<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_01_195232</id>
	<title>Apple Says Booting OS X Makes an Unauthorized Copy</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257104340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>recoiledsnake writes <i>"Groklaw has an extensive look at the latest <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091024213209193">developments in the Psystar vs. Apple story</a>. There's a nice picture illustrating the accusation by Apple that <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/images/PsystarProcess.jpg">Psystar makes three unauthorized copies of OS X</a>. The most interesting, however, is the last copy. From Apple's brief: 'Finally, every time Psystar turns on any of the Psystar computers running Mac OS X, which it does before shipping each computer, Psystar necessarily makes a separate modified copy of Mac OS X in Random Access Memory, or RAM. This is the third unlawful copy.' Psystar's response: 'Copying a computer program into RAM as a result of installing and running that program is precisely the copying that Section 117 provides does not constitute copyright infringement for an owner of a computer program. As the Ninth Circuit explained, permitting copies like this was Section 117's purpose.' Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>recoiledsnake writes " Groklaw has an extensive look at the latest developments in the Psystar vs. Apple story .
There 's a nice picture illustrating the accusation by Apple that Psystar makes three unauthorized copies of OS X. The most interesting , however , is the last copy .
From Apple 's brief : 'Finally , every time Psystar turns on any of the Psystar computers running Mac OS X , which it does before shipping each computer , Psystar necessarily makes a separate modified copy of Mac OS X in Random Access Memory , or RAM .
This is the third unlawful copy .
' Psystar 's response : 'Copying a computer program into RAM as a result of installing and running that program is precisely the copying that Section 117 provides does not constitute copyright infringement for an owner of a computer program .
As the Ninth Circuit explained , permitting copies like this was Section 117 's purpose .
' Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>recoiledsnake writes "Groklaw has an extensive look at the latest developments in the Psystar vs. Apple story.
There's a nice picture illustrating the accusation by Apple that Psystar makes three unauthorized copies of OS X. The most interesting, however, is the last copy.
From Apple's brief: 'Finally, every time Psystar turns on any of the Psystar computers running Mac OS X, which it does before shipping each computer, Psystar necessarily makes a separate modified copy of Mac OS X in Random Access Memory, or RAM.
This is the third unlawful copy.
' Psystar's response: 'Copying a computer program into RAM as a result of installing and running that program is precisely the copying that Section 117 provides does not constitute copyright infringement for an owner of a computer program.
As the Ninth Circuit explained, permitting copies like this was Section 117's purpose.
' Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945708</id>
	<title>Re:Unauthorized</title>
	<author>matzahboy</author>
	<datestamp>1257081600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since Apple's license for OS X says that it can only be run on Apple hardware, the in-memory copy is just as unauthorized as the rest of them.</p></div><p>Just because a company says that you can't use their product in some way, doesn't mean that they have the right to restrict you. Let's say you buy a music CD. The musician says that you are only authorized to play the CD on Sony CD players. If you play it on a Dell computer, it is unauthorized. But are they allowed to sue you? No. Because they don't have the right to restrict you to Sony CD players.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since Apple 's license for OS X says that it can only be run on Apple hardware , the in-memory copy is just as unauthorized as the rest of them.Just because a company says that you ca n't use their product in some way , does n't mean that they have the right to restrict you .
Let 's say you buy a music CD .
The musician says that you are only authorized to play the CD on Sony CD players .
If you play it on a Dell computer , it is unauthorized .
But are they allowed to sue you ?
No. Because they do n't have the right to restrict you to Sony CD players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since Apple's license for OS X says that it can only be run on Apple hardware, the in-memory copy is just as unauthorized as the rest of them.Just because a company says that you can't use their product in some way, doesn't mean that they have the right to restrict you.
Let's say you buy a music CD.
The musician says that you are only authorized to play the CD on Sony CD players.
If you play it on a Dell computer, it is unauthorized.
But are they allowed to sue you?
No. Because they don't have the right to restrict you to Sony CD players.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946562</id>
	<title>Re:Old idea</title>
	<author>barfy</author>
	<datestamp>1257089340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has to be this way.   Lets say I have a hackintosh, and a mac, and a copy of Mac OSX that I bought from the store.   When does it become illegal.</p><p>If I sell it to someone that doesn't have a copy?  Certainly resell is legal?</p><p>If I put it into a hackintosh.  Certainly, a cd that is legal in one place, doesn't become illegal just because I put it somewhere.</p><p>If I boot off of it?!</p><p>Well this is close, but what is illegal????</p><p>This is the crux of the "old idea"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has to be this way .
Lets say I have a hackintosh , and a mac , and a copy of Mac OSX that I bought from the store .
When does it become illegal.If I sell it to someone that does n't have a copy ?
Certainly resell is legal ? If I put it into a hackintosh .
Certainly , a cd that is legal in one place , does n't become illegal just because I put it somewhere.If I boot off of it ?
! Well this is close , but what is illegal ? ? ?
? This is the crux of the " old idea "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has to be this way.
Lets say I have a hackintosh, and a mac, and a copy of Mac OSX that I bought from the store.
When does it become illegal.If I sell it to someone that doesn't have a copy?
Certainly resell is legal?If I put it into a hackintosh.
Certainly, a cd that is legal in one place, doesn't become illegal just because I put it somewhere.If I boot off of it?
!Well this is close, but what is illegal???
?This is the crux of the "old idea"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946642</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>grandpa-geek</author>
	<datestamp>1257090000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy. End-users are granted a license to do so, and here Pystar doesn't have such a license. Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.</p></div><p>An early case involved a machine that was being sold with a maintenance contract.  A third party started competing on the maintenance.  The machine manufacturer claimed that every time the third party started the diagnostic software (copying it from disk to ram) they were making an infringing copy.  The courts upheld it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds , courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer ( and thus loading it to memory ) does create a copy .
End-users are granted a license to do so , and here Pystar does n't have such a license .
Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.An early case involved a machine that was being sold with a maintenance contract .
A third party started competing on the maintenance .
The machine manufacturer claimed that every time the third party started the diagnostic software ( copying it from disk to ram ) they were making an infringing copy .
The courts upheld it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy.
End-users are granted a license to do so, and here Pystar doesn't have such a license.
Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.An early case involved a machine that was being sold with a maintenance contract.
A third party started competing on the maintenance.
The machine manufacturer claimed that every time the third party started the diagnostic software (copying it from disk to ram) they were making an infringing copy.
The courts upheld it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945308</id>
	<title>Why cant you people just be happy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257077760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jesus! Apple's only copyright behind all this is the GUI. The core and architecture is open source, in fact Apple has given back to the community by updating everything under the gui and making it freely available. You should be happy that Apple has supported OSS unlike other companies who hoard it for themselves. They have spent time and money into developing the technology, why are they not allowed to defend their property?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jesus !
Apple 's only copyright behind all this is the GUI .
The core and architecture is open source , in fact Apple has given back to the community by updating everything under the gui and making it freely available .
You should be happy that Apple has supported OSS unlike other companies who hoard it for themselves .
They have spent time and money into developing the technology , why are they not allowed to defend their property ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jesus!
Apple's only copyright behind all this is the GUI.
The core and architecture is open source, in fact Apple has given back to the community by updating everything under the gui and making it freely available.
You should be happy that Apple has supported OSS unlike other companies who hoard it for themselves.
They have spent time and money into developing the technology, why are they not allowed to defend their property?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947000</id>
	<title>Re:Unauthorized</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257093240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It says no such thing.  It says it has to run on Apple <strong>BRANDED</strong> hardware.  It never defines what that actually is.</p><p>Stick one of the Apple stickers on your PC that comes in the OS X box and you meet the requirement in my eyes, since its not defined and my vision of it isn't utterly insane, I'd be pretty confident I'd do alright in court.</p><p>Of course, having ran OS X on a PC for a year or so, in my experience, you're far better off just buying a Mac.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It says no such thing .
It says it has to run on Apple BRANDED hardware .
It never defines what that actually is.Stick one of the Apple stickers on your PC that comes in the OS X box and you meet the requirement in my eyes , since its not defined and my vision of it is n't utterly insane , I 'd be pretty confident I 'd do alright in court.Of course , having ran OS X on a PC for a year or so , in my experience , you 're far better off just buying a Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It says no such thing.
It says it has to run on Apple BRANDED hardware.
It never defines what that actually is.Stick one of the Apple stickers on your PC that comes in the OS X box and you meet the requirement in my eyes, since its not defined and my vision of it isn't utterly insane, I'd be pretty confident I'd do alright in court.Of course, having ran OS X on a PC for a year or so, in my experience, you're far better off just buying a Mac.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947226</id>
	<title>Re:Proprietary software at its worst</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1257096180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Really though, this is exactly why proprietary licensing is bad for society -- Apple is basically declaring that you are not allowed to build a computer than runs Mac OS X, you must BUY one from them, at a price that THEY determine.</p></div><p>Gosh, society was sure better off before Apple came along and enforce this horrible proprietary software. I mean, previously, I had a generically-built Ford and wore generically-made designer suits, but now, solely because of Apple, society has collapsed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really though , this is exactly why proprietary licensing is bad for society -- Apple is basically declaring that you are not allowed to build a computer than runs Mac OS X , you must BUY one from them , at a price that THEY determine.Gosh , society was sure better off before Apple came along and enforce this horrible proprietary software .
I mean , previously , I had a generically-built Ford and wore generically-made designer suits , but now , solely because of Apple , society has collapsed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really though, this is exactly why proprietary licensing is bad for society -- Apple is basically declaring that you are not allowed to build a computer than runs Mac OS X, you must BUY one from them, at a price that THEY determine.Gosh, society was sure better off before Apple came along and enforce this horrible proprietary software.
I mean, previously, I had a generically-built Ford and wore generically-made designer suits, but now, solely because of Apple, society has collapsed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944044</id>
	<title>Re:Psystar is 100\% wrong</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1257068580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pystar isn't wrong, just illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pystar is n't wrong , just illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pystar isn't wrong, just illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947394</id>
	<title>Way to sensationalize Timmy</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257097680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And get it completely wrong in the process.  You're fired.</p><p>Apple doesn't say booting makes an unauthorized copy.</p><p>Apple says booting an unauthorized copy makes unauthorized copy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And get it completely wrong in the process .
You 're fired.Apple does n't say booting makes an unauthorized copy.Apple says booting an unauthorized copy makes unauthorized copy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And get it completely wrong in the process.
You're fired.Apple doesn't say booting makes an unauthorized copy.Apple says booting an unauthorized copy makes unauthorized copy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945114</id>
	<title>OS X Copy</title>
	<author>Mista2</author>
	<datestamp>1257076140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My copy of OS X on my hackintosh would actually boot OK on a real Mac, if not for  the boot loader, not supplied by Apple, which is different. I modified some drivers to support my USB ports, but again, this was for drivers not supplied by Apple in the first place. Does this still make it an infringing or derivative copy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My copy of OS X on my hackintosh would actually boot OK on a real Mac , if not for the boot loader , not supplied by Apple , which is different .
I modified some drivers to support my USB ports , but again , this was for drivers not supplied by Apple in the first place .
Does this still make it an infringing or derivative copy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My copy of OS X on my hackintosh would actually boot OK on a real Mac, if not for  the boot loader, not supplied by Apple, which is different.
I modified some drivers to support my USB ports, but again, this was for drivers not supplied by Apple in the first place.
Does this still make it an infringing or derivative copy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948582</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257158460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference between this and books, is that you can not buy a book, rewrite one chapter of the book, and then resell it.  Psystar is not just reselling Apple software, they are making non-trivial modifications that specifically circumvent Apple code.  First sale doctrine does not protect derivative works, and hence does not apply.  Additionally, it seems that the way Psystar generates its new copies is not by going through and moding each disk it buys, but simply buying the same number of copies it then produces to sell.  They are not necessarily even the same physical object, so again, the book analogy does not apply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between this and books , is that you can not buy a book , rewrite one chapter of the book , and then resell it .
Psystar is not just reselling Apple software , they are making non-trivial modifications that specifically circumvent Apple code .
First sale doctrine does not protect derivative works , and hence does not apply .
Additionally , it seems that the way Psystar generates its new copies is not by going through and moding each disk it buys , but simply buying the same number of copies it then produces to sell .
They are not necessarily even the same physical object , so again , the book analogy does not apply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between this and books, is that you can not buy a book, rewrite one chapter of the book, and then resell it.
Psystar is not just reselling Apple software, they are making non-trivial modifications that specifically circumvent Apple code.
First sale doctrine does not protect derivative works, and hence does not apply.
Additionally, it seems that the way Psystar generates its new copies is not by going through and moding each disk it buys, but simply buying the same number of copies it then produces to sell.
They are not necessarily even the same physical object, so again, the book analogy does not apply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944280</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone surprised?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257070200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For some reason Apple's shiny products have a tendency to turn otherwise intelligent people into latte-drinking buffoons.  We should count our blessings that Apple is not in Microsoft's position.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For some reason Apple 's shiny products have a tendency to turn otherwise intelligent people into latte-drinking buffoons .
We should count our blessings that Apple is not in Microsoft 's position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some reason Apple's shiny products have a tendency to turn otherwise intelligent people into latte-drinking buffoons.
We should count our blessings that Apple is not in Microsoft's position.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944644</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257072600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The basis for the litigation is simple. As I recall, the Apple license specifically excludes loading OS X on anything but Apple labeled hardware. So loading it onto and into Pystar hardware is copyright infringement because they do not have such a license.
<br> <br>
I applaud Pystar's attempt to create an alternative to Apple hardware. But the Apple license is pretty explicit. I think<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. I wasn't able to find a current copy on their web site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The basis for the litigation is simple .
As I recall , the Apple license specifically excludes loading OS X on anything but Apple labeled hardware .
So loading it onto and into Pystar hardware is copyright infringement because they do not have such a license .
I applaud Pystar 's attempt to create an alternative to Apple hardware .
But the Apple license is pretty explicit .
I think .. I was n't able to find a current copy on their web site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The basis for the litigation is simple.
As I recall, the Apple license specifically excludes loading OS X on anything but Apple labeled hardware.
So loading it onto and into Pystar hardware is copyright infringement because they do not have such a license.
I applaud Pystar's attempt to create an alternative to Apple hardware.
But the Apple license is pretty explicit.
I think .. I wasn't able to find a current copy on their web site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466</id>
	<title>Litigated before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy. End-users are granted a license to do so, and here Pystar doesn't have such a license. Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds , courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer ( and thus loading it to memory ) does create a copy .
End-users are granted a license to do so , and here Pystar does n't have such a license .
Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy.
End-users are granted a license to do so, and here Pystar doesn't have such a license.
Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946434</id>
	<title>sony should be watching</title>
	<author>sixsixtysix</author>
	<datestamp>1257088260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>maybe sony's movie division can make a eula so that all the blu-ray films made by them can only be played on products from it's electronics division.</htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe sony 's movie division can make a eula so that all the blu-ray films made by them can only be played on products from it 's electronics division .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe sony's movie division can make a eula so that all the blu-ray films made by them can only be played on products from it's electronics division.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945042</id>
	<title>Re:Unauthorized</title>
	<author>Plekto</author>
	<datestamp>1257075480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Since Apple's license for OS X says that it can only be run on Apple hardware, the in-memory copy is just as unauthorized as the rest of them.</b></p><p>But there are two other issues at work here.<br>1 - The problem with the EULA generally being unenforceable due to your not having any option but to accept it in its entirety when you buy the retail copy - before you open it up and actually are able to read it.  California and many other states for instance rule that such EULA "hijacking" is most likely unenforceable, though it has never actually been brought to a conclusion yet in a case, since the software companies know they will lose.</p><p>2 - The idea that whatever rubbish Apple decides to say is actually enforceable.  "You can only run X on our equipment" is also unenforceable just the same as if they had a line saying "your first born son belongs to us" or some other idiocy.  If you buy a physical copy of something you can obviously do whatever you want with it from making a mobile out of the CDs or using it as a coaster or running it on another machine.  For example, though it may not work, nothing will keep you from inserting a Windows CD into a PlayStation 3.  Or say, putting a bar of soap you just bought in your microwave.(don't do this, though the results ARE spectacular...)</p><p>And this is aside from the fact that copyright issues are solely civil law and not criminal issues.  The worst you can do is fine the offenders for essentially not following these arbitrarily decided rules.  I think a lot of people(and judges apparently - sigh) seem to forget that lately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since Apple 's license for OS X says that it can only be run on Apple hardware , the in-memory copy is just as unauthorized as the rest of them.But there are two other issues at work here.1 - The problem with the EULA generally being unenforceable due to your not having any option but to accept it in its entirety when you buy the retail copy - before you open it up and actually are able to read it .
California and many other states for instance rule that such EULA " hijacking " is most likely unenforceable , though it has never actually been brought to a conclusion yet in a case , since the software companies know they will lose.2 - The idea that whatever rubbish Apple decides to say is actually enforceable .
" You can only run X on our equipment " is also unenforceable just the same as if they had a line saying " your first born son belongs to us " or some other idiocy .
If you buy a physical copy of something you can obviously do whatever you want with it from making a mobile out of the CDs or using it as a coaster or running it on another machine .
For example , though it may not work , nothing will keep you from inserting a Windows CD into a PlayStation 3 .
Or say , putting a bar of soap you just bought in your microwave .
( do n't do this , though the results ARE spectacular... ) And this is aside from the fact that copyright issues are solely civil law and not criminal issues .
The worst you can do is fine the offenders for essentially not following these arbitrarily decided rules .
I think a lot of people ( and judges apparently - sigh ) seem to forget that lately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since Apple's license for OS X says that it can only be run on Apple hardware, the in-memory copy is just as unauthorized as the rest of them.But there are two other issues at work here.1 - The problem with the EULA generally being unenforceable due to your not having any option but to accept it in its entirety when you buy the retail copy - before you open it up and actually are able to read it.
California and many other states for instance rule that such EULA "hijacking" is most likely unenforceable, though it has never actually been brought to a conclusion yet in a case, since the software companies know they will lose.2 - The idea that whatever rubbish Apple decides to say is actually enforceable.
"You can only run X on our equipment" is also unenforceable just the same as if they had a line saying "your first born son belongs to us" or some other idiocy.
If you buy a physical copy of something you can obviously do whatever you want with it from making a mobile out of the CDs or using it as a coaster or running it on another machine.
For example, though it may not work, nothing will keep you from inserting a Windows CD into a PlayStation 3.
Or say, putting a bar of soap you just bought in your microwave.
(don't do this, though the results ARE spectacular...)And this is aside from the fact that copyright issues are solely civil law and not criminal issues.
The worst you can do is fine the offenders for essentially not following these arbitrarily decided rules.
I think a lot of people(and judges apparently - sigh) seem to forget that lately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946770</id>
	<title>Re:So does that make Iphones on t-mobile unauthori</title>
	<author>Cyberllama</author>
	<datestamp>1257091140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think they've made it pretty clear that all of those things are indeed, in their eyes, illegal.  They even went as far as to file a legal brief against a legal right to jailbreak that suggests that jailbreaking facilitates terrorism.  Yeah, they went there.</p><p>Godwin's law really needs to be extended to terrorists/terrorism.  Terrorists are the Nazis of the new millenium in terms of the public's perception of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they 've made it pretty clear that all of those things are indeed , in their eyes , illegal .
They even went as far as to file a legal brief against a legal right to jailbreak that suggests that jailbreaking facilitates terrorism .
Yeah , they went there.Godwin 's law really needs to be extended to terrorists/terrorism .
Terrorists are the Nazis of the new millenium in terms of the public 's perception of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they've made it pretty clear that all of those things are indeed, in their eyes, illegal.
They even went as far as to file a legal brief against a legal right to jailbreak that suggests that jailbreaking facilitates terrorism.
Yeah, they went there.Godwin's law really needs to be extended to terrorists/terrorism.
Terrorists are the Nazis of the new millenium in terms of the public's perception of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944654</id>
	<title>What about movies, cds, etc.?</title>
	<author>Jared555</author>
	<datestamp>1257072720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fairly offtopic but if copying into ram is an issue.... whenever I watch a rented movie I am making probably 3+ temporary copies of the movie while watching it.  Is this illegal?  (by the standards of the copyright holders/actual law both)<br>1. In the disk drive<br>2. ?On the controller itself?<br>3. In ram<br>4. ?In the CPU cache?<br>5. In video card memory<br>6. If it is outputting to a screen that does any of it's own processing you can probably add a few more here</p><p>Of course these are fractions of the movie (or even a frame of a movie) at any point in time but the entire thing passes through.  Since sharing fractions of a movie over P2P software is illegal, shouldn't making multiple copies of a movie that is owned by someone else illegal?</p><p>Note: this is a joke for now but I have a feeling sooner or later it is going to end up in a lawsuit somewhere</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fairly offtopic but if copying into ram is an issue.... whenever I watch a rented movie I am making probably 3 + temporary copies of the movie while watching it .
Is this illegal ?
( by the standards of the copyright holders/actual law both ) 1 .
In the disk drive2 .
? On the controller itself ? 3 .
In ram4 .
? In the CPU cache ? 5 .
In video card memory6 .
If it is outputting to a screen that does any of it 's own processing you can probably add a few more hereOf course these are fractions of the movie ( or even a frame of a movie ) at any point in time but the entire thing passes through .
Since sharing fractions of a movie over P2P software is illegal , should n't making multiple copies of a movie that is owned by someone else illegal ? Note : this is a joke for now but I have a feeling sooner or later it is going to end up in a lawsuit somewhere</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fairly offtopic but if copying into ram is an issue.... whenever I watch a rented movie I am making probably 3+ temporary copies of the movie while watching it.
Is this illegal?
(by the standards of the copyright holders/actual law both)1.
In the disk drive2.
?On the controller itself?3.
In ram4.
?In the CPU cache?5.
In video card memory6.
If it is outputting to a screen that does any of it's own processing you can probably add a few more hereOf course these are fractions of the movie (or even a frame of a movie) at any point in time but the entire thing passes through.
Since sharing fractions of a movie over P2P software is illegal, shouldn't making multiple copies of a movie that is owned by someone else illegal?Note: this is a joke for now but I have a feeling sooner or later it is going to end up in a lawsuit somewhere</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946738</id>
	<title>I've considered your argument, now consider mine:</title>
	<author>Cyberllama</author>
	<datestamp>1257090840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everything Apple does is fine, because I like Apple products.</p><p>Your move.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything Apple does is fine , because I like Apple products.Your move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything Apple does is fine, because I like Apple products.Your move.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943552</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone surprised?</title>
	<author>The Cisco Kid</author>
	<datestamp>1257108720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Presumably, either Psystar (or the end user) *do* have to buy a copy/license of/for OSX in order to run it. The fact that they choose to run it on hardware not sold by Apple may make Apple unhappy, but short of refusing to sell OSX except bundled with a new mac, there isn't anything they can legally do about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Presumably , either Psystar ( or the end user ) * do * have to buy a copy/license of/for OSX in order to run it .
The fact that they choose to run it on hardware not sold by Apple may make Apple unhappy , but short of refusing to sell OSX except bundled with a new mac , there is n't anything they can legally do about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presumably, either Psystar (or the end user) *do* have to buy a copy/license of/for OSX in order to run it.
The fact that they choose to run it on hardware not sold by Apple may make Apple unhappy, but short of refusing to sell OSX except bundled with a new mac, there isn't anything they can legally do about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947608</id>
	<title>Re:Psystar is 100\% wrong</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1257099900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how do we all legally run anything that doesn't specifically allow this in the copyright?  How can I read a copyrighted web page since I copy it both to my hard disk, then memory, then video RAM, then the screen?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how do we all legally run anything that does n't specifically allow this in the copyright ?
How can I read a copyrighted web page since I copy it both to my hard disk , then memory , then video RAM , then the screen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how do we all legally run anything that doesn't specifically allow this in the copyright?
How can I read a copyrighted web page since I copy it both to my hard disk, then memory, then video RAM, then the screen?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29951336</id>
	<title>If the EULA is not valid, then GPL is not valid</title>
	<author>aristotle-dude</author>
	<datestamp>1257182820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If an end user cannot be held to an "upgrade" license regardless of whether any copyright protection or detection of previous copies exist, then all licenses including the GPL are null and void as well.
<p>
Copyright holders have a fundamental right to dictate the license terms. When you purchase a "copy" of OS X, you are not buying the product itself but rather a license to use a "copy" of the product under a set of terms. This is no different than when you download and modify GPL'ed code. If you intend on releasing a binary from the GPL'ed code and modifications you made outside of your organization, you are obligated to release the source modifications back to the project.
</p><p>
We cannot pick and choose which licenses to follow and which ones to ignore. Either they are all valid or non of them are valid.
</p><p>
Before someone posts that they did not see the EULA before installing the software or opening the package, the EULA of OS X is posted online for anyone to view prior to making a purchase from any public terminal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If an end user can not be held to an " upgrade " license regardless of whether any copyright protection or detection of previous copies exist , then all licenses including the GPL are null and void as well .
Copyright holders have a fundamental right to dictate the license terms .
When you purchase a " copy " of OS X , you are not buying the product itself but rather a license to use a " copy " of the product under a set of terms .
This is no different than when you download and modify GPL'ed code .
If you intend on releasing a binary from the GPL'ed code and modifications you made outside of your organization , you are obligated to release the source modifications back to the project .
We can not pick and choose which licenses to follow and which ones to ignore .
Either they are all valid or non of them are valid .
Before someone posts that they did not see the EULA before installing the software or opening the package , the EULA of OS X is posted online for anyone to view prior to making a purchase from any public terminal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If an end user cannot be held to an "upgrade" license regardless of whether any copyright protection or detection of previous copies exist, then all licenses including the GPL are null and void as well.
Copyright holders have a fundamental right to dictate the license terms.
When you purchase a "copy" of OS X, you are not buying the product itself but rather a license to use a "copy" of the product under a set of terms.
This is no different than when you download and modify GPL'ed code.
If you intend on releasing a binary from the GPL'ed code and modifications you made outside of your organization, you are obligated to release the source modifications back to the project.
We cannot pick and choose which licenses to follow and which ones to ignore.
Either they are all valid or non of them are valid.
