Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
Apple seals up their products tighter than Mother Theresa's snatch during Holy Week.*
*sorry, feeling particularly offensive this morning
12/23/08
I thought the real problem was that they're hacking the software first, and violating the stupid DMCA's anti-circumvention laws in order to make it work on their own hardware. From what I've read on other sites, this latest claim seems to be an attempt to undermine Apple's DMCA claims. Although the whole issue is bogus, since, as other sites pointed out, Apple certainly do have copyright over the software and have even registerred it with the US copyright office.
Initially, I wanted Psystar to win this case because I think Apple's ability to prevent other hardware manufactures from running their OS is anti-competitive, and I think it's sad that Psystar have had to resort to such desperate measures.
12/23/08
It's Apple's OS. If they don't want other hardware manufacturers to run their OS, why is it anti-competitive? Sony doesn't allow other hardware manufacturers from running PS3 software, is that anti-competitive?
If HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc want to run an OS other than Windows or Linux, they can always develop their own. If they ever do this, they also have every right to not allow their competitors to run it on their hardware.
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
And I don't think Diane Keaton was ever on any incarnation of Battlestar Galactica.
12/23/08
Hasn't always been that way. Back in the day, you had to put a copyright notice in the work itself- someone forgot to do that with Night of the Living Dead, it fell into the public domain, and you have that forgetful guy to thank for the current craze of zombie walks.
12/23/08
Spend money to pay the 3 hours of attorneys' fees to register the copyright, thereby making litigation easier down the road, or don't spend the money ahead of time, incurring bigger litigation costs down the road.
A good portion of my cases deal with interpretation of construction contracts. The smart companies all have spent money ahead of time on having a well-drafted contract which says what's going to happen in case of litigation. I've had cases that I've disposed of with a 6-page letter.
It pays to take precautions and just because you might not be required to, that doesn't mean you shouldn't.
12/23/08
A friend and I copyrighted stuff in high school because we were young and thought it would amount to something. It's never been published, but resides in the Library of Congress. And no lawyers were involved.
12/23/08
And why pay a lawyer? Insurance. If you take the "who needs a lawyer" route and mess up, you have no one to blame (or get money from) but yourself.
If I am running a global corporation that depends on IP to survive, I'm going to have outside counsel to take care of the registration. Then, if they screw up, I can sue them for their error. The IP involved here is worth about $1 billion. Spend the extra $10,000 to have a lawyer take care of the paperwork and have some piece of mind.
12/23/08
12/23/08
Considering that use of the OS is (legally) strictly limited to hardware which only Apple themselves can legally manufacture or distribute, the IP valuation is quite low. Also, given that the size of the market segment for Apple computers is only barely higher than the size of the market segment Linux users, a free OS, any would-be purchaser (except Microsoft) would probably be quite hesitant to pay anything even approaching $1 billion unless usage of all associated copyrights and trademarks were also granted (which Apple would almost certainly never agree to, even if we are getting insanely hypothetical here).
This is not to say that OS X has no intrinsic value! The difference is that the IP valuation is low, considering that it would be of relatively little use to anyone else. This is not to say that nobody would buy it, but certainly Apple certainly isn't selling. There is also the slow, but steadly decline in Apple's computer revenue (in computer sales, desktop and portable, and also iPod sales, but not including iPhone). Clearly their OS is not the golden goose; it is the iPod, which has accounted for more then 2/3 of their yearly revenue for the past several years, with computer sales (and subsequently OS X) very steadily dropping (even despite OS X's slight increase in market segment compared to Linux usage (higher by less than 2% last year)).
But clearly, if there is a time for Apple to embrace openness, that time is now. Desktop and laptop hardware is, by all accounts, not their forte. Although Steve Jobs clearly loathes the very concept of his operating system running on something that is not a Mac, it would almost certainly increase revenue for the product itself by at least 300%, if not more, were it to run smoothly on most modern PCs (it doesn't have to run insanely great, just as well, or better than , Vista, ha-ha).
(Financial statistics referenced herein were obtained from Apple themselves, via their website and public financial statements, and also from Smartmoney.com and informationweek.com).
12/23/08
Apple pays its attorneys very well to make sure that stuff like copyrighting is done. Not only is Psystar saying that Apple goofed, its saying that Apple's highly competent legal staff goofed.
12/23/08
[cocatalog.loc.gov]
12/23/08
Boo-yah!
12/23/08
12/23/08
My concern is one of legal interest. Do you think Apple's suit will be limited to Psystar, or will they try to go after all of the company's customers that purchased a system preloaded with OSX?
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
Your strategy is the same one employed by slot jockeys. "Well, I've put all this money into this machine. I should stay until it pays out. It's due."
In business, you need to know when to stop investing in a losing venture.
12/23/08
In love as well.
/bitterness
12/23/08
12/23/08
12/23/08
I think Lionel Hutz is sitting as co-counsel as well.
12/23/08
Hahahah! Totally.
12/23/08
12/23/08
They are excepting defeat! That's actually the problem. They need acceptance.
11/03/08
11/03/08
Ah ah ah ahah, ah ah ah ahah, ah ah ah ahah, ahahahahahahahahaha Woody Woodpecker