition to Apple without compsensating Apple [paying for the OS doesn’t count, as that is an upgrade price).

Further, Apple isn’t like Microsoft in the sense that it sells both upgrade and full install versions of it’s OS to which it charges appropraitely. Apple only sells upgrade versions of it’s OS. So when people buy OSX and install it on a PC, for that to arguablly be legal they’d have to already own a Mac with a full install version of the CD (e.g. one that came with the Mac), Otherwise, a person doesn’t own anything then a upgrade right.

They don?t *own* the right to say their software can only be used on a Mac. They own computer designs and software.

UrbanBard

Actions have consequences, Brett_x.

The actions of sophists like Bosco are pushing Apple toward solutions which may offend legitimate Mac users.

The hope is that Apple will proceed carefully in this. I don’t mind if Apple has a central data base to periodically verify that I am a genuine Apple buyer, but I want Apple to do this in a way which inconveniences me as little as possible.

If I don’t know where my computer is, then I want to track it via GPS. Perhaps, I forgot that I loaned it to a friend while I was drunk. If so, I can go there to pick it up. If the computer is lost or stolen, then I want its location to be relayed to the police so they can arrest the felon.

If I am a Small Business owner who laptop is missing, I want any private company data to be encrypted until it is back in my possession. I don’t want some felon to be able to over write my software. Nor do I want my employee to install software without my permission.

This level of control has been missing from the macintosh, but many Small business owners will appreciate its security. This same security system would also disable any Hackintoshes.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@brett_x: If that’s what Apple has to do technically to protect the Mac OS X, and legally to make things slam dunk DMCA circumvention device infringements, then yeah. It raises Apple’s costs—proprietary hardware, what to do about open source Darwin, etc.

I think Apple wants all the benefits of low cost multi-sourced commodity hardware (Intel x86) and open source software and process (Darwin). At the same time, it wants to ignore the reality of a tremendous amount of distributed expertise, which rightly or wrongly, like it or not, may not have its interests aligned with Apple’s. Prices of everything, while perhaps not headed to absolute zero, are headed below what any of us could have imagined 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago. The rest of we software developers are evaluating the entire value chain so we can profit in this environment. There are freemium models, service models, all sorts of models that marginalize illicit use without treating paying customers like criminals or chumps. Apple is being heavy handed and non-responsive to market pressures, relying on the courts to have its way. The RIAA did this too.

UrbanBard

“At the same time, it wants to ignore the reality of a tremendous amount of distributed expertise, which rightly or wrongly, like it or not, may not have its interests aligned with Apple?s.”

Apple probably expects that there are people like you in this world. It has merely not had the means to address the problem yet. It must act judiciously to avoid offending its customer’s rights.

“The rest of we software developers are evaluating the entire value chain so we can profit in this environment. There are freemium models, service models, all sorts of models that marginalize illicit use without treating paying customers like criminals or chumps. “

How you, in the FOSS community, act is none of Apple’s business unless you violate Apple’s rights. Apple will respond in legal ways. The people who violate Apple’s EULA are not customers or chumps. You are criminals, but you continue to lie to yourself about that. Apple can do nothing about the deluded.

Nor is Apple being heavy handed or unresponsive to market pressures. Apple does not want you as a customer. It wants you to go away. Apple does not want people who will steal from it.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Nor is Apple being heavy handed or unresponsive to market pressures. Apple does not want you as a customer. It wants you to go away. Apple does not want people who will steal from it.

1997. Apple entered a deal with Microsoft where MS invested $150m in non-voting Apple stock. This settled a case where Apple had the goods on Microsoft using a software contractor previously used by Apple to steal Quicktime code. This is called business, not a prescription drug induced Rush Limbaugh morality play.

Furthermore, I do not steal from Apple. I don’t condone it. I have purchased thousands of dollars of music, movies, and apps from iTunes. I have never burned a CD for anyone outside my immediate family. I do not misuse Apple Software Licenses. Even when an Apple Store employee gave me the store disk and activation code for iWork for a project I was doing with him as part of his job, I bought my own copy. Nor am I an open sourcer. Far from it. But I am keenly aware of trends that affect my ability to sell software and services to customers. These trends present challenges, but the proposed “solutions” are invariably much more problematic.

At the same time, I am not a fan of, for example, Apple shipping the exact same installer for Snow Leopard on the $29 Leopard upgrade disk that it does on the $159 Box Set disk and suggesting that using the $29 for a Tiger upgrade is a license violation. I am not a fan of Apple not issuing any kind of correction to Mossberg’s column that pointed this capability out if Apple truly believes it is doing anything but implementing a frigging $100 tip jar. My Mom, who at 60+ is still very smart, has better things to do than keep up with the arcane marketing and licensing practices of computer companies, would quite reasonably see this like two shovels at the hardware store, one for soft dirt and one for hard dirt. If the soft dirt shovel works on her hard dirt, then it was just a god damned shovel, ferchrissakes. Yet she, and I’m sure tons of other people end up being technical EULA violators (and potentially criminal violators) because Apple wants customers to self-select into the correct price group based on a EULA and a salesman or web page pushing them to cough up $100 more. I won’t go so far as to call it an unethical business model, but it is probably untenable among the general public. And if Apple self-righteously thinks it’s anything more than a voluntary tip jar, it deserves to smacked upside the head by the hoards.

ctopher

So now we’re at the crux of Bosco’s argument.

Apple should do MORE work to make an upgrade from Leopard to Snow Leopard only work when Leopard is installed.

But Apple decided that if someone changed a hard drive, or wiped their disk, they’d still let them use the Snow Leopard upgrade.

Further, they decided that making someone go get their Leopard disk and present it to the Snow Leopard installer was too onerous.

What this means is that the Snow Leopard disk can really be used to install the operating system on any Macintosh that will support it.

But legally, if someone had Tiger and jumped to Snow Leopard, they’re supposed to purchase the Box Set.

What does this have to do with Psystar? Why it’s clear that Apple is deceiving it’s customers by offering an upgrade that will in fact do more than the license allows! Wait, that’s not what Psystar did…

Oh yea, by suing Psystar, they are putting a chill on all those mac users who purchased the $29 upgrade when they didn’t have Leopard and should have purchased the Box Set and now they’re all fearful of prosecution. Wait, that’s not what Psystar did….

OK, it’s that by treating Psystar so harshly, when this could have happened to any other unsuspecting customer like Bosco’s Mother that Apple is showing how they really feel about their customers. It’s an outrage!

But is Bosco’s mother going to sell Hackintoshes with $29 Snow Leopard upgrades when they didn’t start with Tiger? Maybe she’ll get swatted down by Apple for selling her old MacBook that had Tiger, but she upgraded to Snow Leopard with the $29 installer because heck it’s sure cheaper that that boxed set and looks the same, and the type that says it’s an upgrade for Leopard is too small to read and heck it just worked and now they want to throw her in jail? All because Bosoc’s sainted mother ran an installer when she shouldn’t have and it just worked and now she’s broken the law, but she didn’t know it and now she’ll have to pay?

And this has WHAT to do with Psystar?

Psystar used a known hack that would circumvent Apple’s check on the hardware. This check wasn’t particularly complicated, but it was put there to, as my father used to say “Keep honest people honest.”

Well, Psystar wasn’t honest. They circumvented the check.

Bosco seems to understand this as he writes software and sells it. He also develops hardware/software solutions and sells those so he understands the difference between honest people and morally reprehensible people who threaten to go around his attempts at “keeping honest people honest”. He knows that there are lots of dishonest people out there, ripping off people’s work. He knows this and he tried to do what he can to stop it, but when Apple tries to stop it he’s unhappy?

It appears that Bosco is unhappy because Apple makes it so damn easy for people to rip them off. Shoot they’re asking for it by not including licensing checks and making people just through hoops. As a small business Bosco cannot make it so easy. Bosco HAS to include license checks and he does not have the money to sue people who steal his software because he’s small. But Apple? They make all this money because they’ve invested millions in development making their products easy to use and to top it off, they make it easy to install! Too easy.

So Bosco is happy that Apple looks like a heavy handed a**hole by suing poor little Psystar. Shoot Psystar isn’t taking anything away from Apple because Psystar customers wouldn’t pay Apple prices for Apple hardware even though Apple hardware is unique in styling and packaging because even though it’s a fancy aluminum package it’s still over the counter PC components that are available for much less (without the fancy packaging) from other sources.

So why should this fancy packaging, which does not have a technical impact on the functioning of their OS, allow them to limit what someone does with their OS? If the OS doesn’t NEED their fancy packaging, why should they enjoy the monopoly of that OS operating ONLY on their fancy packaging? It’s as if the OS and the fancy packaging constitute an Apple product. If that’s so, why do they sell the OS separately? What’s wrong with Apple! Can’t they see the error in their ways?

I believe this is what has Bosco’s panties in a twist.

UrbanBard

This is about your morality, Bosco, not Apple’s. If Apple does something that you disagree with, this does not permit you to violate Apple’s rights.

This is about you providing moral cover for someone else to steal Apple’s property. This is wrong on your part.

If Apple has unwise or duplicitous marketing, then you have every right to knock Apple for that. Don’t confuse a flaw on Apple’s part, with a belief that you can take the law into your own hands.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Take the moral cover thing up with Walt Mossberg. He has a far bigger audience than I. Surely, Apple will deny him credentials to future media events for spilling the beans.

The tide is turning on Apple. It’s a shame, because they do some very nice, unique things with their products. But those things don’t justify the comparatively high prices or the strict control for many applications. I was looking at Android SDK docs today. It seems like those people would love it if I made an app where bobbleheaded politicians shake babies and get serviced by interns. They might not want it in the Android marketplace, but they have no problem with me sharing such a beast with people who would appreciate it. Only the existence of Apple’s App Store would make me think that’s pretty damned cool of the Android folks!

UrbanBard

“Take the moral cover thing up with Walt Mossberg.”

It is not immoral to give people more than they were told to expect. Who was hurt when Apple gave to Leopard OS users a full DVD for $29, instead of an upgrade disk? I appreciated that Apple did that.

I had an upgrade disk for Leopard 10.5 and it sucked.

Were the Tiger users harmed when they were told to purchase the boxed set which also had iLife and iWorks 2009? Did Apple lie to anyone about this or did they allow Mac pundits to assume erroneously?

“The tide is turning on Apple… But those things don?t justify the comparatively high prices or the strict control for many applications.”

If you don’t want what Apple has to offer, then don’t buy. Apple will do without your purchases. Apple has been growing at 30% a year when the computer market place has been flat. They don’t need you.

Nor are the Mac’s over priced when you compare them to a comparably equipped Dell or HP. Wintel pundits, too often, compare the Mac to White box or inferior computers. If you want junk, then buy Wintel.

I tend to keep my Mac for four years. I never have any breakdowns. My friends who own PC’s are constantly having hardware problems. Then, they have malware problems, too. I have none of that.

It’s still to soon to know what the response to System Seven will be. The Vista users have every reason to upgrade. The IT department in enterprise market will hold off for better times. The Windows 2000 and XP users are a toss up. Well over half of them will need new hardware. The people I know who run XP, see nothing very attractive about System Seven.

“I was looking at Android SDK docs today.”

Android will not affect iPhone sales; It has a poor business plan. Nor will its apps compete with the App store. There are a host of reasons why.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/11/10/inside_googles_android_and_apples_iphone_os_as_business_models.html

zewazir

But those things don?t justify the comparatively high prices or the strict control for many applications.

If you do not believe their products are worth the price, don’t buy them.  It’s that simple.  However, as is evidenced by Apple’s continued growth even in the midst of an economic, there are many people who are of the opinion that the features of Apple’s products are worth the extra investment.

The belief that Apple products are overprices does not give one the right to violate their rights in order to undercut their prices.

The tide is turning on Apple.

The latest sales figures do not agree with you. If you do not like the prices, buy something else. Defending the right to steal Apple’s OS and make a profit from it just shows a complete lack of respect for property rights.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

The belief that Apple products are overprices does not give one the right to violate their rights in order to undercut their prices.

Good one Mr. Obvious. Of course it doesn’t give anyone the right to do that. And I totally appreciate how you were outspoken when the music industry experienced the same thing. You and Lars from Metallica, wiping your arses with Benjamins and telling the world how copying would make you starve. You’re the guy with the “I love Hillary Rosen” sticker on his Ford F-150. Never mind that she probably doesn’t love you back. And I think I saw you at the “RIAA Community Copy Cops” get-together. What a fun time that was, especially when we showed the YouTube (with properly licensed music, of course) of that little emo teenager getting pummeled by one of the enforcement volunteers for having a mix CD with an illicit copy of Marilyn Manson on it. Good times!!

Get this through your head. I am not providing justification of theft. It’s business reality. You cannot begin to stop people from copying your digital goods without imposing Draconian measures that will make your product undesirable to use. Even what seem like the most robust protection schemes are but a speedbump and a welcome challenge to those who would crack them. If you take enough things to court or issue threatening letters left and right, you may be legally right, but you will lose social acceptability. Apple already has a nasty rep for that kind of behavior. Ultimately, Apple is selling “cool”, not Mac OS X software, not iPhones, not music. They really are “up the value chain” on that. But they distract from their message and their inimitable “cool factor” by getting into this garbage like with Psystar and playing cat/mouse with jailbreakers and hackintoshers. Open things up a little and the problems will self-marginalize.

geoduck

Ultimately, Apple is selling ?cool?, not Mac OS X software, not iPhones, not music. They really are ?up the value chain? on that.

OK wait just a cotton picking minute.
I buy Apple products because for my needs they work the best. I get paid to fix nasty chronic Windows problems. I work with Windows, I know Windows. Windows hardware and software. I’ve worked with it all the way back to Win3.11. I buy Apple products because of the quality, not some ‘cool’ factor. I find it very insulting that you’d suggest otherwise. This 47 year old son of a Norwegian mechanic doesn’t give a s*** about ‘cool’.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

This 47 year old son of a Norwegian mechanic doesn?t give a s*** about ?cool?.

Sure you do. Mac OS X runs just fine for running FrontRow on very low end PC hardware. It’s called the Apple TV and it’s $225, including wireless-n and HDMI out. If you do email, music, movies, and web, it has more than enough horsepower for you. It smokes most Macs from early in the decade before the Intel switch. Who really knows why Apple won’t allow a full install of Mac OS X on the device. But it might have something to do with their lowest priced overspec’d for most people’s needs hardware starting at $599. Of course you care about being cool!

geoduck

Actually I have a MacBook because it was the least expensive laptop that ran OS-X. As far as it being overspeced, It might be now but it won’t be in half a decade. I keep my computers for a long time, My G4 Powerbook was about 6 years old and then I only replaced it because it wouldn’t run the software I want to. I have a MDD G4 Tower that has to be nearly 8 years old. As long as it does what I want I’ll keep it running. That’s the economy of Macs. They last a lot longer than PCs.

The trouble is that you keep looking for the cheapest solution. There is always a cheeper way to do something than the Mac. Some jobs take a Mercedes and some a Kia. You need to get your head around this and stop whining about how Mercedes won’t sell you something for the price of a Kia. Stop insisting that Mercedes sell an engine and transmission for your Kia. They don’t have to do that and that’s their right and they are not doing ANYTHING wrong by refusing. They are not doing ANYTHING wrong by going after those that would steal the OS they spent so much time and money developing.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Here’s your Apple hardware quality, slightly above average according to a firm that sells extended warranties across the industry. I’m not surprised to see Asus at the top. They have to compete on quality. They can’t just sue another manufacturer for shipping a form factor or a price point not in their lineup.

UrbanBard

I think my use of pick pockets, here, is instructive. A pick pocket values an item, but not enough to pay for it. The hackers value Mac OS X but won’t pay for it by buying Apple’s hardware. Every rationale that the hackers use disguises their essential dishonesty.

But, we can blame part of this fiasco on the insanity of the computer market place. Wintel was always highly competitive on the hardware side, but buying into it forced you into accept a lousy Operating System. Microsoft Windows is structurally flawed and showing its age. It has a glib surface appearance because it has stolen so much from Apple, but it is awkward and unsafe to use.

Linux was developed as a defense to Microsoft Windows, but it is geeky beyond belief and is of little use for the ordinary non technical user.  The Mac OS is the only one which is modern, efficient and easy to use, but it requires that its R&D be paid for by hardware sales.