Before someone posts that they did not see the EULA before installing the software or opening the package, the EULA of OS X is posted online for anyone to view prior to making a purchase from any public terminal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944184</id>
	<title>Re:Psystar is 100\% wrong</title>
	<author>ehrichweiss</author>
	<datestamp>1257069540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where in that ruling did it address that matter? It all points to the Sonny Bono copyright extension act but I can't find any mention of what you're suggesting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where in that ruling did it address that matter ?
It all points to the Sonny Bono copyright extension act but I ca n't find any mention of what you 're suggesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where in that ruling did it address that matter?
It all points to the Sonny Bono copyright extension act but I can't find any mention of what you're suggesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944438</id>
	<title>The precedent that was set years ago is a mistake</title>
	<author>Drachs</author>
	<datestamp>1257071220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ability to make a transient copy of a work in order to use it should not be considered in regards to copyright law.   It has always been implied that you have the right to make such copies.    For example, when you read a book, light creates a copy of the work on your retina, and that's how we perceive it.  These copies have never been considered for the purpose of copyright, and neither has the copies floating around in peoples brains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ability to make a transient copy of a work in order to use it should not be considered in regards to copyright law .
It has always been implied that you have the right to make such copies .
For example , when you read a book , light creates a copy of the work on your retina , and that 's how we perceive it .
These copies have never been considered for the purpose of copyright , and neither has the copies floating around in peoples brains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ability to make a transient copy of a work in order to use it should not be considered in regards to copyright law.
It has always been implied that you have the right to make such copies.
For example, when you read a book, light creates a copy of the work on your retina, and that's how we perceive it.
These copies have never been considered for the purpose of copyright, and neither has the copies floating around in peoples brains.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29951914</id>
	<title>Also unindicted co-conspirators</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1257185340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>monkeys with typewriters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>monkeys with typewriters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>monkeys with typewriters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943906</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone surprised?</title>
	<author>Firehed</author>
	<datestamp>1257067560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sort of.  The $30 Snow Leopard is a Leopard upgrade license; the $170 SL/iLife/iWork pack is generally advertised as "For computers without Leopard", though the system requirements specifically state that you need an Intel Mac.</p><p>In practice, every Snow Leopard disc is identical, whether it comes in the cheap upgrade version or the "Mac Box Set" (above), or a family pack of either (aside from a sticker on the box, there's nothing in the family packs about licensing).  As such, the installation EULA is going to be the same, and I don't think there's any doubt that Psystar is in violation of the EULA - just whether doing so can constitute copyright infringement by tripping this "unauthorized" clause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sort of .
The $ 30 Snow Leopard is a Leopard upgrade license ; the $ 170 SL/iLife/iWork pack is generally advertised as " For computers without Leopard " , though the system requirements specifically state that you need an Intel Mac.In practice , every Snow Leopard disc is identical , whether it comes in the cheap upgrade version or the " Mac Box Set " ( above ) , or a family pack of either ( aside from a sticker on the box , there 's nothing in the family packs about licensing ) .
As such , the installation EULA is going to be the same , and I do n't think there 's any doubt that Psystar is in violation of the EULA - just whether doing so can constitute copyright infringement by tripping this " unauthorized " clause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sort of.
The $30 Snow Leopard is a Leopard upgrade license; the $170 SL/iLife/iWork pack is generally advertised as "For computers without Leopard", though the system requirements specifically state that you need an Intel Mac.In practice, every Snow Leopard disc is identical, whether it comes in the cheap upgrade version or the "Mac Box Set" (above), or a family pack of either (aside from a sticker on the box, there's nothing in the family packs about licensing).
As such, the installation EULA is going to be the same, and I don't think there's any doubt that Psystar is in violation of the EULA - just whether doing so can constitute copyright infringement by tripping this "unauthorized" clause.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944998</id>
	<title>Where is apples desktop tower at $1000-$1500 that</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1257075120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where is apples desktop tower at $1000-$1500 that is not a AIO.</p><p>The imac are nice but not that good of a buy $1200 for a dual core + 9400m video? $1500 for only a duel core with 4670 256? 2k for core i5 and 4850 512?  Core i7 $200 more? and only room for 1 HD that takes a lot work to get to?</p><p>mac pro at $2500 with only 3gb ram and a weak gt120? The new imac has more ram, bigger HD and better video card for about $300-$500 less.</p><p>The mini needs to have a real video card + desktop cpus and a easier to open case.</p><p>if apple had better hardware pricing and more choice pystar will be dead but apple wants to play if you can't compete go to court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is apples desktop tower at $ 1000- $ 1500 that is not a AIO.The imac are nice but not that good of a buy $ 1200 for a dual core + 9400m video ?
$ 1500 for only a duel core with 4670 256 ?
2k for core i5 and 4850 512 ?
Core i7 $ 200 more ?
and only room for 1 HD that takes a lot work to get to ? mac pro at $ 2500 with only 3gb ram and a weak gt120 ?
The new imac has more ram , bigger HD and better video card for about $ 300- $ 500 less.The mini needs to have a real video card + desktop cpus and a easier to open case.if apple had better hardware pricing and more choice pystar will be dead but apple wants to play if you ca n't compete go to court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is apples desktop tower at $1000-$1500 that is not a AIO.The imac are nice but not that good of a buy $1200 for a dual core + 9400m video?
$1500 for only a duel core with 4670 256?
2k for core i5 and 4850 512?
Core i7 $200 more?
and only room for 1 HD that takes a lot work to get to?mac pro at $2500 with only 3gb ram and a weak gt120?
The new imac has more ram, bigger HD and better video card for about $300-$500 less.The mini needs to have a real video card + desktop cpus and a easier to open case.if apple had better hardware pricing and more choice pystar will be dead but apple wants to play if you can't compete go to court.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943470</id>
	<title>Cortical Copyright Infringement</title>
	<author>smitty777</author>
	<datestamp>1257108360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a copy of Red October on my retina too for a couple of nanoseconds too - I suppose the lawyers will be knocking on my door pretty soon .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a copy of Red October on my retina too for a couple of nanoseconds too - I suppose the lawyers will be knocking on my door pretty soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a copy of Red October on my retina too for a couple of nanoseconds too - I suppose the lawyers will be knocking on my door pretty soon .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943812</id>
	<title>Playing digital music?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So MP3 players are also making illegal copies of songs when buffering. This of course depends on what kind of license/DRM the music has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So MP3 players are also making illegal copies of songs when buffering .
This of course depends on what kind of license/DRM the music has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So MP3 players are also making illegal copies of songs when buffering.
This of course depends on what kind of license/DRM the music has.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947716</id>
	<title>LMAO</title>
	<author>rakslice</author>
	<datestamp>1257100980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just spent a bunch of time figuring out how MDY vs. Blizzard would relate to the Psystar case, and then read the Aug 21 PsyStar story on Groklaw, which talks about it at length.</p><p>If you didn't see my other post, I've basically concluded that according to that case law, section 117 doesn't do anything.</p><p>Anyway, back to that Groklaw story.</p><p>It makes a point about needing to face the reality of the case law in your jurisdiction, if you want to win a case there.  That's well taken; as the amicus response they quote illustrates, the judge has no choice but to follow the case law.</p><p>But as for the rest of the article, let's just say I think I have some different answers for the rhetorical questions there than the ones they were expecting.</p><p>* Warning: Some sarcasm below. YMMV. *</p><p>"No matter how you feel about proprietary EULAs, look at what Psystar did when it decided to ignore Apple's, and maybe then you can at least understand why companies want EULAs."</p><p>In this case, Apple wants EULAs for their software so that they can extract the maximum amount of money from each user of their software by making them buy Apple hardware.  Presumably, you're saying that people license their software under the GPL in order to make some cash?</p><p>"Suppose you wrote code, released it under the GPL, and then someone came along and said he didn't need to abide by its terms. Would you say, OK, never mind? Or would you sue?"</p><p>If someone came along and I sold (or even just gave) them a copy of the software I wrote and then they said they didn't need to abide by the terms, and they were going to use it on their own machine and not distribute it, I would say: You are most certainly correct.</p><p>If someone came along and said they wanted to distribute the software I wrote against the terms, then I might threaten to sue, but I'd be willing to settle for them giving me any derivative source code changes, and changing their practices so that they were distributing my software under the GPL.  They could instead just give me the derivative source code changes and stop distributing the software, but that would mean less distribution of the software, so I'd probably prefer the first option.</p><p>I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the meeting where Apple offers Psystar terms under which Psystar can continue distributing Apple's software.</p><p>But to be fair Apple will likely probably settle for not much more than Psystar not distributing their software.</p><p>"Actually, that happened, with SCO."</p><p>SCO distributed GPLed software, and then rounded up a bunch of documentation on their earlier proprietary doings, and marched up to IBM and said "You've got a nice user base here, colonel. We wouldn't want anything to 'appen to it." (apologies to Monty Python - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRm5WcjOikQ" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRm5WcjOikQ</a> [youtube.com] )</p><p>If someone distributed my software under the terms of the GPL, and then went to tell my users about some of the nasty things that they didn't want to happen to me, I'd take my copy of the GPL to them, and explain to them what they should do to continue distributing my software so that they needn't worry about any nasty things.  And in case they needed some extra copies of that explanation I'd also share it with Slashdot, and Groklaw, and the New York Times, etc.</p><p>When Apple tells you about the nasty things they don't want to happen to you, it could mean that you've violated the license for their software, (or that you're a blogger on an Apple site and Apple has a product launch coming up, or that the window manager theme you released is nearly as shiny as Apple's own and Apple is worried that they might be losing the shininess race, or that Apple has violated their consent decree with you for an nth time and doesn't you want to miss out on seeing the Goodyear blimp, or...) but it probably comes with a note telling you to tell everyone you know about it.</p><p>"Did the Linux community say it was fine?"</p><p>The Linux community says lots of things, many of them apocryphal or at least wildly inaccurate, but certainly many of them were not very nice to SCO. Perhaps the Linux community has a bottom line to worry about?  Anyway, certain companies involved with Linux sued SCO. Or I should say counter-sued: SCO was already suing them; maybe SCO was trying to prevent those nasty things that they were worried about from happening?</p><p>Certainly the Mac OS X community is not pleased at all at having an alternative to Apple hardware.  No wonder those forum sites about running Mac OS X on a generic PC are having trouble finding interested posters.</p><p>"What's the difference?"</p><p>Ulimately, all copies of a piece of software made under the GPL are also covered by the GPL.  Even though nothing in the GPL says anything about ownership of these copies, it certainly says an awful lot about their distribution, and so by the Ninth Circuit's test, copies of a piece of software made under the GPL are licensed and not sold.  Because GPLed software isn't sold, when someone gives you a CD with a piece of GPLed software on it in the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, then the section 117(a) exception doesn't apply.  However, you most certainly can copy the software or adapt the software as necessary to use it on your machine, and in fact you can make whatever modifications you like to adapt the software for whatever you like, with access to the source code to this end, because the GPL requires it.</p><p>If Apple's own open source license on parts of their operating system doesn't currently extend to the whole thing, to let its buyers run it on whatever hardware they want to modify it for, I certainly look forward to the day that it does.</p><p>And hey, while we're busy talking about the reality of licenses, let me say that if I had a dose of reality to spare, I'd give it to the company that thinks they're going to effectively prevent piracy through software-based DRM protections.  Didn't you guys already figure this one out once?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just spent a bunch of time figuring out how MDY vs. Blizzard would relate to the Psystar case , and then read the Aug 21 PsyStar story on Groklaw , which talks about it at length.If you did n't see my other post , I 've basically concluded that according to that case law , section 117 does n't do anything.Anyway , back to that Groklaw story.It makes a point about needing to face the reality of the case law in your jurisdiction , if you want to win a case there .
That 's well taken ; as the amicus response they quote illustrates , the judge has no choice but to follow the case law.But as for the rest of the article , let 's just say I think I have some different answers for the rhetorical questions there than the ones they were expecting .
* Warning : Some sarcasm below .
YMMV. * " No matter how you feel about proprietary EULAs , look at what Psystar did when it decided to ignore Apple 's , and maybe then you can at least understand why companies want EULAs .
" In this case , Apple wants EULAs for their software so that they can extract the maximum amount of money from each user of their software by making them buy Apple hardware .
Presumably , you 're saying that people license their software under the GPL in order to make some cash ?
" Suppose you wrote code , released it under the GPL , and then someone came along and said he did n't need to abide by its terms .
Would you say , OK , never mind ?
Or would you sue ?
" If someone came along and I sold ( or even just gave ) them a copy of the software I wrote and then they said they did n't need to abide by the terms , and they were going to use it on their own machine and not distribute it , I would say : You are most certainly correct.If someone came along and said they wanted to distribute the software I wrote against the terms , then I might threaten to sue , but I 'd be willing to settle for them giving me any derivative source code changes , and changing their practices so that they were distributing my software under the GPL .
They could instead just give me the derivative source code changes and stop distributing the software , but that would mean less distribution of the software , so I 'd probably prefer the first option.I 'd love to be a fly on the wall in the meeting where Apple offers Psystar terms under which Psystar can continue distributing Apple 's software.But to be fair Apple will likely probably settle for not much more than Psystar not distributing their software .
" Actually , that happened , with SCO .
" SCO distributed GPLed software , and then rounded up a bunch of documentation on their earlier proprietary doings , and marched up to IBM and said " You 've got a nice user base here , colonel .
We would n't want anything to 'appen to it .
" ( apologies to Monty Python - http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = DRm5WcjOikQ [ youtube.com ] ) If someone distributed my software under the terms of the GPL , and then went to tell my users about some of the nasty things that they did n't want to happen to me , I 'd take my copy of the GPL to them , and explain to them what they should do to continue distributing my software so that they need n't worry about any nasty things .
And in case they needed some extra copies of that explanation I 'd also share it with Slashdot , and Groklaw , and the New York Times , etc.When Apple tells you about the nasty things they do n't want to happen to you , it could mean that you 've violated the license for their software , ( or that you 're a blogger on an Apple site and Apple has a product launch coming up , or that the window manager theme you released is nearly as shiny as Apple 's own and Apple is worried that they might be losing the shininess race , or that Apple has violated their consent decree with you for an nth time and does n't you want to miss out on seeing the Goodyear blimp , or... ) but it probably comes with a note telling you to tell everyone you know about it .
" Did the Linux community say it was fine ?
" The Linux community says lots of things , many of them apocryphal or at least wildly inaccurate , but certainly many of them were not very nice to SCO .
Perhaps the Linux community has a bottom line to worry about ?
Anyway , certain companies involved with Linux sued SCO .
Or I should say counter-sued : SCO was already suing them ; maybe SCO was trying to prevent those nasty things that they were worried about from happening ? Certainly the Mac OS X community is not pleased at all at having an alternative to Apple hardware .
No wonder those forum sites about running Mac OS X on a generic PC are having trouble finding interested posters .
" What 's the difference ?
" Ulimately , all copies of a piece of software made under the GPL are also covered by the GPL .
Even though nothing in the GPL says anything about ownership of these copies , it certainly says an awful lot about their distribution , and so by the Ninth Circuit 's test , copies of a piece of software made under the GPL are licensed and not sold .
Because GPLed software is n't sold , when someone gives you a CD with a piece of GPLed software on it in the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit , then the section 117 ( a ) exception does n't apply .
However , you most certainly can copy the software or adapt the software as necessary to use it on your machine , and in fact you can make whatever modifications you like to adapt the software for whatever you like , with access to the source code to this end , because the GPL requires it.If Apple 's own open source license on parts of their operating system does n't currently extend to the whole thing , to let its buyers run it on whatever hardware they want to modify it for , I certainly look forward to the day that it does.And hey , while we 're busy talking about the reality of licenses , let me say that if I had a dose of reality to spare , I 'd give it to the company that thinks they 're going to effectively prevent piracy through software-based DRM protections .
Did n't you guys already figure this one out once ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just spent a bunch of time figuring out how MDY vs. Blizzard would relate to the Psystar case, and then read the Aug 21 PsyStar story on Groklaw, which talks about it at length.If you didn't see my other post, I've basically concluded that according to that case law, section 117 doesn't do anything.Anyway, back to that Groklaw story.It makes a point about needing to face the reality of the case law in your jurisdiction, if you want to win a case there.
That's well taken; as the amicus response they quote illustrates, the judge has no choice but to follow the case law.But as for the rest of the article, let's just say I think I have some different answers for the rhetorical questions there than the ones they were expecting.
* Warning: Some sarcasm below.
YMMV. *"No matter how you feel about proprietary EULAs, look at what Psystar did when it decided to ignore Apple's, and maybe then you can at least understand why companies want EULAs.
"In this case, Apple wants EULAs for their software so that they can extract the maximum amount of money from each user of their software by making them buy Apple hardware.
Presumably, you're saying that people license their software under the GPL in order to make some cash?
"Suppose you wrote code, released it under the GPL, and then someone came along and said he didn't need to abide by its terms.
Would you say, OK, never mind?
Or would you sue?
"If someone came along and I sold (or even just gave) them a copy of the software I wrote and then they said they didn't need to abide by the terms, and they were going to use it on their own machine and not distribute it, I would say: You are most certainly correct.If someone came along and said they wanted to distribute the software I wrote against the terms, then I might threaten to sue, but I'd be willing to settle for them giving me any derivative source code changes, and changing their practices so that they were distributing my software under the GPL.
They could instead just give me the derivative source code changes and stop distributing the software, but that would mean less distribution of the software, so I'd probably prefer the first option.I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the meeting where Apple offers Psystar terms under which Psystar can continue distributing Apple's software.But to be fair Apple will likely probably settle for not much more than Psystar not distributing their software.
"Actually, that happened, with SCO.
"SCO distributed GPLed software, and then rounded up a bunch of documentation on their earlier proprietary doings, and marched up to IBM and said "You've got a nice user base here, colonel.
We wouldn't want anything to 'appen to it.
" (apologies to Monty Python - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRm5WcjOikQ [youtube.com] )If someone distributed my software under the terms of the GPL, and then went to tell my users about some of the nasty things that they didn't want to happen to me, I'd take my copy of the GPL to them, and explain to them what they should do to continue distributing my software so that they needn't worry about any nasty things.
And in case they needed some extra copies of that explanation I'd also share it with Slashdot, and Groklaw, and the New York Times, etc.When Apple tells you about the nasty things they don't want to happen to you, it could mean that you've violated the license for their software, (or that you're a blogger on an Apple site and Apple has a product launch coming up, or that the window manager theme you released is nearly as shiny as Apple's own and Apple is worried that they might be losing the shininess race, or that Apple has violated their consent decree with you for an nth time and doesn't you want to miss out on seeing the Goodyear blimp, or...) but it probably comes with a note telling you to tell everyone you know about it.
"Did the Linux community say it was fine?
"The Linux community says lots of things, many of them apocryphal or at least wildly inaccurate, but certainly many of them were not very nice to SCO.
Perhaps the Linux community has a bottom line to worry about?
Anyway, certain companies involved with Linux sued SCO.
Or I should say counter-sued: SCO was already suing them; maybe SCO was trying to prevent those nasty things that they were worried about from happening?Certainly the Mac OS X community is not pleased at all at having an alternative to Apple hardware.
No wonder those forum sites about running Mac OS X on a generic PC are having trouble finding interested posters.
"What's the difference?
"Ulimately, all copies of a piece of software made under the GPL are also covered by the GPL.
Even though nothing in the GPL says anything about ownership of these copies, it certainly says an awful lot about their distribution, and so by the Ninth Circuit's test, copies of a piece of software made under the GPL are licensed and not sold.
Because GPLed software isn't sold, when someone gives you a CD with a piece of GPLed software on it in the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, then the section 117(a) exception doesn't apply.
However, you most certainly can copy the software or adapt the software as necessary to use it on your machine, and in fact you can make whatever modifications you like to adapt the software for whatever you like, with access to the source code to this end, because the GPL requires it.If Apple's own open source license on parts of their operating system doesn't currently extend to the whole thing, to let its buyers run it on whatever hardware they want to modify it for, I certainly look forward to the day that it does.And hey, while we're busy talking about the reality of licenses, let me say that if I had a dose of reality to spare, I'd give it to the company that thinks they're going to effectively prevent piracy through software-based DRM protections.
Didn't you guys already figure this one out once?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943754</id>
	<title>Reading, it's important.</title>
	<author>minsk</author>
	<datestamp>1257066780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time there is a computer-related Copyright suit, some bright light notices that... OMG, someone's claiming in-memory copies are unauthorized.</p><p>117 says: "it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to [...]". Apple asserts that Psystar does not own the copy they are duplicating, therefore 117 does not apply.</p><p>IM-non-lawyer-O, the ownership vs licensing debate is pretty well settled in Apple's favor. So if you buy a copy, you don't need additional permissions to run it. If you license a copy, the license needs to grant you permission to run it.</p><p>Well, that was easy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time there is a computer-related Copyright suit , some bright light notices that... OMG , someone 's claiming in-memory copies are unauthorized.117 says : " it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to [ ... ] " .
Apple asserts that Psystar does not own the copy they are duplicating , therefore 117 does not apply.IM-non-lawyer-O , the ownership vs licensing debate is pretty well settled in Apple 's favor .
So if you buy a copy , you do n't need additional permissions to run it .
If you license a copy , the license needs to grant you permission to run it.Well , that was easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time there is a computer-related Copyright suit, some bright light notices that... OMG, someone's claiming in-memory copies are unauthorized.117 says: "it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to [...]".
Apple asserts that Psystar does not own the copy they are duplicating, therefore 117 does not apply.IM-non-lawyer-O, the ownership vs licensing debate is pretty well settled in Apple's favor.
So if you buy a copy, you don't need additional permissions to run it.
If you license a copy, the license needs to grant you permission to run it.Well, that was easy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945070</id>
	<title>Apple is full of shit</title>
	<author>Ice Station Zebra</author>
	<datestamp>1257075720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are has bad if not worse than Microsoft (well at least their lawyers are).  If it wasn't for the brilliance of FreeBSD, Apple would be dead today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are has bad if not worse than Microsoft ( well at least their lawyers are ) .
If it was n't for the brilliance of FreeBSD , Apple would be dead today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are has bad if not worse than Microsoft (well at least their lawyers are).
If it wasn't for the brilliance of FreeBSD, Apple would be dead today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944272</id>
	<title>Re:Psystar is 100\% wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257070140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how you reach that conclusion. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred\_v.\_Ashcroft" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Eldred v. Ashcroft</a> [wikipedia.org] doesn't talk about software or programs. On the other hand, <a href="http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/117.html" title="bitlaw.com" rel="nofollow">Section 117</a> [bitlaw.com] is quite clear about it. Weighing those two pieces of legal info, I'd say Psystar is 0\% wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how you reach that conclusion .
Eldred v. Ashcroft [ wikipedia.org ] does n't talk about software or programs .
On the other hand , Section 117 [ bitlaw.com ] is quite clear about it .
Weighing those two pieces of legal info , I 'd say Psystar is 0 \ % wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how you reach that conclusion.
Eldred v. Ashcroft [wikipedia.org] doesn't talk about software or programs.
On the other hand, Section 117 [bitlaw.com] is quite clear about it.
Weighing those two pieces of legal info, I'd say Psystar is 0\% wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945696</id>
	<title>Re:Groklaw going down the drain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257081480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS revenue is not dependent on EULAs.  Worst comes to the worst - they sell a product and rely on copyright laws to stop people making copies.</p><p>Groklaw's main point however is that GPL restrictions depend on some of the legalities which are the basis for these EULAs.  PJ is keen that we do not have MS and others co-opting GPL code and not giving back.  In fact if you take the 'giving back' out of the GPL then you begin the destruction of FOSS and Linux.</p><p>Thus there is a potential motivation for MS to be behind Psystar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS revenue is not dependent on EULAs .
Worst comes to the worst - they sell a product and rely on copyright laws to stop people making copies.Groklaw 's main point however is that GPL restrictions depend on some of the legalities which are the basis for these EULAs .
PJ is keen that we do not have MS and others co-opting GPL code and not giving back .
In fact if you take the 'giving back ' out of the GPL then you begin the destruction of FOSS and Linux.Thus there is a potential motivation for MS to be behind Psystar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS revenue is not dependent on EULAs.
Worst comes to the worst - they sell a product and rely on copyright laws to stop people making copies.Groklaw's main point however is that GPL restrictions depend on some of the legalities which are the basis for these EULAs.
PJ is keen that we do not have MS and others co-opting GPL code and not giving back.
In fact if you take the 'giving back' out of the GPL then you begin the destruction of FOSS and Linux.Thus there is a potential motivation for MS to be behind Psystar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948188</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257194580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you have any kind of reference on that ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have any kind of reference on that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have any kind of reference on that ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947248</id>
	<title>Re:What Psystar is forgetting about</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1257096420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unless Apple has a contract signed by Psystar where they agreed to such terms, then Psystar is not a party to any such contract.</p></div><p>Clickwrap contracts are enforceable. This has been affirmed in several circuits. If Psystar is resting their case on "we never signed any contract", they're going to lose.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Further, if they exchanged cash (or cash-equivalent, eg check, electronic payment, etc) for a physical item such as a disc, then they did in fact *buy* a copy of a program, and they are in fact owners of it.</p></div><p>Yep, they're the owner of the physical medium and tangible embodiment of the program. <i>That</i> tangible embodiment. Not a copy, not a derivative work, not a mass-reproduced version - just the one on the disc, plus the statutory-allowed "copy-without-alteration into RAM" and "backup copy". But the suit isn't over those... It's over the modified-version - a <i>derivative work</i> - which Psystar does not have license to produce, even by the purchase of an OSX CD.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless Apple has a contract signed by Psystar where they agreed to such terms , then Psystar is not a party to any such contract.Clickwrap contracts are enforceable .
This has been affirmed in several circuits .
If Psystar is resting their case on " we never signed any contract " , they 're going to lose.Further , if they exchanged cash ( or cash-equivalent , eg check , electronic payment , etc ) for a physical item such as a disc , then they did in fact * buy * a copy of a program , and they are in fact owners of it.Yep , they 're the owner of the physical medium and tangible embodiment of the program .
That tangible embodiment .
