Sign in / up

back to article Hackintosher's new line: Linux and T-shirts

The irrepressible Hackintoshers that earlier this month were pronounced bleedin' demised, only to respond with a Pythonesque "I'm not dead yet!" cry of defiance, have reemerged with a new business model: T-shirts and Linux boxes. Mid-month, Florida's Psystar was slapped with an injunction by the US District Court for the …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

        1. Robert Hill
          Reply Icon
          Flame

          A swing and a miss...

          "Do not forget, also, that I do not have a contract with the manufacturer of these products."

          YES you do - you have to agree to the EULA before you use the product, which IS a deftly written and all-encompassing contract with the creator of the software...which supercedes any and all other agreements including copywrite if it so chooses and you elect to use it.

          "I have a contract of sale with the person or entity that sold me these things"

          NO you don't - you have a receipt of sale with the middleman, not a contract. You want to go read the language that Apple has their dealers sign. It is likely similar to EVERY contract signed by every middleman retailer for software, i.e., the middleman retailer is not responsible for the product sold, the creator is, and that all rights around the product sit with the creator, not the middleman. The CONTRACT for the product to you IS the EULA, by which the creator spells out the terms of useage, and their responsibility to support and warranty it.

          N.B. - this last bit varies if the middleman is actually a Value Added Reseller, in which case these terms may change substantially - for example someone might embed an application or OS into a much larger mechanism, and then the middleman VAR would then assume some responsibility for the support as part of the larger whole. But in the examples used here, the retailes are not VARs...and your contract is with the creator of the software.

          0 1
  2. Jess

    Why dont Psystar ...

    ... provide upgrades to non-Intel Macs?

    Blue and White G3s and the G4s in a similar case can certainly be fitted with a PC motherboard.

    Apple could have no arguement with that.

    They could provide ready upgraded Macs, and a service upgrading them.

    They may even be able to sell kits, though of course they would have no control over whether they ended up in a Mac or not, so might be blocked from doing that.

    0 0
    1. Joe Ragosta
      Reply Icon

      Not a chance

      "Blue and White G3s and the G4s in a similar case can certainly be fitted with a PC motherboard.

      Apple could have no arguement with that."

      Maybe you should read Apple's complaint and the court decision. Apple would certainly have an argument with that.

      At the very least, Psystar would specifically have to use their bootloader (or some bootloader other than the one in Mac OS X) in order to make it work. The court has specifically ruled that this is illegal.

      Why do people who don't understand the law or concepts of copyright - and who can't even be bothered to read the court's decision on the matter - insist on posting inane nonsense?

      Of course, this also assumes that Psystar could even do this. So far, Psystar has not demonstrated any technical ability at all and designing a new motherboard and power supply to fit into the Apple cases appears to be well beyond their capabilities, anyway.

      0 1
  3. Rebajas
    Flame

    Copyright?

    Good thing we aren't really talking about copyright then, isn't is? We're talking about the End-user license agreement‎, which is an entirely different beast.

    1 2
    1. Kristian B
      Reply Icon
      Alert

      RE: Copyright?

      The EULA only exists because of copyright!

      An End User Licence Agreement is a licence to use their copyrighted work (the software)... If it weren't for that intellectual property right, anyone would be able to do anything with the software without a licence!

      Under the same intellectual property right, there's nothing to stop a record label from including an EULA with Music CDs stating that you're only allowed to play the music in a Sony-branded CD player... as long as you see the terms of the licence before you buy the CD.

      That's were the problem comes in for software EULAs... In common law jurisdictions, such an agreement is not legally binding unless both parties to the agreement derive "consideration", in which case the agreement is considered a "contract" (a legal agreement, enforceable in law).

      But when you install the software and agree to the EULA, the software company does not derive consideration so no contract exists. The payment you made when you bought the software in a store is consideration in a separate and completed contract that you entered into with the store, so it's "past consideration" and in contract law past consideration is no consideration. Therefore, when buying software in this way, most EULAs are merely agreements binding in honour only.. not legally binding or enforceable.

