Psystar Software Will Make Your PC Run OS X

[standardperson]

tester24: This is going away, I think I remember seeing on TH that someone had a lawsuit about this and won. Judge pretty much saying the consumer can do whatever they want with their product as long as it doesn't violate the copywrite laws.

Funny, I got precisely the opposite feeling: more courts in more countries are upholding the validity of EULAs. In particular, the old argument that EULAs are invalid, because consumers cannot read them before opening the packaging, is getting less and less traction, partly because many software installers now have a button that requires consumers to agree that they've read the EULA and agree to abide by its terms. (This is called a "click-wrap license.")

From a legal point of view, consumers who don't agree with an EULA have no choice but to not click the "I agree" button and return the software for a refund.

The Wikipedia has a list of quite a few (mainly U.S.) cases that have upheld the validity of EULAs and especially click-wrap licenses.

Logically, you simply cannot be buying the intellectual property (IP) on the disk to use as you see fit. (How can every buyer of Windows 7 own the IP outright?) On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that when you buy software on a disk, you're actually buying the physical disk, the packaging and the right to use the IP on the disk in a way decided by the vendor.

 

[tester24]

[citation][nom]standardperson[/nom]tester24: This is going away, I think I remember seeing on TH that someone had a lawsuit about this and won. Judge pretty much saying the consumer can do whatever they want with their product as long as it doesn't violate the copywrite laws.Funny, I got precisely the opposite feeling: more courts in more countries are upholding the validity of EULAs. In particular, the old argument that EULAs are invalid, because consumers cannot read them before opening the packaging, is getting less and less traction, partly because many software installers now have a button that requires consumers to agree that they've read the EULA and agree to abide by its terms. (This is called a "click-wrap license.")From a legal point of view, consumers who don't agree with an EULA have no choice but to not click the "I agree" button and return the software for a refund.The Wikipedia has a list of quite a few (mainly U.S.) cases that have upheld the validity of EULAs and especially click-wrap licenses.Logically, you simply cannot be buying the intellectual property (IP) on the disk to use as you see fit. (How can every buyer of Windows 7 own the IP outright?) On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that when you buy software on a disk, you're actually buying the physical disk, the packaging and the right to use the IP on the disk in a way decided by the vendor.[/citation]

This pretty much goes back to the old telephone thing before deregulation. When you bought a phone you just owned the shell. AT&T owned the guts and every line you put in your house (this was before the demarcation point was drawn in buildings).

Personally I believe if you buy the disk you can do whatever you want with it. However this is why Linux is still the better way to go to get around all these legallity issues.

 

[standardperson]

Tester24[\b] if the law decided that software buyers had the legal right to "do whatever [they] want with it." then presumably it would be legal to sell pre-cracked copies of Windows 7, PhotoShop, Mac OS or any software you care to name, including (say) the Mandriva Powerpack distribution of GNU/Linux.

An obvious consequence of this would very likely be that software authors and publishers would abandon the writing and distribution of software, leaving the lucky consumer with ageing, unsupported, operating systems and applications. The only advantage would be that the software would get cheaper and cheeper as it got older.

At this point, you might point to the GNU/Linux operating systems, which are already available at no cost. However, the fact that GNU/Linux costs nothing to buy doesn't mean that it cost nothing to develop. When Torvalds sat down to write the Linux kernel, he didn't have to spend much time working out basic design questions, such as what the kernel should do, what sort of file system (roughly speaking) it should use, where the kernel should fit in the filesystem, security, the way the system should boot and so on. Most of these design decisions were made by the creators of UNIX and many textbooks explain the design and function of each part of BSD UNIX; failing that, reading the UNIX source code, that came with Bell Labs UNIX (early1970s) and the BSD UNIX source (1977 onwards) will usually clarify matters.

The remainder of the GNU/Linux design and specification, including the names and functions of the command line tools, can be gleaned from UNIX man pages and textbooks about UNIX design or from the source.
The X-windows server/client system was designed, specified and implemented by the MIT consortium.

Without detracting from the magnificent achievement of the GNU/Linux project, I'm sure that the any member of the project would agree that writing the UNIX-like operating system involved little in the way of design or specification; the main task was coding and implementation.

In a large project like writing an OS, design and specification can take almost as long as implementation and testing. For the sake of argument, let's suppose that design and specification take one third of the total time to develop an OS. It has been estimated that the cost of writing GNU/Linux "by conventional means" would have been roughly US$ 8 billion (2009 currency). If this excludes design and specification costs, then this amount is just (100-30) = 70% of the hypothetical full cost (including design & specification), hence the full cost would have been about US$ 11.5 billion. So the design and specification of the GNU/Linux project cost universities and the R&D departments of companies like Bell about US$ 3.5 billion. Since private R&D is largely tax-deductible, I think it would be fair to say that GNU/Linux cost various governments very roughly $US 3-4 billion.