Not a copy , not a derivative work , not a mass-reproduced version - just the one on the disc , plus the statutory-allowed " copy-without-alteration into RAM " and " backup copy " .
But the suit is n't over those... It 's over the modified-version - a derivative work - which Psystar does not have license to produce , even by the purchase of an OSX CD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless Apple has a contract signed by Psystar where they agreed to such terms, then Psystar is not a party to any such contract.Clickwrap contracts are enforceable.
This has been affirmed in several circuits.
If Psystar is resting their case on "we never signed any contract", they're going to lose.Further, if they exchanged cash (or cash-equivalent, eg check, electronic payment, etc) for a physical item such as a disc, then they did in fact *buy* a copy of a program, and they are in fact owners of it.Yep, they're the owner of the physical medium and tangible embodiment of the program.
That tangible embodiment.
Not a copy, not a derivative work, not a mass-reproduced version - just the one on the disc, plus the statutory-allowed "copy-without-alteration into RAM" and "backup copy".
But the suit isn't over those... It's over the modified-version - a derivative work - which Psystar does not have license to produce, even by the purchase of an OSX CD.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947094</id>
	<title>Re:Proprietary software at its worst</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257094500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, licensing is a restriction on what you can do with software.</p><p>This is true of every software package that is not public domain.</p><p>Including software that uses GPL as its distribution license.</p><p>I understand your point of view, though I do not agree with it.  You go protest Apple, I'll enjoy my MacBook running OS X.</p><p>You have three choices:<br>1 - Not agree with their terms, don't buy it, don't use it.<br>2 - Agree to it, buy it, use it, legally<br>3 - Use it illegally and risk the consequences of doing so.</p><p>The first 2 are acceptable, the last is not.</p><p>The problem I have with your post is that you seem to imply that this is different than every other business transaction on the planet, you either agree to the terms and proceed or you don't.</p><p>Do you feel that you, as a customer of a farmer, should dictate what price the farmer sells you his crops at?  I'm sure you do, but this is a rather retarded and unrealistic view of the world that will result in your starvation as the rest of us aren't so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... dumb, for lack of a better description.</p><p>Just for reference, 'fanbois' stopped being cool around the age of 12.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , licensing is a restriction on what you can do with software.This is true of every software package that is not public domain.Including software that uses GPL as its distribution license.I understand your point of view , though I do not agree with it .
You go protest Apple , I 'll enjoy my MacBook running OS X.You have three choices : 1 - Not agree with their terms , do n't buy it , do n't use it.2 - Agree to it , buy it , use it , legally3 - Use it illegally and risk the consequences of doing so.The first 2 are acceptable , the last is not.The problem I have with your post is that you seem to imply that this is different than every other business transaction on the planet , you either agree to the terms and proceed or you do n't.Do you feel that you , as a customer of a farmer , should dictate what price the farmer sells you his crops at ?
I 'm sure you do , but this is a rather retarded and unrealistic view of the world that will result in your starvation as the rest of us are n't so ... dumb , for lack of a better description.Just for reference , 'fanbois ' stopped being cool around the age of 12 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, licensing is a restriction on what you can do with software.This is true of every software package that is not public domain.Including software that uses GPL as its distribution license.I understand your point of view, though I do not agree with it.
You go protest Apple, I'll enjoy my MacBook running OS X.You have three choices:1 - Not agree with their terms, don't buy it, don't use it.2 - Agree to it, buy it, use it, legally3 - Use it illegally and risk the consequences of doing so.The first 2 are acceptable, the last is not.The problem I have with your post is that you seem to imply that this is different than every other business transaction on the planet, you either agree to the terms and proceed or you don't.Do you feel that you, as a customer of a farmer, should dictate what price the farmer sells you his crops at?
I'm sure you do, but this is a rather retarded and unrealistic view of the world that will result in your starvation as the rest of us aren't so ... dumb, for lack of a better description.Just for reference, 'fanbois' stopped being cool around the age of 12.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone surprised?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple is being paid for every copy of OS X. Perhaps they should stop selling OS X as a full standalone product then? I don't think Apple has a right to say what piece of hardware you can run OS X on. It's paid for, end of story.</p><p>When everyone else tries to lock stuff down we scream about how evil and greedy they are. But when it comes to Apple, it's different somehow? Apple is just as greedy and as "evil" as Microsoft. They're out to make money just like everyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is being paid for every copy of OS X. Perhaps they should stop selling OS X as a full standalone product then ?
I do n't think Apple has a right to say what piece of hardware you can run OS X on .
It 's paid for , end of story.When everyone else tries to lock stuff down we scream about how evil and greedy they are .
But when it comes to Apple , it 's different somehow ?
Apple is just as greedy and as " evil " as Microsoft .
They 're out to make money just like everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is being paid for every copy of OS X. Perhaps they should stop selling OS X as a full standalone product then?
I don't think Apple has a right to say what piece of hardware you can run OS X on.
It's paid for, end of story.When everyone else tries to lock stuff down we scream about how evil and greedy they are.
But when it comes to Apple, it's different somehow?
Apple is just as greedy and as "evil" as Microsoft.
They're out to make money just like everyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947646</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257100140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, let's run a business bankrupt because we don't like it's licenses.</p><p>If you don't like it's licenses then don't buy it's products, nobody's holding a gun to your head saying you must buy from them.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , let 's run a business bankrupt because we do n't like it 's licenses.If you do n't like it 's licenses then do n't buy it 's products , nobody 's holding a gun to your head saying you must buy from them .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, let's run a business bankrupt because we don't like it's licenses.If you don't like it's licenses then don't buy it's products, nobody's holding a gun to your head saying you must buy from them.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943942</id>
	<title>Re:Unauthorized</title>
	<author>Firehed</author>
	<datestamp>1257067920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to have a monopoly before you can engage in monopolistic practices.  Even in the portable music player market, Apple with its vast marketshare doesn't constitute anything near a monopoly, as there are dozens if not hundreds of competing products.</p><p>As for Microsoft... I can't speak as to whether them doing such a thing would be <i>illegal</i>, but it would certainly be <i>stupid</i>.  They use other people's hardware sales to leverage their own software sales, while Apple uses their and others software to leverage their own hardware sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to have a monopoly before you can engage in monopolistic practices .
Even in the portable music player market , Apple with its vast marketshare does n't constitute anything near a monopoly , as there are dozens if not hundreds of competing products.As for Microsoft... I ca n't speak as to whether them doing such a thing would be illegal , but it would certainly be stupid .
They use other people 's hardware sales to leverage their own software sales , while Apple uses their and others software to leverage their own hardware sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to have a monopoly before you can engage in monopolistic practices.
Even in the portable music player market, Apple with its vast marketshare doesn't constitute anything near a monopoly, as there are dozens if not hundreds of competing products.As for Microsoft... I can't speak as to whether them doing such a thing would be illegal, but it would certainly be stupid.
They use other people's hardware sales to leverage their own software sales, while Apple uses their and others software to leverage their own hardware sales.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944008</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone surprised?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257068340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple sells OS X standalone so people can upgrade their existing machines. Believe it or not, they don't feel like making 12 SKUs of their product at different price points.</p><p>Because they only allow people to install the OS on their own hardware, they can counter it by making it much cheaper. Software costs are constant regardless of how many licenses they sell, yet the still keep OS X at a fraction of the cost of Windows. If they were to make money off of the OS, they would have to sell it for a lot more than $30.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple sells OS X standalone so people can upgrade their existing machines .
Believe it or not , they do n't feel like making 12 SKUs of their product at different price points.Because they only allow people to install the OS on their own hardware , they can counter it by making it much cheaper .
Software costs are constant regardless of how many licenses they sell , yet the still keep OS X at a fraction of the cost of Windows .
If they were to make money off of the OS , they would have to sell it for a lot more than $ 30 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple sells OS X standalone so people can upgrade their existing machines.
Believe it or not, they don't feel like making 12 SKUs of their product at different price points.Because they only allow people to install the OS on their own hardware, they can counter it by making it much cheaper.
Software costs are constant regardless of how many licenses they sell, yet the still keep OS X at a fraction of the cost of Windows.
If they were to make money off of the OS, they would have to sell it for a lot more than $30.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944576</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1257072120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As you point out, there should be no real need to debate whether it's a copy.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; There are some more interesting questions, for example:<br>Is a copy that exists in a very temporary fashion automatically trivial and so not worth the court's time? Are temporary copies of this particular type trivial?</p><p>Is a copy that can't be directly read/viewed/listened to or otherwise be used by a human, and is only needed as an intermediate step in getting to a version the human can do something with, a separate copyright law violation? Is it an agrievating circumstance? Should such additional copies have any effect on penalties for illegal copying in general?</p><p>Can a EULA make a normally trivial act something worthy of the court's attention. Can a EULA elevate the legal status of these internal copies to where the court must consider what it might otherwise declare trivial?</p><p>How does the willfulness test apply to these copies? Can a EULA define copies in RAM in such a way as to control the willfulness test? (I.e. "by receiving this EULA, customer agrees that they fully understand how a computer uses cache memory and RAM and how their OS controls these devices, and so had willful intent where any copies of the program are placed into cache or RAM.").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As you point out , there should be no real need to debate whether it 's a copy .
        There are some more interesting questions , for example : Is a copy that exists in a very temporary fashion automatically trivial and so not worth the court 's time ?
Are temporary copies of this particular type trivial ? Is a copy that ca n't be directly read/viewed/listened to or otherwise be used by a human , and is only needed as an intermediate step in getting to a version the human can do something with , a separate copyright law violation ?
Is it an agrievating circumstance ?
Should such additional copies have any effect on penalties for illegal copying in general ? Can a EULA make a normally trivial act something worthy of the court 's attention .
Can a EULA elevate the legal status of these internal copies to where the court must consider what it might otherwise declare trivial ? How does the willfulness test apply to these copies ?
Can a EULA define copies in RAM in such a way as to control the willfulness test ?
( I.e. " by receiving this EULA , customer agrees that they fully understand how a computer uses cache memory and RAM and how their OS controls these devices , and so had willful intent where any copies of the program are placed into cache or RAM .
" ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As you point out, there should be no real need to debate whether it's a copy.
        There are some more interesting questions, for example:Is a copy that exists in a very temporary fashion automatically trivial and so not worth the court's time?
Are temporary copies of this particular type trivial?Is a copy that can't be directly read/viewed/listened to or otherwise be used by a human, and is only needed as an intermediate step in getting to a version the human can do something with, a separate copyright law violation?
Is it an agrievating circumstance?
Should such additional copies have any effect on penalties for illegal copying in general?Can a EULA make a normally trivial act something worthy of the court's attention.
Can a EULA elevate the legal status of these internal copies to where the court must consider what it might otherwise declare trivial?How does the willfulness test apply to these copies?
Can a EULA define copies in RAM in such a way as to control the willfulness test?
(I.e. "by receiving this EULA, customer agrees that they fully understand how a computer uses cache memory and RAM and how their OS controls these devices, and so had willful intent where any copies of the program are placed into cache or RAM.
").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943452</id>
	<title>Unauthoriazed Copy</title>
	<author>fidget42</author>
	<datestamp>1257108180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?</p></div><p>I think what they are saying is that everytime you run an <b>unauthorized</b> copy of a program, you infringe its copyright.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy ? I think what they are saying is that everytime you run an unauthorized copy of a program , you infringe its copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?I think what they are saying is that everytime you run an unauthorized copy of a program, you infringe its copyright.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946818</id>
	<title>Re:Psystar is 100\% wrong</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1257091560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not illegal, just in violation of what appears to be an enforceable license agreement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not illegal , just in violation of what appears to be an enforceable license agreement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not illegal, just in violation of what appears to be an enforceable license agreement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943658</id>
	<title>Problem!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Psystar doesn't own the software and Apple does. Psystar purchases copies of Mac OS X on DVD, along with a license to use the software in certain ways, but that's IT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Psystar does n't own the software and Apple does .
Psystar purchases copies of Mac OS X on DVD , along with a license to use the software in certain ways , but that 's IT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Psystar doesn't own the software and Apple does.
Psystar purchases copies of Mac OS X on DVD, along with a license to use the software in certain ways, but that's IT.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29949766</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>Cruciform</author>
	<datestamp>1257174840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OSX comes with those handy little Apple stickers in the package.<br>Slap one on the target computer, and you've got yourself an "Apple branded computer".<br>Boo-fucking-hoo Apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OSX comes with those handy little Apple stickers in the package.Slap one on the target computer , and you 've got yourself an " Apple branded computer " .Boo-fucking-hoo Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OSX comes with those handy little Apple stickers in the package.Slap one on the target computer, and you've got yourself an "Apple branded computer".Boo-fucking-hoo Apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946362</id>
	<title>Re:Proprietary software at its worst</title>
	<author>Alien Being</author>
	<datestamp>1257087720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suits like this are evidence that Apple is engaging in very questionable trade practices.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product\_bundling" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product\_bundling</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Apple will probably win this battle but they deserve to lose their war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suits like this are evidence that Apple is engaging in very questionable trade practices .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product \ _bundling [ wikipedia.org ] Apple will probably win this battle but they deserve to lose their war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suits like this are evidence that Apple is engaging in very questionable trade practices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product\_bundling [wikipedia.org]Apple will probably win this battle but they deserve to lose their war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943736</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone surprised?</title>
	<author>lukas84</author>
	<datestamp>1257066660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't Apple just sell upgrade licenses at retail?</p><p>At least that's how i understood it. And the other licenses are locked to the hardware - just like Microsoft's OEM licenses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't Apple just sell upgrade licenses at retail ? At least that 's how i understood it .
And the other licenses are locked to the hardware - just like Microsoft 's OEM licenses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't Apple just sell upgrade licenses at retail?At least that's how i understood it.
And the other licenses are locked to the hardware - just like Microsoft's OEM licenses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945076</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257075720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy.<b> End-users are granted a license to do so, </b>and here Pystar doesn't have such a license. Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.</p></div><p>Really? From their Snow Leopard EULA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Ugrade License for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.</p></div><p>Looks like Apple doesn't grant you a license to make another  copy(as they argue you do by booting). If Apple wins this, can they successfully sue their customers for making unauthorized copies when the computer boots?</p></div><p>I'm curious, does the Snow Leopard EULA specifically say you are prohibited from installing, using, and running on a non-Apple-branded computer? And if it does, can some</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds , courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer ( and thus loading it to memory ) does create a copy .
End-users are granted a license to do so , and here Pystar does n't have such a license .
Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.Really ?
From their Snow Leopard EULA : A. Single Use License .
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License , unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Ugrade License for the Apple Software , you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install , use and run one ( 1 ) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.Looks like Apple does n't grant you a license to make another copy ( as they argue you do by booting ) .
If Apple wins this , can they successfully sue their customers for making unauthorized copies when the computer boots ? I 'm curious , does the Snow Leopard EULA specifically say you are prohibited from installing , using , and running on a non-Apple-branded computer ?
And if it does , can some</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy.
End-users are granted a license to do so, and here Pystar doesn't have such a license.
Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.Really?
From their Snow Leopard EULA:A. Single Use License.
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Ugrade License for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.Looks like Apple doesn't grant you a license to make another  copy(as they argue you do by booting).
If Apple wins this, can they successfully sue their customers for making unauthorized copies when the computer boots?I'm curious, does the Snow Leopard EULA specifically say you are prohibited from installing, using, and running on a non-Apple-branded computer?
And if it does, can some
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948540</id>
	<title>Apple, Apple, Apple</title>
	<author>thecarpy</author>
	<datestamp>1257157560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple's claim is ridiculous! They claim that the copy from the mini to the master imaging system is illegal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... How many mac shops (as in companies using a lot of macs) do that? Is that illegal, why is this function available to boot off the a central OSX  server available then (MS admins, think of RIS)?

BTW, this does mean I cannot back up my Macs with time machine<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... damn! Can I get time machine to use the root of a drive where I installed Mac OS X from the DVD, I think not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

The copy to ram can only be a violation if Apple can get the judge to agree that modifying the software to run with Psystar computers was illegal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple 's claim is ridiculous !
They claim that the copy from the mini to the master imaging system is illegal ... How many mac shops ( as in companies using a lot of macs ) do that ?
Is that illegal , why is this function available to boot off the a central OSX server available then ( MS admins , think of RIS ) ?
BTW , this does mean I can not back up my Macs with time machine .... damn ! Can I get time machine to use the root of a drive where I installed Mac OS X from the DVD , I think not .. . The copy to ram can only be a violation if Apple can get the judge to agree that modifying the software to run with Psystar computers was illegal .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple's claim is ridiculous!
They claim that the copy from the mini to the master imaging system is illegal ... How many mac shops (as in companies using a lot of macs) do that?
Is that illegal, why is this function available to boot off the a central OSX  server available then (MS admins, think of RIS)?
BTW, this does mean I cannot back up my Macs with time machine .... damn! Can I get time machine to use the root of a drive where I installed Mac OS X from the DVD, I think not ...

The copy to ram can only be a violation if Apple can get the judge to agree that modifying the software to run with Psystar computers was illegal ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946200</id>
	<title>Re:Proprietary software at its worst</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1257086040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I will probably be flamed off the edge of the Earth by Apple fanbois though.</p></div></blockquote><p>Dude... they're Apple fanbois, not <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat\_Earth\_Society" title="wikipedia.org">Flat-Earthers</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I will probably be flamed off the edge of the Earth by Apple fanbois though.Dude... they 're Apple fanbois , not Flat-Earthers [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will probably be flamed off the edge of the Earth by Apple fanbois though.Dude... they're Apple fanbois, not Flat-Earthers [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944434</id>
	<title>Re:Psystar is 100\% wrong</title>
	<author>Vexorian</author>
	<datestamp>1257071220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Supreme Court indicated in Eldred v. Ashcroft that it was comfortable with the view that Copyright governs even private copying like moving a programs bits from a CD to hard disk or from hard disk to RAM. This is a legally settled matter, and <b> it's been settled quite wrong</b>.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I mean seriously, copying from disk to RAM is copyright infrigement? I know there are precedents and all, but it doesn't make this interpretation of the law quite messed up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Supreme Court indicated in Eldred v. Ashcroft that it was comfortable with the view that Copyright governs even private copying like moving a programs bits from a CD to hard disk or from hard disk to RAM .
This is a legally settled matter , and it 's been settled quite wrong .
I mean seriously , copying from disk to RAM is copyright infrigement ?
I know there are precedents and all , but it does n't make this interpretation of the law quite messed up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Supreme Court indicated in Eldred v. Ashcroft that it was comfortable with the view that Copyright governs even private copying like moving a programs bits from a CD to hard disk or from hard disk to RAM.
This is a legally settled matter, and  it's been settled quite wrong.
I mean seriously, copying from disk to RAM is copyright infrigement?
I know there are precedents and all, but it doesn't make this interpretation of the law quite messed up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944342</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone surprised?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257070560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple is being paid for every copy of OS X</p></div><p>And?  The exchange of money is meaningless, except as a means to an end.  There's no value in and of itself to parting with cash.  The question is what you're <em>getting</em> in exchange for that money.</p><p>If you send your cell phone provider $50 every month, they're being "paid", but if your bill is $83, that's not the whole story.  Even if you paid $83, if you go over your allotted minutes or use services not covered in that bill, you'll be billed again or you'll be disconnected, depending on the nature of your excess.</p><p>A person can only buy what is being sold.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps they should stop selling OS X as a full standalone product then?</p></div><p>They never have.  There's no such thing as a "full" product--that's just Microsoft's language for an independent license.  Microsoft sells an edition of Windows that is fully self-contained.  This is the "full" edition.  There is no legal significance to the terms "full" and "upgrade".  The legal distinction is that the former is an independent entity, whereas the latter has dependencies.</p><p>Apple sells no independent edition of OS X.  All licenses are dependent, at a minimum on prior possession of a Macintosh computer, and sometimes on other terms, like a recent purchase or prior ownership of a specific version of a product.  If you ever wondered why you could take an Apple machine into an Apple store and have it restored to its factory software without having to buy a new copy of OS X, it's because the computer is tied at a minimum to its shipping software.  You can sell the restore discs, but you can't create a new OS X license by doing so.  For its part, Microsoft offers lots of dependent license configurations--OEM, site volume, corporate, upgrade, academic, and so on.</p><p>They're all legitimate ways of doing business.  If you are a student or a teacher, that qualification entitles you to a product at a certain price, which may be different from someone lacking that prerequisite.  Sometimes you might pay a higher price than standard in exchange for additional rights or the elimination of certain restrictions (e.g., site volume licenses allow for reproduction and installation on many more computers).</p><p>Apple lacks an independent license in the marketplace, but that does not mean that what it sells becomes independent.  The price of the product reflects consideration of the limitations and requirements.  The price would be higher should you wish to acquire additional rights or eliminate certain restrictions at the time of sale.  This is relatively straightforward.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think Apple has a right to say what piece of hardware you can run OS X on. It's paid for, end of story.</p></div><p>It's paid for up to and including installing it on the specified hardware.  It's not paid for for anything beyond that.</p><p>Just like a Windows upgrade is paid for up to and including installation so long as you possess a qualifying version.  Buying the upgrade without meeting the requirements gets you a (fairly ineffective) paper weight.  There's no magic to handing over cash.  You're the proud owner of a box and its contents, but you lack legal possession of the usage rights, which is 95\% of the value.  A license is in essence insurance--it only covers what's outlined in the policy; you're liable for anything outside of that.  So yes, you can spend $50 on a version of Windows you don't qualify for or you can spend $29 to buy OS X, but neither is going to protect you legally.  What you gain over a torrent is a narrower scope of infringement and thus a smaller risk of being sued and a better chance at a lower judgment.  You have not bought yourself out of the situation entirely, not by a long shot.</p><p>Ownership and use are not inseparably linked.  There's this great nonsense debate on Slashdot every time a software story comes up about this false dichotomy of "owning" or "licensing".  It's both, and there is no debate legally on that question.  The ongoing debate regards defining the outer limits of authority on what can be confined by license and what is guaranteed by ownership--it's not a debate about <em>which</em> one defines the relationship.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When everyone else tries to lock stuff down we scream about how evil and greedy they are. But when it comes to Apple, it's different somehow?</p></div><p>No.  You're still screaming about how evil and greedy they are, so it's no different at all.</p><p>Microsoft is more than entitled to sell Windows at different prices for different sets of requirements, and they do so on a daily basis.</p><p>Paying money does not absolve the customer of the need to meet the requirements of the price and terms.  Cash doesn't buy you any more than was sold to you.  This whole issue has nothing to do with hobbyists in the first place--this kind of large-scale copyright action is exactly what the Copyright Act contemplated, and it's working as it should.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is being paid for every copy of OS XAnd ?
The exchange of money is meaningless , except as a means to an end .
There 's no value in and of itself to parting with cash .
The question is what you 're getting in exchange for that money.If you send your cell phone provider $ 50 every month , they 're being " paid " , but if your bill is $ 83 , that 's not the whole story .
Even if you paid $ 83 , if you go over your allotted minutes or use services not covered in that bill , you 'll be billed again or you 'll be disconnected , depending on the nature of your excess.A person can only buy what is being sold.Perhaps they should stop selling OS X as a full standalone product then ? They never have .
There 's no such thing as a " full " product--that 's just Microsoft 's language for an independent license .
Microsoft sells an edition of Windows that is fully self-contained .
This is the " full " edition .
There is no legal significance to the terms " full " and " upgrade " .
The legal distinction is that the former is an independent entity , whereas the latter has dependencies.Apple sells no independent edition of OS X. All licenses are dependent , at a minimum on prior possession of a Macintosh computer , and sometimes on other terms , like a recent purchase or prior ownership of a specific version of a product .
If you ever wondered why you could take an Apple machine into an Apple store and have it restored to its factory software without having to buy a new copy of OS X , it 's because the computer is tied at a minimum to its shipping software .
You can sell the restore discs , but you ca n't create a new OS X license by doing so .
For its part , Microsoft offers lots of dependent license configurations--OEM , site volume , corporate , upgrade , academic , and so on.They 're all legitimate ways of doing business .
If you are a student or a teacher , that qualification entitles you to a product at a certain price , which may be different from someone lacking that prerequisite .
Sometimes you might pay a higher price than standard in exchange for additional rights or the elimination of certain restrictions ( e.g. , site volume licenses allow for reproduction and installation on many more computers ) .Apple lacks an independent license in the marketplace , but that does not mean that what it sells becomes independent .
The price of the product reflects consideration of the limitations and requirements .
The price would be higher should you wish to acquire additional rights or eliminate certain restrictions at the time of sale .
This is relatively straightforward.I do n't think Apple has a right to say what piece of hardware you can run OS X on .
It 's paid for , end of story.It 's paid for up to and including installing it on the specified hardware .
It 's not paid for for anything beyond that.Just like a Windows upgrade is paid for up to and including installation so long as you possess a qualifying version .
Buying the upgrade without meeting the requirements gets you a ( fairly ineffective ) paper weight .
There 's no magic to handing over cash .
You 're the proud owner of a box and its contents , but you lack legal possession of the usage rights , which is 95 \ % of the value .
A license is in essence insurance--it only covers what 's outlined in the policy ; you 're liable for anything outside of that .
So yes , you can spend $ 50 on a version of Windows you do n't qualify for or you can spend $ 29 to buy OS X , but neither is going to protect you legally .
What you gain over a torrent is a narrower scope of infringement and thus a smaller risk of being sued and a better chance at a lower judgment .
You have not bought yourself out of the situation entirely , not by a long shot.Ownership and use are not inseparably linked .
There 's this great nonsense debate on Slashdot every time a software story comes up about this false dichotomy of " owning " or " licensing " .
It 's both , and there is no debate legally on that question .
The ongoing debate regards defining the outer limits of authority on what can be confined by license and what is guaranteed by ownership--it 's not a debate about which one defines the relationship.When everyone else tries to lock stuff down we scream about how evil and greedy they are .
But when it comes to Apple , it 's different somehow ? No .
You 're still screaming about how evil and greedy they are , so it 's no different at all.Microsoft is more than entitled to sell Windows at different prices for different sets of requirements , and they do so on a daily basis.Paying money does not absolve the customer of the need to meet the requirements of the price and terms .