It is mostly the FOSS community who want to cut legal and moral corners to combine the Mac OS with Wintel hardware to save a few bucks.

If the FOSS community could ever get the Linux Desktop to work properly then they wouldn’t feel the need to steal Apple’s OS. It their own arrogance and pride which prevents them from developing a Linux Desktop for the non technical user. It is absurd to ever expect your mother to use Linux.

This is why I place my hopes on Google’s Chrome OS. Google needs copy Apple, by hiding all the geekiness in Linux, to make the Chrome OS a success. The world needs an object oriented operating system which is safe to use on the Web. That is the only way to break up Microsoft’s monopoly.

Apple cannot create a Macintosh lite without harming its reputation for quality. So, some third party must do the job.

Microsoft is running into diminishing rate of returns; the Windows OS has been stretched as far as its underlying foundations will take it. Windows needs to be re-written as an object oriented OS, but if Microsoft does this it will break all the Windows applications. There goes its vaunted market share.

When Apple has converted, later this year, to 64 bit code with Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL enabled, then the Mac will take off in ways now unexpected. There will be impressive speed enhancements, because Intel will finally have an OS which can fully utilize its hardware.

But, more than that, is the flexibility which XCode 3.2 will allow the new developers who will be coming from creating iPhone apps. A lot of innovative applications will be developed for the Mac and they will be sold through the App store.

Many changes lie ahead; many people have their heads in the sand, though. Meanwhile, Apple is saying little, because this will catch people by surprise. Some people need to be shocked out of their complacency.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

It is mostly the FOSS community who want to cut legal and moral corners to combine the Mac OS with Wintel hardware to save a few bucks.
...
Apple cannot create a Macintosh lite without harming its reputation for quality. So, some third party must do the job.

The FOSS community was not mostly responsible for combining the Mac OS with Wintel hardware to save a few bucks. Where have you been? That was (wait for it…) Apple that did that! That was the whole point of the x86 transition, in case you missed it. To leverage the continuing aggressive lowering of the price/performance ratio for PCs. Jobs said exactly that in his Keynote announcing the transition and announcing initial Intel products.

Apple did create a very high quality Macintosh Lite, if you will. It’s the $229 Apple TV. Curiously, it’s the only thing that runs the Mac OS that has HDMI out. But you make a broader point which is correct. Microtrends in form factors and price points emerge very quickly in the PC market. Apple can’t cover them, and usually can’t even anticipate them. Apple fans think Apple might set the next trend with a tablet. Perhaps, but some other manufacturer will add some little doo-dad we never imagined and it will take Apple a year to even think about catching up.

Consider… Why doesn’t the iPod Touch have HD video out? When does anyone think that might happen, if ever? Creative is shipping Zii EGGs to developers right now that share the same underlying ARM architecture, and they’ve managed to do it. They’ll even OEM or ODM the device for other companies. Apple is so insulated from what the market wants. They make some cool things, and they have a (bit inflated) reputation for “quality”, but their platforms are weaker for not being responsive to the market.

UrbanBard

“zewazir said: The belief that Apple products are overprices does not give one the right to violate their rights in order to undercut their prices.

Good one Mr. Obvious. Of course it doesn?t give anyone the right to do that. And I totally appreciate how you were outspoken when the music industry experienced the same thing. “

You are using moral relativism to equate two dissimilar things. Did your mother not tell you, “Two wrongs don’t make a right?”

What RIAA does has nothing to do with Apple’s rights, other than both involve intellectual property. Your use of the RIAA argument says that you want to destroy intellectual property rights.

“Get this through your head. I am not providing justification of theft. “

Yes, you are justifying theft. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be using moral relativism against Apple. You wouldn’t imply that Apple has no moral rights.

“It?s business reality. You cannot begin to stop people from copying your digital goods without imposing Draconian measures that will make your product undesirable to use. “

No, It is merely your lack of imagination which conflates the two. You are repeating illogical talking points from dishonest people.

” If you take enough things to court or issue threatening letters left and right, you may be legally right, but you will lose social acceptability. “

Social acceptability with whom? Apple customers don’t want to steal from Apple. If the customers are allowed a convenient way of purchasing music they will choose that. This is why Apple has a near monopoly in music downloads.

“Apple already has a nasty rep for that kind of behavior. “

A nasty rep from the people who steal from Apple? LOL

“Ultimately, Apple is selling ?cool?, not Mac OS X software, not iPhones, not music. They really are ?up the value chain? on that. But they distract from their message and their inimitable ?cool factor? by getting into this garbage like with Psystar and playing cat/mouse with jailbreakers and hackintoshers.
Open things up a little and the problems will self-marginalize.”

Apple has plans which you know nothing of. It will be presenting solutions to the piracy problem. Naturally, the pirates will disapprove of that. You will be on the sidelines giving the pirates moral justifications for their thefts.

UrbanBard

Bosco, I think it rather strange that you are contradicting people about WHY they bought a product. When did you learn how to read minds?

You are projecting your biases on them. That is rude, arrogant and bigoted. Talk about heavy handed.

This conceit of yours explains much about your presumptions about Apple. When did you become a petty despot?

UrbanBard

Bosco said:
“Here?s your Apple hardware quality, slightly above average according to a firm that sells extended warranties across the industry. “

I’d like to see that confirmed by an independent source. The other sources I have suggest otherwise.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Apple has plans which you know nothing of. It will be presenting solutions to the piracy problem. Naturally, the pirates will disapprove of that. You will be on the sidelines giving the pirates moral justifications for their thefts.

If you really invest in AAPL based on believing that, you might want to brush up on your computer science. Just sayin.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

I?d like to see that confirmed by an independent source. The other sources I have suggest otherwise.

Yeah, they sell warranties. So they probably inflate Mac quality problems because they know Mac owners are suckers who happily pay more. And they are secretly funded by Microsoft. And maybe if Apple sues them, we can find out who is really behind them. Right?

UrbanBard

“UrbanBard said: It is mostly the FOSS community who want to cut legal and moral corners to combine the Mac OS with Wintel hardware to save a few bucks.
...
The FOSS community was not mostly responsible for combining the Mac OS with Wintel hardware to save a few bucks. “

I was saying that not only were they thieves, but they were cheap thieves.

“Where have you been? That was (wait for it?) Apple that did that! “

Apple was making that change legally. Apple is acting morally and FOSS community is not. Why do you confuse the two?

Apple has a right to change its processor chips. It has done so before in the move from 680xx chips to Power PC.

Nor was the move about saving money. Both the 680xx and PowerPC chips were not being developed properly. Apple waited until the Intel Core processors were available because the Intel Pentium IV chips were junk. They were so over heated to give high megahertz ratings, that you couldn’t fit them into a laptop.

“Apple did create a very high quality Macintosh Lite, if you will. It?s the $229 Apple TV. “

No, It is the Mac Mini, at $599, which is being sold as a full Macintosh computer. Can you place the Mac OS on the AppleTV? Sure, but only by violating Apple’s EULA. And it makes a rather poor Mac.

Why did you bring this up? We were talking a about a very cheap and crippled form of the Mac’s OS for use on PC’s, not a hardware product like the AppleTV. Did you get confused?

“But you make a broader point which is correct. Microtrends in form factors and price points emerge very quickly in the PC market. Apple can?t cover them, and usually can?t even anticipate them. “

Nor does Apple want to. Apple plays its own strategy, rather than being a Wintel copycat. It can choose the best of what is available, but it leaves the junk alone. HP and Dell do the same thing for their quality line of computers and they are similarly priced to a Mac.

“Apple fans think Apple might set the next trend with a tablet. Perhaps, but some other manufacturer will add some little doo-dad we never imagined and it will take Apple a year to even think about catching up.”

Apple is very careful about what markets it engages in. When it moves into a market segment, it has tended to blow away the competition. It does this by delivering a complete package, rather than obsessing about hardware, as you do.

“Why doesn?t the iPod Touch have HD video out? When does anyone think that might happen, if ever?”

That would encourage video piracy, so Apple would refuse to encourage that. How does Apple benefit from piracy?

“Apple is so insulated from what the market wants. They make some cool things, and they have a (bit inflated) reputation for ?quality?, but their platforms are weaker for not being responsive to the market.”

We have different ideas of what the market wants. You project your biases on the market.

Apple is doing quite well without your advise. Its sales are growing at 30% a year when the PC market is flat; It is selling 92% of the laptops above $1000. Apple could care less about the laptops sold below that figure. Why? Because they aren’t very profitable.

Apple just turned in its most profitable quarter in its history when Microsoft is losing money hand over fist. Apple might have a better handle on the market than you do, Bosco.

UrbanBard

Bosco, I can doubt your sources when they conflict with mine.

I never said it was false, just questionable. And as long as it is unconfirmed, it is not proof. You presented it as though it was.

Only someone who was bigoted against Apple would accept it without question.

UrbanBard

Also, we have a different vision of what the future will bring. That is only normal.

My projections are short term, within the next year. We will see soon enough who is correct.

zewazir

What does RIAA have to do with PsyStar? Because RIAA goes to sometimes ridiculous extents to protect their coprighted materials? While I do not agree with everything RIAA does to protect illicit copying of copyrighted materials, I can, (unlike some entitlistic “you can’t stop me, so it’s my right to steal” thieves) understand their concerns.

Maybe if people weren’t stealing things, (and then defending the practice because “it is not possible to stop them”) software would not need “draconian” measures to keep thieves from stealing it.

Is an unlocked door an invitation to enter someone’s house and take their television? I fyou think so, then you are beyond reality.  Likewise, an unsecured software installer - like Apples OS installers - is not some kind of invitation to steal or violate the user license for that OS.

Yes, it is a business reality, whether one produces software, hardware, or candy bars, there are some egocentric, self-indulgent pustules who will steal your products rather than pay for them.  But how is this reality an excuse for those who steal?  How does it justify condemning companies that prosecute those who steal?

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

UrbanBard, did you know that there is a process, which is completely legal and does not violate the EULA (at least at the time the Apple TV take 2 shipped) that installs a Mac application on the Apple TV? This is how Boxee gets installed on an Apple TV. On an Apple TV, Boxee is literally the Mac OS X version of the app with a FrontRow launcher. XBMC gets installed on Apple TV by installing a small launcher/installer in Front Row, which downloads and installs a Linux partition. The guy who came up with this process ensured that every step was entirely legal and complied with the EULA. Boxee is a real company that sells a real product used by thousands of people.

Did you know that the reason that Boxee works on Apple TV take 2 is that under the hood, there is enough Mac OS X there to actually run applications? Would you believe that there is enough processing power to display full screen H.264? All true.

So as a matter of fact, Apple does ship a $229 computer capable of running Mac OS X (and pirating videos unlike the hypothetical iPod Touch with an HDMI output, right?) that at least one developer has found quite useful and more than adequate as a deployment platform for a networked multi-media product. And users love it. I’d like to do the same for a networked multimedia product I’m finishing, but the hassle factor is high. The legal hassle factor, however, is zero. Alternatively, I’m looking at better spec’d Dell Zinio in the same price range, perhaps $300 with wireless-n and WIndows 7 Home (overkill). Seems Apple loses $229 every time I sell one.

UrbanBard, you just are not knowledgeable on the facts. You flat out don’t know what you’re talking about, and that’s why you fail to see my point that these things are much more complex than what Apple wants all the little sheep to do. It took me 15 years of banging my head against all kinds of freetards to get the point, so I don’t begrudge you.

zewazir

Good one Mr. Obvious. Of course it doesn?t give anyone the right to do that. And I totally appreciate how you were outspoken when the music industry experienced the same thing. You and Lars from Metallica, wiping your arses with Benjamins and telling the world how copying would make you starve. You?re the guy with the ?I love Hillary Rosen? sticker on his Ford F-150. Never mind that she probably doesn?t love you back. And I think I saw you at the ?RIAA Community Copy Cops? get-together. What a fun time that was, especially when we showed the YouTube (with properly licensed music, of course) of that little emo teenager getting pummeled by one of the enforcement volunteers for having a mix CD with an illicit copy of Marilyn Manson on it. Good times!!

So now you defend stealing music because the musicians are wealthy? Exactly, does this mindless diatribe have to do with the issue at hand? Am I supposed to feel ashamed for defending copyright laws? (Not to mention you have ZERO knowledge of how I view RIAA or it’s methods of defending their copyrighted materials.)

The topic is Apple defending their copyrights.  Apple sells music, but they do not hold the copyrights.  So your aim is slightly of here.

OTOH strawman personalized attacks is indicative of the type of person behind the keyboard.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Yes, it is a business reality, whether one produces software, hardware, or candy bars, there are some egocentric, self-indulgent pustules who will steal your products rather than pay for them.? But how is this reality an excuse for those who steal?? How does it justify condemning companies that prosecute those who steal?

If you set up a candy store in the middle of a riot, my bet is that you would sell to more people who end up using the product sourced from your store than if you sell music online today. This is no excuse for stealing. But if you are in the digital goods business, you are pissing into an oncoming hurricane if you get hot and bothered by the stealing. The point of diminishing returns comes at you quickly when you try to “protect” your software with technology. For example, if you want to do call-home, you better be proxy friendly, especially if you have an educational product. Or you’ll have to implement a manual back-door activation and deal with support questions just to get customers up and running. And your paying customers will hate you for it.

The existence of Psystar is simply a message from the market. Specifically, it said one company thought people would buy computers that run Mac OS X at lower price points, in different form factors (mini tower), and with higher performance and capacity components. While they seemingly bungled the fringe legality of installing Mac OS X, they certainly seemed willing to buy 1 copy per computer on some terms. The existence of Hackintoshers is simply a message from the market that some people like to tinker. Same goes for jailbreaking iPhone and iPod Touches.

UrbanBard

zewazir said”
“Maybe if people weren?t stealing things, (and then defending the practice because ?it is not possible to stop them?) software would not need ?draconian? measures to keep thieves from stealing it.”

I think it is that the technology is changing and business practices need to catch up with that. There have always been thieves and those who would violate their agreements in the EULA. And so long as they kept a low profile, they tended to get away with it.

“Is an unlocked door an invitation to enter someone?s house and take their television? I fyou think so, then you are beyond reality.  Likewise, an unsecured software installer - like Apples OS installers - is not some kind of invitation to steal or violate the user license for that OS.”

The FOSS community has been deliberately provocative and they will regret that.

“Yes, it is a business reality, ...  But how is this reality an excuse for those who steal?  How does it justify condemning companies that prosecute those who steal?”

Where Bosco and I disagree is that I believe that Apple has been planning on solutions to this, from before it decided to move to Intel processors. The technical solution is a complicated one if it is not to violate the rights of Apple’s legitimate customers. I don’t want Apple to prevent me from having a back up DVD or a system on a Flash drive for diagnostic purposes.

I don’t mind if Apple wants me to verify who I am, because that protect me if my computer is stolen. Having a computer which downloads GPS info and periodically checks in with a central data base does not harm me. That way if my computer goes missing I can call up about my computer and find out where it is. If I report the computer stolen, I want my private data to be encrypted and for it to impossible to overwrite the OS.

I may never get my computer back, but it lowers the value of the computer. At best, you could sell it for parts. And this means that the risk & rewards change so it isn’t worth a thief’s effort.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

So now you defend stealing music because the musicians are wealthy? Exactly, does this mindless diatribe have to do with the issue at hand? Am I supposed to feel ashamed for defending copyright laws? (Not to mention you have ZERO knowledge of how I view RIAA or it?s methods of defending their copyrighted materials.)

Wrong. I’m all for copyright. Many people point out that it is not an absolute right, that in the United States for example, except for a very narrow class of film, authors do not legally enjoy moral rights in their creations. Few would disagree that the RIAA ruined its brand and pushed the ants to better sharing platforms when it sued Napster. The labels further tarnished their brands and inadvertently put Apple in control of their market when they insisted on DRM for digital downloads. You would think Apple might learn something from a situation it was in the middle of. But then again, they’re starting to take it in the shorts from Verizon over the iPhone (poor AT&T service, island of misfit toys, iDont, etc.) and they show no signs of listening to the market on these issues. Every app approval screw-up just reinforces what a lot of us already know about this company. Just like every time they tighten things up or sue someone rather than find market opportunities. Apple is v2 of the RIAA. Yeah, they sell some great products like the RIAA sold some great music. But they are tone deaf to what customers are clearly telling them they want.

