Psystar Moves from Macs to T-shirts, Linux

| News

PC maker Psystar may be out of the Mac clone business thanks to a court order, but that isn't stopping it from selling other products including t-shirts and PCs with Linux pre-installed. The company has also stopped selling its Rebel EFI tool for installing Snow Leopard on generic PCs, but is promising to bring the product back to the market.

Psystar's t-shirt says "I sued Psystar... and all I got was a lousy injunction."

The injunction the company is referring to came from U.S. District Court in Northern California. Apple sued the company for selling Mac clones without permission and ultimately won an injunction blocking Psystar from selling Mac clones, selling or copying Mac OS X, installing Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, hacking the OS's copy protection measures, and from selling or distributing technology -- including Rebel EFI -- that lets others install Mac OS X on PCs.

Along with t-shirt sales, the company is asking for donations and is promising free copies of its Rebel EFI product in exchange for US$20, $50 and $100 donations. Psystar is assuming the courts will eventually overturn the order blocking the sale and distribution of Rebel EFI so it can make good on its promise.

In a statement on its Web site, Psystar said "In the coming days, we will again be offering complete systems but at discounted prices as they will be bundled with your choice of Linux operating system. In addition to using only first quality components, our hardware specifically chosen such that it is known to be compatible with OS X."

The company also stated "We respectfully disagree with courts [sic] notion that we are 'hardcore copyright infringers'. Psystar has never, and will never, condone software piracy. It's your software, you should be able to use it where you want to."

Despite the company's claims, the court saw the situation differently and chose to shut down its Mac clone and Rebel EFI sales. Since its t-shirt is less likely to infringe on copyrights, Psystar may have better luck with its new venture into clothing sales.

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

48 Comments Leave Your Own

AceNet-Alan

Dunno about this one Jeff; Psystar’s t-shirt is starting to look a lot like the t-shirts that the Apple Store employees are wearing!

Lee Dronick

“Psystar has never, and will never, condone software piracy. It’s your software, you should be able to use it where you want to.”

No Psystar, people do not buy software, they buy a license to use it and are subject to the conditions of that license.

Those who will whine that the end user can not read the license before opening the OSX upgrade box should click here.

geoduck

Someone needs to put out a T-Shirt that looks exactly like The PsyStar shirt but says

I tried to steal Apple’s stuff ... and got my A$$ served back to me on a platter.

Jeff Gamet

Dunno about this one Jeff; Psystar?s t-shirt is starting to look a lot like the t-shirts that the Apple Store employees are wearing!

Good point. Also, considering how well the whole clone game played out for Psystar, maybe they should’ve made the shirts red instead of black.

Lee Dronick

Someone needs to put out a T-Shirt that looks exactly like The PsyStar shirt but says

I tried to steal Apple?s stuff ... and got my A$$ served back to me on a platter.

Psystar would probably sue them for copyright infringement.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

The self-righteousness here still blows me away. It would be fun to have a little reading group with some of you and go through the SLAs line by line. For example, do you know that it violates the license agreement to record or publicly perform the speech synthesizer voices included with Mac OS X? I wonder if any of you even care about that. I wonder if any of you even care whether violating the SLA might be allowable in educational contexts, like teaching kids to read, creating movies of books other kids have written with computer generated speech included. The API doesn’t preclude it, even makes it simple as all hell.

What Apple has done with its SLAs is extend its copyright from an economic right to a borderline moral right, when there is only a limited tradition of moral copyright in this country and it is nowhere near computer software. But hey, it’s Apple, the symbol of all that is good. Give them a pass.

xmattingly

I sued Psystar… and all I got was a lousy injunction.

Plus a $2.7 million settlement.

They’re still as brainless as all get out when it comes to copyrighted IP; it figures they’d slap that misnomer on a t-shirt and ask for donations - in addition to promising something they don’t even know they can legally offer. Next they’ll be asking for cash-only payments so they can duck their taxes and legal bills, too.

AceNet-Alan

The self-righteousness here still blows me away.