Cash does n't buy you any more than was sold to you .
This whole issue has nothing to do with hobbyists in the first place--this kind of large-scale copyright action is exactly what the Copyright Act contemplated , and it 's working as it should .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is being paid for every copy of OS XAnd?
The exchange of money is meaningless, except as a means to an end.
There's no value in and of itself to parting with cash.
The question is what you're getting in exchange for that money.If you send your cell phone provider $50 every month, they're being "paid", but if your bill is $83, that's not the whole story.
Even if you paid $83, if you go over your allotted minutes or use services not covered in that bill, you'll be billed again or you'll be disconnected, depending on the nature of your excess.A person can only buy what is being sold.Perhaps they should stop selling OS X as a full standalone product then?They never have.
There's no such thing as a "full" product--that's just Microsoft's language for an independent license.
Microsoft sells an edition of Windows that is fully self-contained.
This is the "full" edition.
There is no legal significance to the terms "full" and "upgrade".
The legal distinction is that the former is an independent entity, whereas the latter has dependencies.Apple sells no independent edition of OS X.  All licenses are dependent, at a minimum on prior possession of a Macintosh computer, and sometimes on other terms, like a recent purchase or prior ownership of a specific version of a product.
If you ever wondered why you could take an Apple machine into an Apple store and have it restored to its factory software without having to buy a new copy of OS X, it's because the computer is tied at a minimum to its shipping software.
You can sell the restore discs, but you can't create a new OS X license by doing so.
For its part, Microsoft offers lots of dependent license configurations--OEM, site volume, corporate, upgrade, academic, and so on.They're all legitimate ways of doing business.
If you are a student or a teacher, that qualification entitles you to a product at a certain price, which may be different from someone lacking that prerequisite.
Sometimes you might pay a higher price than standard in exchange for additional rights or the elimination of certain restrictions (e.g., site volume licenses allow for reproduction and installation on many more computers).Apple lacks an independent license in the marketplace, but that does not mean that what it sells becomes independent.
The price of the product reflects consideration of the limitations and requirements.
The price would be higher should you wish to acquire additional rights or eliminate certain restrictions at the time of sale.
This is relatively straightforward.I don't think Apple has a right to say what piece of hardware you can run OS X on.
It's paid for, end of story.It's paid for up to and including installing it on the specified hardware.
It's not paid for for anything beyond that.Just like a Windows upgrade is paid for up to and including installation so long as you possess a qualifying version.
Buying the upgrade without meeting the requirements gets you a (fairly ineffective) paper weight.
There's no magic to handing over cash.
You're the proud owner of a box and its contents, but you lack legal possession of the usage rights, which is 95\% of the value.
A license is in essence insurance--it only covers what's outlined in the policy; you're liable for anything outside of that.
So yes, you can spend $50 on a version of Windows you don't qualify for or you can spend $29 to buy OS X, but neither is going to protect you legally.
What you gain over a torrent is a narrower scope of infringement and thus a smaller risk of being sued and a better chance at a lower judgment.
You have not bought yourself out of the situation entirely, not by a long shot.Ownership and use are not inseparably linked.
There's this great nonsense debate on Slashdot every time a software story comes up about this false dichotomy of "owning" or "licensing".
It's both, and there is no debate legally on that question.
The ongoing debate regards defining the outer limits of authority on what can be confined by license and what is guaranteed by ownership--it's not a debate about which one defines the relationship.When everyone else tries to lock stuff down we scream about how evil and greedy they are.
But when it comes to Apple, it's different somehow?No.
You're still screaming about how evil and greedy they are, so it's no different at all.Microsoft is more than entitled to sell Windows at different prices for different sets of requirements, and they do so on a daily basis.Paying money does not absolve the customer of the need to meet the requirements of the price and terms.
Cash doesn't buy you any more than was sold to you.
This whole issue has nothing to do with hobbyists in the first place--this kind of large-scale copyright action is exactly what the Copyright Act contemplated, and it's working as it should.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943914</id>
	<title>What Psystar is forgetting about</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1257067620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>17 USC 117 starts out thusly:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Making of additional copy or adaptation by <b>owner</b> of copy. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [17 USC 106], it is not an infringement for the <b>owner</b> of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:</p></div><p>(emphasis added). The word "owner" is significant. When 17 USC 117 was originally written, it said something like <i>possessor</i> rather than <i>owner</i>, but during the ratification of this law, that was changed in Congress to <i>owner</i>, indicating that Congress really does intend this to apply to owners, not mere possessors.</p><p>If the purported sale of the copy that ended up in Psystar's possession was conditioned on acceptance of contractual terms that Psystar is failing to honor, it is possible they are possessor of that copy, but not owner, and thus do not get to use 17 USC 117.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>17 USC 117 starts out thusly : Making of additional copy or adaptation by owner of copy .
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [ 17 USC 106 ] , it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided : ( emphasis added ) .
The word " owner " is significant .
When 17 USC 117 was originally written , it said something like possessor rather than owner , but during the ratification of this law , that was changed in Congress to owner , indicating that Congress really does intend this to apply to owners , not mere possessors.If the purported sale of the copy that ended up in Psystar 's possession was conditioned on acceptance of contractual terms that Psystar is failing to honor , it is possible they are possessor of that copy , but not owner , and thus do not get to use 17 USC 117 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>17 USC 117 starts out thusly: Making of additional copy or adaptation by owner of copy.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [17 USC 106], it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:(emphasis added).
The word "owner" is significant.
When 17 USC 117 was originally written, it said something like possessor rather than owner, but during the ratification of this law, that was changed in Congress to owner, indicating that Congress really does intend this to apply to owners, not mere possessors.If the purported sale of the copy that ended up in Psystar's possession was conditioned on acceptance of contractual terms that Psystar is failing to honor, it is possible they are possessor of that copy, but not owner, and thus do not get to use 17 USC 117.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943494</id>
	<title>Groklaw going down the drain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Groklaw and PJ seem to have turned the site into a slanted conspiracy site. She was insinuating that MS could be likely behind Psystar(why would MS risk invalidating EULAs on which their cash cows thrive?). Even in this article, PJ  doesn't seem to defend the freedoms that she seems to hold dear in her Linux vs. SCO articles. Infact she seems to hold the DMCA dear and Groklaw has gone from giving a nice objective look at things to becoming like BoycottNovell, which is another site operating on anti-MS-at-all-costs grounds. She even fails to highlight the egregious abuse of copyright law that Apple is trying here which would ruin freedom to even run a program without paying for double licences. In fact she appears to side with Apple on this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Groklaw and PJ seem to have turned the site into a slanted conspiracy site .
She was insinuating that MS could be likely behind Psystar ( why would MS risk invalidating EULAs on which their cash cows thrive ? ) .
Even in this article , PJ does n't seem to defend the freedoms that she seems to hold dear in her Linux vs. SCO articles .
Infact she seems to hold the DMCA dear and Groklaw has gone from giving a nice objective look at things to becoming like BoycottNovell , which is another site operating on anti-MS-at-all-costs grounds .
She even fails to highlight the egregious abuse of copyright law that Apple is trying here which would ruin freedom to even run a program without paying for double licences .
In fact she appears to side with Apple on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Groklaw and PJ seem to have turned the site into a slanted conspiracy site.
She was insinuating that MS could be likely behind Psystar(why would MS risk invalidating EULAs on which their cash cows thrive?).
Even in this article, PJ  doesn't seem to defend the freedoms that she seems to hold dear in her Linux vs. SCO articles.
Infact she seems to hold the DMCA dear and Groklaw has gone from giving a nice objective look at things to becoming like BoycottNovell, which is another site operating on anti-MS-at-all-costs grounds.
She even fails to highlight the egregious abuse of copyright law that Apple is trying here which would ruin freedom to even run a program without paying for double licences.
In fact she appears to side with Apple on this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947016</id>
	<title>Re:What Psystar is forgetting about</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257093540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They paid for a license to use the software and a CD with a copy of the program, neither is any good without the other.  The CD is not revokable, the license is.</p><p>'Licensing' of software is the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They paid for a license to use the software and a CD with a copy of the program , neither is any good without the other .
The CD is not revokable , the license is .
'Licensing ' of software is the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They paid for a license to use the software and a CD with a copy of the program, neither is any good without the other.
The CD is not revokable, the license is.
'Licensing' of software is the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945106</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>MeNeXT</author>
	<datestamp>1257076080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if I have none Apple RAM in my iMac then i'm making an unauthorized copy? This is just plain stupid and will result that one day we will no longer be able to service our products unless we follow the AUTHORIZED solution. This should be thrown out of court. Before you know it there will be a EULA for knives. Some will allow you to cut brown bread and others will allow you to cut white bread but read the fine print because the brand is important to.<br>
&nbsp; </p><p>The more I learn about copyright the less I respect it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I have none Apple RAM in my iMac then i 'm making an unauthorized copy ?
This is just plain stupid and will result that one day we will no longer be able to service our products unless we follow the AUTHORIZED solution .
This should be thrown out of court .
Before you know it there will be a EULA for knives .
Some will allow you to cut brown bread and others will allow you to cut white bread but read the fine print because the brand is important to .
  The more I learn about copyright the less I respect it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I have none Apple RAM in my iMac then i'm making an unauthorized copy?
This is just plain stupid and will result that one day we will no longer be able to service our products unless we follow the AUTHORIZED solution.
This should be thrown out of court.
Before you know it there will be a EULA for knives.
Some will allow you to cut brown bread and others will allow you to cut white bread but read the fine print because the brand is important to.
  The more I learn about copyright the less I respect it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944900</id>
	<title>what is a 'copy'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257074520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does <strong>create a copy</strong>.</p> </div><p>Which it does. A copy is a second manifestation of an entity.</p><p>The first instance would be on the installation media (or hard drive). The second instance would be the manifestation of information in RAM.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds , courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer ( and thus loading it to memory ) does create a copy .
Which it does .
A copy is a second manifestation of an entity.The first instance would be on the installation media ( or hard drive ) .
The second instance would be the manifestation of information in RAM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy.
Which it does.
A copy is a second manifestation of an entity.The first instance would be on the installation media (or hard drive).
The second instance would be the manifestation of information in RAM.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945172</id>
	<title>Re:Psystar is 100\% wrong</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1257076620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, that is all wrong. Apple is making an indefensible copyright claim here.  From Title 17 Section 117 of the U.S. Code (emphasis added):</p><blockquote><div><p>(a) <b>Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy</b>.-- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or <b>authorize the making</b> of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:<br>(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an <b>essential</b> step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or<br>(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , that is all wrong .
Apple is making an indefensible copyright claim here .
From Title 17 Section 117 of the U.S. Code ( emphasis added ) : ( a ) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.-- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 , it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided : ( 1 ) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner , or ( 2 ) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, that is all wrong.
Apple is making an indefensible copyright claim here.
From Title 17 Section 117 of the U.S. Code (emphasis added):(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.-- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944590</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>Mr2001</author>
	<datestamp>1257072240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy.</p></div><p>Yes, but...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>End-users are granted a license to do so, and here Pystar doesn't have such a license. Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.</p></div><p>No. Like Psystar said, <a href="http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/117.html" title="bitlaw.com">17 USC 117</a> [bitlaw.com] grants the owner of a copy of a program the right to make copies or adaptations as needed to run it. You don't need a license from the copyright holder; copyright law itself gives you that right.</p><p>And before you respond with "it's licensed, not sold": (1) if you purchase a DVD containing a copy of OS X, you own a copy -- that's what owning a copy means; (2) most courts have found that software is actually sold, not licensed, regardless of what the company "licensing" it wants you to think.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds , courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer ( and thus loading it to memory ) does create a copy.Yes , but...End-users are granted a license to do so , and here Pystar does n't have such a license .
Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.No .
Like Psystar said , 17 USC 117 [ bitlaw.com ] grants the owner of a copy of a program the right to make copies or adaptations as needed to run it .
You do n't need a license from the copyright holder ; copyright law itself gives you that right.And before you respond with " it 's licensed , not sold " : ( 1 ) if you purchase a DVD containing a copy of OS X , you own a copy -- that 's what owning a copy means ; ( 2 ) most courts have found that software is actually sold , not licensed , regardless of what the company " licensing " it wants you to think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy.Yes, but...End-users are granted a license to do so, and here Pystar doesn't have such a license.
Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.No.
Like Psystar said, 17 USC 117 [bitlaw.com] grants the owner of a copy of a program the right to make copies or adaptations as needed to run it.
You don't need a license from the copyright holder; copyright law itself gives you that right.And before you respond with "it's licensed, not sold": (1) if you purchase a DVD containing a copy of OS X, you own a copy -- that's what owning a copy means; (2) most courts have found that software is actually sold, not licensed, regardless of what the company "licensing" it wants you to think.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947780</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257101760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Courts also ruled that tomatoes are a fruit, my point is courts can be really stupid.</i></p><p> <a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060707145009AA2X3hE" title="yahoo.com">Tomatoes</a> [yahoo.com] are <a href="http://www.onelook.com/?w=tomato&amp;ls=a" title="onelook.com">fruits</a> [onelook.com].  Tomatoes themselves contain the seeds for reproduction, therefore they are fruits.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Courts also ruled that tomatoes are a fruit , my point is courts can be really stupid .
Tomatoes [ yahoo.com ] are fruits [ onelook.com ] .
Tomatoes themselves contain the seeds for reproduction , therefore they are fruits .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Courts also ruled that tomatoes are a fruit, my point is courts can be really stupid.
Tomatoes [yahoo.com] are fruits [onelook.com].
Tomatoes themselves contain the seeds for reproduction, therefore they are fruits.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29951466</id>
	<title>Re:They're missing the point!</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1257183420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mostly agree with your commentary. You seem to have more of a grasp of the topic than most here.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> I have a hard time believing Apple's other argument, namely that an altered boot loader and kernel extensions constitute copyright infringement, especially when 1) similar bundling techniques are routinely practiced with their Windows counterparts and 2) Apple has been paid for the software it is distributing.</p></div><p>I might clarify this a bit. Apple is arguing the modification is what makes the copying to RAM an infringing copy instead of a fair use copy. It is a tenuous position but a good legal strategy based upon the muddle of court precedent. It might hold up.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I have just one question for Apple: If your computers are truly a hardware and software package, why do you bother to sell the software separately?</p></div><p>The answer any business always has is the same... money. Apple sells OS upgrades for owners of older Macs because it makes them a little extra money and lets them spread out the dev cost a bit more, rather than charging more for new Macs initially. They very well could switch to a strategy of offering free upgrades to all Mac users and charging a tiny bit more for Macs up front, if this court case were to go against them. I think Apple's last financials showed all software and services sales together accounted for something like 6\% of revenue. Alternately, Apple could roll the upgrades into their services and have a subscription upgrade model, perhaps tied to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Mac service.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mostly agree with your commentary .
You seem to have more of a grasp of the topic than most here .
I have a hard time believing Apple 's other argument , namely that an altered boot loader and kernel extensions constitute copyright infringement , especially when 1 ) similar bundling techniques are routinely practiced with their Windows counterparts and 2 ) Apple has been paid for the software it is distributing.I might clarify this a bit .
Apple is arguing the modification is what makes the copying to RAM an infringing copy instead of a fair use copy .
It is a tenuous position but a good legal strategy based upon the muddle of court precedent .
It might hold up.I have just one question for Apple : If your computers are truly a hardware and software package , why do you bother to sell the software separately ? The answer any business always has is the same... money. Apple sells OS upgrades for owners of older Macs because it makes them a little extra money and lets them spread out the dev cost a bit more , rather than charging more for new Macs initially .
They very well could switch to a strategy of offering free upgrades to all Mac users and charging a tiny bit more for Macs up front , if this court case were to go against them .
I think Apple 's last financials showed all software and services sales together accounted for something like 6 \ % of revenue .
Alternately , Apple could roll the upgrades into their services and have a subscription upgrade model , perhaps tied to the .Mac service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mostly agree with your commentary.
You seem to have more of a grasp of the topic than most here.
I have a hard time believing Apple's other argument, namely that an altered boot loader and kernel extensions constitute copyright infringement, especially when 1) similar bundling techniques are routinely practiced with their Windows counterparts and 2) Apple has been paid for the software it is distributing.I might clarify this a bit.
Apple is arguing the modification is what makes the copying to RAM an infringing copy instead of a fair use copy.
It is a tenuous position but a good legal strategy based upon the muddle of court precedent.
It might hold up.I have just one question for Apple: If your computers are truly a hardware and software package, why do you bother to sell the software separately?The answer any business always has is the same... money. Apple sells OS upgrades for owners of older Macs because it makes them a little extra money and lets them spread out the dev cost a bit more, rather than charging more for new Macs initially.
They very well could switch to a strategy of offering free upgrades to all Mac users and charging a tiny bit more for Macs up front, if this court case were to go against them.
I think Apple's last financials showed all software and services sales together accounted for something like 6\% of revenue.
Alternately, Apple could roll the upgrades into their services and have a subscription upgrade model, perhaps tied to the .Mac service.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29950040</id>
	<title>Re:So does that make Iphones on t-mobile unauthori</title>
	<author>wirah</author>
	<datestamp>1257176400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>apple is very close to what lexmark tried to use to lock out 3rd pray ink.</p></div><p>My pary is with the parents.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>apple is very close to what lexmark tried to use to lock out 3rd pray ink.My pary is with the parents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>apple is very close to what lexmark tried to use to lock out 3rd pray ink.My pary is with the parents.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947116</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone surprised?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257094860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't sold as a full stand alone copy when sold without a Mac.  Every boxed copy is an upgrade copy for an existing Mac.</p><p>No one argues that Microsoft is 'evil' because they license the software and require you to pay for it.  Okay, some people do, but we tend to ignore ignorant teenagers.  Microsoft is 'evil' for the practices they employ to the spread and continued dominance of their empire.  Microsoft is 'evil' for using dirty tricks to suppress the competition.  Microsoft is not 'evil' because they expect to get paid for their work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't sold as a full stand alone copy when sold without a Mac .
Every boxed copy is an upgrade copy for an existing Mac.No one argues that Microsoft is 'evil ' because they license the software and require you to pay for it .
Okay , some people do , but we tend to ignore ignorant teenagers .
Microsoft is 'evil ' for the practices they employ to the spread and continued dominance of their empire .
Microsoft is 'evil ' for using dirty tricks to suppress the competition .
Microsoft is not 'evil ' because they expect to get paid for their work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't sold as a full stand alone copy when sold without a Mac.
Every boxed copy is an upgrade copy for an existing Mac.No one argues that Microsoft is 'evil' because they license the software and require you to pay for it.
Okay, some people do, but we tend to ignore ignorant teenagers.
Microsoft is 'evil' for the practices they employ to the spread and continued dominance of their empire.
Microsoft is 'evil' for using dirty tricks to suppress the competition.
Microsoft is not 'evil' because they expect to get paid for their work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943626</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>freak132</author>
	<datestamp>1257066060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Out curiosity, does this ruling include file caches in RAM as well as the running executable?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Out curiosity , does this ruling include file caches in RAM as well as the running executable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out curiosity, does this ruling include file caches in RAM as well as the running executable?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944530</id>
	<title>What Apple not Psystar is forgetting about</title>
	<author>flaptrap</author>
	<datestamp>1257071820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They call it the "first sale doctrine" for a reason.  You buy a disk.  Does Apple get to rewrite the copyright law because half way through the installation you have to click "I agree Apple can write its own laws"?  A "contract of adhesion" has a problem - the software purchaser never agreed to it.</p><p>Apple did not sell the computer, they sold the disk.  Now you get to use it.  Not by playing frisbee, not by using it as a target for shooting skeet, but as a computer program.  You bought the copy, you get to put it in any computer you want.  Some of them it even works in.  Plenty of Apple-branded computers that it won't work in.</p><p>Companies keep getting Congress to put more and more restrictions on computer software in the name of, well, it kind of sounds like paranoia.  Once they actually make it illegal to use the program you paid for, you might as well get away from the don't-sit-under-the-Apple-tree-with-anyone-else folks and go with open source.  That way you can fix it and not have to worry when it's no longer 'supported'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They call it the " first sale doctrine " for a reason .
You buy a disk .
Does Apple get to rewrite the copyright law because half way through the installation you have to click " I agree Apple can write its own laws " ?
A " contract of adhesion " has a problem - the software purchaser never agreed to it.Apple did not sell the computer , they sold the disk .
Now you get to use it .
Not by playing frisbee , not by using it as a target for shooting skeet , but as a computer program .
You bought the copy , you get to put it in any computer you want .
Some of them it even works in .
Plenty of Apple-branded computers that it wo n't work in.Companies keep getting Congress to put more and more restrictions on computer software in the name of , well , it kind of sounds like paranoia .
Once they actually make it illegal to use the program you paid for , you might as well get away from the do n't-sit-under-the-Apple-tree-with-anyone-else folks and go with open source .
That way you can fix it and not have to worry when it 's no longer 'supported' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They call it the "first sale doctrine" for a reason.
You buy a disk.
Does Apple get to rewrite the copyright law because half way through the installation you have to click "I agree Apple can write its own laws"?
A "contract of adhesion" has a problem - the software purchaser never agreed to it.Apple did not sell the computer, they sold the disk.
Now you get to use it.
Not by playing frisbee, not by using it as a target for shooting skeet, but as a computer program.
You bought the copy, you get to put it in any computer you want.
Some of them it even works in.
Plenty of Apple-branded computers that it won't work in.Companies keep getting Congress to put more and more restrictions on computer software in the name of, well, it kind of sounds like paranoia.
Once they actually make it illegal to use the program you paid for, you might as well get away from the don't-sit-under-the-Apple-tree-with-anyone-else folks and go with open source.
That way you can fix it and not have to worry when it's no longer 'supported'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945202</id>
	<title>Re:Reading, it's important.</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1257076920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to read 17 USC 117(a) again (emphasis added for clarity):</p><blockquote><div><p>(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -<br>Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an<br>infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make<br><b>or authorize the making of</b> another copy or adaptation of that<br>computer program provided:<br>(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an<br><b>essential</b> step in the utilization of the computer program in<br>conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other<br>manner, or<br>(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes<br>only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that<br>continued possession of the computer program should cease to be<br>rightful.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to read 17 USC 117 ( a ) again ( emphasis added for clarity ) : ( a ) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy .
-Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 , it is not aninfringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to makeor authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of thatcomputer program provided : ( 1 ) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as anessential step in the utilization of the computer program inconjunction with a machine and that it is used in no othermanner , or ( 2 ) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposesonly and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event thatcontinued possession of the computer program should cease to berightful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to read 17 USC 117(a) again (emphasis added for clarity):(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.
-Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not aninfringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to makeor authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of thatcomputer program provided:(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as anessential step in the utilization of the computer program inconjunction with a machine and that it is used in no othermanner, or(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposesonly and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event thatcontinued possession of the computer program should cease to berightful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948818</id>
	<title>Re:What Psystar is forgetting about</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1257163380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(emphasis added).</p> </div><p>Uh, you're emphasizing the words you like, and not the ones you don't. It's <strong>the owner of a copy</strong>. I <em>own</em> every <strong>copy</strong> of music which I purchased on a physical CD. It is subject to First Sale law, meaning I can resell it, so clearly I own it. I don't own the copyright, but I certainly own the particular copy. Precisely the same situation applies to software. Any time you digitally play a CD on a computer, you're making a copy of it for the purpose of playing it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( emphasis added ) .
Uh , you 're emphasizing the words you like , and not the ones you do n't .
It 's the owner of a copy .
I own every copy of music which I purchased on a physical CD .
It is subject to First Sale law , meaning I can resell it , so clearly I own it .
I do n't own the copyright , but I certainly own the particular copy .
Precisely the same situation applies to software .
Any time you digitally play a CD on a computer , you 're making a copy of it for the purpose of playing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(emphasis added).
Uh, you're emphasizing the words you like, and not the ones you don't.
It's the owner of a copy.
I own every copy of music which I purchased on a physical CD.
It is subject to First Sale law, meaning I can resell it, so clearly I own it.
I don't own the copyright, but I certainly own the particular copy.
Precisely the same situation applies to software.
Any time you digitally play a CD on a computer, you're making a copy of it for the purpose of playing it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945808</id>
	<title>Network-mounted HDDs (not for OS X, but still...)</title>
	<author>RCL</author>
	<datestamp>1257082560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well... loading to RAM is kind of copying. Or you could possibly (theoretically) use network-mounted disk with an installed OS image to circumvent the EULA. Although this is hypothetical (EULAs are usually per CPU, don't know about Apple's one) and not applicable to this particular case (OS X is probably not capable of this), but I can understand the reasoning behind this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well... loading to RAM is kind of copying .
Or you could possibly ( theoretically ) use network-mounted disk with an installed OS image to circumvent the EULA .
Although this is hypothetical ( EULAs are usually per CPU , do n't know about Apple 's one ) and not applicable to this particular case ( OS X is probably not capable of this ) , but I can understand the reasoning behind this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well... loading to RAM is kind of copying.
Or you could possibly (theoretically) use network-mounted disk with an installed OS image to circumvent the EULA.
Although this is hypothetical (EULAs are usually per CPU, don't know about Apple's one) and not applicable to this particular case (OS X is probably not capable of this), but I can understand the reasoning behind this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945034</id>
	<title>Re:Unauthorized</title>
	<author>Mista2</author>
	<datestamp>1257075420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My clone, is running a 3Ghz Core2 Duo CPU, same as an iMac, RAM is 2GBs of Kingstons best. My video card is an intel GMA950, same as a late '98 mini, my HDD is a toshiba, same model as in a Mini (Actually it came from my old Mini), The only difference is my BIOS is a software version of EFI, and the case was not kissed by unicorns as it was delivered. I would still however pay Apples price for supported gear if they sold what I want, but they don't, so I have to build it myself, and I'll run whatever damn OS I legally own on it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My clone , is running a 3Ghz Core2 Duo CPU , same as an iMac , RAM is 2GBs of Kingstons best .
My video card is an intel GMA950 , same as a late '98 mini , my HDD is a toshiba , same model as in a Mini ( Actually it came from my old Mini ) , The only difference is my BIOS is a software version of EFI , and the case was not kissed by unicorns as it was delivered .
