PDA

View Full Version : Apple accuses Psystar of purposefully destroying evidence.


MacBytes
Aug 17, 2009, 11:30 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Apple accuses Psystar of purposefully destroying evidence. (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20090817123039)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

supmango
Aug 17, 2009, 12:07 PM
This article makes Pystar sound like it is run by a group of the smartest narcissists I have ever heard of.

cohibadad
Aug 17, 2009, 12:16 PM
ouch. Willful destruction of evidence. Courts tend to frown on that.

Peace
Aug 17, 2009, 12:17 PM
Sure sounds like something Psystar would do too.

bruinsrme
Aug 17, 2009, 12:24 PM
Sure sounds like something Psystar would do too.

Yeah Psystar is the only company in the world with shredders and would do something like that.:rolleyes:

r.j.s
Aug 17, 2009, 12:26 PM
Yeah Psystar is the only company in the world with shredders and would do something like that.:rolleyes:

I didn't take it that way. When you look at everything else Psystar has done (CEO not knowing sales numbers, no records of anything, convenient bankruptcy filing, etc) it just fits in with everything else they've done.

Peace
Aug 17, 2009, 12:27 PM
Yeah Psystar is the only company in the world with shredders and would do something like that.:rolleyes:

I was referring to the current case between Apple and Psystar and this discussion not the world as a whole.

Perhaps you should take a remedial course in english.

r.j.s
Aug 17, 2009, 12:30 PM
Interesting ...

... the intentional destruction of evidence is a serious offense which, if proven true, can render the need for an actual trial unnecessary via a default judgement for Apple, burden Psystar with paying all of Apple’s legal fees, and potentially land Psystar employees in jail.

It may be decided this week.

bruinsrme
Aug 17, 2009, 12:55 PM
Sorry for my sheety remark.

The whole case makes me laugh.
First Psystar openly sells such computers, more than likely knowing there will be implications. Then when the hot water rises they claim bankruptcy for protection, just like many of the companies associated with the Big Dig. As they continue operating, they find out what documents are being requested.
Does Psystar have any documents, probably so or did. But since apple hasn't probably gotten anything from them apple has to present to the courts that they suspect the destruction of any documentation since no business can operate without some type of documentation.
Cripes at certain points of the world it was mandantory to fire up the shredders. With the lack of evidence when we pulled back into port it was extremely difficult to prove anything. Same with Psystar.
Apple could go after the credit card companies and shipping companies to see exactly how many systems were purchased and shipped.
Apple will win this hands down but in no way will Psystar make it easy for them.
Why apple wants the code is beyond me as they probably already obtained a system and can strip it off the OS.
I would suspect Psystar to throw the towel in soon, the people in charge disappear to a distant island and then the code to show up on the internet and there be a community similar to the iphone jailbreaking community that is all about hackintosh any pcs.

thejadedmonkey
Aug 17, 2009, 01:17 PM
I would suspect Psystar to throw the towel in soon, the people in charge disappear to a distant island and then the code to show up on the internet and there be a community similar to the iphone jailbreaking community that is all about hackintosh any pcs.

I humbly welcome you to 2006. (http://www.osx86project.org/)

mrfrosty
Aug 17, 2009, 03:10 PM
I humbly welcome you to 2006. (http://www.osx86project.org/)

LOL ! I love that !

HyperZboy
Aug 17, 2009, 04:18 PM
I'll be the last person to say Psystar is a great company or even that I would buy one of their computers, but...

Does this not look almost like a Witch Hunt by Apple?

You can look at this 2 ways basically...

Either Psystar made an attempt to get within the legal limits in how they were installing MacOS X by changing their installation practices.

or

They were deliberately destroying evidence to prevent Apple from proving their case.

The end game though is, unless Apple can prove what the evidence (code) was or that is was deliberately destroyed for the purposes of evading the law, Apple is going to lose.

The very mention that Apple KNOWS what's on Psystar's customers' computers is kind of disturbing to me.

Will Apple go after the OSX86 Project people next? Probably not. Most likely, all of of Apple's actions are designed to sue (LEGAL-BILL) Psystar out of business. But, the implications of Apple's actions are kind of scary.

That Apple Mac Introduction "Big Brother" commercial that aired during the Super Bowl is starting to have a new scary meaning.

Steve Jobs needs to look in the mirror.

Between this case and the abandonment of all the PowerPC customers, I'm seriously considering the Hackintosh route for my next go-round of Mac purchases.

BaldiMac
Aug 17, 2009, 04:31 PM
I'll be the last person to say Psystar is a great company or even that I would buy one of their computers, but...

Does this not look almost like a Witch Hunt by Apple?

No. They were ordered by the court not to destroy the source code. They did.

You can look at this 2 ways basically...