For those that are not familiar with Bosco’s comments:
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/psystars_web_site_back_up_-_rebel_efi_listed_no_macs/

stens

I wonder if any of you even care about that.

Nope. If I cared a whit about SLA’s, I’d only use Linux (I don’t program, so it would be difficult for me to even think about violating the GNU).

jragosta

Can anyone explain why anyone would wish to buy a Linux box from these clowns? If they want cheap junkware, they can get it for less from Dell. If they want a customized system, they can build it themselves for less - or buy it from any number of people who have credibility - and who could be in business in the future if there’s a problem. It would take a real fool to actually buy one of these systems.

Not to mention that Psystar is clearly not intending this as a real business. Their t-shirt implies that a $2.7 M fine isn’t relevant (presumably because they have no intention of paying). Further, there’s the issue of why they would even bother. At the average PC margin of 5%, They have to sell $54 M in systems just to pay the fine - and then they can start making money. The odds of them selling $54 M in Linux systems is so low as to be ignored. So what’s the point of even trying?

Nemo

Dear Bosco:  You are simply wrong on the law.  After the Judge Alsup dismissed Psystar’s antitrust claims for failure to even state a plausible relevant market, much less any market were Apple had market power (Apple has only ten percent of the U.S. market and no more than four percent of the world market) and had done anything that violated the Sherman and/or Clayton Acts, Psystar amended its complaint to state a claim and defense of copyright misuse, that is, a claim that Apple in its EULA had imposed restrictions that exceeded the rights granted to it pursuant to the Copyright Act (Act) (17 U.S.C. ?? 101 et seq.).  In his order granting summary judgement in its entirety to Apple and denying Psystar’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, Judge Alsup held that the restrictions imposed by Apple’s EULA were well within the ambit of Apple’s rights as set forth in the Act (17 U.S.C. ? 106).  Order Re Cross Motions For Summary Judgement at pp. 10.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@jragosta… There are two obvious points of trying. One is that it costs Psystar very little to force Apple to spend all sorts of lawyer staff time looking after it. Two is that it costs Psystar very little to get attention from all the Mac and tech sites, and perhaps now mainstream news. $2.7 million in Google ads couldn’t buy this much attention. With all apologies to the Psystar crew for lumping them in with the likes of Alan A, the 12 retards from Florida have everyone’s goat. I wonder if they can stumble into a way to actually make some money.

@Nemo… I made no comment on the law or the Psystar case. I made a comment on what Apple is doing in general with its SLA. It’s no surprise to me that a copyright maximalist like yourself would disagree. Perhaps you would like to explain why Apple is entitled to restrict recording or public demonstration of synthesized speech via its SLA. You obviously agree that it’s a great plan for them! Because it’s in their SLA.

AceNet-Alan

Wow, and I didn’t say anything directive to Bosco in this blog!

In any case, according to znet it cost Psystar $88k in legal fees at the time of it’s chapter 11 filing, not to mention they ony had $55k in assets. You are correct Bosco; a small drop in the bucket. And negative publicity is priceless.

geoduck

And negative publicity is priceless.

Depending on whom is getting the negative publicity. PsyStar is still trying to act like they’re winning some kind of moral points for being arrogant. IMO they are just looking even more pathetic.

Their behaviour was indefensible
They never had a case
The judge slapped them like a bratty toddler
They are likely to stiff their lawyers
They won’t ever pay their fine

Just who is going to end up with the negative publicity?

AceNet-Alan

You hit the nail on the head geoduck!

Nemo

Dear Bosco:  It’s neither my opinion or yours that now matters.  A court of competent jurisdiction, the U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Northern District of California, has entered final judgment on the matter so that is the law, at least until the resolution of any appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  All other non-judicial opinions are simply moot points. 

I am no copyright maximalist, but I do think that copyright is necessary and that U.S. copyright law is mostly good and right, with only minor reforms needed.