I would still however pay Apples price for supported gear if they sold what I want , but they do n't , so I have to build it myself , and I 'll run whatever damn OS I legally own on it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My clone, is running a 3Ghz Core2 Duo CPU, same as an iMac, RAM is 2GBs of Kingstons best.
My video card is an intel GMA950, same as a late '98 mini, my HDD is a toshiba, same model as in a Mini (Actually it came from my old Mini), The only difference is my BIOS is a software version of EFI, and the case was not kissed by unicorns as it was delivered.
I would still however pay Apples price for supported gear if they sold what I want, but they don't, so I have to build it myself, and I'll run whatever damn OS I legally own on it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945806</id>
	<title>I'd respect Apple's position, a bit more...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257082500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they weren't all so fired up about their own Bootcamp product.</p><p>Not to mention their hate and deception filled commercials.</p><p>Seriously, Apple isn't a good player.  They aren't friendly.  They aren't honest.  They ought to be the ones facing a court inquiry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they were n't all so fired up about their own Bootcamp product.Not to mention their hate and deception filled commercials.Seriously , Apple is n't a good player .
They are n't friendly .
They are n't honest .
They ought to be the ones facing a court inquiry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they weren't all so fired up about their own Bootcamp product.Not to mention their hate and deception filled commercials.Seriously, Apple isn't a good player.
They aren't friendly.
They aren't honest.
They ought to be the ones facing a court inquiry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943866</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone surprised?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What "Tax"? They provide an OS cheaply to buyers of their hardware. Notice that Microsoft sells their OS for radically more? The upgrade to Windows 7 is twice what the full copy of OSX Snow Leopard runs. The upgrade is under $30. The Mac OS is a bargain for Mac users. This was never about striking a blow for freedom this was always about Psystar making a buck off Mac selling cheap in demand Mac clones. If they want to build inexpensive computers build PCs. It's been said endlessly but it never seems to sink in, Apple isn't a software company they make hardware. They produce OSX for THEIR hardware. What's hard to wrap your head around about that? If they sold it as a standalone it would probably run more not less than Windows. The irony is if they sold it for the same price as a standalone Win 7 then people would whine that Mac users get it cheaper. Okay so their only option would be then to raise the price for everyone including Mac users and then they get the headache of dealing with people insisting on building systems with unsupported hardware. Then the fight becomes "if they are going to sell their OS to anyone then is should support all hardware". Okay now they have to ramp up and deal with frankensteining their OS to kind of sort of support an ocean of hardware with really casual standards. Wow, guess what, now OSX looks a lot like Windows under the hood. Mac users loose and no one gains. Want a cheap PC? Buy a Windows machine. Want to use Mac OS? Buy a Mac. Look up the term Microsoft Tax. It has nothing to do with how Apple does business it's strictly referring to the Microsoft business model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What " Tax " ?
They provide an OS cheaply to buyers of their hardware .
Notice that Microsoft sells their OS for radically more ?
The upgrade to Windows 7 is twice what the full copy of OSX Snow Leopard runs .
The upgrade is under $ 30 .
The Mac OS is a bargain for Mac users .
This was never about striking a blow for freedom this was always about Psystar making a buck off Mac selling cheap in demand Mac clones .
If they want to build inexpensive computers build PCs .
It 's been said endlessly but it never seems to sink in , Apple is n't a software company they make hardware .
They produce OSX for THEIR hardware .
What 's hard to wrap your head around about that ?
If they sold it as a standalone it would probably run more not less than Windows .
The irony is if they sold it for the same price as a standalone Win 7 then people would whine that Mac users get it cheaper .
Okay so their only option would be then to raise the price for everyone including Mac users and then they get the headache of dealing with people insisting on building systems with unsupported hardware .
Then the fight becomes " if they are going to sell their OS to anyone then is should support all hardware " .
Okay now they have to ramp up and deal with frankensteining their OS to kind of sort of support an ocean of hardware with really casual standards .
Wow , guess what , now OSX looks a lot like Windows under the hood .
Mac users loose and no one gains .
Want a cheap PC ?
Buy a Windows machine .
Want to use Mac OS ?
Buy a Mac .
Look up the term Microsoft Tax .
It has nothing to do with how Apple does business it 's strictly referring to the Microsoft business model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What "Tax"?
They provide an OS cheaply to buyers of their hardware.
Notice that Microsoft sells their OS for radically more?
The upgrade to Windows 7 is twice what the full copy of OSX Snow Leopard runs.
The upgrade is under $30.
The Mac OS is a bargain for Mac users.
This was never about striking a blow for freedom this was always about Psystar making a buck off Mac selling cheap in demand Mac clones.
If they want to build inexpensive computers build PCs.
It's been said endlessly but it never seems to sink in, Apple isn't a software company they make hardware.
They produce OSX for THEIR hardware.
What's hard to wrap your head around about that?
If they sold it as a standalone it would probably run more not less than Windows.
The irony is if they sold it for the same price as a standalone Win 7 then people would whine that Mac users get it cheaper.
Okay so their only option would be then to raise the price for everyone including Mac users and then they get the headache of dealing with people insisting on building systems with unsupported hardware.
Then the fight becomes "if they are going to sell their OS to anyone then is should support all hardware".
Okay now they have to ramp up and deal with frankensteining their OS to kind of sort of support an ocean of hardware with really casual standards.
Wow, guess what, now OSX looks a lot like Windows under the hood.
Mac users loose and no one gains.
Want a cheap PC?
Buy a Windows machine.
Want to use Mac OS?
Buy a Mac.
Look up the term Microsoft Tax.
It has nothing to do with how Apple does business it's strictly referring to the Microsoft business model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29956792</id>
	<title>Re:What Psystar is forgetting about</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1257165420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They paid for a license to use the software and a CD</i></p><p>No, they didn't.  As there was no contract signed before money changed hands, there is no license involved, only a copy of the software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They paid for a license to use the software and a CDNo , they did n't .
As there was no contract signed before money changed hands , there is no license involved , only a copy of the software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They paid for a license to use the software and a CDNo, they didn't.
As there was no contract signed before money changed hands, there is no license involved, only a copy of the software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944508</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1257071700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not?</p><p>Didn't psystar purchase the copies?  Aren't they covered by First Sale?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not ? Did n't psystar purchase the copies ?
Are n't they covered by First Sale ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not?Didn't psystar purchase the copies?
Aren't they covered by First Sale?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943798</id>
	<title>Not all that controversial</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The copy loaded into RAM is not infringement according to 17 USC 117, but that only holds if the copy being loaded \_from\_ is a legal copy.  So if the copy Psystar loads onto the hard drive is unlawful, the copy in RAM is a further unlawful copy.  That's not controversial (as a matter of law, anyway; it's pretty stupid as a matter of fact) and not really central to Apple's case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The copy loaded into RAM is not infringement according to 17 USC 117 , but that only holds if the copy being loaded \ _from \ _ is a legal copy .
So if the copy Psystar loads onto the hard drive is unlawful , the copy in RAM is a further unlawful copy .
That 's not controversial ( as a matter of law , anyway ; it 's pretty stupid as a matter of fact ) and not really central to Apple 's case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The copy loaded into RAM is not infringement according to 17 USC 117, but that only holds if the copy being loaded \_from\_ is a legal copy.
So if the copy Psystar loads onto the hard drive is unlawful, the copy in RAM is a further unlawful copy.
That's not controversial (as a matter of law, anyway; it's pretty stupid as a matter of fact) and not really central to Apple's case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944300</id>
	<title>Re:What Psystar is forgetting about</title>
	<author>The Cisco Kid</author>
	<datestamp>1257070320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless Apple has a contract signed by Psystar where they agreed to such terms, then Psystar is not a party to any such contract. Further, if they exchanged cash (or cash-equivalent, eg check, electronic payment, etc) for a physical item such as a disc, then they did in fact *buy* a copy of a program, and they are in fact owners of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless Apple has a contract signed by Psystar where they agreed to such terms , then Psystar is not a party to any such contract .
Further , if they exchanged cash ( or cash-equivalent , eg check , electronic payment , etc ) for a physical item such as a disc , then they did in fact * buy * a copy of a program , and they are in fact owners of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless Apple has a contract signed by Psystar where they agreed to such terms, then Psystar is not a party to any such contract.
Further, if they exchanged cash (or cash-equivalent, eg check, electronic payment, etc) for a physical item such as a disc, then they did in fact *buy* a copy of a program, and they are in fact owners of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943568</id>
	<title>Psystar is 100\% wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Supreme Court indicated in Eldred v. Ashcroft that it was comfortable with the view that Copyright governs even private copying like moving a programs bits from a CD to hard disk or from hard disk to RAM. This is a legally settled matter, and Psystar is quite wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Supreme Court indicated in Eldred v. Ashcroft that it was comfortable with the view that Copyright governs even private copying like moving a programs bits from a CD to hard disk or from hard disk to RAM .
This is a legally settled matter , and Psystar is quite wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Supreme Court indicated in Eldred v. Ashcroft that it was comfortable with the view that Copyright governs even private copying like moving a programs bits from a CD to hard disk or from hard disk to RAM.
This is a legally settled matter, and Psystar is quite wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945724</id>
	<title>Re:Reading, it's important.</title>
	<author>asifyoucare</author>
	<datestamp>1257081780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Apple asserts that Psystar does not own the copy they are duplicating, therefore 117 does not apply.</i></p><p>But Psystar aren't doing the duplication are they?  So, even if this was a breach of copyright, how could Psystar be liable?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple asserts that Psystar does not own the copy they are duplicating , therefore 117 does not apply.But Psystar are n't doing the duplication are they ?
So , even if this was a breach of copyright , how could Psystar be liable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple asserts that Psystar does not own the copy they are duplicating, therefore 117 does not apply.But Psystar aren't doing the duplication are they?
So, even if this was a breach of copyright, how could Psystar be liable?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943554</id>
	<title>Unauthorized</title>
	<author>Alrescha</author>
	<datestamp>1257108720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?"</p><p>Since Apple's license for OS X says that it can only be run on Apple hardware, the in-memory copy is just as unauthorized as the rest of them.</p><p>A.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy ?
" Since Apple 's license for OS X says that it can only be run on Apple hardware , the in-memory copy is just as unauthorized as the rest of them.A .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?
"Since Apple's license for OS X says that it can only be run on Apple hardware, the in-memory copy is just as unauthorized as the rest of them.A.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947582</id>
	<title>forget everything else</title>
	<author>TRRosen</author>
	<datestamp>1257099540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your the consumer and you buy a piece of software you automatically licensed for use of one copy of that software at a time. Copies made (in Memory) to enable that are part of the deal (this is covered under copyright law). If your not the consumer but a commercial interest all bets are off. Just as a MP3 player Vendor can not buy some CDs and put them on its product without a separate commercial license Psystar can not buy copies of OS X and put them on a system without a OEM agreement. Commercial copying is a very different world from personal consumer copying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your the consumer and you buy a piece of software you automatically licensed for use of one copy of that software at a time .
Copies made ( in Memory ) to enable that are part of the deal ( this is covered under copyright law ) .
If your not the consumer but a commercial interest all bets are off .
Just as a MP3 player Vendor can not buy some CDs and put them on its product without a separate commercial license Psystar can not buy copies of OS X and put them on a system without a OEM agreement .
Commercial copying is a very different world from personal consumer copying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your the consumer and you buy a piece of software you automatically licensed for use of one copy of that software at a time.
Copies made (in Memory) to enable that are part of the deal (this is covered under copyright law).
If your not the consumer but a commercial interest all bets are off.
Just as a MP3 player Vendor can not buy some CDs and put them on its product without a separate commercial license Psystar can not buy copies of OS X and put them on a system without a OEM agreement.
Commercial copying is a very different world from personal consumer copying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945908</id>
	<title>They're missing the point!</title>
	<author>RabidRabb1t</author>
	<datestamp>1257083700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL, and maybe I think my 2 cents is worth a little more than what it's stamped on, but I'm gonna give this one a try: this seems like a tactic by Apple's lawyer's to make Psystar's lawyers work harder and make the case take longer.  Reading the briefs, it's evident that Apple has superior lawyers (both number and quality), as well as money to pay them with; they're strong-arming them.</p><p>From what I've read in the briefs, Apple's argument rests solely on the one clause from their "Software License Agreement" (Henceforth SLA), which states OSX may only be installed and run on Apple hardware.  Without this clause, Apple would have a very difficult time arguing that the the copies are truly unauthorized; whether or not the clause is enforceable is, as far as I know, untested.  I believe it is easier and less risky for Apple to drown Psystar in litigation and obfuscate the issue entirely than to actually find out. </p><p>As for the creation of unauthorized copies, they're only unauthorized if the first copy is unauthorized as well.  Since Psystar legally purchased the media, Apple can't argue that discs are illegal -- simply that the copies on the hard drive are because they aren't on Apple hardware.  I have a hard time believing Apple's other argument, namely that an altered boot loader and kernel extensions constitute copyright infringement, especially when 1) similar bundling techniques are routinely practiced with their Windows counterparts and 2) Apple has been paid for the software it is distributing. </p><p>I have just one question for Apple:  If your computers are truly a hardware and software package, why do you bother to sell the software separately?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , and maybe I think my 2 cents is worth a little more than what it 's stamped on , but I 'm gon na give this one a try : this seems like a tactic by Apple 's lawyer 's to make Psystar 's lawyers work harder and make the case take longer .
Reading the briefs , it 's evident that Apple has superior lawyers ( both number and quality ) , as well as money to pay them with ; they 're strong-arming them.From what I 've read in the briefs , Apple 's argument rests solely on the one clause from their " Software License Agreement " ( Henceforth SLA ) , which states OSX may only be installed and run on Apple hardware .
Without this clause , Apple would have a very difficult time arguing that the the copies are truly unauthorized ; whether or not the clause is enforceable is , as far as I know , untested .
I believe it is easier and less risky for Apple to drown Psystar in litigation and obfuscate the issue entirely than to actually find out .
As for the creation of unauthorized copies , they 're only unauthorized if the first copy is unauthorized as well .
Since Psystar legally purchased the media , Apple ca n't argue that discs are illegal -- simply that the copies on the hard drive are because they are n't on Apple hardware .
I have a hard time believing Apple 's other argument , namely that an altered boot loader and kernel extensions constitute copyright infringement , especially when 1 ) similar bundling techniques are routinely practiced with their Windows counterparts and 2 ) Apple has been paid for the software it is distributing .
I have just one question for Apple : If your computers are truly a hardware and software package , why do you bother to sell the software separately ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, and maybe I think my 2 cents is worth a little more than what it's stamped on, but I'm gonna give this one a try: this seems like a tactic by Apple's lawyer's to make Psystar's lawyers work harder and make the case take longer.
Reading the briefs, it's evident that Apple has superior lawyers (both number and quality), as well as money to pay them with; they're strong-arming them.From what I've read in the briefs, Apple's argument rests solely on the one clause from their "Software License Agreement" (Henceforth SLA), which states OSX may only be installed and run on Apple hardware.
Without this clause, Apple would have a very difficult time arguing that the the copies are truly unauthorized; whether or not the clause is enforceable is, as far as I know, untested.
I believe it is easier and less risky for Apple to drown Psystar in litigation and obfuscate the issue entirely than to actually find out.
As for the creation of unauthorized copies, they're only unauthorized if the first copy is unauthorized as well.
Since Psystar legally purchased the media, Apple can't argue that discs are illegal -- simply that the copies on the hard drive are because they aren't on Apple hardware.
I have a hard time believing Apple's other argument, namely that an altered boot loader and kernel extensions constitute copyright infringement, especially when 1) similar bundling techniques are routinely practiced with their Windows counterparts and 2) Apple has been paid for the software it is distributing.
I have just one question for Apple:  If your computers are truly a hardware and software package, why do you bother to sell the software separately?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348</id>
	<title>Proprietary software at its worst</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1257070560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I know there are plenty of Apple fanbois here who will see nothing wrong with this whole situation.  Really though, this is exactly why proprietary licensing is bad for society -- Apple is basically declaring that you are not allowed to build a computer than runs Mac OS X, you must BUY one from them, at a price that THEY determine.  If Psystar loses, every hobbyist in the USA should take note to avoid Apple computers like a plague, because of the legal risk they impose on hobbyist groups.  Anyone who was planning to buy a computer from Apple should take a moment to rethink that decision, and consider a more freedom respecting company.<br> <br>

Just my opinion.  I will probably be flamed off the edge of the Earth by Apple fanbois though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I know there are plenty of Apple fanbois here who will see nothing wrong with this whole situation .
Really though , this is exactly why proprietary licensing is bad for society -- Apple is basically declaring that you are not allowed to build a computer than runs Mac OS X , you must BUY one from them , at a price that THEY determine .
If Psystar loses , every hobbyist in the USA should take note to avoid Apple computers like a plague , because of the legal risk they impose on hobbyist groups .
Anyone who was planning to buy a computer from Apple should take a moment to rethink that decision , and consider a more freedom respecting company .
Just my opinion .
I will probably be flamed off the edge of the Earth by Apple fanbois though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I know there are plenty of Apple fanbois here who will see nothing wrong with this whole situation.
Really though, this is exactly why proprietary licensing is bad for society -- Apple is basically declaring that you are not allowed to build a computer than runs Mac OS X, you must BUY one from them, at a price that THEY determine.
If Psystar loses, every hobbyist in the USA should take note to avoid Apple computers like a plague, because of the legal risk they impose on hobbyist groups.
Anyone who was planning to buy a computer from Apple should take a moment to rethink that decision, and consider a more freedom respecting company.
Just my opinion.
I will probably be flamed off the edge of the Earth by Apple fanbois though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943630</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy.<b> End-users are granted a license to do so, </b>and here Pystar doesn't have such a license. Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.</p></div><p>Really? From their Snow Leopard EULA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Ugrade License for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.</p></div><p>Looks like Apple doesn't grant you a license to make another  copy(as they argue you do by booting). If Apple wins this, can they successfully sue their customers for making unauthorized copies when the computer boots?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds , courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer ( and thus loading it to memory ) does create a copy .
End-users are granted a license to do so , and here Pystar does n't have such a license .
Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.Really ?
From their Snow Leopard EULA : A. Single Use License .
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License , unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Ugrade License for the Apple Software , you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install , use and run one ( 1 ) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.Looks like Apple does n't grant you a license to make another copy ( as they argue you do by booting ) .
If Apple wins this , can they successfully sue their customers for making unauthorized copies when the computer boots ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy.
End-users are granted a license to do so, and here Pystar doesn't have such a license.
Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.Really?
From their Snow Leopard EULA:A. Single Use License.
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Ugrade License for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.Looks like Apple doesn't grant you a license to make another  copy(as they argue you do by booting).
If Apple wins this, can they successfully sue their customers for making unauthorized copies when the computer boots?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29950480</id>
	<title>Re:CD/downloaded music is then derivative licensed</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1257179040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget the copies made by having sound coming out of two or more speakers at once, and the copies you receive when that sound reflects off walls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget the copies made by having sound coming out of two or more speakers at once , and the copies you receive when that sound reflects off walls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget the copies made by having sound coming out of two or more speakers at once, and the copies you receive when that sound reflects off walls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948768</id>
	<title>Copyright is a fiat monopoly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257162480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright is a fiat monopoly, so there you go: a monopoly on Apple.</p><p>They can forgo copyright if they like and go with straight old contract law if they like, but they want the power of contract law with the one-sided negotiation of licensing.</p><p>Bollocks to that.</p><p>PS when I buy a PC with windows on from Dell, I don't go calling Microsoft when it doesn't work. I call Dell.</p><p>Why would buying a computer from Pystar be any different? Does Pystar say explicitly "if you have problems, don't talk to us, go to Apple Support Centre"</p><p>PPS Why do you all assume the coders in Apple are all so terribly crap that they cannot make an OS that works on a wide range of hardware? It's nowhere NEAR the level of disparity in hardware that Linux has to handle and they have money to pay for NDA's etc. So why would "support" be a problem even then? Only if they are crap at writing an OS even when given most of it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright is a fiat monopoly , so there you go : a monopoly on Apple.They can forgo copyright if they like and go with straight old contract law if they like , but they want the power of contract law with the one-sided negotiation of licensing.Bollocks to that.PS when I buy a PC with windows on from Dell , I do n't go calling Microsoft when it does n't work .
I call Dell.Why would buying a computer from Pystar be any different ?
Does Pystar say explicitly " if you have problems , do n't talk to us , go to Apple Support Centre " PPS Why do you all assume the coders in Apple are all so terribly crap that they can not make an OS that works on a wide range of hardware ?
It 's nowhere NEAR the level of disparity in hardware that Linux has to handle and they have money to pay for NDA 's etc .
So why would " support " be a problem even then ?
Only if they are crap at writing an OS even when given most of it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright is a fiat monopoly, so there you go: a monopoly on Apple.They can forgo copyright if they like and go with straight old contract law if they like, but they want the power of contract law with the one-sided negotiation of licensing.Bollocks to that.PS when I buy a PC with windows on from Dell, I don't go calling Microsoft when it doesn't work.
I call Dell.Why would buying a computer from Pystar be any different?
Does Pystar say explicitly "if you have problems, don't talk to us, go to Apple Support Centre"PPS Why do you all assume the coders in Apple are all so terribly crap that they cannot make an OS that works on a wide range of hardware?
It's nowhere NEAR the level of disparity in hardware that Linux has to handle and they have money to pay for NDA's etc.
So why would "support" be a problem even then?
Only if they are crap at writing an OS even when given most of it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943654</id>
	<title>I guess the answer is Yes</title>
	<author>ctmurray</author>
	<datestamp>1257066180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you read Apple's response they do indeed make that claim. And since it is in a legal case I guess you can say they are serious. The real question is are they correct?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read Apple 's response they do indeed make that claim .
And since it is in a legal case I guess you can say they are serious .
The real question is are they correct ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read Apple's response they do indeed make that claim.
And since it is in a legal case I guess you can say they are serious.
The real question is are they correct?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945178</id>
	<title>Apple says its an illegal copy, but...</title>
	<author>davmoo</author>
	<datestamp>1257076680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I say I don't give a flying fuck.  I paid for legitimate disks of both Leopard and Snow Leopard.  I've even still got the receipts for them.  They've got my money.  If I want to use the DVDs in my toaster I will, and His Holiness Steve Jobs &amp; Company can make like a squirrel and hug my nuts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I say I do n't give a flying fuck .
I paid for legitimate disks of both Leopard and Snow Leopard .
I 've even still got the receipts for them .
They 've got my money .
If I want to use the DVDs in my toaster I will , and His Holiness Steve Jobs &amp; Company can make like a squirrel and hug my nuts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I say I don't give a flying fuck.
I paid for legitimate disks of both Leopard and Snow Leopard.
I've even still got the receipts for them.
They've got my money.
If I want to use the DVDs in my toaster I will, and His Holiness Steve Jobs &amp; Company can make like a squirrel and hug my nuts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943746</id>
	<title>CD/downloaded music is then derivative licensed</title>
	<author>RichMan</author>
	<datestamp>1257066720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know who to root for here. If apple wins then all CD/downloadable music is then by the nature of the distribution system given a derivative allowed copyright license when sold. As the only way to play it is to make several derivative copies of the material. Where the base structure is rearranged  and then finally processed Digital to Analog.</p><p>1) CD/base store<br>2) CD buffer, linked associated chain<br>3) dram copy of data, another linked associated chain with OS and application page tracking<br>4) audio card input buffer, another linked associated chain<br>5) audio card processor, digital to analog conversion and final digital encoded analog value, then analog sound</p><p>The RIAA and MPAA are going to want to weigh in on this if it goes anywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know who to root for here .
If apple wins then all CD/downloadable music is then by the nature of the distribution system given a derivative allowed copyright license when sold .
As the only way to play it is to make several derivative copies of the material .
Where the base structure is rearranged and then finally processed Digital to Analog.1 ) CD/base store2 ) CD buffer , linked associated chain3 ) dram copy of data , another linked associated chain with OS and application page tracking4 ) audio card input buffer , another linked associated chain5 ) audio card processor , digital to analog conversion and final digital encoded analog value , then analog soundThe RIAA and MPAA are going to want to weigh in on this if it goes anywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know who to root for here.
If apple wins then all CD/downloadable music is then by the nature of the distribution system given a derivative allowed copyright license when sold.
As the only way to play it is to make several derivative copies of the material.
Where the base structure is rearranged  and then finally processed Digital to Analog.1) CD/base store2) CD buffer, linked associated chain3) dram copy of data, another linked associated chain with OS and application page tracking4) audio card input buffer, another linked associated chain5) audio card processor, digital to analog conversion and final digital encoded analog value, then analog soundThe RIAA and MPAA are going to want to weigh in on this if it goes anywhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943516</id>
	<title>Old idea</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1257108540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, wasn't the idea that copying a program from disk to RAM need specific permission, something that was ruled on very long ago?</p><p>I remember having a serious WTF feeling maybe 10 years ago when reading about a judge's ruling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , was n't the idea that copying a program from disk to RAM need specific permission , something that was ruled on very long ago ? I remember having a serious WTF feeling maybe 10 years ago when reading about a judge 's ruling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, wasn't the idea that copying a program from disk to RAM need specific permission, something that was ruled on very long ago?I remember having a serious WTF feeling maybe 10 years ago when reading about a judge's ruling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946984</id>
	<title>Re:Proprietary software at its worst</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1257093120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I call BS on your ill-considered FUD-laden argument. How does Apple going after Psystar endanger hobbyists in the USA?</p><p>There's fanatical fanboy zealots here in this thread, but they're not on Apple's side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I call BS on your ill-considered FUD-laden argument .
How does Apple going after Psystar endanger hobbyists in the USA ? There 's fanatical fanboy zealots here in this thread , but they 're not on Apple 's side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call BS on your ill-considered FUD-laden argument.