UrbanBard

Bosco, you want to drown me in minutia—meaningless minutia.

I am talking about general cases. If Boxee is able to get away with its procedures, that is fine with me. Or it could be that Apple hasn’t gotten around to them yet.

I don’t know what Apple has planned. I’m trying to understand the ramifications of why Apple decided to shut down the Atom based Net books in 10.6.2. That suggests that Apple will be increasingly proactive against the hackers.

We have very different views of the world and what Apple is capable of doing. I know enough of what Snow leopard is capable of to think you are dead wrong.

But,  I am quite willing to allow events to take place. I am not personally involved in this—just telling it as I see it.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Count on Apple being pre-emptively sued over such a required authentication process. Then count on Apple being on the receiving end of an ass kicking during a DMCA exception review with the copyright office. Count on a Microsoft commercial rightly comparing Mac OS X to German gulags.

On one hand, I don’t think Apple engineers are stupid enough to either believe or tell their bosses that they can put an end to piracy. John M worked there, maybe he can comment on the intelligence and intellectual honesty of Apple engineers. On the other hand, their management doesn’t seem wise enough to listen to what the market is asking for instead of stirring up the snakes. So you might actually be right. I’m hoping at the same time, they will release a cure for cancer and a subroutine that solves NP-complete problems in polynomial time. That would be frakking cool!

UrbanBard

““zewazir said: Yes, it is a business reality, whether one produces software, hardware, or candy bars, there are some egocentric, self-indulgent pustules who will steal your products rather than pay for them.  But how is this reality an excuse for those who steal?  How does it justify condemning companies that prosecute those who steal?”

If you set up a candy store in the middle of a riot, my bet is that you would sell to more people who end up using the product sourced from your store than if you sell music online today. “

You make absurd arguments, Bosco. It is not the purpose of a business to gain market share; It is to make money. If most of your products are stolen from you, how can you make money?

” The point of diminishing returns comes at you quickly when you try to ?protect? your software with technology. ... And your paying customers will hate you for it.”

Not if your methods are good, transparent and convenient. You are assuming heavy handedness on Apple’s part. There are benefits to the owner of locking down the current security loopholes. A small number of legitimate users will dislike it, along with the thieves. The majority of us will think it a benefit.

“The existence of Psystar is simply a message from the market. Specifically, it said one company thought people would buy computers that run Mac OS X at lower price points, in different form factors (mini tower), and with higher performance and capacity components. “

All Psystar did was to steal from both the Hacker community and from Apple.  They created nothing. They placed the Mac OS on the cheapest Wintel box which could support it. They were selling into a market that Apple does not choose to serve—thieves.

“The existence of Hackintoshers is simply a message from the market that some people like to tinker. Same goes for jailbreaking iPhone and iPod Touches.”

Yes, it is a message that there are people who have no respect for anyone else’s legal rights.

Funny, I leaned this message when I as six years old and got spanked for shop lifting. Apparently, there are plenty of adults now, who never got spanked.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Another fact problem by UrbanBard… Psystar did/does not place Mac OS X on the cheapest computer that can run it. Their lowest priced offering is $599.99. People have gotten Mac OS X running on run of the mill Intel mini ITX boards—sub $300 for a nice complete system. You call this minutia, but it is important information to understand what’s happening. Ignore it if it makes you feel better.

Funny you bring up spanking though. I’d never have guessed it was your fetish. Never in a million years.

UrbanBard

Bosco said:
“Count on Apple being pre-emptively sued over such a required authentication process. “

Not premptively. Apple won’t move until it has all the parts of its solution in place. That makes it a fait accompli.

Who’s rights are being violated if Apple verifies that you have the right and permission to install its OS on a computer? After all, you give this information when you register your warranty. Apple just checks in advance of installing the OS, not after.

Apple will have plenty of ways for legitimate owners to correct any mistakes. Apple will direct those who fail its scan to an Apple store. Will a hacker be dumb enough to lug a PC into an Apple store?

Will an employee be dumb enough to complain when his boss doesn’t want him to install software? He could get fired.

“Then count on Apple being on the receiving end of an ass kicking during a DMCA exception review with the copyright office. Count on a Microsoft commercial rightly comparing Mac OS X to German gulags.”

Apple will sell this as a security procedure to safeguard lost or stolen computers. Is Microsoft going to defend hackers and thieves? Microsoft can’t be that dumb.

Will hacker and thieves publicly disclose themselves? Hacking works only because it is anonymous, now.

“On one hand, I don?t think Apple engineers are stupid enough to either believe or tell their bosses that they can put an end to piracy. “

They don’t have to end piracy; they just have to increase its risks so it becomes less poplar. Tough courts deter crime. The word gets around.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

And another thing… a 6 year old is incapable of having the mens rea to “shoplift”. They are capable of taking something that is not theirs from a place not their own without permission, but are not capable of forming a mental model of taking another’s property to avoid paying for it. Hell, a typical 6 year old doesn’t understand money enough to even know there should be a value exchange. Spanking by a parent for taking something not theirs might very well be appropriate punishment in context, but to call it shoplifting. Do you wonder why people hate Republicans? There’s your answer.

And violating a click wrap EULA isn’t stealing. It’s no more “stealing” than not making a mandatory sales target in a signed contract. In both cases, you may find your contract terminated for cause. If someone walks out of an Apple store with a Snow Leopard disk he did not pay for, Apple can call the local cops and the perp will be arrested for (likely) petty theft. If someone walks into an Apple store with Snow Leopard installed on their Acer netbook, Apple can call the police and the local cop will tell Apple it’s a civil matter. Plain and simple. There is a legal distinction.

UrbanBard

My only fetish is logically spanking people like you. The point is that I grew out of stealing.

Our civilization needs to be defended from barbarians. Some people do this in Afghanistan, others on the internet. As Edmond Burke put it, “All that is necessary for evil to win is for good men to do nothing.” This is my small contribution to public discourse.

The details of Psystar’s case are immaterial; they lost. Who cares about quality of the equipment they sold? They are thieves. So, are the hackers.

You are, on the other hard, are a sophist. You lie to yourself, so you may, more effectively, lie to others.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

So UrbanBard, do you have kids? Maybe kids of the age that they might have “borrowed” a copy of a song or used software they have no right to use? Maybe sang “Happy Birthday” in a public space without a license? Spanking time. Gotta defend us from those barbarians! Civilization is counting on you!

UrbanBard

Bosoco said:
“And another thing? a 6 year old is incapable of having the mens rea to ?shoplift?. “

Oh! I knew it was wrong. I was egged into it by my older brother. But, I was probably smarter than you, even then. I went to Sunday school, even. I knew right from wrong.

When did you learn to stop stealing? Oh! I forgot. This is still something you need to learn.

” Do you wonder why people hate Republicans? :

Sure, They just hate it when Republicans call things by their proper names. It keeps them from lying to themselves; the lies allow them to look into a mirror.

“And violating a click wrap EULA isn?t stealing. “

It is stealing. It violates Apple’s property rights. Apple would be selling the right to install Mac OS X on a PC for more than the cost of an upgrade disk. The hacker is stealing the difference between what the hacker paid and that higher price.

Intentionally signing a contract for the purpose of stealing money is a felony. In a hackers case, it is too rare for Apple to even know that they are being stolen from. The amounts stolen are small enough that the court wants to avoid congestion, so they make it a civil rather than a criminal case. This is a convenience for the government. It is still theft, just petty theft.

In Psystar’s case, the dollar amounts being stolen from Apple was considerable. Moreover, Psystar had to promote their business, so they weren’t anonymous.

Would a hacker have a case against Apple, if Apple bricked their PC for installing Mac OS X? Not a chance. Do you think anybody who was bricked because they loaded 10.6.2 on their Hackintosh will try to sue?

They would be laughed out of court. The judge would say that they got what they deserved for violating Apple’s rights.

UrbanBard

“So UrbanBard, do you have kids? “

No, my wife couldn’t have them.

“Maybe kids of the age that they might have ?borrowed? a copy of a song or used software they have no right to use? “

But, I had plenty of nephews who learned the difference between right and wrong. They had parents who would ask where they got a game or software from. Their parents were honest enough not to want to steal from an artist. If the kids really wanted the song or software, they had to buy it. It’s called being moral.

Creeping immorality is the pits. Before you know it, you are voting Democrat. Anything but that!

“Maybe sang ?Happy Birthday? in a public space without a license? “

Oh! You are being ridiculous. None of us made any money from singing. If I did make money, then I owned the publisher of the music. Buying sheet music grants the right to perform it casually. That is the difference between us. I am honest, you are not. You don’t want to be honest.

“Gotta defend us from those barbarians! Civilization is counting on you!”

The problem is the internal barbarians. The external barbarians haven’t got your gall. Besides, we can shoot them. LOL

zewazir

Wrong. I?m all for copyright. Many people point out that it is not an absolute right, that in the United States for example, except for a very narrow class of film, authors do not legally enjoy moral rights in their creations. Few would disagree that the RIAA ruined its brand and pushed the ants to better sharing platforms when it sued Napster. The labels further tarnished their brands and inadvertently put Apple in control of their market when they insisted on DRM for digital downloads. You would think Apple might learn something from a situation it was in the middle of. But then again, they?re starting to take it in the shorts from Verizon over the iPhone (poor AT&T service, island of misfit toys, iDont, etc.) and they show no signs of listening to the market on these issues. Every app approval screw-up just reinforces what a lot of us already know about this company. Just like every time they tighten things up or sue someone rather than find market opportunities. Apple is v2 of the RIAA. Yeah, they sell some great products like the RIAA sold some great music. But they are tone deaf to what customers are clearly telling them they want.

You claim to support copyright, but then disparage the right to defend copyright.

What use is copyright at all if the assumption is people can steal copyrighted materials because it is somehow wrong to defend copyrights?

I do not agree with everything RIAA has done in recent years, but I do understand their need to defend their copyrighted materials. NAPSTER in its original form was nothing less than a thieves’ clearing house. RIAA was no more wrong in prosecuting them than Walmart would be for prosecuting a person who tries to walk out with an unpurchased DVD under their coat. It makes no difference to me if the the people whose copyrights are being violated are wealthy.  Being wealthy is not an excuse to steal from them whether the property is concrete or intellectual. Yet your diatribe clearly indicated that you believe people who are wealthy have no right to complain when their property is being stolen.

As far as PsyStar goes, it was beyond mere theft. The theft was using an OS upgrade to install a complete OS license with no prior version to upgrade. But then PsyStar went the next step an was making a PROFIT off their theft.  If you cannot see the wrong in that, then there is something seriously messed up in your view of the world. But you have already made that clear.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Oh! You are being ridiculous. None of us made any money from singing. If I did make money, then I owned the publisher of the music. Buying sheet music grants the right to perform it casually. That is the difference between us. I am honest, you are not. You don?t want to be honest.

Sing it in a restaurant like any family does, and if Warner Chappell (the owner of the copyright) hit the restaurant owner up for a licensing fee, then you have “stolen” from the restaurant owner, no? You have made that owner liable for obtaining a license without asking him. Thief.

UrbanBard

That is the difference between us, Bosco.

If I made a mistake where I innocently incurred a debt, I would pay up. I wouldn’t try to weasel out of it. I would apologize for not knowing that I was in error.

It’s what honest people do. We aren’t perfect, but we correct our mistakes.

I would only be a thief if I intentionally avoided paying.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Great. So I’m sure you’re on the phone with Warner Chappell right now offering to buy a license to publicly sing Happy Birthday that will retroactively cover all the times since 1990 (when he acquired the copyright) you’ve sang the song in a public place. I hope he gives you a good guy price. Thief.

Ever play music on the radio in your workplace, even in a private workplace? Have you paid ASCAP their licensing fee? If not, you’re a thief. For smaller businesses and independent shops, what typically happens is that ASCAP does a sweep of a locality, offers licenses, and threatens to sue businesses that don’t pay up. They bring along a reporter from the local paper to write about the important service they are performing. And they come back in 5 years to do it again. Most small businesses and independent shops don’t bother with the license until they are accosted by the ASCAP weasels. Basically, we’re all thieves.

UrbanBard

Do you understand how absurd you have become? And that nothing that you are talking about has anything to do with the object of this website? You are so far off the topic as to be ridiculous.

Before I would do anything, I would have to verify that you are telling the truth. Furthermore I have tons of sheet music around the house. I’d have to look through all of it and find that song among those. I’m sure I have it somewhere as musical as my family is. I have inherited my parents and elder brothers music going back forty years,

Also, I’d want to verify my legal rights from an independent source. Frankly, Bosco, you do not have a good reputation for truthfulness. Your arguments border on the insane.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Funny how it’s so cut and dry for you when it’s Apple’s beloved and chronically attacked by immoral hacker thieves, but if it’s singing “Happy Birthday” or playing the radio in your office, well, that merits further investigation. Those are standard textbook examples of copyright thuggery. I’m rather surprised that you can be so firm in your conviction that people violate one term of a EULA are “thieves” and not be aware of the copyright thievery you have likely committed in your normal everyday life.

UrbanBard

I’m trying to understand your current argument. It is still an argument based on Moral Relativism.

That is, you are asserting that we are all guilty of copy write violations, therefore we have no right to judge the hackers. That is illogical. The cases are quite dissimilar.

Let me accept that everyone in the United States misunderstands their rights under copy write law regarding that song? What has that fact to do with Apple’s EULA?

Apple is actively defending its intellectual property rights. No one can misunderstand their responsibilities who reads the EULA. On numerous occasions, you are told that this operating system is to be only used on Apple’s hardware. You must willfully violate your contract with Apple to install it on a PC.

There is no possible way that you can innocently install that OS, the way that you can sing a song. There is no correlation between that song and installing Mac OS on a PC, so your argument is pure nonsense.

But, every one of your arguments is sophistry.

Fundamentally, you deny that Apple can bind you to a contract. And yet, business law is clear. If you buy something knowing that conditions limit its use, then you are bound to those conditions, if you use it.

If you argue later that Apple had no right to bind you to a contract, then you are compounding your offense. This is a lie piled upon another lie. When you get enough lies piled up, you lose touch with reality.

Since your ilk cannot be reasoned with, you must be shut down instead. I do not know how Apple intends to do that, but I am certain that Apple will try. The fact that Apple shut down the Atom processors with 10.6.2 indicates that Apple is on the move.

UrbanBard

Bosco, The problem is that you are acting to bizarre that you are unbelievable. You have destroyed all my good will toward you.

If you told me that the Sun was going to rise tomorrow, I would begin to have doubts. You make no sense, You back up nothing. Your arguments are rubbish.

I don’t care one iota about ASCAP, because that is irrelevant to this discussion. It’s you that I don’t trust.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Fundamentally, you deny that Apple can bind you to a contract. And yet, business law is clear. If you buy something knowing that conditions limit its use, then you are bound to those conditions, if you use it.

Nope. Not true. DMCA circumvention exceptions have been granted by the US Copyright Office. These exemptions supersede whatever is, was, or will be in EULAs. In 2000, people were granted the right to circumvent lists of websites blocked by filtering software and gain access to literacy works protected by obsolete, unsupported, or damaged DRM. In 2003, they added computer programs that require obsolete or unavailable original hardware to access, and ebook readers without a read-aloud or screen reader features (presumably for disabled people). In 2006, they added mobile telephone unlocking (making the phone compatible with another network) and working around malicious rootkit DRM, once found on many audio CDs.

Additionally, depending on your situation, you might have a defense against infringement under the Fair Use Doctrine. And you might have a defense that some terms of the EULA are illegal, unenforceable, or not applicable in your locality. Just because a company writes down their wishes in a EULA doesn’t mean they can force you to comply even if you knowingly violate.

There’s the case of Vernor v. AutoDesk where Vernor sued AutoDesk for issuing repeated DMCA takedown notices for his ebay auctions. They disputed his right to resell software he bought at garage sales, citing their EULA. Vernor prevailed in federal court using the first sale doctrine.

I’m sorry, but you’re just not correct about being irrevocably bound to whatever Apple or any other company puts in its EULA. Talk about moral relativism! Where is your outrage against companies that overstep their authority in their EULAs? And why don’t you laud individuals who are courageous enough to take them on?