As for the restrictions that you allege are in Apple’s SLA regarding recording or public demonstration of synthesized speech via its SLA, I have only this to say.  If there are such restrictions, I imagine that Apple’s counsel have reviewed those restrictions to make certain that they are valid and enforceable pursuant to law.  Therefore, I suggest that you and others honor those restrictions, persuade Congress to change copyright law to suit your goals, which, given your comments here, would lead to disastrous public policy, or be prepared to face Apple in court.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Here’s the “alleged” paragraph in the Snow Leopard SLA:

E. Voices. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, you may use the system voices included in the Apple Software (?System Voices?) (i) while running the Apple Software and (ii) to create your own original content and projects for your personal, non-commercial use. No other use of the System Voices is permitted by this License, including but not limited to the use, reproduction, display, performance, recording, publishing or redistribution of any of the System Voices in a pro?t, non-pro?t, public sharing or commercial context.

This “alleged” paragraph is new to Snow Leopard. And Nemo, nobody is asking for your legal opinion. I just want to know who thinks that somebody with a speech impediment should be precluded from using Apple software to make themselves heard publicly. I just want to know who thinks that kids creating books that include synthesized speech is a giant threat to intellectual property.

I have always had a theory that nobody is that big a douche to actually think there is merit in precluding those uses, especially after allowing them for more than 20 years. The people at Apple have proven me wrong. So guess what… While I don’t plan to face them in court, I’m happy to root for anyone with the testicular fortitude to do it and cause Apple grief. Given Apple’s trajectory, I have no doubt that most of you will be affected by their SLA BS in the not-too-far-off future.

xmattingly

A court of competent jurisdiction, the U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Northern District of California, has entered final judgment on the matter so that is the law, at least until the resolution of any appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.? All other non-judicial opinions are simply moot points.

As always, your insight is much appreciated, Nemo. I will take fact of legal judgement over theorizing and mealy-mouthing by way of diversion any day.

Nemo

Dear Bosco:  The general rule in the Common Law, U.S. Statutes, applicable state law, and under the U.S. Const. is that when you wish to use, dispose of, or control someone’s property—and copyright is a property right—you must obtain his permission to do so, no matter how worthy you may think that use maybe, for the rights to use, disposition, and control and, in the case of copyright, the exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and make derivative works belong solely to the owner or his duly authorized agent or licensee.  Even those with speech impediments or any other impediment can’t use someone else’s property for their benefit or to relieve their condition without the owner’s permission. 

Fortunately, for those with handicaps, Apple is a leader in providing technologies in OS X to accommodate their handicaps.  And you Bosco, the government, or any of us can reach into our pockets to purchase OS X for those with handicaps to use.  Or we can develop our own technologies and give them away for free.  However, you can’t give Apple’s property away, even for a charitable use, without its permission.  Just as, I can’t give your property, Bosco, to my favorite charity without your permission.

geoduck

A court of competent jurisdiction, the U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Northern District of California, has entered final judgment on the matter so that is the law, at least until the resolution of any appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.? All other non-judicial opinions are simply moot points.

As always, your insight is much appreciated, Nemo. I will take fact of legal judgement over theorizing and mealy-mouthing by way of diversion any day.

Yes much appreciated.
OT
While it’s fresh in our mind I just want to get this off my chest. Moot is pronounced m’OOO’t not m’YOU’t. Mute is a totally different word. I’m sorry but it just makes my skin crawl when someone (and a LOT of peopleI know do this) says ‘that’s a mute point’. I just want to smack their knuckles with a ruler.
I feel much better now.
/OT

Lee Dronick

In regards to the Snow Leopard system voices and the EULA. From what I read it “sounds like” you can use them for personal use, for communicating with family and friends. If you need to text to speech for commercial purposes then there are voice licenses for sale, this is just one source.

jragosta

@Bosco:
“There are two obvious points of trying. One is that it costs Psystar very little to force Apple to spend all sorts of lawyer staff time looking after it. Two is that it costs Psystar very little to get attention from all the Mac and tech sites, and perhaps now mainstream news. $2.7 million in Google ads couldn?t buy this much attention..”

To what end? Free publicity is only useful if you can take advantage of it.