How does Apple going after Psystar endanger hobbyists in the USA?There's fanatical fanboy zealots here in this thread, but they're not on Apple's side.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29951502</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1257183600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It says "...install, use and run..."  It seems to me that booting would be included in "using and running" an OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It says " ...install , use and run... " It seems to me that booting would be included in " using and running " an OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It says "...install, use and run..."  It seems to me that booting would be included in "using and running" an OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29954928</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1257156120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A copy in RAM is fleeting and, particularly in a modern computer, incomplete -- the whole program is likely as not to never exist entirely in RAM.</p><p>The best analogy is reading... there is a fleeting "copy" of the book or web page you're reading on your retina during the reading process, as a necessary part of using the book as intended. For a program, same thing.. there is a fleeting "copy" of the program code in RAM, L3, L2, and/or L1 cache as a necessary part of using the program as intended. Remove the book, the image is gone... yank that SATA cable, and you'll have much the same "gone" factor on any modern desktop computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A copy in RAM is fleeting and , particularly in a modern computer , incomplete -- the whole program is likely as not to never exist entirely in RAM.The best analogy is reading... there is a fleeting " copy " of the book or web page you 're reading on your retina during the reading process , as a necessary part of using the book as intended .
For a program , same thing.. there is a fleeting " copy " of the program code in RAM , L3 , L2 , and/or L1 cache as a necessary part of using the program as intended .
Remove the book , the image is gone... yank that SATA cable , and you 'll have much the same " gone " factor on any modern desktop computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A copy in RAM is fleeting and, particularly in a modern computer, incomplete -- the whole program is likely as not to never exist entirely in RAM.The best analogy is reading... there is a fleeting "copy" of the book or web page you're reading on your retina during the reading process, as a necessary part of using the book as intended.
For a program, same thing.. there is a fleeting "copy" of the program code in RAM, L3, L2, and/or L1 cache as a necessary part of using the program as intended.
Remove the book, the image is gone... yank that SATA cable, and you'll have much the same "gone" factor on any modern desktop computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943482</id>
	<title>Anyone surprised?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone wants to make a buck off of OS X without paying the Apple tax and Apple is upset.  Is anyone really surprised?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone wants to make a buck off of OS X without paying the Apple tax and Apple is upset .
Is anyone really surprised ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone wants to make a buck off of OS X without paying the Apple tax and Apple is upset.
Is anyone really surprised?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29955316</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone surprised?</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1257157860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple could fix this themselves, easily enough.</p><p>They stop selling boxed versions of MacOS, and only sell downloads. In order to get the download, you provide the key from your previous version (presumably, the one that came on the Apple machine you're upgrading). Apple not only ensures that only Mac users upgrade, they get the full retail price, no chance of competition, all cash to Apple, no middleman. Just like iTunes! Surprised they aren't using iTunes for this already... it's so very Apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple could fix this themselves , easily enough.They stop selling boxed versions of MacOS , and only sell downloads .
In order to get the download , you provide the key from your previous version ( presumably , the one that came on the Apple machine you 're upgrading ) .
Apple not only ensures that only Mac users upgrade , they get the full retail price , no chance of competition , all cash to Apple , no middleman .
Just like iTunes !
Surprised they are n't using iTunes for this already... it 's so very Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple could fix this themselves, easily enough.They stop selling boxed versions of MacOS, and only sell downloads.
In order to get the download, you provide the key from your previous version (presumably, the one that came on the Apple machine you're upgrading).
Apple not only ensures that only Mac users upgrade, they get the full retail price, no chance of competition, all cash to Apple, no middleman.
Just like iTunes!
Surprised they aren't using iTunes for this already... it's so very Apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943824</id>
	<title>Someone has to pay for Steve Jobs' livers...</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1257067020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh oh. Imagine, if Apple wins this, then REMEMBERING A SONG OR THINKING ABOUT A MOVIE SCENE will have the MAFIAA at your door in a flash, since after all you made an "illegal copy" in your brain...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh oh .
Imagine , if Apple wins this , then REMEMBERING A SONG OR THINKING ABOUT A MOVIE SCENE will have the MAFIAA at your door in a flash , since after all you made an " illegal copy " in your brain.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh oh.
Imagine, if Apple wins this, then REMEMBERING A SONG OR THINKING ABOUT A MOVIE SCENE will have the MAFIAA at your door in a flash, since after all you made an "illegal copy" in your brain...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944614</id>
	<title>Re:What Psystar is forgetting about</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1257072420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about First Sale?  I think that would have some relevance here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about First Sale ?
I think that would have some relevance here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about First Sale?
I think that would have some relevance here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944914</id>
	<title>iGranola</title>
	<author>incubbus13</author>
	<datestamp>1257074520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple is basically  the Volkswagen of computers.</p><p>There is this pretension of counter-culture. This idea that buying a mac is an act of rebellion against the 'oppressive overlords'. That Macs are 'more green' and 'more consumer friendly' and in general, Apple has done a good job of seamlessly integrating the organic/recycling/conservationist creedo into their advertising campaigns.</p><p>You see this same thing in SUV ads. Green earth and blue skies, and scenic natural wonders. They co-opt recycling visual cues to associate one of the worst offenders with 'naturalness'.</p><p>The truth is, Apple had a monopoly on academic institutions in the 1980s. They were beating the pants off IBM in those days, at least in the home/school markets. Businesses were still using IBMs, but everything at home and at school, from kindergarten to college, was Apple. The ][e was ubiquitous in middle and high schools all over the country.</p><p>IBM has never exactly been 'young and hungry', they've always been 'blue chip', but...they were definitely younger and hungrier then.</p><p>My point, really is, I think it is okay if you prefer Macs. That's fine. But the average end-user for a mac is not much different than the average end-user for a PC. Except, the PC end users don't have ignorant, sanctimonious discussions with you about how their product is better and how they bought it to not support a Big Evil Corporation. While completely ignoring that Apple is no different than Microsoft. They're equally interested in a monopoly, they're equally interested in their bottom line, to the detriment of the consumer/end-user. They're just worse at it. They're not as skilled monopolists and evil overlords. But please people. An incompetent, bumbling, drunken [generic evil person] is no less evil than one who is competent.</p><p>Hopefully, though, if Apple keeps doing things that don't really help their bottom line all that much, but do manage to sabotage their carefully cultivated public image, like this, I won't have to have this conversation with Mac-Afficionado/Soccer-Daddy man anymore.</p><p>K.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is basically the Volkswagen of computers.There is this pretension of counter-culture .
This idea that buying a mac is an act of rebellion against the 'oppressive overlords' .
That Macs are 'more green ' and 'more consumer friendly ' and in general , Apple has done a good job of seamlessly integrating the organic/recycling/conservationist creedo into their advertising campaigns.You see this same thing in SUV ads .
Green earth and blue skies , and scenic natural wonders .
They co-opt recycling visual cues to associate one of the worst offenders with 'naturalness'.The truth is , Apple had a monopoly on academic institutions in the 1980s .
They were beating the pants off IBM in those days , at least in the home/school markets .
Businesses were still using IBMs , but everything at home and at school , from kindergarten to college , was Apple .
The ] [ e was ubiquitous in middle and high schools all over the country.IBM has never exactly been 'young and hungry ' , they 've always been 'blue chip ' , but...they were definitely younger and hungrier then.My point , really is , I think it is okay if you prefer Macs .
That 's fine .
But the average end-user for a mac is not much different than the average end-user for a PC .
Except , the PC end users do n't have ignorant , sanctimonious discussions with you about how their product is better and how they bought it to not support a Big Evil Corporation .
While completely ignoring that Apple is no different than Microsoft .
They 're equally interested in a monopoly , they 're equally interested in their bottom line , to the detriment of the consumer/end-user .
They 're just worse at it .
They 're not as skilled monopolists and evil overlords .
But please people .
An incompetent , bumbling , drunken [ generic evil person ] is no less evil than one who is competent.Hopefully , though , if Apple keeps doing things that do n't really help their bottom line all that much , but do manage to sabotage their carefully cultivated public image , like this , I wo n't have to have this conversation with Mac-Afficionado/Soccer-Daddy man anymore.K .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is basically  the Volkswagen of computers.There is this pretension of counter-culture.
This idea that buying a mac is an act of rebellion against the 'oppressive overlords'.
That Macs are 'more green' and 'more consumer friendly' and in general, Apple has done a good job of seamlessly integrating the organic/recycling/conservationist creedo into their advertising campaigns.You see this same thing in SUV ads.
Green earth and blue skies, and scenic natural wonders.
They co-opt recycling visual cues to associate one of the worst offenders with 'naturalness'.The truth is, Apple had a monopoly on academic institutions in the 1980s.
They were beating the pants off IBM in those days, at least in the home/school markets.
Businesses were still using IBMs, but everything at home and at school, from kindergarten to college, was Apple.
The ][e was ubiquitous in middle and high schools all over the country.IBM has never exactly been 'young and hungry', they've always been 'blue chip', but...they were definitely younger and hungrier then.My point, really is, I think it is okay if you prefer Macs.
That's fine.
But the average end-user for a mac is not much different than the average end-user for a PC.
Except, the PC end users don't have ignorant, sanctimonious discussions with you about how their product is better and how they bought it to not support a Big Evil Corporation.
While completely ignoring that Apple is no different than Microsoft.
They're equally interested in a monopoly, they're equally interested in their bottom line, to the detriment of the consumer/end-user.
They're just worse at it.
They're not as skilled monopolists and evil overlords.
But please people.
An incompetent, bumbling, drunken [generic evil person] is no less evil than one who is competent.Hopefully, though, if Apple keeps doing things that don't really help their bottom line all that much, but do manage to sabotage their carefully cultivated public image, like this, I won't have to have this conversation with Mac-Afficionado/Soccer-Daddy man anymore.K.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947464</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone surprised?</title>
	<author>jnork</author>
	<datestamp>1257098400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's odd how many people I see upset about Apple taking this stance and wondering why nobody is upset about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's odd how many people I see upset about Apple taking this stance and wondering why nobody is upset about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's odd how many people I see upset about Apple taking this stance and wondering why nobody is upset about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946248</id>
	<title>Re:What about movies, cds, etc.?</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1257086460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just throw lawyers at it until they mess things up so badly that they try to outlaw RAM, hard drives, micro-controllers, CPUs and GPUs.</p><p>Then, maybe, we'll get all those stupid things (DRM, etc) thrown into the trash and let technology progress again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just throw lawyers at it until they mess things up so badly that they try to outlaw RAM , hard drives , micro-controllers , CPUs and GPUs.Then , maybe , we 'll get all those stupid things ( DRM , etc ) thrown into the trash and let technology progress again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just throw lawyers at it until they mess things up so badly that they try to outlaw RAM, hard drives, micro-controllers, CPUs and GPUs.Then, maybe, we'll get all those stupid things (DRM, etc) thrown into the trash and let technology progress again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29958702</id>
	<title>Need to look at the law</title>
	<author>gordguide</author>
	<datestamp>1257174720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  Psystar's response: 'Copying a computer program into RAM as a result of installing and running that program is precisely the copying that Section 117 provides does not constitute copyright infringement for an owner of a computer program. As the Ninth Circuit explained, permitting copies like this was Section 117's purpose.'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>I'm sure Apple's lawyers have a reason for the claim, but you probably would have to actually BE a lawyer to be familiar enough with the Section 117 and relevant case law to know why the claim was included.</p><p>I did see something in Psystar's response, though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... at " does not constitute copyright infringement for <i>an owner</i> of a computer program".</p><p>Is it possible Apple's claim centers around Psystar not being the owner (ie the customer, presumably is the owner) or that other unauthorized use claims negate the protection offered the owner, since the upheld claims would make Psystar's ownership invalid? Does Psystar play any legal games regarding who installs what and on whose behalf? If so, could that come back and bite them with this particular claim by Apple?</p><p>Is the actual Section 117 language different than Psystar's response (it would not be the first time language in a lawsuit was cleverly phrased to suit the spokesman's client)? Does 117 say things like "authorized user", etc where Psystar says "owner"? Apple's claim may be dependent on other claims making Psystar's use unauthorized or deeming Psystar is not the "owner" under the meaning of 117.</p><p>I'm not a lawyer. Real lawyers welcome to chime in, as well as anyone familiar with 117 itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... Psystar 's response : 'Copying a computer program into RAM as a result of installing and running that program is precisely the copying that Section 117 provides does not constitute copyright infringement for an owner of a computer program .
As the Ninth Circuit explained , permitting copies like this was Section 117 's purpose .
' ... " I 'm sure Apple 's lawyers have a reason for the claim , but you probably would have to actually BE a lawyer to be familiar enough with the Section 117 and relevant case law to know why the claim was included.I did see something in Psystar 's response , though ... at " does not constitute copyright infringement for an owner of a computer program " .Is it possible Apple 's claim centers around Psystar not being the owner ( ie the customer , presumably is the owner ) or that other unauthorized use claims negate the protection offered the owner , since the upheld claims would make Psystar 's ownership invalid ?
Does Psystar play any legal games regarding who installs what and on whose behalf ?
If so , could that come back and bite them with this particular claim by Apple ? Is the actual Section 117 language different than Psystar 's response ( it would not be the first time language in a lawsuit was cleverly phrased to suit the spokesman 's client ) ?
Does 117 say things like " authorized user " , etc where Psystar says " owner " ?
Apple 's claim may be dependent on other claims making Psystar 's use unauthorized or deeming Psystar is not the " owner " under the meaning of 117.I 'm not a lawyer .
Real lawyers welcome to chime in , as well as anyone familiar with 117 itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" ...  Psystar's response: 'Copying a computer program into RAM as a result of installing and running that program is precisely the copying that Section 117 provides does not constitute copyright infringement for an owner of a computer program.
As the Ninth Circuit explained, permitting copies like this was Section 117's purpose.
' ..."I'm sure Apple's lawyers have a reason for the claim, but you probably would have to actually BE a lawyer to be familiar enough with the Section 117 and relevant case law to know why the claim was included.I did see something in Psystar's response, though ... at " does not constitute copyright infringement for an owner of a computer program".Is it possible Apple's claim centers around Psystar not being the owner (ie the customer, presumably is the owner) or that other unauthorized use claims negate the protection offered the owner, since the upheld claims would make Psystar's ownership invalid?
Does Psystar play any legal games regarding who installs what and on whose behalf?
If so, could that come back and bite them with this particular claim by Apple?Is the actual Section 117 language different than Psystar's response (it would not be the first time language in a lawsuit was cleverly phrased to suit the spokesman's client)?
Does 117 say things like "authorized user", etc where Psystar says "owner"?
Apple's claim may be dependent on other claims making Psystar's use unauthorized or deeming Psystar is not the "owner" under the meaning of 117.I'm not a lawyer.
Real lawyers welcome to chime in, as well as anyone familiar with 117 itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946470</id>
	<title>EULA and IPs are anticapitalist</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1257088560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in that they stifle competition and take away rights from the consumer and company.</p><p>The EULA and IPs form Corporatism, a form of Fascism as it allows corporations to use the laws of a nation to take away the freedoms and rights of consumers and their competing companies. In a true Capitalistic economy there would be a free market and open competition that would allow any company to build their own Macintosh and use Mac OSX and compete with Apple and let the free market determine the asking price. But in this case Apple is using corporatism and fascism to shut out any competition as well as sue consumers who only wanted a lower price on a machine that could run Mac OSX. There is a legit purchase of Mac OSX from Apple by Psystar, and part of the EULA allows the license to be "resold" to someone else, namely the Psystar customers. Also the "Apple Logo Computer" is vague in meaning and Psystar could put a logo of an Apple (not have to be Apple Computer's Apple, but any Apple as a logo) and use a loophole as an "Apple Logo Computer" by having a logo of an Apple on it. Apple would have to change the EULA to say "Apple Computer, Inc made Computer" because this EULA is dated back to the time of the Mac Clones that used the Apple Logo to sell Mac Clone computers by Power Computing and others. So thanks to the Apple Computer Deal with Power Computing so long ago, there exists a loophole for Mac Clones to still be made as long as they have an Apple type logo on them. If I was Psystar I'd push for that legal loophole before Apple changes the EULA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in that they stifle competition and take away rights from the consumer and company.The EULA and IPs form Corporatism , a form of Fascism as it allows corporations to use the laws of a nation to take away the freedoms and rights of consumers and their competing companies .
In a true Capitalistic economy there would be a free market and open competition that would allow any company to build their own Macintosh and use Mac OSX and compete with Apple and let the free market determine the asking price .
But in this case Apple is using corporatism and fascism to shut out any competition as well as sue consumers who only wanted a lower price on a machine that could run Mac OSX .
There is a legit purchase of Mac OSX from Apple by Psystar , and part of the EULA allows the license to be " resold " to someone else , namely the Psystar customers .
Also the " Apple Logo Computer " is vague in meaning and Psystar could put a logo of an Apple ( not have to be Apple Computer 's Apple , but any Apple as a logo ) and use a loophole as an " Apple Logo Computer " by having a logo of an Apple on it .
Apple would have to change the EULA to say " Apple Computer , Inc made Computer " because this EULA is dated back to the time of the Mac Clones that used the Apple Logo to sell Mac Clone computers by Power Computing and others .
So thanks to the Apple Computer Deal with Power Computing so long ago , there exists a loophole for Mac Clones to still be made as long as they have an Apple type logo on them .
If I was Psystar I 'd push for that legal loophole before Apple changes the EULA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in that they stifle competition and take away rights from the consumer and company.The EULA and IPs form Corporatism, a form of Fascism as it allows corporations to use the laws of a nation to take away the freedoms and rights of consumers and their competing companies.
In a true Capitalistic economy there would be a free market and open competition that would allow any company to build their own Macintosh and use Mac OSX and compete with Apple and let the free market determine the asking price.
But in this case Apple is using corporatism and fascism to shut out any competition as well as sue consumers who only wanted a lower price on a machine that could run Mac OSX.
There is a legit purchase of Mac OSX from Apple by Psystar, and part of the EULA allows the license to be "resold" to someone else, namely the Psystar customers.
Also the "Apple Logo Computer" is vague in meaning and Psystar could put a logo of an Apple (not have to be Apple Computer's Apple, but any Apple as a logo) and use a loophole as an "Apple Logo Computer" by having a logo of an Apple on it.
Apple would have to change the EULA to say "Apple Computer, Inc made Computer" because this EULA is dated back to the time of the Mac Clones that used the Apple Logo to sell Mac Clone computers by Power Computing and others.
So thanks to the Apple Computer Deal with Power Computing so long ago, there exists a loophole for Mac Clones to still be made as long as they have an Apple type logo on them.
If I was Psystar I'd push for that legal loophole before Apple changes the EULA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944306</id>
	<title>Re: Psystar (Law of Agency)</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1257070320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Under the law of agency (i.e. the one that applies to employees, contractors, and the like) there is no reason why one party cannot do virtually anything on behalf of another party, provided the agent is acting under their direction or authority.  Otherwise your local computer guy couldn't install software for you.  It is that ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Under the law of agency ( i.e .
the one that applies to employees , contractors , and the like ) there is no reason why one party can not do virtually anything on behalf of another party , provided the agent is acting under their direction or authority .
Otherwise your local computer guy could n't install software for you .
It is that ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under the law of agency (i.e.
the one that applies to employees, contractors, and the like) there is no reason why one party cannot do virtually anything on behalf of another party, provided the agent is acting under their direction or authority.
Otherwise your local computer guy couldn't install software for you.
It is that ridiculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944362</id>
	<title>So does that make Iphones on t-mobile unauthorized</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1257070680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So does that make Iphones on t-mobile unauthorized as well? Iphones useing apps that are not on the app store? Power macs with non apple upgrade cards?</p><p>apple is very close to what lexmark tried to use to lock out 3rd pray ink.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So does that make Iphones on t-mobile unauthorized as well ?
Iphones useing apps that are not on the app store ?
Power macs with non apple upgrade cards ? apple is very close to what lexmark tried to use to lock out 3rd pray ink .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does that make Iphones on t-mobile unauthorized as well?
Iphones useing apps that are not on the app store?
Power macs with non apple upgrade cards?apple is very close to what lexmark tried to use to lock out 3rd pray ink.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944752</id>
	<title>Re:Psystar is 100\% wrong</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1257073320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Supreme Court doesn't write the law. Merely interprets it. The case you mentioned is a precedent, but precedents are for guidance only. Judges can(and do) ignore precedents. So saying that Psystar is 100\% wrong is... wait for it..100\% wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Supreme Court does n't write the law .
Merely interprets it .
The case you mentioned is a precedent , but precedents are for guidance only .
Judges can ( and do ) ignore precedents .
So saying that Psystar is 100 \ % wrong is... wait for it..100 \ % wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Supreme Court doesn't write the law.
Merely interprets it.
The case you mentioned is a precedent, but precedents are for guidance only.
Judges can(and do) ignore precedents.
So saying that Psystar is 100\% wrong is... wait for it..100\% wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943876</id>
	<title>Wait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, is every program considered an un-authorized copy?  After all, every program can be loaded into memory....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , is every program considered an un-authorized copy ?
After all , every program can be loaded into memory... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, is every program considered an un-authorized copy?
After all, every program can be loaded into memory....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943784</id>
	<title>VMWare ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does not being able to make a copy in RAM relate to VMWare ?<br>Are we no longer allowed to use virtualization ?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does not being able to make a copy in RAM relate to VMWare ? Are we no longer allowed to use virtualization ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does not being able to make a copy in RAM relate to VMWare ?Are we no longer allowed to use virtualization ?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944642</id>
	<title>Software companies need to stop "selling" software</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1257072540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it says "purchase" on their website it should mean purchase. I generally support defending intellectual property but they can't have their cake and eat it too. If they want to license software they should be required to say "license" so the licensees know what they're getting into. It's false advertising to say "sell" and then bury "well OK, we didn't actually <b>sell</b> you anything" in the EULA. (By the way, I may support upholding intellectual property but fuck EULAs.)</p><p>Same goes for music. If I see the word "purchase" or "buy" anywhere on the site I'm "buying" it from I'm going to treat it as if I <b>own</b> a <b>copy</b>. Someone needs to counter-sue for false advertising the next time the get sued for license violation.</p><p>Psystar should have every right to modify a copy of OS X and resell it. If they make an extra copy and sell both, run them up the flag-pole; it's unclear whether they've done that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it says " purchase " on their website it should mean purchase .
I generally support defending intellectual property but they ca n't have their cake and eat it too .
If they want to license software they should be required to say " license " so the licensees know what they 're getting into .
It 's false advertising to say " sell " and then bury " well OK , we did n't actually sell you anything " in the EULA .
( By the way , I may support upholding intellectual property but fuck EULAs .
) Same goes for music .
If I see the word " purchase " or " buy " anywhere on the site I 'm " buying " it from I 'm going to treat it as if I own a copy .
Someone needs to counter-sue for false advertising the next time the get sued for license violation.Psystar should have every right to modify a copy of OS X and resell it .
If they make an extra copy and sell both , run them up the flag-pole ; it 's unclear whether they 've done that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it says "purchase" on their website it should mean purchase.
I generally support defending intellectual property but they can't have their cake and eat it too.
If they want to license software they should be required to say "license" so the licensees know what they're getting into.
It's false advertising to say "sell" and then bury "well OK, we didn't actually sell you anything" in the EULA.
(By the way, I may support upholding intellectual property but fuck EULAs.
)Same goes for music.
If I see the word "purchase" or "buy" anywhere on the site I'm "buying" it from I'm going to treat it as if I own a copy.
Someone needs to counter-sue for false advertising the next time the get sued for license violation.Psystar should have every right to modify a copy of OS X and resell it.
If they make an extra copy and sell both, run them up the flag-pole; it's unclear whether they've done that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946952</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone surprised?</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1257092880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cost of Mac OS X is subsidised by sales of Apple/Mac hardware. Apple would have to raise the price significantly if they started selling Mac OS X for generic x86 machines -- and even then, they'd probably go out of business. Notice how Snow Leopard is quite a bit cheaper than Windows 7 Ultimate and whatnot? I think the cost of Windows is high, but Microsoft has every right to charge what they feel is an appropriate price for their OS.</p><p>And of course Apple and Microsoft are out to make money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cost of Mac OS X is subsidised by sales of Apple/Mac hardware .
Apple would have to raise the price significantly if they started selling Mac OS X for generic x86 machines -- and even then , they 'd probably go out of business .
Notice how Snow Leopard is quite a bit cheaper than Windows 7 Ultimate and whatnot ?
I think the cost of Windows is high , but Microsoft has every right to charge what they feel is an appropriate price for their OS.And of course Apple and Microsoft are out to make money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cost of Mac OS X is subsidised by sales of Apple/Mac hardware.
Apple would have to raise the price significantly if they started selling Mac OS X for generic x86 machines -- and even then, they'd probably go out of business.
Notice how Snow Leopard is quite a bit cheaper than Windows 7 Ultimate and whatnot?
I think the cost of Windows is high, but Microsoft has every right to charge what they feel is an appropriate price for their OS.And of course Apple and Microsoft are out to make money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29949830</id>
	<title>Re:Proprietary software at its worst</title>
	<author>cmat</author>
	<datestamp>1257175140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am an Apple user; so what makes your statement "bad"?  In fact, it is just bad for Apple, if they care about that sort of thing.  In reality, no company "forces" you to buy their products unless that product is required by consumers and there is only one supplier, neither of which strictly apply in this case.  This might be "bad" for hobbyists, but as you phrased it, they will just avoid Apple products like "the plague".  And if this does not impact Apple in a detrimental way (read: put them out of business) then I'm OK with that.  One might argue that it's not fair to hobbyists that they cannot buy a cheap Mac, but that argument could be made of any high-priced luxury item that people would like.  Not having the money to purchase an item does NOT make it unfair.  Tying two products together such that they must be bought together at a higher price than is typical of that product domain is NOT unfair as long as there are other options, which there are.</p><p>What would be UNFAIR would be Apple charging a high price for their computers, and then saying you MUST buy a copy of OS X and that OS X is the only OS that will be allowed to run on their system (which it is NOT. you may install any OS you wish on their hardware, although I am not aware if they will refund you the cost of OS X, but I believe they consider it part of the machine when they sell you the computer.  So at worst they are guilt of doing the same thing that Microsoft does with respect to a "OS-tax").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am an Apple user ; so what makes your statement " bad " ?