      Anyway, I can't wait until Microsoft get desperate and start playing the Apple game of trying to dictate what hardware you can use with their software. They could start a "Microsoft Certified Hardware" scheme and only certify the hardware of computer companies like HP and Dell if they agree to NEVER distribute systems with other operating systems, like Linux! And only certify peripheral devices if the vendor agrees to not distribute drivers for other platforms.

      Then EVERYBODY would be crying foul, while Apple can get away with relative murder!

      1 0
  4. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    No Contract, No Private Enforcement

    US Law - which is the law in question - requires that a contract be negotiable by BOTH parties. Any contract that is unfairly one-sided (99.9% of EULAs) is NOT valid in private, personal use - check your contract law again, RH. Notice that the court's decision was based on a COPYRIGHT violation (modification of the work prior to re-sale), not a EULA violation. Most large companies renegotiate the EULA when they sign their volume license agreements.

    Also, despite what the media companies would have you believe, under US Law copyright does not apply within your own private domain. I am entitled, by law as written by Congress and then adjudicated by the US Supreme Court, to use anything I own in ANY way I see fit within my own personal domain (home, car, boat, computer, mobile phone, etc.). Right of first sale and other legal doctrines also severely limit what rights a copyright holder of any media (published text, video, audio or computer code) has over a privately held copy. Also under US Law, there is no concept of a limited license within my personal private domain for copyrighted works - that's why media companies invented the privately invalid EULA - they couldn't get their way with the Law, so they created restrictive contracts. Under US Law (including, but not limited to fair use) I have the right to make unlimited personal copies (for strictly personal use) of any content to which I have any license. Is this an explicit right - no, it is an implicit right because the copyright holder has virtually NO rights over its use in my private domain.

    Yes, that means that if I listen to a song on the radio, I have acquired a LIFETIME personal license to privately use that content in any media and in any location in exchange for the use of my personal airwaves and the publicly owned radio waves (plus my time listening to the commercials as a bonus payment). However, I do NOT have the right to distribute copies or use them in any commercial enterprise without negotiating a contract (which could be the EULA or a modified version).

    Yes, this also means that for private use, I can legally install as many copies of a licensed program (therefore effectively privately owned copy) that I wish within my private domain - despite the media company's EULAs and objections.

    I am also completely within my private rights under the DMCA (as explained in the federal DMCA explanation documentation) to circumvent copy protection to ANY content to which I have legal ACCESS rights (i.e. owned media or licensed content - which are the same under private use).

    Of course, as stated above, none of the private use rights apply to commercial entities or to distribution.

    If you pay close attention and don't simply accept what the media companies spout, you'll find that ALL successful US prosecutions of personal media "piracy" have been about distribution, not acquisition. That's because, in the US, downloading an extra copy of a song, video, computer program or book to which one has at one time in his life acquired a personal license for (inadvertently or explicitly) is completely legal, moral and ethical. It is the media companies that are being immoral and unethical by trying to subvert the US constitution's balance between personal freedoms and the right of an inventor or artist to earn a living based on an individual invention or work for a LIMITED time in order to make a decent attempt at the pursuit of happiness. These rights were originally limited to the individual(s), not the corporation, and to a period of not more that 7 years.

    2 0
  5. mhenriday

    Why, pray tell,

    should users accept an entirely illusory «distinction between software licensing and software purchasing» ? It's not difficult to see why software manufacturers try to foist such a distinction upon us, thereby greatly expanding their powers and rights vis-a-vis the hapless consumer, but why don't we consumers fight back against this unexampled abrogation of our own rights ?...

    Henri

    2 0
  6. mrmond
    Alert

    Middleman ?

    i.e., the middleman retailer is not responsible for the product sold, the creator is,

    umm. not quite right in the UK.

    When you buy a product from someone like PC World,if there is a problem with it they are responsible for sorting it out. They try to TELL you to deal with the manufacturer but it is them under consumer law who have to repair it or send it off for you. They just don't want the hassle and try to fob people off.

    0 0
  7. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    Oh, and another thing....

    ... Happy New Year to commentards one and all!

    0 0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like