There’s no way in the world that Psystar will be able to come up with $2.7 M (plus interest). Even when they were selling OS X systems PLUS Linux and Windows systems, they only sold 800 systems (certainly well under $1 M) and never made a penny of profit. At 5% margins, they need to sell $54 M worth of systems just to pay the fine - not counting legal expenses and any other debts they currently have. And there’s no rational reason why Linux fans would buy systems from them when they’re not going to be around to support them.

SInce it’s clear that they can’t survive, what good does the publicity do?

geoduck

Free publicity is only useful if you can take advantage of it.

IMO all the free publicity the yabbos running PsyStar have gotten will be counterproductive. I sure as heck wouldn’t hire anyone that has demonstrated as little understanding of law or even how to run an ethical business as they have. I wouldn’t want to buy any product from a company that would hire them. For that matter I would not want hire the legal firms that agreed to represent them.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@Nemo, I would respect you more if you just admitted that yeah, Apple adding the voice restriction to the Snow Leopard SLA after having voices freely available for these now restricted uses for over 20 years is license douche-baggery.

I think you misunderstand. Let’s say I am effectively a “mute” (not a “moot”, TYVM geoduck, even though you ignore me, sign). Say I suffer from Spasmodic Dysphonia, like famed cartoonist Scott Adams did, except I can’t even speak in public like he was able to.

With my MacBook Pro running 10.5, it was permissible for me to use built-in text-to-speech to conduct a public lecture or speech. If I buy the right license and upgrade to 10.6, it is no longer permissible. Now, keeping in mind that we have 8 retards in Florida + Alan A. by the current accounting, what kind of a socially retarded lawyer thinks that’s a good idea for Apple? Forget that Apple may or may not have the “legal right” to include that restriction (performance rights of synthesized speech, really?). Assume they do. How is that anything but a bad idea that is bound to hurt their image? Especially with all those handicapped people that Apple is such a leader in providing technologies for.

I would like you people to think about these kinds of issues before concluding that Apple is always right to use restrictive licenses. Sure, they may have a legal right, but that doesn’t mean they’re being a good citizen. And their behavior is subject to each of our personal, moral judgement. I would hope that you could all muster some up when it’s obvious that they’re being dorks.

jragosta

@Bosco
“I would like you people to think about these kinds of issues before concluding that Apple is always right to use restrictive licenses. Sure, they may have a legal right, but that doesn?t mean they?re being a good citizen. And their behavior is subject to each of our personal, moral judgement. I would hope that you could all muster some up when it?s obvious that they?re being dorks.”

No one said Apple is always right to use restrictive licenses. That’s the kind of silly straw man argument you routinely use.

What is being said is that Apple HAS THE LEGAL RIGHT to do so. If you don’t like it, complain to Apple and ask for it to be changed (and your example is certainly one where it would be reasonable to do so). Or develop your own technology and give it away.

On the surface, your complaint sounds reasonable, but without knowing the reason Apple made that decision (there certainly could be legitimate reasons), your constant anti-Apple tirades are silly.

Nookster

No one said Apple is always right to use restrictive licenses

Just sometimes then? In leap years or what?

Joe

@Nookster
“Just sometimes then? In leap years or what?”

Don’t be dense.

Obviously, there are times when a restrictive license makes sense. As the copyright owner, only Apple has the right to make that determination.

Intruder

Making yourself heard in publicly because you have a speech impediment and you use the built-in voices to do so is not a public performance. It is a personal, non-commercial use. You are really stretching on that one, Bosco.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@Intruder: No other use of the System Voices is permitted by this License, including but not limited to ... performance ... of any of the System Voices in a pro?t, non-pro?t, public sharing or commercial context.

I think that covers the public speech scenario I described. OK under 10.5. Not OK under 10.6. The example I care about more is kids making movies of picture/text books they write to share on YouTube. I write software that thousands of kids will use (in the next version) in that precise scenario. But you know, it sounds more evil when Apple picks on those without voices than on disadvantaged kids who are learning to read and write. And it’s hilarious to watch some of you try to rationalize it grin.

Joe

@Bosco:
“And it?s hilarious to watch some of you try to rationalize it”

Almost as hilarious as watching you attack Apple every chance you get - no matter how silly your arguments are.