UrbanBard

It certainly sounds like the US copyright office is engaged in unconstitutional behavior. There is nothing in the federal constitution which allows a bureaucracy to rewrite contracts. If there are no such enumerated powers granted by the US constitution, then the Ninth and Ten amendments grant those powers to the States and the People. The absence of enumerated powers means that Congress may not delegate them to the copyright office. It, thus, is engage in a tyranny, But, there is much tyranny and corruption in Washington and we citizens will need to clean house one of these days.

Moral relativism states that there are no absolute moral laws. That the moral laws we see are nothing more than power, custom and tradition. And since power overrules custom and tradition, because Might Makes Right, then the left can change the laws to suit its desires. And the US congress can pass any law without paying attention to the source of its authority.

Thus, to a Leftist, the Constitution is either a “living document” which it may be twisted into any shape he wants or a “scrap of paper” which may be discarded at will. Hence, there is no Rule of Law so that persons of power and privilege may do anything they please. Sophists, such as yourself, will provide these tyrants with any moral justification for their depredations.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Federalist Papers, an unconstitutional law is no law at all and may be violated at will. As a practical matter, the tyrants will use the police powers of the state to arbitrarily punish anyone it pleases. The congress and its bureaucracy can publish conflicting rules which punish businessmen for whatever action they take unless a proper campaign contribution is given to the powerful and privileged. This sets up an aristocracy in what was a Constitutionally Limited Republic. This aristocracy has suborned both political parties.

All you are saying is that the Second American Revolution is not far off. I much prefer a Constitutional Convention to address these usurpation’s and depredations. This would lessen the social strife and violence needed to effect the necessary changes. If the Executive branch and the Federal Courts refuse to obey such a Constitutional Convention, then there is plenty of time for a Revolution. We citizens are well armed and the US military has sworn an oath to protect the Constitution, not some office holder.

Frankly, the people value peace so much that they will put up with much tyranny and usurpation. The problem with tyrants is that they continue to grab money and power from the people until a breaking point.

It is unclear if Obama’s administration will push the people’s back to the wall, so they must come out fighting. As Winston Churchill said, “There is much ruin to a country.” We will put up with much pain and suffering before we will act.

It is unclear if Obama’s administration will be neutered in the mid term elections. It is unlikely that he will get much legislation through Congress until that is over.

zewazir

I?m sorry, but you?re just not correct about being irrevocably bound to whatever Apple or any other company puts in its EULA. Talk about moral relativism! Where is your outrage against companies that overstep their authority in their EULAs? And why don?t you laud individuals who are courageous enough to take them on?

Depends on whether the company is actually overstepping the bounds of EULA.  Seems the legal system disagrees with your view.  Unless you want to accuse Judge Alsup of being an Apple fanboy, your argument is completely without merit.

What you fail to accept is the fact that Apple is a HARDWARE company.  The entire purpose of OS X is NOT to sell Apple software, but rather to provide a unique distinction between Apple computers and other personal computers. If the piece of software is intended to be multi-platform, then Apple writes software for multiple platforms.  Again - the software’s only purpose is to enhance their hardware.

You keep talking about Apple not responding to the demands of the market.  Well, no company is going to respond to “market demands” when those demands are nothing more than the ability to get something cheaper.  Mercedes Benz is not going to make a car priced at $12,000 just because the “market” demands a cheap Mercedes.

OTOH, Apple DOES make a low end Macintosh - priced quite competitively with PsyStar’s offerings. So again your claim they are d=nt responding is without merit.

You also continue to ignore the fact that the copyright of OS X goes beyond the Apple-branded limitation.  A copy of OS X purchased separate from a Macintosh computer is, by definition, and UPGRADE version of OS X.  This means one must own a previous version of OS X to be able to use the upgrade version. Buying a upgrade license of ANY software and using it to create, for the first time, a complete install of the software is a violation of copyright.  It is stealing a complete license buy paying only the price of an upgrade license.

OS X that comes pre-installed on a Macintosh is a full version, of course. I suppose one could buy an old, obsolete Mac, and then use the OS upgrade on a different machine, if one were to ignore the Apple-branded limitation.  But that is not practical. One would have to go back a ways to get an obsolete Mac for a usable price.  Say one buys an old beige G3 for $25.  It comes with OS 8.6.  So now, to remain within copyright law (that is COPYRIGHT law, not EULA) one would have to buy an OS 9 upgrade first, then OS 10.2, then OS 10.3, then either OS 10.5 and 10.6, or the OS 10.6/iLife/iWork package.  All those licenses would be pretty expensive.

The above is why the judge focused on copyright violations, noting that PsyStar was making illegal copies of the software.  Not because of the EULA, but because the license itself is for upgrade and not a full version. EULA is only a sidebar.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

I think you missed the whole concept on checks and balances in your civics lesson, UrbanBard. The DMCA makes it a civil violation to circumvent or traffic in tools that circumvent DRM devices. Simultaneously, the DMCA recognizes that copyright is not an absolute right, and that there are foreseeable instances where such a provision could be abused to turn a fair use or other reasonable access or copying of the digital good into an expensive civil violation. That falls on the Copyright Office, and they issue rulings ever 3 years.

I’ll try again to explain how EULAs got here. At the beginning of the PC industry, shrink wrap EULAs were mostly about disclaiming warranties. Then, terms started to show up restricting use of software to one computer at a time. And then we started to get all these business model (Apple hardware only) and even moral clauses. The Creative Zii SDK EULA, for example, prohibits the use of the software and hardware for purposes of creating weapons of mass destruction. OK, whatever. Creative should just try to sue Iran when Ahmadinajad carries his launch code on one.

The basic thing that companies try to do with EULAs is extend the reach that copyright grants them and work around archaic terms of the Uniform Commercial Code that might be problematic for software. But it does not mean that every term they put in a EULA is consistent with public interest or even something they can expect to enforce! Let’s go over the top and speculate what would happen legally if Apple forbid black people from using Mac OS X in the EULA. First, many people would rightly and flagrantly ignore the EULA term. Those who defended it would be ridiculed, rightly. If Apple chose to sue someone for violating this portion of the contract, a court should throw the suit out and punish Apple for wasting its time. So the first principle here is that the writer of the EULA is not a dictator and cannot compel purchasers to comply with unenforceable terms! The second principle is that EULAs are rarely tested in court, and for good reason from developers’ perspective. AutoDesk got its ass handed to it for trying to shut a guy down who had rights to resell used product under the First Sale Doctrine.

You can dismiss all this as moral relativism if you want. EULAs bring up important legal questions. In my opinion, they have gotten ridiculous and incomprehensible, more bloated than Microsoft Word itself. You rail against moral relativism, but the EULAs make more and more of us moral relativists.  It seems that the goal of the companies is to have something to hang people they don’t like, rather than set rules we can all follow. Most developers of any software have very little interest in seeing EULAs sorted out in court or, gods forbid with legislation like UCITA. But many developers, especially the large one, are finessing the issue by having questionable terms and claiming expanded rights in their EULAs.

And that is why the Psystar case was interesting, and will continue to be interesting.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

What you fail to accept is the fact that Apple is a HARDWARE company.?

No, I do not fail to understand that. I am saying, however, that it’s a little weird that Apple is able (prior to 10.6.2) to enforce this distinction with only a clause in the EULA.

Let’s say Bosco makes air conditioners. The 2007 model is the Bosco 10.4 and the 2008 model is the Bosco 10.5. In 2009, Bosco ships the amazing Bosco 10.6, and offers one upgraded electrical box that converts the 10.4 to a Bosco 10.6 for $149, and one upgraded electrical box that converts the 10.5 to a Bosco 10.6 for $29. Contractor columnist Walt Frostberg writes in his column that the two upgrade units are exactly the same. Air conditioner reseller Coolstar discovers that if they attach the Bosco 10.6 upgrade to an inferior (but cheaper) Trane air conditioner, it turns it into the equivalent of a brand new Bosco 10.6. Would a court ever entertain the argument that Coolstar is doing anything wrong? Would a court protect Bosco’s business model, which revolves around selling complete air conditioner systems and not these upgrade units?

Apple has asked for a very expanded view of what copyright gives them. In the case of the “Apple labeled hardware” clause, it’s not just the right to be paid for each copy sold like copyright holders have enjoyed for 200+ years in this country. It’s wholesale protection of a business model. Under United States copyright law, there are several compulsory license regimes. For example, do you want to record another artist’s song? Provide notice before distribution and pay the compulsory license fee (as set by judges tasked with setting the fee). We give software a comparatively wide berth bordering on moral rights of creators, which are not the copyright tradition of this country.

UrbanBard

Bosco, the conditions, which you cite at the US copyright office, indicates that intellectual property, of companies like Apple, is no longer protected. This means that the companies must protect themselves.

That is what I have been saying about a technical fix to the problem which will be necessary to protect Apple’s intellectual property. Many traditional rights and customs will fall by the wayside. The easy ways which we had with stand alone computers will vanish.

1. Anonymity will vanish. Your computer will know who you are.

Every Apple computer, except for the Mac Mini and the AppleTV, has cameras. Facial recognition software has improved enough to replace passwords and fingerprints. Secondary metrics will back it up, such as our habit patterns in mouse movements, typing and track pad fingering. There is more than enough spare computer cycles to run these programs in background.

The Macintosh is an object oriented, multi user, operating system, but we are not yet fully using its protections. Changes are coming.

If a stranger sits down to our computer, then he or she should be asked to identify themselves. This ID and the other metrics, which defines who we are, will be hidden from hackers in a 16 exabyte address space.

Only the system administrator will have control of the authority and privileges of each user. That control will increase over time. You will be allowed the ability to act as a single user on a Mac, but you will be increasingly protected from yourself. Linux Socialists will hate giving up that control.

2. Anonymity will vanish from the Internet. Data bases will know who owns every computer.

Intel VT hardware, inside the Core 2 processors, is placed in every Macintosh except for some of the very early Mac Minis and MacBooks. This includes a unique identifying number for every processor chip. It is cheap for data bases to track who owns what computer. The US supreme court has repeatedly indicated a lack of privacy in commercial transactions.

Companies like Apple will be utilizing that information to track the individuals which it has contracts with. It will be supplying services to only those people who can identify themselves and prove their rights. Apple will be directing all those people who fall outside its data base to an Apple store for problem resolution. Thus, Apple will not be violating its legitimate customer’s rights. Hackers are not legitimate customers.

3. Anonymity will vanish from the Internet. The Internet will demand that you identify yourself.

Passwords will prove to be inadequate to prevent computer fraud, so other methods will be implemented. Facial recognition, computer ID and other metrics will be demanded until your identity is nailed down. Those computers which fail to supply that identity will be ignored. Eventually, you will be denied internet services and web views.

This is a very long term problem since many Wintel computers will not have these metrics. The Windows OS will thus be very insecure. Eventually, only fools will run Windows.

Apple should be gaining increased market share because it has solved this security problem. Small to Medium sized companies and consumers will value these protections.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

That is what I have been saying about a technical fix to the problem which will be necessary to protect Apple?s intellectual property. Many traditional rights and customs will fall by the wayside. The easy ways which we had with stand alone computers will vanish.

I always wondered if anyone rooted for SkyNet when watching any of the Terminator movies (or T:TSCC). Now I know. There is an old saying by one of the founding fathers that goes something like: anyone would trade freedom for security deserves to be called a Republican.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Companies like Apple will be utilizing that information to track the individuals which it has contracts with. It will be supplying services to only those people who can identify themselves and prove their rights. Apple will be directing all those people who fall outside its data base to an Apple store for problem resolution. Thus, Apple will not be violating its legitimate customer?s rights. Hackers are not legitimate customers.

When does your customer relations book come out? Can I pre-order on Amazon? That’s one book I wouldn’t even contemplate sharing or lending. No, I am buying a legitimate copy for everyone I know who needs to read it. Brilliant stuff!

xmattingly

Now I know. There is an old saying by one of the founding fathers that goes something like: anyone would trade freedom for security deserves to be called a Republican.

I believe the quote you are trying to paraphrase is “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” from Ben Franklin. That quote has no allusion to political affiliation.

Republicans value freedom as much as anyone else in a democratic society.

Copyright laws are designed to protect businesses from having their IP syphoned off. Which, by the way, the judge made a summary judgement half a week ago yet you continue to argue to the contrary.

Most Mac users are willing to pay extra for “the whole widget” for something that just does what it’s supposed to, with minimal hassle.

“Uncle Bosco” has completely failed to grasp the reality of the above, on all counts. He sure does view the world through a narrow prism, doesn’t he? Pathetic.

zewazir

Air conditioner reseller Coolstar discovers that if they attach the Bosco 10.6 upgrade to an inferior (but cheaper) Trane air conditioner, it turns it into the equivalent of a brand new Bosco 10.6. Would a court ever entertain the argument that Coolstar is doing anything wrong? Would a court protect Bosco?s business model, which revolves around selling complete air conditioner systems and not these upgrade units?

Actually, yes the courts WOULD protect Bosco from what is an obvious infringement on Bosco’s patent for the Bosco 10.6 upgrade box intended for Bosco air conditioners. And Bosco would have every right to take Coolstar to court to get their patent rights protected.

Of course, you left out the part where Coolstar had to “hack” the Bosco upgrade to fit their models.

UrbanBard

Bosco said:
“I think you missed the whole concept on checks and balances in your civics lesson, UrbanBard. “

No, the ultimate check and balance in America is the voters. The Federal government has been out of balance since the 1920s. They have merely not pissed off enough people, yet. When the government becomes tyrannical, then the constitution has methods to resolve those.

A Constitution Convention called by the legislatures of 34 states is one of those methods. Neither the US Congress nor the Executive branch can prevent that.

If a Convention is held and its results are ratified by 39 state legislatures, it becomes the Rule of Law and amends the Federal Constitution and all applicable laws.

This will be out in the open. We will know exactly which laws will change. The only question, then, is if the Executive Branch and the Federal Courts will obey that convention. If they do not, then they are unconstitutional and all their edicts are moot. They are no longer the US government.

“I?ll try again to explain how EULAs got here. At the beginning of the PC industry, shrink wrap EULAs were mostly about disclaiming warranties. “

All the EULA does is put customers on notice that the owner of the intellectual property has rights. No legitimate customer would want to violate that.

The problem is with the FOSS community who want to routinely violate them. They contend an upgrade DVD is without limits on them at purchase.

One way that Apple could resolve this is to no longer sell upgrade DVD’s. Upgrades would be done via downloads after a proper vetting of hardware and ownership. Would you disagree with that?

“The Creative Zii SDK EULA, for example, prohibits the use of the software and hardware for purposes of creating weapons of mass destruction. OK, whatever. Creative should just try to sue Iran when Ahmadinajad carries his launch code on one.”

You merely prove yourself to be ever more ridiculous. Apple sells to governments, and their EULA’s are different, because of negotiations. But, you as a consumer have no moral right to use an Apple computer to commit a felony.

” Let?s go over the top and speculate what would happen legally if Apple forbid black people from using Mac OS X in the EULA. “

Your illustrations are ever more ridiculous. If Apple did what you say, then it would be violating the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. Apple would have far more problems than a mere EULA.

“So the first principle here is that the writer of the EULA is not a dictator and cannot compel purchasers to comply with unenforceable terms! “

True. The EULA only puts consumers on notice of Apple’s preexisting rights. It does not create new rights. Your illustration is, thus, absurd.

Those rights may be modified by various State, not Federal, governments. The federal government has no enumerated powers in this area.

“The second principle is that EULAs are rarely tested in court, and for good reason from developers? perspective. “

Both sides of a contract are bound, but corrupt courts may ignore that mutual agreement.

The owner of intellectual property cannot forbid resale; resale does not necessarily violate intellectual property. But, the owner can demand that the original buyer give up using the program.

A second hand market in software is a legitimate right of a buyer. Other conditions which bound the original buyer do pass to the new one. One of those may be on the hardware which the software is installed.

“EULAs bring up important legal questions. In my opinion, they have gotten ridiculous and incomprehensible, more bloated than Microsoft Word itself. “

We can agree that Microsoft is ridiculous. And your point is?

