'

Ride of the Entitletards

So, the dip-shits at Psystar had their day in court, and the court punched them square in the junk. You can read all about the legal decision at Groklaw. But I don’t want to write about the decision itself. Suffice it to say that I agree with the Groklaw analysis. No, I want to comment on the absolutely execrable commentary on the decision from the retards at PC World.

As always with this sort of puke, the stupid starts right away with the headline:

Apple Wins Hollow Victory In Psystar Ruling

Really, a “hollow victory?” I rather imagine that Apple doesn’t see the absolute destruction of Psystar as a “hollow victory.” Nor do I imagine that they’re anything but orgasmic to have a court uphold their arguments regarding the enforceability of the OS X End User License Agreement (EULA) as it pertains to third-party resellers. So, overall not so “hollow” after all.

But the stupid don’t stop there. The first paragraph re-introduces us to an old friend:

A federal judge has ruled in Apple’s favor in its lawsuit against Mac-clone maker Psystar. Prevailing in the court battle seems like it should be a good thing, but what Apple really gets out of the victory is limited market share potential. Uhm, congratulations?

Oh fuck me running, it’s our old buddy The Marketshare Myth. More ink, electrons and carbon dioxide have been spent dispelling this moronic “argument” than it ever deserved. Apple has no interest in winning marketshare. What they want to win is profit, and they seem to be doing that handily. Moving on:

I don’t agree that Apple should have the ability to restrict the hardware that I install the Mac OS X software on, but based on the application of existing laws I can understand why Apple won this case. The fact that Apple can leverage existing law to maintain draconian control over how its products are used is a flaw with the laws and their application, not with Apple.

Fortunately, the world is not beholden to what the jackanapes at PC World do or don’t agree with. In fact, a Federal judge made it quite clear that Apple has every right to dictate what hardware its operating system can and can’t run on. And what’s this twaddle about “leverage[ing] existing law.” Being right is not “leveraging” anything; it’s simply being right. Psystar didn’t lose because Apple out-lawyered them. They lost because they broke the fucking law. And one last thing about this paragraph: I hereby proclaim that any discussion of Apple that contains the phrase “draconian control” is automatically null and void. Call it Darby’s Law.

I don’t understand or agree with most copyright law and EULA restrictions as they pertain to computer hardware and software. As far as I am concerned, Apple dictating what hardware I can install Mac OS X on is like Doubleday Books telling me where I am allowed to read Dan Brown’s The Lost Symbol, or like Sony restricting me from playing The Taking of Pelham 123 on a Toshiba DVD player.

Imagine if other industries worked like that. Let’s use cars as an example. You pay $30,000 for the privilege of indefinitely ‘borrowing’ a Chevy Camaro, but General Motors reserves the right to tell you where you can park it. And, if you try to customize or modify it in any way, like changing the factory-default rims or installing a new stereo system, General Motors sues you for creating a ‘derivative work’. There would be riots.

Here’s a little lesson that most of us learned as wee children. If you don’t understand a topic, then shut the living fuck up about it. I don’t give a mouse’s fart whether you “agree with most copyright law and EULA restrictions as they pertain to computer hardware and software.” The examples then given to support this retarded opinion are some of the worst examples of just not fucking getting it that I have ever seen. They’re so bad that I’m going to eviscerate them one at a time.

First, the asinine book publishing example. PC World makes the assertion that Apple’s EULA restrictions are somehow the equivalent of a book publisher restricting you to where you can read a book. It’s hard to even properly thrash this idiocy it’s so badly framed, probably because the author doesn’t seem to have the foggiest clue what it was that Psystar was doing. If you have to have a publishing analogy here it’s this: What Apple did was the equivalent of Doubleday Books preventing a company from buying one copy of Dan Brown’s The Lost Symbol photocopying it a bunch of times, slapping it into a cover under the title Psystar’s The Lost Symbol and hawking it on eBay. While I know for a fact that there are certain freetards out there who see nothing wrong with that, information wanting to be fweeee and all, the courts have historically taken a dim view of it.

The second ill-conceived comparison is to Sony preventing a movie (I’m going to assume that it’s one that Sony publishes) from playing in a Toshiba DVD player. Again, it’s hard to properly address these because they are so unrelated to the actual situation as to make them pointless. But to make an effort, during the BlueRay/HDVD format war, there was plenty of content that was exclusively available in only one format. Content producers are under no legal or moral obligation to make shit convenient for you.

The last shitty comparison is so bad I need to quote it again:

Imagine if other industries worked like that. Let’s use cars as an example. You pay $30,000 for the privilege of indefinitely ‘borrowing’ a Chevy Camaro, but General Motors reserves the right to tell you where you can park it. And, if you try to customize or modify it in any way, like changing the factory-default rims or installing a new stereo system, General Motors sues you for creating a ‘derivative work’. There would be riots.

Oh lordy a fucking car analogy. I should just dismiss this out of hand because it’s a fucking car analogy but I’ll give it the old college try. First, “…[y]ou pay $30,000 for the privilege of indefinitely ‘borrowing’ a Chevy Camaro, but General Motors reserves the right to tell you where you can park it…” Guess what numb-nuts, such a thing exists. It’s called a “lease,” and, much like a software license, leases come with terms and conditions. You can’t just willy-nilly do crap to a vehicle you’re leasing if they violate the lease terms. Hell, even if you’re financing a full purchase you will have limitations on what you can do to the vehicle imposed by the finance company.

The second horrible thing about this ridiculous comparison is that it confuses Apple’s trademark claims with it’s copyright claims (hint, Psystar was violating both). The proper car analogy here would be if Yugo was buying Mercedes bodies, welding them onto a Yugo frame with a Volga engine and marketing them as Mercedys Bonzes. It dilutes Mercedes trademark, and Yugo would get their dicks slapped for doing it.

The rest of this horrid shit-smear of an article continues on to make the usual entitletard mistake of confounding end users with a company that deliberately set out to turn a profit via the brilliant tactic of willful copyright and trademark abuse. Then throws in no less than two more instances of “DRACONIAN CONTROL” and ends on a feeble note about market share. All in all, a worthless exercise by someone with little to no grasp of the facts. In other words, all in a day’s work at PC World.