Has Apple ever challenged anyone in the situation you cite?

More importantly, it’s fairly standard industry practice. For example, do you know that if you have a pool party and play a CD or show a movie you could be in violation of the ‘no public performance’ rule?

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Getting back to the point of this article, Joe… Apple sure did challenge someone over the “Mac hardware only” clause grin. Nemo has pointed out many times that if you’re a business and you violate Apple’s SLA, expect to be sued.

There was a time not too long ago when I could pretty much rely on Apple to provide a nice platform for deploying products. There weren’t worries about things having to be approved by Apple first or whether some clause in an SLA puts a kibbosh on something that sells our software and Apple’s hardware or software. That time is over. If, as a user, Apple provides everything you need, then good for you. Most users rely to some extent on 3rd parties, and many rely on 3rd party custom solutions. These are much trickier to navigate today with Apple products than even 3 years ago.

Nookster

Don?t be dense.

Try to be less obnoxious and I’ll consider not giving you short shrift then.

Obviously, there are times when a restrictive license makes sense. As the copyright owner, only Apple has the right to make that determination.

And you are not Apple, try to bear this in mind the next time you burn calories squabbling over the rights of a multi-billlion corp of which you have no control over.

Mikuro

I guess Psystar’s machines are still at least good candidates to use as Hackintoshes. After all, it’s possible to install OS X on most PCs. It’s just that you run into some hardware issues. If Psystar is choosing hardware that matches Apple’s, then that shouldn’t be much of a problem, I guess.

There’s a lot of talk of copyright here, but after all the news articles I’ve read about this case, I’m still not clear on what it is that Psystar was supposedly “copying”. If it’s Mac OS X, why not simply leave it uninstalled and include a retail OS X package? Psystar would not be copying anything, and therefore would not be bound by the license agreement. I’m probably missing something, but I’m not sure what.


I have to side with Bosco on this one. I get tired of seeing people defend Apple just because they have the legal right to [fill in the blank]. I don’t really care if they have the legal right; that doesn’t magically make it the right thing to do. I still think it’s shitty.

Besides that, it really should go without saying that sometimes the law is exploited, bastardized, or just plain wrong to start with. The court decision doesn’t affect my opinion of the matter at all. I never thought Psystar would win. But I hoped they would.

In this case, I think the law is flawed. I don’t really blame Apple for pursuing this case, but I really wish they (and other software makers) did not have so much legal power over the way we use their software, and I would love to see fair use carry some weight in court one of these days. But unfortunately, our culture seems to be heading in the opposite direction.

As for the personal grudges against Bosco, I think it’s usually good to have a devil’s advocate.

Joe

@Mikuro
“There?s a lot of talk of copyright here, but after all the news articles I?ve read about this case, I?m still not clear on what it is that Psystar was supposedly ?copying?.”

Instead of reading ‘news articles’, why not read something from someone who actually knows that they’re talking about. Or read Judge Alsup’s decision - which is quite clear. Go to Groklaw.com for a copy of the decision and the legal commentary on what it means.

Basically, Psystar violated almost every element of Copyright law. First, they sold machines with copies of OS X that they hadn’t paid for (they paid for something like 200 licenses and sold 800 machines). Then, there is the issue if modifications. Copyright law limits a user’s right to make derivative works. The court ruled that by changing the boot loader, Psystar was making a derivative work, so your idea of just including a copy of OS X won’t work. Furthermore, there’s the issue of EULA - which the court strongly upheld.

As for the rest of your ‘arguments’, please explain specifically what is wrong with the law. So far, the only thing that you and Bosco have provided is your belief that your own desire to buy a cheap computer running OS X should somehow override Apple’s right to control their own property. Care to explain why that should be so?

Intellectual property is, in principle, simple. The person who creates something has the right to benefit from its sale and control its copying, distribution, and modification. Since Apple invested billions of dollars in developing OS X, they should get the benefit of that. If you want a reliable, easy to use OS, you have the right to create your own. You do NOT have the right to take Apple’s without permission, nor do you have the right to agree to terms with Apple and then violate them. (Note, if you don’t agree to the terms, you have no right to use the OS at all under any circumstances).