“You rail against moral relativism, but the EULAs make more and more of us moral relativists. “

No, it is our educational establishment which creates Moral Relativists by not teaching the rules of logic. It is our Mainstream Media which repeats flawed logic to ignorant people.

Two wrongs do not make a right. If someone is violating your rights then take action against them. Their abuse of the law does not give you, a victim,  the right to abuse other people’s rights.

If Microsoft or ASCAP abuses people, this does not give you moral permission to violate Apple’s rights. This is the Moral Relativism in your argument: all companies are the same. They are not.

“But many developers, especially the large one, are finessing the issue by having questionable terms and claiming expanded rights in their EULAs.”

When the US copyright office is acting tyrannical and unconstitutional, then it confuses everyone.

“And that is why the Psystar case was interesting, and will continue to be interesting.”

Psystar lost. It never had a right to do what it was doing.

The hackers are wrong too, but they have not lost yet. Apple has barely begun its moves against them. We will have to wait for further developments.

zewazir

UrbanBard: I truly hope your vision for the future of computer security is way off the mark. There is no defending the idea that people cannot use their computers and remain anonymous to the network.

Plus, there are innumerable problems with making computer use so limited.  For one, what happens in a school computing lab? Are we supposed to set up a user ID for each student?  What about computer stations at public libraries?

I do not believe that the public would, for one second, put up with the types of security measures you describe. If they do, then our society truly does not deserve liberty any longer.

UrbanBard

“UrbanBard said: That is what I have been saying about a technical fix to the problem which will be necessary to protect Apple?s intellectual property. Many traditional rights and customs will fall by the wayside. The easy ways which we had with stand alone computers will vanish.

Now I know. There is an old saying by one of the founding fathers that goes something like: anyone would trade freedom for security deserves to be called a Republican.

First, your statement is a lie. The Republican Party did not exist until 1858. Every one of the founders were dead by that time. They could not have spoken about the Republican Party.

Second, your statement is illogical, since it the left (the Democrat party) which increases the powers of the federal government. It is they who give up liberty. It is their judges which ignore the Ninth and Tenth amendments.

Third, you are misquoting Benjamin Franklin, who said, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. “

Benjamin Franklin, also, knew your ilk well:
“A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one. “

zewazir

The hackers are wrong too, but they have not lost yet. Apple has barely begun its moves against them. We will have to wait for further developments.

I doubt Apple will ever go after the hackers directly. Psystar is different because they are making a profit from violating Apple’s copyrights.

I do foresee Apple making certain changes that will make it far more difficult, if not impossible, to install the Mac OS on non-Apple computers.  But I foresee this as more likely a hardware fix, not software, like adding their own co-processor chip to the logic board. Make the hardware different enough, and it’ll be like the old Motorola days when hacking the Mac OS wasn’t worth the effort.

Preventing piracy is a different matter, and I do not think Apple has ever been greatly concerned about it. If they were even minimally concerned about piracy, they’d have already instilled simple measures like unique install codes for each system, and a check-measure that would disable the startup if one machine found another with the same OS license on the LAN. But despite the fact that anti-piracy measures have been available for decades, Apple has not bothered. Unless you know something I do not, I do not see them significantly changing that attitude. (I HOPE not! It would make my job maintaining school computer labs 10X more difficult. I do not need any more job security!)

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

This morning, I was thinking of other ways that Apple uses its IP rights to suck money out of customers, and it dawned on me. The MagSafe connector. I’m on my third one since I bought my MBP in 2007. I don’t abuse it, dangle it, pull it, or anything like that. I do wrap it up a few times a day as intended around the prongs on the brick because I go several places each day and I don’t see replacing my battery ($120) every 6 months so I can maintain full charge. The place where the cable meets the brick doesn’t hold up.

I could take it to a genius bar and demand a replacement and probably get one. That’s at least two hours out of my day and requires that I plan ahead and get an appointment. Cheaper for me to order a replacement from Apple for $80 or whatever it is. Sadly, I can’t buy from a third party like I could for any other manufacturers notebook because they have a patent on the connector. And I’m sure if a big fish came along and violated their patent, they’d say in court that it interferes with their business model, which is selling new Macs, right? Just kidding, but isn’t that the hidden justification behind having one of these things that is designed to fail under moderate use?

UrbanBard

“UrbanBard: I truly hope your vision for the future of computer security is way off the mark. There is no defending the idea that people cannot use their computers and remain anonymous to the network.”

Sorry, zewazir, you have no legal right to anonymity. A Limited Constitution Republic often demands openness from its citizens.

It is possible to have situations where the participants do not know each other, but the administrator does and the police would.

There could be physical social clubs where the members would wear masks. The management would carefully vet anyone before they could become a member, though.

Anonymity encourages crimes. It is what allows the malware attacks. It has cost in excess of 300 billion dollars to maintain anonymity on the Internet since 1992. The people you correspond with have a right to demand to know who you are. You have no right to deny that. If you do, they will ignore you.

“Plus, there are innumerable problems with making computer use so limited.”

It will not be limited. Nor must it necessarily be inconvenient. You have a drivers license or state ID now, you would merely have a spoof proof digital ID, too.

“For one, what happens in a school computing lab? Are we supposed to set up a user ID for each student? What about computer stations at public libraries?”

Yes, The point is that we will have the means to easily identify ourselves. Perhaps, we will have a Blue Tooth fob which identifies who we are. It would have the metrics necessary to prove that we are who we say we are.

“I do not believe that the public would, for one second, put up with the types of security measures you describe. “

We put up with drivers licenses now. We must apply for passports or visas to visit foreign countries. Where is the outcry over that?

“If they do, then our society truly does not deserve liberty any longer.”

An open society denies no one of liberty. You must prove who you are before you can check out a book. Access to the Internet is more valuable than any book.

What crimes are you planning to commit, zewazir?

xmattingly

This morning, I was thinking of other ways that Apple uses its IP rights to suck money out of customers, and it dawned on me.

More like you were thinking of ways to shift gears, so you can keep up with your anti Apple declaration. And using the completely arbitrary “their stuff always breaks” argument, no less.

Some of their technology such as MagSafe does allude to a small amount of vendor lock-in, I’ll give you that. BUT - if it were unreliable for even a marginal segment of their customers, Apple would be tanking in a hurry. By the very course of logic that their revenue depends on hardware sales - and the fact that Apple is a growing business, your case is: Once again. Faulty.

My two most recent Macs were/are laptops, and I use & abuse my charger as I would any other peripheral - both have worked perfectly fine. Either you beat up your equipment more than you’re letting on, or your luck is as bad as your outward perception.

UrbanBard

“UrbanBard said: The hackers are wrong too, but they have not lost yet. Apple has barely begun its moves against them. We will have to wait for further developments.
I doubt Apple will ever go after the hackers directly. “

I do not know what Apple has planned, but blocking the Atom Based NetBooks is provocative. It suggests that there are other aces up Apple’s sleeve. Other shoes waiting to drop.

“I do foresee Apple making certain changes that will make it far more difficult, if not impossible, to install the Mac OS on non-Apple computers.  But I foresee this as more likely a hardware fix, not software, like adding their own co-processor chip to the logic board. “

As I said, the hardware already exists in almost every Mac sold in the last three years. It is the 64 bit software which isn’t turned on yet.

“Make the hardware different enough, and it?ll be like the old Motorola days when hacking the Mac OS wasn?t worth the effort.”

I seriously doubt that Apple can make it impossible to hack its system, but they can make the process so onerous as to make it rare. This was true with the PowerPC processors.

“Preventing piracy is a different matter, and I do not think Apple has ever been greatly concerned about it. “

Times have changed. Apple now has a music, video and application store to protect. It is likely to extend that store to games and regular Mac application. It now has an interest in policing piracy which it didn’t have before.

“If they were even minimally concerned about piracy, they?d have already instilled simple measures like unique install codes for each system, and a check-measure that would disable the startup if one machine found another with the same OS license on the LAN. “

As I said, I don’t know how far Apple will take this.

” (I HOPE not! It would make my job maintaining school computer labs 10X more difficult. I do not need any more job security”

No, it wouldn’t make your job more difficult. You would not be maintaining this.

The school administration would issue each student an ID fob which would allow them to utilize the school’s facilities. It would be like giving them a key. The key starts off with just their name, student ID and a picture. As they use the computers the metrics are build up. A history is provided.

This need not be draconian, any more than a drivers license or a passport is.

UrbanBard

UrbanBard said: Companies like Apple will be utilizing that information to track the individuals which it has contracts with. It will be supplying services to only those people who can identify themselves and prove their rights. ...

When does your customer relations book come out? “

No, I’m not writing a book. This stuff is too obvious for anyone who would use their brains.

But, some people are too ignorant to see the hand writing on the wall.

zewazir

What crimes are you planning to commit, zewazir?

And this is EXACTLY why the idea is so fraught with danger to liberty.  Start assuming people will commit crime unless watched closely only begs for the Big Brother approach to governing society.

Yes, we DO have a right to anonymity.  It is also called the right to privacy, covered under the 9th Amendment’s un-enumerated rights clause, and acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court in a large number of cases. The state must have a REASON to demand that I identify myself.  Suspicion of crimes I might commit if I am not identified is NOT a valid reason. An officer of the law cannot, legally, come up to me without cause and demand I identify myself.

Now providing a machine ID is a different matter.  In fact, it is already done, as each machine identifies itself constantly while online. However, the sales/registration records that associate a person with a machine are not public venue, and the state must obtain a search warrant if they want those kinds of records. (The so-called “Patriot Act” is written to bypass some of those protections, but it is a piece of fascist crap and needs to be challenged as soon as possible.)

UrbanBard

“UrbanBard said: What crimes are you planning to commit, zewazir?
And this is EXACTLY why the idea is so fraught with danger to liberty. “

I was speaking in jest.

But, you are going paranoid on me. There will be ample protections of your civil rights, but that depends on the details. I was speaking in very broad terms.

” Start assuming people will commit crime unless watched closely only begs for the Big Brother approach to governing society.”

I was remarking on a serious issue, too. Anonymity permits crimes; billions are dollars are being stolen on the Internet, every year. Malware attacks cause Internet congestion. Ending anonymity will lessen the attacks.

People will protect themselves, on the Internet, by making you prove who you are. How are your rights violated in them doing that?

How secretive are you? Do you hide all your dealings? I am assuming that you do not. In your personal life, people can check up on you. They can speak to mutual friends, your employer and neighbors. It is against no law for a person to ask questions about you. If you do business with them, they will ask you to present identification.

The Internet has far less physical contact and protection. Why shouldn’t people on it demand that you prove who you are?

“Yes, we DO have a right to anonymity.  It is also called the right to privacy, covered under the 9th Amendment?s un-enumerated rights clause, and acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court in a large number of cases. “

You are wrong. There is no Constitution right to privacy. The US Supreme Court had to invent such a personal right out of thin air to allow for Roe v Wade. They did not extend this vaporous right to commercial dealings.

States can check into your business dealings. People can legally ask questions about you. The Ninth Amendment limits the Federal government’s powers, but not the state governments. Again, this is a very ticklish issue where the details will have to be worked out.

There is no reason to assume the worst. You have no need to act like a nutcase.

People have a right to ask you to prove who you are.  An honest person has nothing to hide. You are not obligated to tell them, but, if do not do so, they should have nothing more to do with you. This is especially true on the Internet.

“The state must have a REASON to demand that I identify myself.  “

Tell that to the police. If you don’t answer or have no identification they will drive to where you can prove who you are or to the lock up if you refuse. This recently happened to Pete Sigar a few months ago. It was a few days after Professor Gates blew up at the Cambridge Police officer who was verifying the reports of a prowler at his house.

Pete was between concert engagements, so he went walking randomly through a residential neighborhood. The police asked him nicely who he was and he had no identification on him. The Cops drove him back to his hotel where he was identified. Pete Sigar and the police got along quite well, but he was not confronting their authority.

“Suspicion of crimes I might commit if I am not identified is NOT a valid reason. An officer of the law cannot, legally, come up to me without cause and demand I identify myself.”

There are conditions where they can. You can sue, but you have prove that they did not have probable cause.

“Now providing a machine ID is a different matter.  In fact, it is already done, as each machine identifies itself constantly while online. However, the sales/registration records that associate a person with a machine are not public venue, and the state must obtain a search warrant if they want those kinds of records. “

Nor did I say differently. I merely said that the demands will be increasing because of improvements in technology. Landlines are going by the wayside. Wi-Fi and Wi-Max communications will demand that you have a wireless ISP. They will want to know who and where you are, if for no other reason than billing purposes.

The point I was making was that you will be denied access to the internet if you do not identify yourself. You have no legal right to have access except through a contract with an ISP.

zewazir

You are wrong. There is no Constitution right to privacy. The US Supreme Court had to invent such a personal right out of thin air to allow for Roe v Wade. They did not extend this vaporous right to commercial dealings.

The 9th Amendment states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That means that just because is NOT enumerated does not mean it is not intended to be protected by the Constitution. IOW, the Constitution is intended to protect all rights of the people, not just those enumerated.  SCOTUS did not make up the right to privacy out of thin air, as many so erroneously claim.  Rather, SCOTUS has determined that one of the rights retained by the people under the 9th Amendment is the right to privacy.

There is the potential for the idea of identity to become a sticky widget on the internet. But there are already laws in place that state a business must have a valid reason for requesting a person’s identity, just as the state does.  A person’s desire to get online and do a web search for the latest in congressional hanky panky does not require they identify themselves.  Without a reason, asking for identity is in violation of civil rights of the individual.

Of course, making purchases is a different item, and identity is necessary - to a point. (I personally use an online payment service, so my identity is protected.)

But proving who I am via built in cameras and such? Prove who I am just for logging on?  If it ever gets that far, I will unplug and go back to doing things the old fashioned way.

zewazir

Anonymity permits crimes; ... Ending anonymity will lessen the attacks.

I refer you to Benjamin Franklin’s quote.  Permitting random search and seizure would also reduce crime.  Even permitting evidence “accidentally” gained in violation of civil protections would vastly improve the ability to prosecute crime.  Cameras in every household would guarantee a vast reduction in domestic violence.

The price of absolute security is absolute tyranny. I am not willing to pay that price.

I AM willing to pay a little extra for items to make up for certain levels of crime that protecting personal liberty enables.

UrbanBard

“UrbanBard said: You are wrong. There is no Constitution right to privacy. The US Supreme Court had to invent such a personal right out of thin air to allow for Roe v Wade. They did not extend this vaporous right to commercial dealings.
The 9th Amendment states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That means that just because is NOT enumerated does not mean it is not intended to be protected by the Constitution. “

What you say is true, but the Ninth Amendment applies to the Federal, not the State governments. Those state entities have had a long history of intervening in our lives. If you don’t like your state government’s actions or laws, then move. It’s called voting with your feet and Federalism.

The states are allowed to experiment with legal theories and programs. You can vote those politicians and programs which abuse your rights out of office.

“IOW, the Constitution is intended to protect all rights of the people, not just those enumerated.  “

You need to read the Federalist papers. There was never a popular vote which ratified the constitution. It was all through legislative votes.

The Bill of Rights came into being as a restraint of federal authority. The states refused to ratify the constitution until the bill of rights was attached. This was despite the fact that the federal constitution, itself, clearly states that the federal government ONLY has those power listed or enumerated. The state governments didn’t trust the federal politicians and rightly so.

My point is that the various states have powers over you, too. Unless they have a version of the bill of rights, such a Virginia does, they are not bound by federal limitations.

One of the federal government’s usurpation’s is to pretend that federal law as superior to state law. It is not. They are separate. Federal law is much more constrained than state power is.

Just don’t pretend that the federal government is acting constitutionally; it is not and has not been for over a hundred years. It is a tyranny now, but it is a soft tyranny which we are accustomed to.

What Obama’s administration is doing is creating a HARD tyranny—Social Democracy. It is attempting to nationalize great swaths of the American economy. There will be vast ramifications from that, depending on how dictatorial the administration becomes.

Obama’s Stimulus package and budget has many hidden changes in it to state and federal laws. It sets up federal programs which have vague and unlimited powers. A backlash is in progress.

“SCOTUS did not make up the right to privacy out of thin air, as many so erroneously claim.  Rather, SCOTUS has determined that one of the rights retained by the people under the 9th Amendment is the right to privacy.”