In short, zero-price, GNU/Linux distributions actually cost the taxpayers of various countries perhaps US$ 4 billion. While I regard this price as a terrific bargain - one that has helped social equality to improve in first- and third-world countries - my point is that the most successful, zero-price software has cost someone a lot of money, apart from the opportunity cost paid by the volunteers.

While I am sure that GNU/Linux volunteers include people with the skills to do their own design and specification, this would simply move the design and specification costs of future projects from governments to individuals. (Volunteers would be paying a higher "opportunity cost" as they donated even more time to GNU projects, because they would be doing the design and specification as well as the implementation.)

The whole issue boils down to who we think should be paying for software:
a) software users;
b) governments or
c) altruistic programmers.

There will always be room for free software written (and hence paid for) by altruistic programmers c), especially in smaller niche markets. Research institutions and universities will continue to produce software for their own use, that the public finds useful (e.g. NASA's World Wind) so b) will continue to pay generate some products.

Finally, whether you believe that general software should be paid for by the user of that software a), or by the government b), is really a political question: someone who leans towards free-market capitalism in the mixture of capitalism and socialism that most western countries practice (including the U.S.) would answer a), while someone who leans towards socialism would lean towards b). While I'm sympathetic towards Socialism, I prefer a). You may disagree.

 

[tester24]

Yeah but like I said that would violate the copy write laws, just because you crack the software doesn't give you the right to sell it. I don't mind paying for software even if I do pirate it I usually end up buying it. Nothing worse than buying a few hundred dollar piece of software and find out that it wasn't what you wanted or doesn't work as claimed.
I'm just saying there should be no reason why Apple has their "you can only install it on OUR hardware". Why not sell it but stipulate which hardware you have to use such like using Intel only products. This would negate the "Apple Tax" which isn't a myth. I priced a base Mac pro which cost about 2400 starting, with a computer built on New Egg with identical parts the exact same parts It was about 1800. And that's reseller pricing, I bet that Apple doesn't pay what I pay per because they buy them in the thousands.
It's like going to the mechanics, they don't make the parts they buy them from the parts store and the part store sells it to them at a discount because of the quantity of parts they buy. Then the mechanic marks up the parts to make extra profit on top of the already outrageous labor charge.
Now I can see yes you need to charge more to make profit so you can fund your R and D department for OS 10.7 (is there ever going to be an 11?). But the price gouging they do is ridiculous. So I’m glad Psystar has created a way to install OSX on your computer.

 

[standardperson]

tester24: I'm just saying there should be no reason why Apple has their "you can only install it on OUR hardware". Why not sell it but stipulate which hardware you have to use such like using Intel only products.

One reason I can think of, is that while Apple hardware is at the expensive end of the range, the software is quite cheap. (Look at iWork which is a total bargain!) I suspect Apple subsidises their software and operating system development with profits from hardware - at least to some degree. (I noticed you made the same point later in your post.)

If you took away Apple's right to decide that their software would only run on Apple hardware, then they wouldn't have the funds that pay for their software development: Apple would become a software-only company, like Microsoft, but without the guaranteed huge corporate sales - or the "Microsoft tax" which requires (or required) you to pay for a Microsoft OS on generic hardware, even if you wanted to run Linux on it.
Apple obviously have a financial model that works for them, their shareholders and the majority of consumers of Apple products. Why do you want to make that model illegal?

tester24: This would negate the "Apple Tax" which isn't a myth.

Well, it depends on the Mac. I'm using a 4-core Mac Pro. When I bought it, the only comparable Dell was actually more expensive than my machine and didn't come with Apple's little niceties, like Firewire. Similarly, if you price a Sony Vaio with a Mac Book Pro, the price difference is pretty slim. Apple don't make a competitor to generic, grey tower PCs so it's hard to make a comparison - except perhaps with a Mac Mini.

So while I accept there is an "Apple Tax" I don't think it's outrageous, particularly when it's being used to fund the OS and other software.

tester24: Yeah but like I said that would violate the copy write laws, just because you crack the software doesn't give you the right to sell it… So I’m glad Psystar has created a way to install OSX on [generic] computers.

It seems to me that you're picking and choosing which laws you follow. Why must copyright laws be followed, but Apple's license, which limits their OS to use on Apple hardware, can be ignored because you think their hardware is expensive? (Is it OK to steal BMWs but not OK to steal a cheap Ford?) I really don't follow your line of argument here.