So go ahead and explain why your desire for a cheap computer should override Apple’s right to control their property. This should be interesting. Oh, and don’t start with the drivel that it would be good for Apple because they would have a greater market share. That has already been debunked, but it’s also irrelevant. APPLE gets to decide what’s good for Apple, not you.

xmattingly

please explain specifically what is wrong with the law. So far, the only thing that you and Bosco have provided is your belief that your own desire to buy a cheap computer running OS X should somehow override Apple?s right to control their own property.

Yes, the me wantee argument. smile

geoduck

I think it?s usually good to have a devil?s advocate.

Agreed, I think it’s healthy to have someone state the other side of an argument.
But to be an effective Devil’s Advocate you need someone that knows how to debate. Weak straw man arguments don’t cut it, nor do flawed reductio ad absurdum examples or as xmattingly alluded to above the ‘it IS this way because I WANT it to be’ arguments.

As far as using PsyStar machine to make a Hackintosh, go ahead if you want. What you do will not be legal but Apple isn’t going to hassle you if you keep your head down. PsyStar got in trouble because they were trying to sell Hackintosh Mac clones. There is no way Apple was going to let that go unchallenged. There is a huge qualitative difference between a few hundred or even thousand tinkerers playing with systems in their respective basements and someone setting up a business to take sales away from Apple. Cloning nearly killed them once before and IMO allowing a retail clone maker to exist would be to invite disaster. Whether good or bad Apple was within their rights to take PsyStar out, (Personally I think it was the right thing to do). If you do build a Hackintosh though, don’t be surprised if Apple adds more and more locks into OS-X and their hardware to make it harder to do.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

As for the personal grudges against Bosco, I think it?s usually good to have a devil?s advocate.

I don’t take it personally. It is hard for people under the influence of the RDF to consider consequences of things they support. The best thing about the whole Hackintosh conundrum is that Apple can’t sue it’s way to a victory. Eventually, it has to either offer products that these people want, license to companies that will, or tolerate an active grey market.

Arguably, Apple may have thought it could sue everyone into compliance. The length of time that Psystar dragged out should give them pause, especially when the next company that challenges Apple will probably hire fewer mouth breathers. But everyone remembers Jobs’ introduction of the iPhone, bragging about their patents and how they intended to enforce them. That has certainly been the mindset there.

Joe

@geoduck:
“If you do build a Hackintosh though, don’t be surprised if Apple
adds more and more locks into OS-X and their hardware to make it harder to
do.”

Unfortunately, that’s probably true. So all of us LEGAL Mac users will have to suffer because a few whining hackers think they’re entitled to steal anything that isn’t nailed down - so Apple will be forced to start using nails - or heavy bolts.

I hate it every time I install Windows and have to enter that stupid 25 character code. It just shouldn’t be necessary - but it is. The criminals’ actions make everyone else suffer.

Joe

@bosco:
“It is hard for people under the influence of the RDF to consider consequences of things they support.”

Right. Things like companies having an incentive to innovate. Things like the structure of the entire software industry - which would be destroyed if you have your way. Things like the rights of creators to benefit from their creations. Things like people who want something but who won’t (or can’t) pay the price doing without rather than stealing it.

OTOH, the only consequence you seem to be able to think about is “I want it and therefore I’m going to take it because I won’t pay what Apple asks”.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

You know Joe, I’d appreciate if you wouldn’t characterize my argument that way because it isn’t. You have a very idealized view of how IP works in practice. I, on the other hand, actually make my money with IP in the software industry. I preach pragmatism. A lot of people won’t pay attention to your license agreement, stretch it, bitch about it, etc. If you respond as Joe suggests by locking everything down beyond a server-activation, you probably lose sales these days. Similarly, Joe really misunderstands the conundrum Apple faces if he thinks that hardware keys and activation codes are coming to consumer Mac OS X in order to prevent Hackintoshing. These would be deal-breakers for many users who are just marginally in the Mac camp.