The federal courts had no power to impose Roe v Wade on the states; it is a usurpation. The people can through their state governments vote to give up the right to privacy and did so centuries ago. There is no legal history to support your contentions. It is all leftist judicial activism which has become commonplace.

UrbanBard

Continued from above.

“There is the potential for the idea of identity to become a sticky widget on the internet. “

No, it doesn’t. No one can be forced to deal with you on the Internet. Nor should they do so, unless you identify yourself.

This is true, now, in your private life. Other people have rights, too, you know. If you force yourself on others, that is harassment. People have the right to walk away from you, even on the Internet. Who’s rights are being violated here?

You seem to think that the governments will be involved in this. Not so! Get Kafka out of your head. 

The governmental agencies will not keep the data base on the Internet. A private agency like Google will do that. That is scary enough.

Apple will register the processor ID’s which are in each of the computers its sells. They will combine this with the warranty information, so they will know who the owner is. Apple will keep track of the personal ID’s of the owners, and the metrics which prove who they are, of the computers it has responsibility for servicing. How is a compendium of warranty information a violation of anyone’s rights? Apple will protect this from casual outsider, but it cannot do so from the courts.

Apple will simply refuse to deal with anyone who will not identify themselves. So, will almost all of the other organizations on the Web. Passwords will be too easily spoofed, so other secure means will be developed in self defense. What those means are is still to be determined.

Some of those defenses are already hidden in computers. Criminals have been tracked through their computers. Hidden codes were in Microsoft Word files which identified the make, model and serial number of the computer the file was written on. This info lead to arrest and prosecution. Are you opposed to that?

“But there are already laws in place that state a business must have a valid reason for requesting a person?s identity, just as the state does.  “

This is true, but it was violated in Joe the Plumber’s case. Such laws are ephemeral. State politicians can rewrite them at will.

You have no legal right to them. We live in a representative government which both protects freedom and restrains license. That power over you is a good reason to pay attention what your representatives are doing. This was always true, but it is easier now because of the internet.

“A person?s desire to get online and do a web search for the latest in congressional hanky panky does not require they identify themselves.  Without a reason, asking for identity is in violation of civil rights of the individual.”

No, it is not. What I am saying is that no one will reply to you unless you identify yourself. How can you do a web search if no one is responding to you?

There will be places for anonymity, but they will be increasingly smaller. And this will be through social and commercial actions, not governmental ones.

“But proving who I am via built in cameras and such? “

I’m guessing that the cameras will constrained to just local computers. Voice prints may be substituted. All I am saying is that the current system is not working and I am projecting what changes seem likely. This need not be draconian.

“Prove who I am just for logging on?  If it ever gets that far, I will unplug and go back to doing things the old fashioned way.”

That is your right, but eventually, we will not be able to function without computers. The government will do away with paper money, so you will be paying for your meals at restaurants via your mobile phone. There will be micro payments for every service you buy on the internet, so you prove who you are there. This includes the news you consume. That is merely another one of the many changes which are coming.

But, I am thinking of this in the long term. This will take decades to play out.

xmattingly

UrbanBard, good god man, do you really have to quote and respond to every little minutia? Your comments are getting more long-winded and obsessive as you go… settle down!

Try using the quote feature. It will make your responses look more like something that someone would actually want to read.

UrbanBard

“UrbanBard said: Anonymity permits crimes; ... Ending anonymity will lessen the attacks.
I refer you to Benjamin Franklin?s quote.  Permitting random search and seizure would also reduce crime. “

When did I suggest that? You are becoming paranoid.

“Even permitting evidence ?accidentally? gained in violation of civil protections would vastly improve the ability to prosecute crime.  Cameras in every household would guarantee a vast reduction in domestic violence.”

You are projecting this on a tyranny far beyond the one we have today. I was saying that the camera’s, voice prints and the like will be a fool proof means for your computer to avoid unauthorized input. It seems like a natural progression.

Could the metrics involved in this be moved to other computers? Yes, but, in the moving, it becomes insecure so it becomes less trusted.

I was projecting a secure form of digital ID would be necessary.

But, the devil is in the details. The digital ID which Britain uses was easily broken into. It did not have enough checks and balances. Nor did the ID have any confirmation from a central data base. I was not projecting anything so all encompassing. The details would evolve over the next few decades.

“The price of absolute security is absolute tyranny. I am not willing to pay that price.”

I am not projecting absolute security, just much better security than we have now. This will evolve as our current protections prove flawed. The hackers and the malware writers will improve their methods.

The world could become much more secure, over night, if every Microsoft Windows computer is banned from the Internet, but that is unlikely.

“I AM willing to pay a little extra for items to make up for certain levels of crime that protecting personal liberty enables.”

Ah! But you are not in control. Nor am I.

People will be experimenting to improve security, because security is a joke on the Internet now. I gave what some of my projections are.

There are security enhancements which Apple is likely to make when it moves to the 64 bit kernel. These enhancements will happen slowly and reasonably as to be unnoticeable. Each of these protections is quite salable to consumers and small business owners. You will be allowed to turn them off. But turning them off puts you at risk.

Apple, and other owners of intellectual property, will respond to a lack of court protection from the hackers.

One way that Apple can protect itself is to verify the identity of the persons doing business with it. It can change its OS software and installer so that its OS only will be installed on Apple hardware. The hackers will fight back, so Apple will be forced to adopt means that that are ever more secure. Removing anonymity from the web is one of those means.

We need to protect our computers better. Passwords are not enough.

A secure trail must track packets, so that spam, phishing attacks and trojan horses can be blocked.

This means that a secure digital ID system is necessary. No server, computer or person should respond to you unless you can adequately identify yourself.

Do you open your door to everyone who knocks? In a high crime area? Such as the Internet is now?

All I am saying is that people do not have to answer when you knock. They may ask who you are and make you prove that, before you can enter.

Why is this so unreasonable to you? Do you allow people to walk in and out of your house without knowing who they are? I don’t think so.

UrbanBard

“UrbanBard, good god man, do you really have to quote and respond to every little minutia? “

No,  zewazer was acting paranoid and distorting my position in detail. His viewpoint was way off base.

Bosco was running through every possible argument until he became ridiculous. Part of my method it to reply to nonsense until it is reduced to absurdity. I am sorry that this is so tedious. It is to me, too. I’m just very stubborn.

“It will make your responses look more like something that someone would actually want to read.”

No one is being forced to read anything. I believe we have flogged this horse to death. I have nothing more to say.

zewazir

What you describe as reasonable security I describe as draconian. How much do we put up with for how much return in additional security?

You claim that passwords are not enough.  But the measures you describe can be as easily broken as any passworded protection. Having a finger print or other image recognition scan protect your personal computer from unauthorized use is one thing. But the fact is the vast majority of crime using computers is not done via unauthorized use of a person’s computer.  It is done by either hacking security measures, or by stealing security codes. Image base security may put up a larger roadblock to hacking, but then the computers used by hacker are getting more and ore powerful. From the view of a computer, and image file used for security is indistinguishable from an extremely long password.  It may take longer to hack, but with better hacking software and faster processors to run it on, the barrier is nothing more than a matter of time, not difficulty, in hacking the security.

As for stealing security codes, be it through phishing or other means, it does not matter one whit whether the code is a password or an image file of a face, or a fingerprint scan, or retinal scan. It’s all binary code inside the computer, and once the person is fooled into sending it, or the criminal manages to illicitly intercept the transmission, it is just a file to be used to steal the person’s identity and through that, steal money and other things.

Final point: when I get online to look up a new fish recipe on AllRecipes.com, I am not “forcing myself” on anyone. The entire argument that others have the right to know who I am (unless I am actually engaged in a commercial transaction, which I already covered) is based on a false premise.  The vast majority of internet activity is for the purpose of researching information. The free information sources (usually paid for by advertising) have no valid legal reason to care who is accessing the information on their servers. As such, requiring identification simply for logging on to the network is not a necessary security feature in this society.  It may be necessary to a totalitarian type society, but not this one.

And, no, it is not inevitable that we head that way.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Bosco was running through every possible argument until he became ridiculous.

Actually, I was just trying to goad into explaining how Apple was going to use special alien technology available only to them, the NSA, and Area 51 to remove the privacy bug from our society and make it a new temple to God. I give myself a “B” for that project; you came so close!

There are two basic issues. One is the lay of the land, and the other is whether the judge ruled correctly in the Psystar case. We obviously disagree on the latter. I get everyone’s points on Psystar. I disagree. I believe that it is undesirable for a company to be able to have a court enforce a tying arrangement and/or variable pricing defined only by a EULA. If Apple wants to enforce these things, it should have to cripple its installer, add server activation or call-home, disclaim warranties, etc. It can go down the path that UrbanBard suggests and piss off its reasonable customers. That is the dilemma the rest of the industry faces, and IMHO it’s kept a lot of companies honest. What I conclude from the Psystar case is that Apple basically admits that its Mac hardware is overspec’d and/or overpriced and lacks spread across form factors the market wants. Thought experiment.. if Apple loses actual sales to Psystar, what does that say to you about Apple’s hardware? Please answer honestly, and consider that some people who opt for Psystar might not have been easily duped by their slick/sleezy marketing. They might have seen better value there.

On the lay of the land. Here is a fact, an indisputable fact that that arises out of information theory. You can get a Ph.D. in that sort of thing if you like. Computer security is akin to giving 1% (or some factor close) of the population the ability to blow up a city on their own whim. If you make a digital lock and you make the target desirable enough, it will be broken. If you further complicate your task by implementing the lock on thousands or millions of physical copies of a commodity device that the evil hackers can afford, you make the job even easier. If you make the moral argument against this kind of thing, there are enough of the people who can break these things that don’t care about your moral argument.

As an aside, my moral argument for paying for all my digital stuff and not running a hackintosh is “honor among thieves”. Every payment I receive for software, I am humbled by and thankful for, because compared to what my Dad did for a living, this software gig absolutely is grand theft.

Back to lay of the land… In such an environment where there’s always someone who can come out of nowhere and monkey wrench the system you think is ensuring your revenue, you just don’t piss those people off. They probably will steal from you and enable 90% of the people using your software to steal from you. But you can’t do a thing about it without stirring them up and simultaneously, exposing your weaknesses to your customers or perhaps treating your customers like thieves.

You’re welcome to disagree with my lay of the land and you’re welcome to go down paths of belief that are ignorant of that reality. I’m just trying to help.

UrbanBard

Zewazir said”
“What you describe as reasonable security I describe as draconian. How much do we put up with for how much return in additional security?

You persist in misreading my statements. I do not believe that a lack of anonymity will necessarily lead to bad consequences on the Internet.

These procedures will evolve over time and be relentlessly attacked until a safe methods are developed. It will certainly cost less than the billions being stolen from people now.

Fences make for good neighbors. Walls, windows, doors and locks are good things. Most of what they do is keep honest people honest.

” But the fact is the vast majority of crime using computers is not done via unauthorized use of a person?s computer. “

I was describing a complete system detailing as many structural flaws as are in the Internet. Good security builds on good security. Security starts at the computer and works its way outward.

The system I described would have malware blocked because the computer couldn’t prove who it was owned by. Botnets would be blocked, because they could not hide. But, some of this is the lack of security on Windows now.

” when I get online to look up a new fish recipe on AllRecipes.com, I am not ?forcing myself? on anyone. “

In fact, you are asking for information from a server. That server need not answer you if you do not identify yourself.

Of course, there will be many levels of security in this depending on what you are asking for. Most information will be in the open, but it need not be so.

The purpose of this discussion and my remarks was about divulging intellectual property. That is at a rather high level of security.

I expect these enhancements to be implemented piecemeal over decades and in the places where the security needs are the highest. The open space will be the most innocuous ones. This will not be a totalitarian society. That is why I used the word draconian.

You are being needlessly alarmed. I apologize for suggesting that you are a thief who needs to keep anonymity. That was a jest.

But seriously, thieves need to be exposed or be denied entry. What is so odd about that?

UrbanBard

“There are two basic issues. One is the lay of the land, and the other is whether the judge ruled correctly in the Psystar case. “

I believe you are wrong about both. Asking people to keep their promises will not offend them because they are honest.

Protecting Apple’s intellectual property should offend no honest person.

” I believe that it is undesirable for a company to be able to have a court enforce a tying arrangement and/or variable pricing defined only by a EULA. If Apple wants to enforce these things,  it should have to cripple its installer, add server activation or call-home, disclaim warranties, etc. It can go down the path that UrbanBard suggests and piss off its reasonable customers.”

This is not your decision to make. Apple is with in their rights. Apple will act to minimize its interference,

” What I conclude from the Psystar case is that Apple basically admits that its Mac hardware is overspec?d and/or overpriced and lacks spread across form factors the market wants. “

No. Nether of us know the total cost of an Apple product. We can guess becauae Apple is making good profiBut, there is more to the price of a computer than the hardware and the cost of modifying stolen software.

Being over spec’d is a value judgment which is between Apple and its legitimate customer. Those customer may value being over spec’d.  Being over spec’d is also an indication of quality and long mean times between repair.

It is not your function in life to second guess Apple’s business plans, Bosco.

“Back to lay of the land? In such an environment where there?s always someone who can come out of nowhere and monkey wrench the system you think is ensuring your revenue, you just don?t piss those people off. “

I disagree with your security assessments and the likelihood that Apple will be violating its customers rights. It will act slowly to avoid that. We Mac users appreciate having good security even though it is sometimes pesky. We trust that Apple will keep that to a minimum.

You are a sophist who justifies other people’s theft. I need no advice from you.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

You are a sophist who justifies other people?s theft. I need no advice from you.

And you’re an old retired guy who doesn’t know the first thing about securing digital goods, either technologically or socially. Do you cash a monthly check from Social Security? Then don’t talk to me about theft. You steal money from young people in a year than the value of music they steal in a lifetime. Neither is justified, but when you accept that we’re all complicit and think how to work your way up the value chain, so that all these petty thefts don’t hurt you.

UrbanBard

This is where forty years of experience with computers comes in. I have a much wider knowledge base than you do. I am more open to new experiences. I have not closed down my mind the way that you have.

But, the future is always questionable. We will have to see how events unfold. I expect to be surprised by turns in events.

I accept none of your moral relativist arguments. You are a sophist who does not know how to build a logical case. Hence, you can prove nothing. At best, you make a fool of your self.

zewazir

I do not believe that a lack of anonymity will necessarily lead to bad consequences on the Internet.

That is the basic premise where we disagree.

ALL identity theft starts at the point where a person gives out their identity information in order to complete some type of transaction. If that information is never given out electronically, it cannot be stolen electronically.  Used to be criminal would dumpster dive for flimsies of credit card transactions. Now they hack into data bases, place tracers to intercept transaction transmissions, or fool people into giving them their information directly.

The more people are accustomed to handing out their identity information, the more susceptible they will be to having their identity stolen via any one of the innumerable methods criminals are using. In fact, if we were to create a system wherein people habitually identify themselves for even the most routine of connections, the phenomenon of phishing would explode.  The last thing we want is to make identity transfers a habitual event.  The more rare it is, the less susceptible people will be to entering their ID in the wrong place.

Also, security is already based on the type of transfer taking place.  For simple, every day information inquiries, no ID is needed. If the information is more esoteric, or the site enables interpersonal interplay on a basic level (like this forum, or Facebook, etc.)  then simple memberships are often created in with little or no actual personal information required, just a made-up ID on-the-spot and anything else voluntary. In either case, be it open access or basic ID membership, there is nothing in the interaction between user and supplier that necessitates any kind of rigorous ID process. Anyone who wants to take a ?I want to know who you are, or you can?t access my stuff will find themselves with very few interactions unless their stuff is of exception comparative value.

Now when it comes to monetary interactions, then of course some type of identification is, indeed, necessary.  But I see this necessity moving the opposite direction than you do.  Instead of commonplace prove-who-you-are type interactions everywhere you go, people will start gravitating toward online payment services, like the one I use, in which the information supplied to the vendor is minimal. I identify myself to the payment service, validate the request for payment, and the only thing the vendor gets is my money via the payment service and where to send the stuff. The only vulnerability in this type of interaction is when identifying ones self to the payment service (which is encrypted, of course) and any susceptibility one has toward phishing schemes disguised as the payment service.