In fact , it is just bad for Apple , if they care about that sort of thing .
In reality , no company " forces " you to buy their products unless that product is required by consumers and there is only one supplier , neither of which strictly apply in this case .
This might be " bad " for hobbyists , but as you phrased it , they will just avoid Apple products like " the plague " .
And if this does not impact Apple in a detrimental way ( read : put them out of business ) then I 'm OK with that .
One might argue that it 's not fair to hobbyists that they can not buy a cheap Mac , but that argument could be made of any high-priced luxury item that people would like .
Not having the money to purchase an item does NOT make it unfair .
Tying two products together such that they must be bought together at a higher price than is typical of that product domain is NOT unfair as long as there are other options , which there are.What would be UNFAIR would be Apple charging a high price for their computers , and then saying you MUST buy a copy of OS X and that OS X is the only OS that will be allowed to run on their system ( which it is NOT .
you may install any OS you wish on their hardware , although I am not aware if they will refund you the cost of OS X , but I believe they consider it part of the machine when they sell you the computer .
So at worst they are guilt of doing the same thing that Microsoft does with respect to a " OS-tax " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am an Apple user; so what makes your statement "bad"?
In fact, it is just bad for Apple, if they care about that sort of thing.
In reality, no company "forces" you to buy their products unless that product is required by consumers and there is only one supplier, neither of which strictly apply in this case.
This might be "bad" for hobbyists, but as you phrased it, they will just avoid Apple products like "the plague".
And if this does not impact Apple in a detrimental way (read: put them out of business) then I'm OK with that.
One might argue that it's not fair to hobbyists that they cannot buy a cheap Mac, but that argument could be made of any high-priced luxury item that people would like.
Not having the money to purchase an item does NOT make it unfair.
Tying two products together such that they must be bought together at a higher price than is typical of that product domain is NOT unfair as long as there are other options, which there are.What would be UNFAIR would be Apple charging a high price for their computers, and then saying you MUST buy a copy of OS X and that OS X is the only OS that will be allowed to run on their system (which it is NOT.
you may install any OS you wish on their hardware, although I am not aware if they will refund you the cost of OS X, but I believe they consider it part of the machine when they sell you the computer.
So at worst they are guilt of doing the same thing that Microsoft does with respect to a "OS-tax").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945078</id>
	<title>Re:Software companies need to stop "selling" softw</title>
	<author>pipedwho</author>
	<datestamp>1257075780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why you instead see the phrase "purchase a license" or "buy a license".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why you instead see the phrase " purchase a license " or " buy a license " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why you instead see the phrase "purchase a license" or "buy a license".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944358</id>
	<title>Surprise...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257070680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the answer to your question is "Yes."  Use of an operating system in a virtualized environment requires a license that permits it, or implies it.  You will find that the license terms for most forms of Windows prohibit it, except for Datacenter edition.  Even DCE has a restriction that if you vMotion an OS from one machine to another (failover), even if <i>both</i> are licensed, you may not move it back (failback) in less than 30 days without violating the license.

</p><p>Naturally this has some implications for people who are stuffy about compliance and yet desperately need high availability.  The cure is simple: since there is no Windows license that permits this, you must use something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the answer to your question is " Yes .
" Use of an operating system in a virtualized environment requires a license that permits it , or implies it .
You will find that the license terms for most forms of Windows prohibit it , except for Datacenter edition .
Even DCE has a restriction that if you vMotion an OS from one machine to another ( failover ) , even if both are licensed , you may not move it back ( failback ) in less than 30 days without violating the license .
Naturally this has some implications for people who are stuffy about compliance and yet desperately need high availability .
The cure is simple : since there is no Windows license that permits this , you must use something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the answer to your question is "Yes.
"  Use of an operating system in a virtualized environment requires a license that permits it, or implies it.
You will find that the license terms for most forms of Windows prohibit it, except for Datacenter edition.
Even DCE has a restriction that if you vMotion an OS from one machine to another (failover), even if both are licensed, you may not move it back (failback) in less than 30 days without violating the license.
Naturally this has some implications for people who are stuffy about compliance and yet desperately need high availability.
The cure is simple: since there is no Windows license that permits this, you must use something else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948566</id>
	<title>Re:Psystar is 100\% wrong</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1257158220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about fair use rights? I know that there are exceptions for backups and format shifting, wouldn't this be covered by those?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about fair use rights ?
I know that there are exceptions for backups and format shifting , would n't this be covered by those ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about fair use rights?
I know that there are exceptions for backups and format shifting, wouldn't this be covered by those?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944492</id>
	<title>Uh-Oh</title>
	<author>davidisonslashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1257071640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So every time I press the power button on a hackintosh I just broke the law? and what if you get caught? do they count how many times you've booted it up from the system logs and use those against you too?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So every time I press the power button on a hackintosh I just broke the law ?
and what if you get caught ?
do they count how many times you 've booted it up from the system logs and use those against you too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So every time I press the power button on a hackintosh I just broke the law?
and what if you get caught?
do they count how many times you've booted it up from the system logs and use those against you too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29951434</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>Tired and Emotional</author>
	<datestamp>1257183240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you can only run it on one Apple branded computer at a time, but as many non-Apple branded computers as you wish?
<p>
Is the "must be Apple branded" alsewhere in the EULA?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you can only run it on one Apple branded computer at a time , but as many non-Apple branded computers as you wish ?
Is the " must be Apple branded " alsewhere in the EULA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you can only run it on one Apple branded computer at a time, but as many non-Apple branded computers as you wish?
Is the "must be Apple branded" alsewhere in the EULA?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944744</id>
	<title>Re:What Psystar is forgetting about</title>
	<author>Todd Knarr</author>
	<datestamp>1257073260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, but <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-401.html" title="cornell.edu">UCC Article 2 section 401</a> [cornell.edu] has something to say on the matter, specifically that title to the goods passes to the buyer at the time of delivery by the seller unless there's an explicit agreement otherwise. And that agreement has to be in place <i>before</i> delivery, otherwise title's already passed and the buyer can simply refuse the new agreement and retain title. And you'll note that in most software sales there <i>is</i> no explicit agreement entered into before the clerk hands you your package. There's only an implicit agreement requested by Apple, with no attempt to make the terms known to the buyer beforehand, no attempt to get the buyer's explicit acceptance of the agreement and no attempt to refuse to proceed with the sale until the buyer agrees. So the buyer is the owner of the goods after the sale, he holds title to them.</p><p>Apple may claim the sale is conditional, but they don't attempt to make it so. They only presume acceptance of their requested terms, and that runs afoul of 2-401's use of that little word "explicit". Which, if you look at the legal history of UCC Article 2, is exactly what it intends. One common abuse by merchants was the inclusion of implicit or hidden terms the buyer wasn't aware of at the time of sale, and 2-401 was written in response. It's commonly called the "quacks like a duck" clause: if it looks like a sale, and it sounds like a sale, then it <i>is</i> a sale as commonly understood and if the merchant wishes otherwise it's up to them to make that clear to the buyer and get them to agree to it.</p><p>Of course an obvious response is that the merchant isn't Apple and doesn't have power to transfer title. To which the response is <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-403.html" title="cornell.edu">UCC Article 2 section 403</a> [cornell.edu] which says that if Apple entrusts it's software to a merchant to sell it automatically gives the merchant all the power to transfer title that Apple would have had. It was again written to counter exactly that sort of claim, allowing consumers to deal with sales exactly as they see them without having to worry about the behavior or desires of a party they're not dealing directly with (ie. when you buy a car from your local Ford dealer you don't have to worry about Ford coming back and saying "No, this was only a lease and not a sale.").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but UCC Article 2 section 401 [ cornell.edu ] has something to say on the matter , specifically that title to the goods passes to the buyer at the time of delivery by the seller unless there 's an explicit agreement otherwise .
And that agreement has to be in place before delivery , otherwise title 's already passed and the buyer can simply refuse the new agreement and retain title .
And you 'll note that in most software sales there is no explicit agreement entered into before the clerk hands you your package .
There 's only an implicit agreement requested by Apple , with no attempt to make the terms known to the buyer beforehand , no attempt to get the buyer 's explicit acceptance of the agreement and no attempt to refuse to proceed with the sale until the buyer agrees .
So the buyer is the owner of the goods after the sale , he holds title to them.Apple may claim the sale is conditional , but they do n't attempt to make it so .
They only presume acceptance of their requested terms , and that runs afoul of 2-401 's use of that little word " explicit " .
Which , if you look at the legal history of UCC Article 2 , is exactly what it intends .
One common abuse by merchants was the inclusion of implicit or hidden terms the buyer was n't aware of at the time of sale , and 2-401 was written in response .
It 's commonly called the " quacks like a duck " clause : if it looks like a sale , and it sounds like a sale , then it is a sale as commonly understood and if the merchant wishes otherwise it 's up to them to make that clear to the buyer and get them to agree to it.Of course an obvious response is that the merchant is n't Apple and does n't have power to transfer title .
To which the response is UCC Article 2 section 403 [ cornell.edu ] which says that if Apple entrusts it 's software to a merchant to sell it automatically gives the merchant all the power to transfer title that Apple would have had .
It was again written to counter exactly that sort of claim , allowing consumers to deal with sales exactly as they see them without having to worry about the behavior or desires of a party they 're not dealing directly with ( ie .
when you buy a car from your local Ford dealer you do n't have to worry about Ford coming back and saying " No , this was only a lease and not a sale .
" ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but UCC Article 2 section 401 [cornell.edu] has something to say on the matter, specifically that title to the goods passes to the buyer at the time of delivery by the seller unless there's an explicit agreement otherwise.
And that agreement has to be in place before delivery, otherwise title's already passed and the buyer can simply refuse the new agreement and retain title.
And you'll note that in most software sales there is no explicit agreement entered into before the clerk hands you your package.
There's only an implicit agreement requested by Apple, with no attempt to make the terms known to the buyer beforehand, no attempt to get the buyer's explicit acceptance of the agreement and no attempt to refuse to proceed with the sale until the buyer agrees.
So the buyer is the owner of the goods after the sale, he holds title to them.Apple may claim the sale is conditional, but they don't attempt to make it so.
They only presume acceptance of their requested terms, and that runs afoul of 2-401's use of that little word "explicit".
Which, if you look at the legal history of UCC Article 2, is exactly what it intends.
One common abuse by merchants was the inclusion of implicit or hidden terms the buyer wasn't aware of at the time of sale, and 2-401 was written in response.
It's commonly called the "quacks like a duck" clause: if it looks like a sale, and it sounds like a sale, then it is a sale as commonly understood and if the merchant wishes otherwise it's up to them to make that clear to the buyer and get them to agree to it.Of course an obvious response is that the merchant isn't Apple and doesn't have power to transfer title.
To which the response is UCC Article 2 section 403 [cornell.edu] which says that if Apple entrusts it's software to a merchant to sell it automatically gives the merchant all the power to transfer title that Apple would have had.
It was again written to counter exactly that sort of claim, allowing consumers to deal with sales exactly as they see them without having to worry about the behavior or desires of a party they're not dealing directly with (ie.
when you buy a car from your local Ford dealer you don't have to worry about Ford coming back and saying "No, this was only a lease and not a sale.
").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29952182</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone surprised?</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1257186720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple is being paid for every copy of OS X.</p></div><p>No, they're being paid for the copy on the DVD they sell. They're not being paid for each copy you make in RAM or onto the hard disk.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think Apple has a right to say what piece of hardware you can run OS X on. It's paid for, end of story.</p></div><p>Ethically, I tend to agree with you. Legally, that's not the way copyright law is written and it needs to be reformed in many, many ways before it is sensible.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When everyone else tries to lock stuff down we scream about how evil and greedy they are.</p></div><p>You mean like when Linux locks down his kernel with the GPL forcing people to adhere to a license just to make a copy of it that doesn't cost him anything? Maybe you scream about evil and greed, but some of us have a more nuanced view.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple is just as greedy and as "evil" as Microsoft. They're out to make money just like everyone else.</p></div><p>That's not really a productive discussion. I'd argue Microsoft has a lot more power and has repeatedly broken the law and caused great harm to the computing industry. Apple has more or less obeyed the law (even if it is a bad law) does not have sufficient market power yet to do real harm, and has actually provided more benefit and innovation to desktop computing and several other markets, helping to undo some of MS's damage.</p><p>As a geek, I and many like me want technology to progress and become cheaper and better. I complain about MS's actions because they prevent that, while Apple mostly does the opposite. If Apple had enough power, they would doubtless be a significant problem and certainly their main motivation (like MS) is greed. Apple, however, takes fewer actions I need to decry and are one of the biggest things eroding MS's power to create a real, competitive marketplace again. I expect companies to be greedy, but if they are greedy and law abiding and our laws are not subverted, that's okay because the capitalist market does a good job of harnessing greed and making it work for the good of the people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is being paid for every copy of OS X.No , they 're being paid for the copy on the DVD they sell .
They 're not being paid for each copy you make in RAM or onto the hard disk.I do n't think Apple has a right to say what piece of hardware you can run OS X on .
It 's paid for , end of story.Ethically , I tend to agree with you .
Legally , that 's not the way copyright law is written and it needs to be reformed in many , many ways before it is sensible.When everyone else tries to lock stuff down we scream about how evil and greedy they are.You mean like when Linux locks down his kernel with the GPL forcing people to adhere to a license just to make a copy of it that does n't cost him anything ?
Maybe you scream about evil and greed , but some of us have a more nuanced view.Apple is just as greedy and as " evil " as Microsoft .
They 're out to make money just like everyone else.That 's not really a productive discussion .
I 'd argue Microsoft has a lot more power and has repeatedly broken the law and caused great harm to the computing industry .
Apple has more or less obeyed the law ( even if it is a bad law ) does not have sufficient market power yet to do real harm , and has actually provided more benefit and innovation to desktop computing and several other markets , helping to undo some of MS 's damage.As a geek , I and many like me want technology to progress and become cheaper and better .
I complain about MS 's actions because they prevent that , while Apple mostly does the opposite .
If Apple had enough power , they would doubtless be a significant problem and certainly their main motivation ( like MS ) is greed .
Apple , however , takes fewer actions I need to decry and are one of the biggest things eroding MS 's power to create a real , competitive marketplace again .
I expect companies to be greedy , but if they are greedy and law abiding and our laws are not subverted , that 's okay because the capitalist market does a good job of harnessing greed and making it work for the good of the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is being paid for every copy of OS X.No, they're being paid for the copy on the DVD they sell.
They're not being paid for each copy you make in RAM or onto the hard disk.I don't think Apple has a right to say what piece of hardware you can run OS X on.
It's paid for, end of story.Ethically, I tend to agree with you.
Legally, that's not the way copyright law is written and it needs to be reformed in many, many ways before it is sensible.When everyone else tries to lock stuff down we scream about how evil and greedy they are.You mean like when Linux locks down his kernel with the GPL forcing people to adhere to a license just to make a copy of it that doesn't cost him anything?
Maybe you scream about evil and greed, but some of us have a more nuanced view.Apple is just as greedy and as "evil" as Microsoft.
They're out to make money just like everyone else.That's not really a productive discussion.
I'd argue Microsoft has a lot more power and has repeatedly broken the law and caused great harm to the computing industry.
Apple has more or less obeyed the law (even if it is a bad law) does not have sufficient market power yet to do real harm, and has actually provided more benefit and innovation to desktop computing and several other markets, helping to undo some of MS's damage.As a geek, I and many like me want technology to progress and become cheaper and better.
I complain about MS's actions because they prevent that, while Apple mostly does the opposite.
If Apple had enough power, they would doubtless be a significant problem and certainly their main motivation (like MS) is greed.
Apple, however, takes fewer actions I need to decry and are one of the biggest things eroding MS's power to create a real, competitive marketplace again.
I expect companies to be greedy, but if they are greedy and law abiding and our laws are not subverted, that's okay because the capitalist market does a good job of harnessing greed and making it work for the good of the people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943848</id>
	<title>my 2 cents...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fuck Apple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck Apple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947450</id>
	<title>Stop saying EULA</title>
	<author>TRRosen</author>
	<datestamp>1257098280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EULA has no bearing on this case. Why? Because its a END User Licensing Agreement. Psystar is NOT A END USER they are an OEM.<br>Its just as illegal for a PC manufacturer to pre-install a retail copy of windows. And yes MS would go after anyone that did this.<br>OEM licenses have many extra terms and the software is able to present the end user with the EULA.</p><p>PS is Psystar wins OEM Licensing dies,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EULA has no bearing on this case .
Why ? Because its a END User Licensing Agreement .
Psystar is NOT A END USER they are an OEM.Its just as illegal for a PC manufacturer to pre-install a retail copy of windows .
And yes MS would go after anyone that did this.OEM licenses have many extra terms and the software is able to present the end user with the EULA.PS is Psystar wins OEM Licensing dies,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EULA has no bearing on this case.
Why? Because its a END User Licensing Agreement.
Psystar is NOT A END USER they are an OEM.Its just as illegal for a PC manufacturer to pre-install a retail copy of windows.
And yes MS would go after anyone that did this.OEM licenses have many extra terms and the software is able to present the end user with the EULA.PS is Psystar wins OEM Licensing dies,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943628</id>
	<title>Re:Unauthorized</title>
	<author>TheGreenNuke</author>
	<datestamp>1257066060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet if MS tried the same tactic of requiring MS branded hardware, the whole world would cry foul.  Sounds like monopolistic tendencies in the EULA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet if MS tried the same tactic of requiring MS branded hardware , the whole world would cry foul .
Sounds like monopolistic tendencies in the EULA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet if MS tried the same tactic of requiring MS branded hardware, the whole world would cry foul.
Sounds like monopolistic tendencies in the EULA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945786</id>
	<title>Re:What Psystar is forgetting about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257082260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't posession 9/10 of the law?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't posession 9/10 of the law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't posession 9/10 of the law?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944210</id>
	<title>Re:Unauthorized</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1257069780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may be "unauthorised" per Apple policy, but right of first sale allows you to use your product however you please providing you do not violate copyright outside of fair use. You can resell that copy (and all backups must be transferred with the original), use it as a coaster, use it as a frisbee, or even yes, install it on non-Apple-branded hardware without violating copyright law. Apple policy is not law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may be " unauthorised " per Apple policy , but right of first sale allows you to use your product however you please providing you do not violate copyright outside of fair use .
You can resell that copy ( and all backups must be transferred with the original ) , use it as a coaster , use it as a frisbee , or even yes , install it on non-Apple-branded hardware without violating copyright law .
Apple policy is not law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may be "unauthorised" per Apple policy, but right of first sale allows you to use your product however you please providing you do not violate copyright outside of fair use.
You can resell that copy (and all backups must be transferred with the original), use it as a coaster, use it as a frisbee, or even yes, install it on non-Apple-branded hardware without violating copyright law.
Apple policy is not law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944398</id>
	<title>Re:Groklaw going down the drain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257071040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>bleh, who mods these idiots up? I mean, seriously...</htmltext>
<tokenext>bleh , who mods these idiots up ?
I mean , seriously.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bleh, who mods these idiots up?
I mean, seriously...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948438</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>cstacy</author>
	<datestamp>1257155880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People need to rise up and tell the government that it needs to put an end to shit like this</p></div><p>That would involve finding and funding and voting for candidates that you like.  People can hardly be bothered to vote, and they don't bother their elected representatives.  They just whine on Slashdot and sit around depressed saying that "they can't do anything".   When was the last time anyone arranged to sit down for meeting with their representative?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People need to rise up and tell the government that it needs to put an end to shit like thisThat would involve finding and funding and voting for candidates that you like .
People can hardly be bothered to vote , and they do n't bother their elected representatives .
They just whine on Slashdot and sit around depressed saying that " they ca n't do anything " .
When was the last time anyone arranged to sit down for meeting with their representative ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People need to rise up and tell the government that it needs to put an end to shit like thisThat would involve finding and funding and voting for candidates that you like.
People can hardly be bothered to vote, and they don't bother their elected representatives.
They just whine on Slashdot and sit around depressed saying that "they can't do anything".
When was the last time anyone arranged to sit down for meeting with their representative?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944708</id>
	<title>Re:Old idea</title>
	<author>Mr2001</author>
	<datestamp>1257073080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, wasn't the idea that copying a program from disk to RAM need specific permission, something that was ruled on very long ago?</p></div><p>That may have been the case before 1980, but <a href="http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/117.html" title="bitlaw.com">17 USC 117</a> [bitlaw.com] now explicitly allows the owner of a copy of a program to make additional copies or adaptations as needed to run it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , was n't the idea that copying a program from disk to RAM need specific permission , something that was ruled on very long ago ? That may have been the case before 1980 , but 17 USC 117 [ bitlaw.com ] now explicitly allows the owner of a copy of a program to make additional copies or adaptations as needed to run it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, wasn't the idea that copying a program from disk to RAM need specific permission, something that was ruled on very long ago?That may have been the case before 1980, but 17 USC 117 [bitlaw.com] now explicitly allows the owner of a copy of a program to make additional copies or adaptations as needed to run it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945818</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone surprised?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257082620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple is a hardware company, they offer new versions of their OS at reduced prices to owners of their hardware as a service for those customers to keep their products update and add new features. They do not currently offer a licence for you to install their OS on hardware built by others because they are not a software company.</p><p>Could they offer the OS for free? I don't think so maybe cuz of some GAAP thing. DO they want to offer it for free? I don't think so either, they want to cover costs, they could do it by adding to the hardware price, would customers like that? No, I wouldn't! for many reasons.</p><p>I can think of a lot of other examples of software like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is a hardware company , they offer new versions of their OS at reduced prices to owners of their hardware as a service for those customers to keep their products update and add new features .
They do not currently offer a licence for you to install their OS on hardware built by others because they are not a software company.Could they offer the OS for free ?
I do n't think so maybe cuz of some GAAP thing .
DO they want to offer it for free ?
I do n't think so either , they want to cover costs , they could do it by adding to the hardware price , would customers like that ?
No , I would n't !
for many reasons.I can think of a lot of other examples of software like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is a hardware company, they offer new versions of their OS at reduced prices to owners of their hardware as a service for those customers to keep their products update and add new features.
They do not currently offer a licence for you to install their OS on hardware built by others because they are not a software company.Could they offer the OS for free?
I don't think so maybe cuz of some GAAP thing.
DO they want to offer it for free?
I don't think so either, they want to cover costs, they could do it by adding to the hardware price, would customers like that?
No, I wouldn't!
for many reasons.I can think of a lot of other examples of software like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945712</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>jackspenn</author>
	<datestamp>1257081660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Courts also ruled that tomatoes are a fruit, my point is courts can be really stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Courts also ruled that tomatoes are a fruit , my point is courts can be really stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Courts also ruled that tomatoes are a fruit, my point is courts can be really stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29950540</id>
	<title>Re:What Psystar is forgetting about</title>
	<author>fuffer</author>
	<datestamp>1257179340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, they purchased a physical disc, and a license to use the software on that disc according to the license agreement.

By spending the money for the license, they are bound by the agreement that comes with the software, period.  Signed contract not required.  For example, when you buy a ticket for a sporting event, you are merely purchasing a license to view the game.  It is revokable for any reason (read the fine print).  When was the last time you signed a contract for a game ticket?

The law - I do not think it means what you think it means.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they purchased a physical disc , and a license to use the software on that disc according to the license agreement .
By spending the money for the license , they are bound by the agreement that comes with the software , period .
Signed contract not required .
For example , when you buy a ticket for a sporting event , you are merely purchasing a license to view the game .
It is revokable for any reason ( read the fine print ) .
When was the last time you signed a contract for a game ticket ?
The law - I do not think it means what you think it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they purchased a physical disc, and a license to use the software on that disc according to the license agreement.
By spending the money for the license, they are bound by the agreement that comes with the software, period.
Signed contract not required.
For example, when you buy a ticket for a sporting event, you are merely purchasing a license to view the game.
It is revokable for any reason (read the fine print).
When was the last time you signed a contract for a game ticket?
The law - I do not think it means what you think it means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947668</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257100380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Didn't psystar purchase the copies? Aren't they covered by First Sale?</i></p><p>In a post above someone said Pystar can't even produce receipts showing they bought OS X.  And no, this has  nothing to do with the First sale doctrine.  If Pystar bought OS X on DVDs they can still sell, or give away, those disks.  What they can not do is use the disk to install OS X on non-Apple branded hardware.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't psystar purchase the copies ?
Are n't they covered by First Sale ? In a post above someone said Pystar ca n't even produce receipts showing they bought OS X. And no , this has nothing to do with the First sale doctrine .
If Pystar bought OS X on DVDs they can still sell , or give away , those disks .
What they can not do is use the disk to install OS X on non-Apple branded hardware .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't psystar purchase the copies?
Aren't they covered by First Sale?In a post above someone said Pystar can't even produce receipts showing they bought OS X.  And no, this has  nothing to do with the First sale doctrine.
If Pystar bought OS X on DVDs they can still sell, or give away, those disks.
What they can not do is use the disk to install OS X on non-Apple branded hardware.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945380</id>
	<title>Do it! Do it now!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257078420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jesus. Can't someone just DO THE RIGHT THING and repossess that liver they stuffed into Jobs? Preferably without sedation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jesus .
Ca n't someone just DO THE RIGHT THING and repossess that liver they stuffed into Jobs ?
Preferably without sedation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jesus.
Can't someone just DO THE RIGHT THING and repossess that liver they stuffed into Jobs?
Preferably without sedation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945486</id>
	<title>Re:VMWare ?</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1257079200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
If your copy of the software is not authorized in the first place, than the additional copy in RAM is also unauthorized.
</p><p>
If the EULA says you may run a copy of the software on a computer, then they have implicitly authorized you to make the copy into RAM, because that's how computers work (to 'run' a program means to map and copy parts of it into ram and then execute on a CPU).
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your copy of the software is not authorized in the first place , than the additional copy in RAM is also unauthorized .
If the EULA says you may run a copy of the software on a computer , then they have implicitly authorized you to make the copy into RAM , because that 's how computers work ( to 'run ' a program means to map and copy parts of it into ram and then execute on a CPU ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
If your copy of the software is not authorized in the first place, than the additional copy in RAM is also unauthorized.