Even a big company like Apple is subject to the same market forces in enforcing its IP rights that I am. I know that we would all be better off if Apple didn’t act like it was special.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Right. Things like companies having an incentive to innovate.

This is such straw-man bullshit it deserves a separate response. The digital music industry today works on the assumption that about 10% of the music consumed in a way that should have been paid for is actually paid for. And yet musicians still produce tons of music and distributers are constantly looking for new and better ways to get consumers to pay for it. The distributors like Apple have found that there is value to be sold beyond just being legal. Some of this value includes reviews by people who are verified purchasers (Amazon), ease of purchase and delivery (iTunes), and large catalog of instantly available music (iTunes, Amazon, etc.). Under Joe’s worldview, none of these companies or artists would have any motivation to keep the music market going. Yet they do. Somebody’s worldview needs realignment with reality.

Intruder

Bosco,

I’m a bit confused. Don’t you find it the least bit hypocritical that you make a living producing software for a platform provided by a company that you seem to feel is evil/immoral/whatever?

If you so vehemently disagree with Apple and their policies, why are you willing to make money off of the platform?

//just curious.

Joe

@Bosco:
“You know Joe, I?d appreciate if you wouldn?t characterize my argument that way because it isn?t. You have a very idealized view of how IP works in practice. I, on the other hand, actually make my money with IP in the software industry.”

ROTFLMAO. Talk about making things up!

I have made an entire career out of product development based on the ability to earn a profit from intellectual property I (and my team) created.

You can choose however you want to make money. No one is denying that. But the fact that you develop software doesn’t give you the right to steal someone else’s.

Joe

@Bosco:
“Under Joe?s worldview, none of these companies or artists would have any motivation to keep the music market going. Yet they do. Somebody?s worldview needs realignment with reality.”

That’s not what I said - by any stretch of the imagination.

Let’s take the two scenarios:
1. Apple can benefit from its innovations and sell hardware based on those innovations and can charge a premium price.
2. Anyone who wants to can do whatever they want to Apple’s software and can use it without permission. Apple finds itself competing with its own OS on hardware at 1/2 the price.

Under which scenario is there the greater incentive for innovation?

AceNet-Alan

Bosco is out of line. While you say that you don’t take it personally, you still persist at applying what you consider to be pragmatism, when in fact you are simply saying that big industry (or whoever has the advantage, bet it small business) can be taken advantage of by those who have the means to abuse the system.

I would never assert that we live in a perfect society, but it is up to each citizen to make it the best society that we can. Your swearing also adds to the fact that your arguments at times are not logical or ethical.

AceNet-Alan

Thanks Bosco. I am flattered that I can better you in public.

Nookster
Mikuro

@Joe:
This has nothing to do with my desire to have a cheap Mac. It has everything to do with the concept of fair use. If I buy a book, I am perfectly aware that I do not own the intellectual rights to its content. I am, however, granted pretty wide freedom in how I use it. As long as it’s for personal use, I can do just about anything I damned well want to with the book itself AND the information therein.

I think the same should apply to software. Imagine if a book cover carried a disclaimer that said “by opening this book, you agree to ______”. The idea is absurd. Why do we accept (and in the case of some commenters, commend and celebrate) such absurdity when it comes to software? That’s what really bugs me.

I do think hackintoshes should fall under the heading of fair use, and what I’m really sick of is people trying to take the moral high ground against it. It’s always depressing when people act like laws and morals are the same thing.

Clearly what Psystar did was NOT fair use. Like I said before, I never expected them to win, but I was kind of rooting for them in an “enemy of my enemy” kind of way. Making a business out of it is questionable at best, since it’s not personal use, but it seems to me like Psystar could have at least made a case if they’d changed their business model a little, and made the fight more about the EULA than about basic copyright. Are the technological hurdles REALLY so great that you can’t do it without copyright infringement? I doubt it (of course, I could be wrong).

Unfortunately, their stupid practices will probably undermine any more reasonable attempts in the future to fight for fair use.

So, in short, what I object to isn’t really the specifics of this case, but the broader anti-fair-use moral stances that seem to come with it in every discussion.

Log-in to comment