Final point: any society that allows routine identity requests to become a part of every day life are begging for the system to be abused.  Our government is already performing far outside the boundaries set by the Constitution.  The last thing we need is to make it even easier for them to track every electronic move we make. I do not trust the current set up to leave things be if they can find a way to sneak up on us without our knowledge.

Call me paranoid if you wish.  Just remember that being paranoid does not mean they aren?t out to get us.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Final point: any society that allows routine identity requests to become a part of every day life are begging for the system to be abused.

And if I may add a corollary… Any company that either makes its license compliance too intrusive/Draconian or routinely uses courts to prop up its business model will attract enough interest from people who disagree with the company’s means to render license compliance and court victories moot.

UrbanBard

Historically, before the 20th Century, people lived in communities small enough that there was little privacy. Your neighbors knew your sins. When the bulk of the public moved to the cities they gained anonymity. But, they also gained the crime which anonymity confers. The automobile could allow a felon to commit a crime and be a hundred miles away in several hours. That was not true before.

The internet is truly faceless. There is little on it that you can trust. The problems of the Internet are well known. But, events are pushing us toward depending it.  Thus, a reversal is taking place in reaction, so that the internet must become trustworthy if it is to be useful.

People will, in self defense, demand that you prove who you are. This digital ID will not be fool proof, but it will get better through trial and error over time. It will become increasingly harder to hide your crimes, because you will be checked up on more often.

You see something to fear in this process because you see the crushing hand of the state. I don’t see that.

This will be driven by the actions of individuals and companies on the Web. There is nothing immoral about refusing contact with people who you do not know. Nor is it immoral for a person to investigate people before increasing their contact. This is what having a reputation is all about. If a person refuses to divulge their past, then people will assume that they have something sinister to hide.

These mechanisms, that I speak of, seem quite natural to me. I do not know what it is you fear.

Perhaps, that is because I am honest and have nothing to hide. I have had my peccadilloes and something of a misspent youth, but I have lived morally for long enough so that they are something to chuckle about, now.

What is that you fear that people will learn about you? Cannot you see that this may be your guilt in action?

zewazir

And if I may add a corollary? Any company that either makes its license compliance too intrusive/Draconian or routinely uses courts to prop up its business model will attract enough interest from people who disagree with the company?s means to render license compliance and court victories moot.

OTOH, when a company uses reasonable restraint in defending it’s IP, leaving alone hacker sites that show how to violate the EULA, leave alone the individuals who violate the EULA, even going so far as to ignore people who steal OS licenses in favor of providing a convenient, non-intrusive installed to their honest customers, and rather concentrating only on blatant and abusive violators of copyrights - such as those intent on making a profit off their theft - then that company will do just fine in the long run no matter what a bunch of entitlist “I want it, but don’t want to pay for it” types have to say about them.

zewazir

Perhaps, that is because I am honest and have nothing to hide. I have had my peccadilloes and something of a misspent youth, but I have lived morally for long enough so that they are something to chuckle about, now.

The “if you are honest you have nothing to fear” argument was old 100 years ago.

Knowing a person, as in a small town (I grew up in a town of under 300) is far different from knowing the ID of a complete stranger.  You may know their ID, but they are still a stranger, and are therefore it is wise to not trust them any more than is essential to your interaction with them.  The idea that requiring ID will somehow turn the world wide web into a small community were everyone knows everyone else is simplistically naive. Even with commonplace ID, no one will truly know anyone else any more than they already do. As such, common place ID more likely to increase crime as people abuse the ability to identify anyone else via the network.

If I interact with people in a way that we NEED to know each others’ ID, I have no problem with that, though I keep it to the absolute minimum. It’s why I use an online payment system instead of providing my ID and banking info to every business I interact with. I do have a problem with providing unnecessary information to anyone for the only reason that they want it, with the exception of family and close friends.

UrbanBard

” Any company that either makes its license compliance too intrusive/Draconian or routinely uses courts to prop up its business model will attract enough interest from people who disagree with the company?s means to render license compliance and court victories moot.”

Let me put what you wrote in plain language, Bosco, “Any company which protects their rights will garner a reaction from the people who want to steal from them?”

So, are you saying that banks invite people to rob them?  And beautiful women are begging to be raped? I think that argument is absurd. It is blaming the victim.

There will always be felons who want to steal what is valuable. There will always be sophists, like yourself, who will defend them.

This is a special problem with Linux Socialists in the FOSS community. The Windows OS is perfectly awful and the FOSS community cannot create anything half as good as Mac OSX, so they want to steal it.

I am hoping that Google’s Chrome OS will lessen the desire to steal Mac OSX.

UrbanBard

zewazir, I am using an analogy of the small town that I grew up in.

We have serious problems on the web and we have a long history of what doesn’t work. I am suggesting that ending anonymity will correct many of those problems. This is far more than merely commercial transactions.

There are problems like pederasts tracking and stalking teenagers on Facebook. Or people like Ted Bundy using the internet to attract and kill people. Do you think this a trivial matter?  Or one that would be of no interest to the police?

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

So, are you saying that banks invite people to rob them?? And beautiful women are begging to be raped? I think that argument is absurd. It is blaming the victim.

It’s more like when you have a Del Taco franchise at the corner of Trabuco and El Toro and some other franchisee comes along and opens another Del Taco at the corner of Trabuco and El Toro (across Trabuco in another strip mall). Psystar is simply competition to Apple for hardware sales. Apple wants to stifle such competition by claiming it breaks it breaks terms of a EULA. I guess we all agree here that if Psystar were allowed to continue doing this and other companies joined in the fun, Apple would tank because it can’t compete. Hmmm. You might be interested to know that those Del Taco franchisees have been there for at least 20 years—as long as I’ve known about the area.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Hey UrbanBard,

The Hackintochers have already figured out how to reinstate 10.6.2 on Atom. There is a very nice technical discussion of it at TUAW that would even be accessible to someone like you who has no clue. I thought you might find it interesting.

UrbanBard

“Hey UrbanBard,

The Hackintochers have already figured out how to reinstate 10.6.2 on Atom. ... I thought you might find it interesting.”

Of course the hackers have. The day after 10.6.2 was released, the hackers put 10.6.1’s kernel under 10.6.2 and got it to work. The hackers promised a more complete fix later.

I mentioned that, myself, several days ago. You must be out of the loop to only hear about it now.

This war is not over. The interesting part is that Apple chose to fight back, at this time. It didn’t have to take this stance. That suggest to me that Apple has other moves planned. That is what is interesting.

UrbanBard

“UrbanBard said: So, are you saying that banks invite people to rob them?  And beautiful women are begging to be raped? I think that argument is absurd. It is blaming the victim.

It?s more like when you have a Del Taco franchise at the corner of Trabuco and El Toro and some other franchisee comes along and opens another Del Taco “

No, that is legal competition. No one is stealing anything. At worse, it is the Del Taco headquarters violating your contract on location exclusivity, if you have that clause.

“Psystar is simply competition to Apple for hardware sales. “

The courts said that Psystar is violating Apple’s copyright by copying Apple’s intellectual property. Psystar is stealing from Apple with every computer it sells.

” I guess we all agree here that if Psystar were allowed to continue doing this and other companies joined in the fun, Apple would tank because it can?t compete. “

It’s hard to compete with people who are stealing from you. This is why we have laws. We all know how much you love thieves.

“Hmmm. You might be interested to know that those Del Taco franchisees have been there for at least 20 years?as long as I?ve known about the area.:

It sounds like the first Del Taco franchisee wasn’t very good at negotiations.

zewazir

zewazir, I am using an analogy of the small town that I grew up in.

We have serious problems on the web and we have a long history of what doesn?t work. I am suggesting that ending anonymity will correct many of those problems. This is far more than merely commercial transactions.

There are problems like pederasts tracking and stalking teenagers on Facebook. Or people like Ted Bundy using the internet to attract and kill people. Do you think this a trivial matter?  Or one that would be of no interest to the police?

I understood your small town analogy.  I grew up in a small town. I know what it was like knowing everybody. We could go out trick-or-treating, after dark, and accept home made treats without worries.

But merely knowing a person’s ID is not knowing them.  That is where your analogy - and conclusion that removing anonymity will improve things - falls apart.

Going back to the small town analogy, what happens in a small town when someone new moves in?  We all know who they are.  Their identity is not in question in the slightest.  But the small inhabitants do not KNOW the new arrival, and they do not trust them like they do each other until the new arrival has been there long enough to prove themselves worthy of trust.

Knowing someone’s Id online is no different.  You could tell me your real name, where you live and work, but I still will not know you. Anonymity goes beyond simple ID. How many Joseph K. Smith’s are there out there?

The problems you name do not stem merely from anonymity. Pederasts as often lure their victims in with the “understanding” of “maturity”. According to law enforcement youngsters know the age and identity of the stalker more often than not when they arrange their first meetings.

And what is the most common description of people like Ted Bundy?  “He seemed so NORMAL.”  Do you really think Bundy dependent on ANONYMITY to commit his crime spree?

The dangers inherent in making identity requirements far out weigh any potential benefits. The phenomenon of identity theft is already widespread.  THAT is where most of your cited billions of dollars in internet fraud comes from. Making use of real identity MORE common in every day dealing on the network will only lead to more chances for the criminal element to gain identity information on more people. Making use of one’s real identity more common will also open more avenues for abuse by both government and private agencies who can gain from the knowledge made available in such practices.

In short, making identity requirements MORE common will end up with identity theft and crime being more common, not less common, as well as enable more abuse by agencies operating within (barely) the law. (Especially by those who write the laws.)

If you want the technology to lock down your own computer to prevent unauthorized access, go for it. The technologies you described in that venue are available now, they just aren’t automatically built in.  But be prepared for a fight if you want to make every day use of the internet subject to draconian security measures.

And it is NOT because we have something to hide. (Which, BTW, brought up a second time makes it a deliberate insult, not a joke.)

zewazir

Psystar is simply competition to Apple for hardware sales. Apple wants to stifle such competition by claiming it breaks it breaks terms of a EULA.

No, COMPETITION is when one company sells a product similar to another companies, but uses their own ingenuity to make their product more attractive, or introduces a moderate difference to aim at a slightly different demographic.

What PsyStart is doing is STEALING Apple’s idea as well as stealing their product.  How long do you think the first Del Taco would have lasted if the second Del Taco “competed” by stealing the first Del Taco’s ground beef and selling it in their own tacos?

And you keep going back to the EULA, yet it has been pointed out to yoiu more than once the court’s decision did not rely on the EULA in any way, shape, or form.  The decision is based on the fact that Apple does not sell full versions of their OS separate from their hardware.  That means using an OS upgrade to install a clean original copy of the OS is a direct violation of copyright, NOT of the EULA. They are making ILLEGAL copies of the software. It is no different than if I were to use hacking software to decode and burn a copy of the latest Start Trek movie, and sell it. (But then judging by your statements about Napster, you probably think that is OK too.)

UrbanBard

“But merely knowing a person?s ID is not knowing them. “

True, but I was talking about a process which will span decades to be put into place. It will be installed piecemeal.

You keep dragging your feet, because I cannot tell you how these technologies will evolve. You keep flying off into insane directions. You keep placing bizarre spins on my arguments which I believe are untrue.

It is possible to see what needs to done, but not know the protections which will be put into place.

” Their identity is not in question in the slightest. “

Identify is not synonymous with knowing who they are and what we can expect them to do. But, it is a start.

“Knowing someone?s ID online is no different.  “

Knowing something about the people we meet is better than knowing nothing.

“The problems you name do not stem merely from anonymity. “

I must disagree. People hide who they are.

” According to law enforcement youngsters know the age and identity of the stalker more often than not when they arrange their first meetings.

Then, you say that felons lie. That is nothing new. All you do is prevent honest people from checking up on them.

“And what is the most common description of people like Ted Bundy?  ?He seemed so NORMAL.”

Sociopaths can be charming but they leave a trail. Major Hasan left a long trail of disturbing evidence and psychological evaluations, before he stated to kill people at Fort Hood.

“The dangers inherent in making identity requirements far out weigh any potential benefits.”

This is not YOUR decision to make. People will decide, for themselves, to demand ID. Means will be found to provide it on the Internet.

“The phenomenon of identity theft is already widespread. “

Identity theft would fixed by an end to anonymity. You could check up on people to verify if they are who they say they are.

“Making use of real identity MORE common in every day dealing on the network will only lead to more chances for the criminal element to gain identity information on more people. “

Openness and transparency has its problems. Criminals can check up on people now. You would merely prevent honest people from doing so.

“Making use of one?s real identity more common will also open more avenues for abuse by both government and private agencies who can gain from the knowledge made available in such practices.”

If governments want to abuse you, they don’t need fancy Digital ID systems. The NSA can get almost any information it wants.

J. Edger Hoover kept over 200 thousand FBI files on private citizens during Democrat administrations. Politicians and community leaders were blackmailed into compliance. Tell me how a civilian ID system could be more abused?

“In short, making identity requirements MORE common will end up with identity theft and crime being more common”

Yes, that’s the ticket—keep people in the dark and feed them bullshit. You are paranoid.

“If you want the technology to lock down your own computer to prevent unauthorized access, go for it.

Thank you for your permission. Computer manufacturers will get around to providing this as a security service. If you don;t want this protection, then turn it off. Don’t deny it to anyone else.

“But be prepared for a fight if you want to make every day use of the internet subject to draconian security measures.”

I keep telling you this will not be draconian. No one will be stringing you up on the Rack, The Iron Maiden will remain in a museum alongside the Branding Irons. You are being fantastical.

If you don’t identify yourself you will be ostracized—shunned. No one need trust anyone who will not identify themselves. You can’t even complain; you have no right to force yourself on other people.

“And it is NOT because we have something to hide. “

Your insistence is quite suspicious and compulsive. There is nothing open or honest about your demands.

“(Which, BTW, brought up a second time makes it a deliberate insult, not a joke.)”

The problem was that you were continuing to repeat the same errors, lies and slurs. None of my explanations could get through your head.

Your behaviors are indicative of someone who wants to commit crimes.

UrbanBard

Bosco said:
“COMPETITION is when one company sells a product similar to another companies, but uses their own ingenuity to make their product more attractive, or introduces a moderate difference to aim at a slightly different demographic.”

Fine, just don’t steal anyone’s property to do it. Don’t steal their trademarks, violate their patents or their intellectual property. There are plenty of places where you can compete without doing that.

“What PsyStart is doing is STEALING Apple?s idea”

Copying people’s ideas is fine. It stealing their hard work that matters to the law.

“And you keep going back to the EULA, yet it has been pointed out to you more than once the court?s decision did not rely on the EULA in any way, “

As I said the EULA puts honest people on notice that Apple has rights, too. The particular case did not involve the EULA, but it did not invalidate it either.

“The decision is based on the fact that Apple does not sell full versions of their OS separate from their hardware.  “

True. But, also that Psystar was modifying Apple’s intellectual property illegitimately.

” It is no different than if I were to use hacking software to decode and burn a copy of the latest Start Trek movie, and sell it. “

Yes. People have the right to defend their intellectual property from misuse. This includes software, music, film and literature

“(But then judging by your statements about Napster, you probably think that is OK too.)”

Where would you get an idea like that? I have said noting about Napster to lead you to think so. Nor is it germain to the subject and I don’t want to be side tracked. You have done enough of that already.

xmattingly

No one is being forced to read anything. I believe we have flogged this horse to death. I have nothing more to say.

No one is asking you to be a blowhard, either. For someone who has nothing left to say, you sure like to keep saying it.

What you don’t understand is that Bosco is using these message boards to exorcise his Apple torment. Apparently they robbed his bank account, raped him, stole his Del Taco IP and refused to sell to his little black kid. It’s a life full of tragedy… have pity for him and his asinine misgivings.

zewazir

Your behaviors are indicative of someone who wants to commit crimes.

Shove that where the sun does not shine. I have pointed out the main problem of the future you support, and you miss the point every single time. Honest people defend the 4th and 5th Amendments every single day in this country.  Are they doing so out of the desire to commit crime? You’ve just proven yourself to be a genuine south end of a north bound donkey.