If the EULA says you may run a copy of the software on a computer, then they have implicitly authorized you to make the copy into RAM, because that's how computers work (to 'run' a program means to map and copy parts of it into ram and then execute on a CPU).
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944096</id>
	<title>Re:Reading, it's important.</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1257069000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're pretty much the only person in this entire discussion so far who deserves mod points.</p><p>I gave up trying to actually respond to copyright discussions on Slashdot after my first two and a half years of law school. It's just too time-consuming to correct all the armchair lawyer bullshit spewed here.</p><p>I just wanted to give you credit where credit is due.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're pretty much the only person in this entire discussion so far who deserves mod points.I gave up trying to actually respond to copyright discussions on Slashdot after my first two and a half years of law school .
It 's just too time-consuming to correct all the armchair lawyer bullshit spewed here.I just wanted to give you credit where credit is due .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're pretty much the only person in this entire discussion so far who deserves mod points.I gave up trying to actually respond to copyright discussions on Slashdot after my first two and a half years of law school.
It's just too time-consuming to correct all the armchair lawyer bullshit spewed here.I just wanted to give you credit where credit is due.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945428</id>
	<title>psystar are bastard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257078780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ripping off other peoples hard work and passing it off as their own...</p><p>http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&amp;prev=\_t&amp;hl=ru&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;u=http://teateam.blogspot.com/2009/10/psystar-rebelefi.html&amp;sl=ru&amp;tl=en&amp;history\_state0=</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ripping off other peoples hard work and passing it off as their own...http : //translate.google.com/translate ? js = y&amp;prev = \ _t&amp;hl = ru&amp;ie = UTF-8&amp;u = http : //teateam.blogspot.com/2009/10/psystar-rebelefi.html&amp;sl = ru&amp;tl = en&amp;history \ _state0 =</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ripping off other peoples hard work and passing it off as their own...http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&amp;prev=\_t&amp;hl=ru&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;u=http://teateam.blogspot.com/2009/10/psystar-rebelefi.html&amp;sl=ru&amp;tl=en&amp;history\_state0=</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944256</id>
	<title>Re:What Psystar is forgetting about</title>
	<author>SchroedingersCat</author>
	<datestamp>1257070080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(emphasis added). The word "owner"</p></div></blockquote><p>
All software is licensed so you are not the owner. The same logic that applies to Psystar applies to hardware sold by Apple (you own the hardware but you license the software). So according to your logic, every time you boot your Mac you are making an illegal copy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( emphasis added ) .
The word " owner " All software is licensed so you are not the owner .
The same logic that applies to Psystar applies to hardware sold by Apple ( you own the hardware but you license the software ) .
So according to your logic , every time you boot your Mac you are making an illegal copy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(emphasis added).
The word "owner"
All software is licensed so you are not the owner.
The same logic that applies to Psystar applies to hardware sold by Apple (you own the hardware but you license the software).
So according to your logic, every time you boot your Mac you are making an illegal copy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943828</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>Anonymous Brave Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1257067020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how, as a matter of fact, a court could find any differently. It is an objective reality that a copy in RAM is made of data on a disk when a program is loaded. That is the "loading" part.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Whether or not such copying should be subject to restriction by copyright law is a different question entirely, and from a legal point of view it is much more interesting. As mentioned in TFS, some major jurisdictions (including IIRC both the US and the EU) have specific and/or general wording in some of their laws that might exclude these copies. It that were the case, it could negate any legal argument about controlling the use of software based purely on ability to load and run an otherwise legal copy.</p><p>That matters profoundly, because it could have huge repercussions for the validity of EULAs and similar arrangements: for software purchased via a third party, the copying-into-memory angle could be the only influence the original copyright holder has, and if that is negated then there is nothing in it for the consumer to agree to an EULA. It's not clear how any sort of binding contractual agreement, such as any other EULA terms, could be valid at that point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how , as a matter of fact , a court could find any differently .
It is an objective reality that a copy in RAM is made of data on a disk when a program is loaded .
That is the " loading " part .
; - ) Whether or not such copying should be subject to restriction by copyright law is a different question entirely , and from a legal point of view it is much more interesting .
As mentioned in TFS , some major jurisdictions ( including IIRC both the US and the EU ) have specific and/or general wording in some of their laws that might exclude these copies .
It that were the case , it could negate any legal argument about controlling the use of software based purely on ability to load and run an otherwise legal copy.That matters profoundly , because it could have huge repercussions for the validity of EULAs and similar arrangements : for software purchased via a third party , the copying-into-memory angle could be the only influence the original copyright holder has , and if that is negated then there is nothing in it for the consumer to agree to an EULA .
It 's not clear how any sort of binding contractual agreement , such as any other EULA terms , could be valid at that point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how, as a matter of fact, a court could find any differently.
It is an objective reality that a copy in RAM is made of data on a disk when a program is loaded.
That is the "loading" part.
;-)Whether or not such copying should be subject to restriction by copyright law is a different question entirely, and from a legal point of view it is much more interesting.
As mentioned in TFS, some major jurisdictions (including IIRC both the US and the EU) have specific and/or general wording in some of their laws that might exclude these copies.
It that were the case, it could negate any legal argument about controlling the use of software based purely on ability to load and run an otherwise legal copy.That matters profoundly, because it could have huge repercussions for the validity of EULAs and similar arrangements: for software purchased via a third party, the copying-into-memory angle could be the only influence the original copyright holder has, and if that is negated then there is nothing in it for the consumer to agree to an EULA.
It's not clear how any sort of binding contractual agreement, such as any other EULA terms, could be valid at that point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29949260</id>
	<title>Re:Proprietary software at its worst</title>
	<author>paragon1</author>
	<datestamp>1257170040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone who was planning to buy a computer from Apple should take a moment to rethink that decision, and consider a more freedom respecting company.</p></div><p>Would you care to point one out?  More and more, corporations in general are anything but respectful of freedom.  It simply isn't <i>profitable.</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who was planning to buy a computer from Apple should take a moment to rethink that decision , and consider a more freedom respecting company.Would you care to point one out ?
More and more , corporations in general are anything but respectful of freedom .
It simply is n't profitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who was planning to buy a computer from Apple should take a moment to rethink that decision, and consider a more freedom respecting company.Would you care to point one out?
More and more, corporations in general are anything but respectful of freedom.
It simply isn't profitable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947250</id>
	<title>if you buy the software, it's a legal copy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257096420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I buy a copy of OS X, then I legally possess a license to use it. Apple says I am only licensed to use it on an Apple manufactured computer, but this is bundling, which got IBM in a lot of trouble back in the mainframe heyday.<br> <br>IBM said you could not buy a copy of its mainframe OS to run on anything other than an IBM mainframe, and could not even buy the software license separately from the hardware. The case went on for years, but was eventually dismissed by the Reagan Justice Department.<br> <br>Since Apple sells the operating system software separately from the hardware, some lawyer somewhere is eventually going to successfully make the case that Apple is illegally bundling hardware and software...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I buy a copy of OS X , then I legally possess a license to use it .
Apple says I am only licensed to use it on an Apple manufactured computer , but this is bundling , which got IBM in a lot of trouble back in the mainframe heyday .
IBM said you could not buy a copy of its mainframe OS to run on anything other than an IBM mainframe , and could not even buy the software license separately from the hardware .
The case went on for years , but was eventually dismissed by the Reagan Justice Department .
Since Apple sells the operating system software separately from the hardware , some lawyer somewhere is eventually going to successfully make the case that Apple is illegally bundling hardware and software.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I buy a copy of OS X, then I legally possess a license to use it.
Apple says I am only licensed to use it on an Apple manufactured computer, but this is bundling, which got IBM in a lot of trouble back in the mainframe heyday.
IBM said you could not buy a copy of its mainframe OS to run on anything other than an IBM mainframe, and could not even buy the software license separately from the hardware.
The case went on for years, but was eventually dismissed by the Reagan Justice Department.
Since Apple sells the operating system software separately from the hardware, some lawyer somewhere is eventually going to successfully make the case that Apple is illegally bundling hardware and software...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947446</id>
	<title>Re:Proprietary software at its worst</title>
	<author>jnork</author>
	<datestamp>1257098160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flame. Flame.</p><p>Consider yourself flamed. Right off the, um, edge of the Earth.</p><p>Though from what I understand, Apple has historically left hobbyist efforts alone on this matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flame .
Flame.Consider yourself flamed .
Right off the , um , edge of the Earth.Though from what I understand , Apple has historically left hobbyist efforts alone on this matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flame.
Flame.Consider yourself flamed.
Right off the, um, edge of the Earth.Though from what I understand, Apple has historically left hobbyist efforts alone on this matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945676</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone surprised?</title>
	<author>arashi no garou</author>
	<datestamp>1257081180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple is being paid for every copy of OS X.</p></div><p>True, but they are paid much more when you buy their hardware, as their OS and software are really just a hook to get you to buy a Mac.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps they should stop selling OS X as a full standalone product then?</p></div><p>On one hand, I almost wish they would so this issue would just go away. But, that would stop those of us who do like to tinker on our own non-Apple hardware (and so far we've been ignored by Apple). Also it would open the door for Apple to start doing hardware activation checks, which would only be hurtful to their loyal customers.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think Apple has a right to say what piece of hardware you can run OS X on. It's paid for, end of story.</p></div><p>I agree, but unfortunately the law (so far) says it's licensed and not sold, though there was a case involving AutoCAD recently that set a precedent for final ownership of a software product. Perhaps that will come up in this case as prior case law.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When everyone else tries to lock stuff down we scream about how evil and greedy they are. But when it comes to Apple, it's different somehow? Apple is just as greedy and as "evil" as Microsoft. They're out to make money just like everyone else.</p></div><p>They are as greedy, but I honestly don't think either company is "evil". While I'm not religious myself, I've read in the Christian bible that the love of wealth is the root of all evil. Perhaps there is truth in that, but I doubt there is a little demon on Jobs' and Ballmer's shoulders making them do bad things for the fun of it.</p><p>As to why Apple isn't attacked nearly as much as Microsoft for being greedy and "evil", well it's all down to perspective. Ask a devoted Apple customer and they will tell you that they get shit from both the Microsofties and the Penguin Army.</p><p>My own personal stance towards computers has always been to use the tool that works best for me--replace the word "tool" with "hardware", "software" or "OS" as applicable. While I prefer to use open source and community supported software whenever possible, I'm not an OSS freak by any means. My favorite OSes--I hold them in equal esteem--are BeOS and OS X, both commercial and largely closed source. Sure, I'd love it if Apple opened up OS X to be legally used on commodity hardware, but I won't hold my breath. Their OS is the gateway to their real moneymaker, and they will fight to control that gate for the foreseeable future.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is being paid for every copy of OS X.True , but they are paid much more when you buy their hardware , as their OS and software are really just a hook to get you to buy a Mac.Perhaps they should stop selling OS X as a full standalone product then ? On one hand , I almost wish they would so this issue would just go away .
But , that would stop those of us who do like to tinker on our own non-Apple hardware ( and so far we 've been ignored by Apple ) .
Also it would open the door for Apple to start doing hardware activation checks , which would only be hurtful to their loyal customers.I do n't think Apple has a right to say what piece of hardware you can run OS X on .
It 's paid for , end of story.I agree , but unfortunately the law ( so far ) says it 's licensed and not sold , though there was a case involving AutoCAD recently that set a precedent for final ownership of a software product .
Perhaps that will come up in this case as prior case law.When everyone else tries to lock stuff down we scream about how evil and greedy they are .
But when it comes to Apple , it 's different somehow ?
Apple is just as greedy and as " evil " as Microsoft .
They 're out to make money just like everyone else.They are as greedy , but I honestly do n't think either company is " evil " .
While I 'm not religious myself , I 've read in the Christian bible that the love of wealth is the root of all evil .
Perhaps there is truth in that , but I doubt there is a little demon on Jobs ' and Ballmer 's shoulders making them do bad things for the fun of it.As to why Apple is n't attacked nearly as much as Microsoft for being greedy and " evil " , well it 's all down to perspective .
Ask a devoted Apple customer and they will tell you that they get shit from both the Microsofties and the Penguin Army.My own personal stance towards computers has always been to use the tool that works best for me--replace the word " tool " with " hardware " , " software " or " OS " as applicable .
While I prefer to use open source and community supported software whenever possible , I 'm not an OSS freak by any means .
My favorite OSes--I hold them in equal esteem--are BeOS and OS X , both commercial and largely closed source .
Sure , I 'd love it if Apple opened up OS X to be legally used on commodity hardware , but I wo n't hold my breath .
Their OS is the gateway to their real moneymaker , and they will fight to control that gate for the foreseeable future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is being paid for every copy of OS X.True, but they are paid much more when you buy their hardware, as their OS and software are really just a hook to get you to buy a Mac.Perhaps they should stop selling OS X as a full standalone product then?On one hand, I almost wish they would so this issue would just go away.
But, that would stop those of us who do like to tinker on our own non-Apple hardware (and so far we've been ignored by Apple).
Also it would open the door for Apple to start doing hardware activation checks, which would only be hurtful to their loyal customers.I don't think Apple has a right to say what piece of hardware you can run OS X on.
It's paid for, end of story.I agree, but unfortunately the law (so far) says it's licensed and not sold, though there was a case involving AutoCAD recently that set a precedent for final ownership of a software product.
Perhaps that will come up in this case as prior case law.When everyone else tries to lock stuff down we scream about how evil and greedy they are.
But when it comes to Apple, it's different somehow?
Apple is just as greedy and as "evil" as Microsoft.
They're out to make money just like everyone else.They are as greedy, but I honestly don't think either company is "evil".
While I'm not religious myself, I've read in the Christian bible that the love of wealth is the root of all evil.
Perhaps there is truth in that, but I doubt there is a little demon on Jobs' and Ballmer's shoulders making them do bad things for the fun of it.As to why Apple isn't attacked nearly as much as Microsoft for being greedy and "evil", well it's all down to perspective.
Ask a devoted Apple customer and they will tell you that they get shit from both the Microsofties and the Penguin Army.My own personal stance towards computers has always been to use the tool that works best for me--replace the word "tool" with "hardware", "software" or "OS" as applicable.
While I prefer to use open source and community supported software whenever possible, I'm not an OSS freak by any means.
My favorite OSes--I hold them in equal esteem--are BeOS and OS X, both commercial and largely closed source.
Sure, I'd love it if Apple opened up OS X to be legally used on commodity hardware, but I won't hold my breath.
Their OS is the gateway to their real moneymaker, and they will fight to control that gate for the foreseeable future.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945252</id>
	<title>Re:Unauthorized</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257077280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple with its vast marketshare doesn't constitute anything near a monopoly, as there are dozens if not hundreds of competing products.</p></div><p>You realize you just stated part of Microsoft's argument for their many anti-trust lawsuits right? You don't need to have 100\% market-share to be consider a monopolistic or have monopolistic practices, as Microsoft has been and continues to be told.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple with its vast marketshare does n't constitute anything near a monopoly , as there are dozens if not hundreds of competing products.You realize you just stated part of Microsoft 's argument for their many anti-trust lawsuits right ?
You do n't need to have 100 \ % market-share to be consider a monopolistic or have monopolistic practices , as Microsoft has been and continues to be told .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple with its vast marketshare doesn't constitute anything near a monopoly, as there are dozens if not hundreds of competing products.You realize you just stated part of Microsoft's argument for their many anti-trust lawsuits right?
You don't need to have 100\% market-share to be consider a monopolistic or have monopolistic practices, as Microsoft has been and continues to be told.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944100</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257069060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still in awe that people are so stupid and complacent to accept the concept of a software "license" that would restrict what you can do with a product you purchased for no reason other than to appease the greedy control freaks in big business. Software needs to be treated like books and that's the end of it. Copyright protection, first sale doctrine, do what you want, but don't copy for people.</p><p>Every time I read about the heinous abuses of the legal system like this, I feel inclined to go break a few related laws out of spite.</p><p>People need to rise up and tell the government that it needs to put an end to shit like this and other abuses of the public in general (cough cough, banking system, cough)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still in awe that people are so stupid and complacent to accept the concept of a software " license " that would restrict what you can do with a product you purchased for no reason other than to appease the greedy control freaks in big business .
Software needs to be treated like books and that 's the end of it .
Copyright protection , first sale doctrine , do what you want , but do n't copy for people.Every time I read about the heinous abuses of the legal system like this , I feel inclined to go break a few related laws out of spite.People need to rise up and tell the government that it needs to put an end to shit like this and other abuses of the public in general ( cough cough , banking system , cough )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still in awe that people are so stupid and complacent to accept the concept of a software "license" that would restrict what you can do with a product you purchased for no reason other than to appease the greedy control freaks in big business.
Software needs to be treated like books and that's the end of it.
Copyright protection, first sale doctrine, do what you want, but don't copy for people.Every time I read about the heinous abuses of the legal system like this, I feel inclined to go break a few related laws out of spite.People need to rise up and tell the government that it needs to put an end to shit like this and other abuses of the public in general (cough cough, banking system, cough)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944354</id>
	<title>Apple-branded computers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257070620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Ugrade License for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.</p></div><p>Looks like Apple doesn't grant you a license to make another  copy(as they argue you do by booting). If Apple wins this, can they successfully sue their customers for making unauthorized copies when the computer boots?</p></div><p>Did you miss the part where it says "Apple-branded computer"?  If Apple's customers use Apple-branded computers, then what do you think is the answer to your question?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A. Single Use License .
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License , unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Ugrade License for the Apple Software , you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install , use and run one ( 1 ) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.Looks like Apple does n't grant you a license to make another copy ( as they argue you do by booting ) .
If Apple wins this , can they successfully sue their customers for making unauthorized copies when the computer boots ? Did you miss the part where it says " Apple-branded computer " ?
If Apple 's customers use Apple-branded computers , then what do you think is the answer to your question ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A. Single Use License.
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Ugrade License for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.Looks like Apple doesn't grant you a license to make another  copy(as they argue you do by booting).
If Apple wins this, can they successfully sue their customers for making unauthorized copies when the computer boots?Did you miss the part where it says "Apple-branded computer"?
If Apple's customers use Apple-branded computers, then what do you think is the answer to your question?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948604</id>
	<title>Re:Litigated before</title>
	<author>cjb110</author>
	<datestamp>1257158940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I'd hope that any half IT literate lawyer would look at the following:</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software...</p></div><p>And argue that 'use and run' is impossible without 'copying' it to memory, and so Apple couldn't have classed a memory copy as a unauthorised copy when they wrote the EULA.  Otherwise their EULA would have specifically stated 2 copies!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I 'd hope that any half IT literate lawyer would look at the following : ...you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install , use and run one ( 1 ) copy of the Apple Software...And argue that 'use and run ' is impossible without 'copying ' it to memory , and so Apple could n't have classed a memory copy as a unauthorised copy when they wrote the EULA .
Otherwise their EULA would have specifically stated 2 copies !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I'd hope that any half IT literate lawyer would look at the following: ...you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software...And argue that 'use and run' is impossible without 'copying' it to memory, and so Apple couldn't have classed a memory copy as a unauthorised copy when they wrote the EULA.
Otherwise their EULA would have specifically stated 2 copies!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29955134</id>
	<title>Were Steve Jobs never got it</title>
	<author>jackspenn</author>
	<datestamp>1257157200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Steve Jobs is such a control freak, he never understood that Apple could be where Microsoft is, all it had to do was become a company that focused on the software, rather than a hardware company.
<br> <br>
Apple should be working to allow OS X to run on various computers, for example DELL was interested in selling OS X computers for the longest time.  I know people who run versions of OS X on their thinkpads.  Instead Apple is sniping people who buy and sell Apple products (just not in the way, Lord Jobs approves).  If it were a record or movie company putting demands on how a song or movie can be used,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. would be up in arms, but since it is Apple placing demands on how software is used,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. bows in worship.  How pathetic, we talk of freedom and hacking, but we do not practice or support what we preach.
<br> <br>
Apple could have made a strong push years back against Windows, but by locking the hardware and software together and taking the role of hardware provider instead of software distributor, they will be left in their 3-5\% nitch forever.  I think it would have been really cool, but Jobs is to concerned with controlling a closed and walled off garden then building a public park where other hardware and software folks could play along side him.  Where are all the Apple hackers?  Why aren't they upset over the walls Jobs has constructed?  Because they just write him off and switch to Linux or Windows (both of which are more open).
<br> <br>
This corporate policy is why eventually the iPhone will fall just as the Apple desktop did.  Remember when people who were interested in Apple went with PCs because that critical piece of software/hardware they needed wasn't support or available through Apple and Apple made it hard for the software/hardware folks to develop products to work with Apple (the II was a success because of the expansion slots that Jobs killed in the early Macs).
<br> <br>
Few remember that it was Windows who was open to more hardware and application developers, thus crushing Apple's desktop market chances, so to will Android be open to more hardware and application developers eventually crushing Apple's PDA/smartphone position.  Despite the big head start, Apple's closed approach will choke it off eventually, costing Apple the top seed, not to a single hardware victor, but to a variety of venders with a uniform OS/development standard, in this case Android and its open APIs.
<br> <br>
Just like the Appple II orginally had more apps, before PCs caught on, so will Android catchup and pass the iPhone (except it will be much faster).  How is that wifi tether app on your iPhone working?  Are you really with the wireless carrier you wanted?  Can you develop iPhone apps on your Linux or Windows PCs?  Where is model with a keyboard?  Where is the one with an sd expansion slot?  The one that can run background programs/services?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Steve Jobs is such a control freak , he never understood that Apple could be where Microsoft is , all it had to do was become a company that focused on the software , rather than a hardware company .
Apple should be working to allow OS X to run on various computers , for example DELL was interested in selling OS X computers for the longest time .
I know people who run versions of OS X on their thinkpads .
Instead Apple is sniping people who buy and sell Apple products ( just not in the way , Lord Jobs approves ) .
If it were a record or movie company putting demands on how a song or movie can be used , / .
would be up in arms , but since it is Apple placing demands on how software is used , / .
bows in worship .
How pathetic , we talk of freedom and hacking , but we do not practice or support what we preach .
Apple could have made a strong push years back against Windows , but by locking the hardware and software together and taking the role of hardware provider instead of software distributor , they will be left in their 3-5 \ % nitch forever .
I think it would have been really cool , but Jobs is to concerned with controlling a closed and walled off garden then building a public park where other hardware and software folks could play along side him .
Where are all the Apple hackers ?
Why are n't they upset over the walls Jobs has constructed ?
Because they just write him off and switch to Linux or Windows ( both of which are more open ) .
This corporate policy is why eventually the iPhone will fall just as the Apple desktop did .
Remember when people who were interested in Apple went with PCs because that critical piece of software/hardware they needed was n't support or available through Apple and Apple made it hard for the software/hardware folks to develop products to work with Apple ( the II was a success because of the expansion slots that Jobs killed in the early Macs ) .
Few remember that it was Windows who was open to more hardware and application developers , thus crushing Apple 's desktop market chances , so to will Android be open to more hardware and application developers eventually crushing Apple 's PDA/smartphone position .
Despite the big head start , Apple 's closed approach will choke it off eventually , costing Apple the top seed , not to a single hardware victor , but to a variety of venders with a uniform OS/development standard , in this case Android and its open APIs .
Just like the Appple II orginally had more apps , before PCs caught on , so will Android catchup and pass the iPhone ( except it will be much faster ) .
How is that wifi tether app on your iPhone working ?
Are you really with the wireless carrier you wanted ?
Can you develop iPhone apps on your Linux or Windows PCs ?
Where is model with a keyboard ?
Where is the one with an sd expansion slot ?
The one that can run background programs/services ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steve Jobs is such a control freak, he never understood that Apple could be where Microsoft is, all it had to do was become a company that focused on the software, rather than a hardware company.
Apple should be working to allow OS X to run on various computers, for example DELL was interested in selling OS X computers for the longest time.
I know people who run versions of OS X on their thinkpads.
Instead Apple is sniping people who buy and sell Apple products (just not in the way, Lord Jobs approves).
If it were a record or movie company putting demands on how a song or movie can be used, /.
would be up in arms, but since it is Apple placing demands on how software is used, /.
bows in worship.
How pathetic, we talk of freedom and hacking, but we do not practice or support what we preach.
Apple could have made a strong push years back against Windows, but by locking the hardware and software together and taking the role of hardware provider instead of software distributor, they will be left in their 3-5\% nitch forever.
I think it would have been really cool, but Jobs is to concerned with controlling a closed and walled off garden then building a public park where other hardware and software folks could play along side him.
Where are all the Apple hackers?
Why aren't they upset over the walls Jobs has constructed?
Because they just write him off and switch to Linux or Windows (both of which are more open).
This corporate policy is why eventually the iPhone will fall just as the Apple desktop did.
Remember when people who were interested in Apple went with PCs because that critical piece of software/hardware they needed wasn't support or available through Apple and Apple made it hard for the software/hardware folks to develop products to work with Apple (the II was a success because of the expansion slots that Jobs killed in the early Macs).
Few remember that it was Windows who was open to more hardware and application developers, thus crushing Apple's desktop market chances, so to will Android be open to more hardware and application developers eventually crushing Apple's PDA/smartphone position.
Despite the big head start, Apple's closed approach will choke it off eventually, costing Apple the top seed, not to a single hardware victor, but to a variety of venders with a uniform OS/development standard, in this case Android and its open APIs.
Just like the Appple II orginally had more apps, before PCs caught on, so will Android catchup and pass the iPhone (except it will be much faster).
How is that wifi tether app on your iPhone working?
Are you really with the wireless carrier you wanted?
Can you develop iPhone apps on your Linux or Windows PCs?
Where is model with a keyboard?
Where is the one with an sd expansion slot?
The one that can run background programs/services?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29955316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29950480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29956792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29949830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29951466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29951434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29950540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29951502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29949766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29949260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29954928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29950040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29952182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_195232_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29950480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29950540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947016
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29956792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29949260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29949830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943942
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948768
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943736
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29952182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29955316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29950040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29954928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29949766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29951434
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29951502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29948582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29946642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29944508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29947668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29943824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_195232.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29945908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_195232.29951466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