Every time a person is requested to identify themselves it increases the chance that identification process - whether it uses a password or image file ID, will be compromised. Making the ID process more common would vastly increase the ability of phishing schemes to succeed as people would be less prone to question the necessity to provide their ID. In short, vastly increasing the necessity to provide their ID online will only enhance criminal activity, not curb it.

As for government, you name several instances of wide spread government abuse, then defend the creation of an infrastructure that will enable them to increase their abuse 1000 fold?  What kind of logic is that?

And, BTW, your following diatribe was to a Post I made responding to Bosco showing how his definition of competition between businesses is hopelessly skewed. It was not from Bosco. You completely misread it, indicating your ability to read with comprehension is vastly compromised according to whom your own preconceptions.

But, since I am obviously little better than a criminal for resisting draconian internet security, this conversation is over. It is becoming obvious you cannot hold a polite debate.

UrbanBard

“UrbanBard said:I believe we have flogged this horse to death. I have nothing more to say.

No one is asking you to be a blowhard, either. For someone who has nothing left to say, you sure like to keep saying it.”

I have nothing “NEW” to say; I have not changed my position at all. I keep saying the same things to people who are distorting my position. Setting the record straight Is a valuable social function. “All that is necessary for evil to win is for good men to do nothing.”

Replying to falsehoods is a necessary social function. Why do you want to shut me up? If I am being tedious, then why not ignore me and this webpage? No one is compelling you to be here. And you are contributing nothing to the discussion.

So long as Bosco and Zewazir want wants to continue this farce, then I will be replying to their nonsense.

“What you don?t understand is that Bosco is using these message boards to exorcise his Apple torment.”

Yes, and he is being reduced to absurdity, again and again.

“Apparently they robbed his bank account, raped him, stole his Del Taco IP and refused to sell to his little black kid. It?s a life full of tragedy? have pity for him and his asinine misgivings.”

Sorry. I am being cruel to be kind. Someone needs to intellectually spank him. It is a long time coming.

Why are you still here?

UrbanBard

“UrbanBard said: Your behaviors are indicative of someone who wants to commit crimes.
Shove that where the sun does not shine. “

There is no need to become vulgar. I am merely holding up a mirror to your absurdity. You are projecting extremely unlikely circumstances on the world.

I must wonder at the reasons for your intransigence. And wonder at what you are hiding.

No one is violating your rights when they demand that you identify yourself. If you refuse to identify yourself, why would anyone want to have anything to do with you? No one is violating your rights by shunning you.

“I have pointed out the main problem of the future you support, and you miss the point every single time. “

No, I merely disagree and say that your fears are unfounded and illogical.

“Honest people defend the 4th and 5th Amendments every single day in this country. “

True, but my contentions do not attack either of those Federal amendments. My contentions do not foster an unreasonable search and seizure nor is it a denial of free speech or the press. I just say that no one can be forced to listen to you.

“Every time a person is requested to identify themselves it increases the chance that identification process - whether it uses a password or image file ID, will be compromised. Making the ID process more common would vastly increase the ability of phishing schemes to succeed as people would be less prone to question the necessity to provide their ID. “

What you are saying is that, since any ID system can be abused, then we should have no ID system at all? That is absurd.

You are saying that we shouldn’t have Driver’s licenses and passports, because they may be abused. You are too weird.

“As for government, you name several instances of wide spread government abuse, then defend the creation of an infrastructure that will enable them to increase their abuse 1000 fold?  What kind of logic is that?”

There is nothing to keep the government from erecting such as a system now. Obama had a telephone number where people could call to inform on their neighbors. Talk about his being Hitlerian.

“The price of Freedom is constant vigilance,” as Thomas Jefferson said. A privately run ID system will need safeguards. You assume that there will be none. I disagree.

“And, BTW, your following diatribe was to a Post I made responding to Bosco showing how his definition of competition between businesses is hopelessly skewed. It was not from Bosco.”

I am Sorry for my mistake.  I got confused as to my attacker. It was three o’clock in the morning. Old people sometimes can’r sleep.

“But, since I am obviously little better than a criminal for resisting draconian internet security, this conversation is over. “

I asked you if you were hiding criminal tendencies. You got huffy just like someone who has something to hide. If you had no criminal intent, you would simply say so.

I don’t know who you are. Why would I assume that you are a good person when your behavior convinces me that you are not?

zewazir

There is no need to become vulgar. I am merely holding up a mirror to your absurdity. You are projecting extremely unlikely circumstances on the world.

You continue to be deliberately offensive even after it is pointed out that your statements are offensive.  Do not be surprised when people react negatively to your defamatory innuendo.

And there is no “mirror” being held up in your rhetoric.  There is no difference objecting to setting up a system to track everyone’s every move on the internet, and objecting to the state conducting unreasonable searches in violation of teh 4th Amendment. Placing people under casual surveillance without a predefined cause is as much a violation of the 4th Amendment as is going through their homes without a warrant. Yet you support a system which wold provide for constant casual surveillance of everything done over the network. Just because you do not seem to have the ability to understand all the implications of what you propose does not make those who oppose your ideas liars - or criminals.

However, continuing to say so DOES put you in the same league as the other totalitarian fascists who use the “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” excuse for their tyranny.

Replying to falsehoods is a necessary social function.

Now there is a good indicator of the type of person you are.  Anyone who disagrees with you is a liar.  That’s a good one. It’s right up there with Bush & Co’s BS about anyone not agreeing with them is unpatriotic. Or the stance of the current administration that anyone who opposes their socialist ideas is unAmerican. But since you already call me accuse me of criminal intent for opposing your idea of internet security, I am unsurprised.

What you are saying is that, since any ID system can be abused, then we should have no ID system at all? That is absurd.

And so you devolve to hyperbole and straw man?  If you cannot argue the real issue, you’ll make one up that is easy to refute. Did I EVER say all ID systems should be done away with? No, in fact I plainly, on many occasions, state that an identification system IS needed for certain types of interactions.  Get a good reading tutor and I am certain they can point out the places I said so.

However, OVERUSE of an ID system can and inevitably WILL lead to more of the abuse that ID systems make available to those who would abuse it. Wanting a system that requires proof of ID for every internet site one visits will end up increasing crime, not decreasing it as you try to claim. Proof of ID does NOT make a stranger any less of a stranger - so using the “anonymity causes crime” schtick doesn’t fly. Proving my identity to you will make me no less a stranger to you.

What casual proof of identity does do is make entering proof of ID habitual, and THAT makes people more vulnerable to abuse. That is the bottom line whether you like it or not. Again: you make entering one’s ID habitual, it will only end up opening the door for a flood of identity theft schemes.

And let’s not mention that the law currently forbids anyone from casually requiring people to provide them with personal information.  You can require people enter their name before accessing your web site, but unless you have a compelling reason, you may not require anyone to prove the name they give you is not an alias. As such if you are selling someone an item over the internet, and they give you their credit info, you do have a compelling reason to have them prove they are who they say they are.  OTOH, if you are running a casual BBS forum, you do not have any compelling reason, and therefore do not have any authority nor right to demand people prove their identity to you.

The above described law, which is part of the Freedom of Information Act, is one of many laws that keep the people of this country free in spite of ever more prevalent encroachment by an out of control government. You would have to change these laws, and possibly the Constitution, to make your “secure” internet. And the fact that you say it will take decades to implement only makes it more of a threat, for slowly creeping tyranny is far more likely than a quick removal of liberty.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Now there is a good indicator of the type of person you are.? Anyone who disagrees with you is a liar.? That?s a good one. It?s right up there with Bush & Co?s BS about anyone not agreeing with them is unpatriotic. Or the stance of the current administration that anyone who opposes their socialist ideas is unAmerican. But since you already call me accuse me of criminal intent for opposing your idea of internet security, I am unsurprised.

But isn’t that exactly the same as the IP absolutists too? If you question a creator’s absolute moral right to control all copying of their work, you’re a thief. Hell, if you provide examples where the law allows exactly that, you’re providing moral justification for thieves.

Here’s something new that pertains directly to the Psystar case. Does anyone think it’s just batpoop weird that Apple focussed on Psystar’s imaging process? Or that typical EULA language refers to loading a copy into RAM? The issue is distribution, not the copying itself. Absolutely no actual or imaginable harm is done to Apple when Psystar images a disk. Distribution is the economic right that copyright seeks to preserve. But the absoluteness of that right is tempered by things like Fair Use and First Sale Doctrine.

Does this ruling make imaging a network of Macs a violation of the EULA now? Or would institutional users need to secure special licenses from Apple to do that?

zewazir

A privately run ID system will need safeguards.

The BEST safeguard for ANY secure system that is vulnerable to abuse is to use it minimally. There are no safeguards that can prevent criminals from taking advantage of the habitual use of identity proof. You can add layer after layer of ID proof, and if people are in the habit of providing those proofs, criminals will have more opportunities to gain access. People who do things habitually are far more likely to engage in the habitual behavior when it is not appropriate. That gives the criminal (and governmental) elements the wedge they need to gain even more in identity theft than they are already accomplishing.

Conversely, people who rarely engage in a behavior are far more likely to question the necessity in unusual situations. If we keep proof of identity where it belongs - pertaining only to those interactions where there is a compelling reason, then providing proof of ID is far less habitual, and therefore people are more likely to spot and question unusual demands for their identity. The more we make entering proof of identity a rarely needed occurrence, the less chance people will make mistakes, and that provided fewer opportunities to criminals.

Also, your proposed level of ?security?, safe guards or not, is even more susceptible to government abuse. You can deride this concern as paranoia if you wish. (Or label it a ?lie.?) But you yourself have pointed out some of the excesses of our government. How you can simply turn around and support a system that would track our every move on the internet, making it available to unwarranted examination all tied up in a pretty pick bow is beyond me. Do you actually think your “safeguards” can protect against government abuse? HOW?

It certainly does not seem, from other statements, that you are so naive as to think the government won’t take advantage of your system to abuse our constitutional protections even more than they already do. Yet you have repeatedly stated that you do not think governmental abuse is an item of concern.  Why not?

OTOH, if you are taking the “they already do it” defense, that is as lame as they come.  Just because our beloved, benevolent government already craps on our Bill of Rights is no reason to hand them over a boxcar load of black plums and Metamucil.

Is suspicion of our government paranoia? If so, am I paranoid enough?

?The price of Freedom is constant vigilance,? Thomas Jefferson

You used this qutoe, but do you even understand what TJ means by this statement? To maintain our liberty, we need to be on guard against ANYTHING which has the potential of curtailing our rights and freedoms.  That includes opposing systems which require us to unecessarily prove who we are. Only tyrannies are so concerned with the actions of their citizenry that they demand proof of ID for even casual interactions. Free countries act against only the criminals, not treat all citizens as potential criminals.

I amnot a criminal.  Your system would treat me as one.  Therefore I am opposed to it. But not because I have something to hide.  The only thing I have tried to hide -until now - is my utter contempt for people like yourself.

UrbanBard

Zewazir, your arguments make no sense. They are paranoid and nonsensical.

It is not an insult to ask you what your motives are for promoting a questionable position. Anonymity grants the ability to get away with crimes.

You could have said that you are an extreme libertarian who does not trust any form of power over you, whether corporate or governmental. We could have discussed that.

A flat refusal to even consider my positions is nothing that we can discus. Nor is your continual misrepresenting my arguments.

Let us mutually agree to never have anything to do with each other. That has been the only right which I have been asserting. In no way does that violate any right of yours.

zewazir

Zewazir, your arguments make no sense.

Only because you do not want to. I am willing to bet others understand them quite well - even if they disagree with my conclusions.

They are paranoid and nonsensical.

You have called me paranoid a number of times.  Yet I am not the one demanding the creation of a system requiring people repeatedly prove who they are. I am not the one who claims anyone who opposed proving their identity on a constant basis does so because of criminal intent.

It is not an insult to ask you what your motives are for promoting a questionable position. Anonymity grants the ability to get away with crimes.

And you call me paranoid.  First, at no time did you ASK my motivations, you simply implied, then directly accused that they are due to the desire to commit crimes.

Further, your implication that anonymity is a large factor in criminal activity is not born out by history.  In the glory days of no large cities, there was still plenty of criminal activity going on. Your idealized vision where people knowing each other somehow prevented crimes from happening is simply not true.

In many cases the criminal activity was in the form of roving bands of thugs who preyed on towns in the surrounding area.  These thugs often did not give one whit whether people knew who they were because they were able to rule them with fear anyway.

Similarly today there are criminal elements that are quite unafraid of revealing their identity, literally daring law enforcement to try and prosecute them.

So much for your anonymity theory.

You could have said that you are an extreme libertarian who does not trust any form of power over you, whether corporate or governmental. We could have discussed that.

Except I am not an extremist, nor am I libertarian.  Again you make accusations and conclusions about me based on your own preconceptions. I do not trust what our government has become.  But from what you have said, neither do you.

A flat refusal to even consider my positions is nothing that we can discus. Nor is your continual misrepresenting my arguments.

Pointing out the flaws in your proposed security system is hardly a flat refusal to consider them.  Obviously in order to analyze the faults I had to consider them in depth.  OTOH, it is you who simply dismisses my arguments out of hand without actually refuting a single piece, but rather make the blanket statement they are nonsense, and misrepresent what you say.  Want to look at the person who is (figuratively) holding their ears going “yaaa yaaa yaa, I can’t hear you!” go look in the mirror.

Also I am not the one who made up a strawman argument about getting rid of all ID systems, am I?  Again, go look in the mirror.

Let us mutually agree to never have anything to do with each other. That has been the only right which I have been asserting. In no way does that violate any right of yours.

You can do whatever the heck you want. And I will do what I want. That’s called freedom.

If my freedom includes pointing out the faults in teh description of your little utopian dream world where proof of ID is going to curb crime, then I shall do so. If you want to respond, go ahead. If you want to be offensive about it, I’ll call you on it. If you want to ignore me, that is fine, too.

zewazir

But isn?t that exactly the same as the IP absolutists too? If you question a creator?s absolute moral right to control all copying of their work, you?re a thief. Hell, if you provide examples where the law allows exactly that, you?re providing moral justification for thieves.

Here?s something new that pertains directly to the Psystar case. Does anyone think it?s just batpoop weird that Apple focussed on Psystar?s imaging process? Or that typical EULA language refers to loading a copy into RAM? The issue is distribution, not the copying itself. Absolutely no actual or imaginable harm is done to Apple when Psystar images a disk. Distribution is the economic right that copyright seeks to preserve. But the absoluteness of that right is tempered by things like Fair Use and First Sale Doctrine.

Does this ruling make imaging a network of Macs a violation of the EULA now? Or would institutional users need to secure special licenses from Apple to do that?

You argument would make sense except for one nagging little fact. After making the disk image, PsyStar DID distribute illegally made copies of the Mac OS.  Try reading the complaint and decision more carefully.  It is not the making of the image, per se, that is the problem, but rather what they did with the image. Using the image for illegal purposes is what makes making the image itself illegal. The license states that a person CAN make an image for themselves - for archive purposes only.  PsyStar made the image, but it was not for archive purposes, it was to make additional copies of the OS for distribution.

When one engages in a (normally) legal activity for an illegal purpose, then that legal activity, in some cases, becomes illegal. Since the limit to making a backup image was for archive purposes only, violating the purpose of making the image makes the action illegal. And Apple has every right to limit someone copying the data stored on their disks. That right has been born out repeatedly under copyright law. Apple could be draconian about it and forbid even a backup copy and would be perfectly within their rights to do so. But they do allow us to make a backup copy, in which case they were forced to complain about the purpose for which PsyStar made their disk image.

zewazir

Does this ruling make imaging a network of Macs a violation of the EULA now? Or would institutional users need to secure special licenses from Apple to do that?

No, because each station in the network would have it’s own OS license. Thus imaging the network would be, essentially, a single backup of multiple licenses. It’s perfectly legal without the need for any special permission because legally I could make a backup image of each station. Also, the focus would again come down to purpose.  If I make an image of a networked lab of computers in one of my schools, the intent is for an archived backup - legal and permitted under the license agreement.

Now if I were to take that network image, say of a lab of iMacs running OS 10.5, and use it to upgrade another lab that was running 10.4 without first purchasing an OS upgrade for each station in the older lab, then I would be misusing the image, and therefore it would become, through misuse of intent, an illegal copy.

Log in to comment (TMO, Twitter or Facebook) or Register for a TMO account