Either Psystar made an attempt to get within the legal limits in how they were installing MacOS X by changing their installation practices.

or

They were deliberately destroying evidence to prevent Apple from proving their case.

The end game though is, unless Apple can prove what the evidence (code) was or that is was deliberately destroyed, they are going to lose.

My understanding from this article and others that I have read is that the ball is actually in Psystars court to prove that they had no obligation to preserve the code.

The were using code. They were ordered to preserve it by the court. They destroyed it.

The very mention that Apple KNOWS what's on Psystar's customers' computers is kind of disturbing to me.

Huh?

Will Apple go after the OSX86 Project people next? Probably not. Most likely, all of of Apple's actions are designed to sue (LEGAL-BILL) Psystar out of business. But, the implications of Apple's actions are kind of scary.

In what way is suing someone who violates your license scary?

That Apple Mac Introduction "Big Brother" commercial that aired during the Super Bowl is starting to have a new scary meaning.

What "new scary meaning" does the commercial have? That Apple will defend its IP rights in court? Is that new? Or specific to Apple?

Steve Jobs needs to look in the mirror.

Why?

r.j.s
Aug 17, 2009, 04:37 PM
The very mention that Apple KNOWS what's on Psystar's customers' computers is kind of disturbing to me.

No, it isn't. If you look back, Apple has several Psystar machines, therefore, they are customers.

pdjudd
Aug 17, 2009, 04:37 PM
Does this not look almost like a Witch Hunt by Apple?
No. This is Apple doing what it is legally obligated to do, protect its brand name and trademarks as vigorously as possible.

You can look at this 2 ways basically...

Either Psystar made an attempt to get within the legal limits in how they were installing MacOS X by changing their installation practices.

or

They were deliberately destroying evidence to prevent Apple from proving their case.

Since there is no legal way to install OSX on aything other than a Mac as of now, I would say its number two. It is very cosistatant with a company that has been as flagrant about Apple as Psystar

The end game though is, unless Apple can prove what the evidence (code) was or that is was deliberately destroyed for the purposes of evading the law, Apple is going to lose.

No, Apple can still win, If the tampering charges come to naught, the case will proceed as usual.

The very mention that Apple KNOWS what's on Psystar's customers' computers is kind of disturbing to me.

Wait, where did you get any sense that Apple knows anything what is on your hard drive. There is no way that they could have done that without a subpoena.

Will Apple go after the OSX86 Project people next? Probably not. Most likely, all of of Apple's actions are designed to sue (LEGAL-BILL) Psystar out of business. But, the implications of Apple's actions are kind of scary.


Lawsuits are a part of business. Apple has to do whatever it can to protect its products or it can loose the rights to the,. That is a legal requirement. If Psystar cannot take a lawsuit, well thats too bad. Legal action is a legitimate risk of business.


That Apple Mac Introduction "Big Brother" commercial that aired during the Super Bowl is starting to have a new scary meaning.

How? Apple is not spying on you. Apple is not saying that an individual cannot make a hackintosh - they have never commented on it. They are saying that you cannot make a business out of it. That is very different.


Steve Jobs needs to look in the mirror.
And see what? A successful CEO that is engaging in the correct pracices that any other business would engage in?

Between this case and the abandonment of all the PowerPC customers, I'm seriously considering the Hackintosh route for my next go-round of Mac purchases.

I fail to see how the two are related. Apple has no obligation to support any hardware platofrm beyond what they are legally entailed to do. They can drop anything at anytime. How that justifies hackintoshing (which would require you to buy an intel computer anyway) is beyond me.

skunk
Aug 17, 2009, 04:41 PM
Anyway, what's all this bollocks about "spoilation of evidence"? Don't these people have a dictionary? It's spoliation.

HyperZboy
Aug 17, 2009, 04:43 PM
No. They were ordered by the court not to destroy the source code. They did.

My understanding from this article and others that I have read is that the ball is actually in Psystars court to prove that they had no obligation to preserve the code.

The were using code. They were ordered to preserve it by the court. They destroyed it.

Huh?

In what way is suing someone who violates your license scary?

What "new scary meaning" does the commercial have? That Apple will defend its IP rights in court? Is that new? Or specific to Apple?

Why?

I personally think Psystar has broken the law in at least their initial installation process, but then again I think the DMCA law is an abomination that should have never happened, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there because I come from a completely different perspective.

However, I still believe Apple's EULA will never survive a full court challenge as it's way too egregious by almost any legal or ethical standard.

Apple is just trying to sue Psystar out of business and it appears they'll play the Big Brother role and pry into Psystar buyers' computers. I think that's a BIG BROTHER scary thing.

Will Apple go after individual Hackintosh customers next?

I know all the Fanbois hate Psystar and I don't even like them really.

But Apple is starting to look scary these days. In another article on here, Apple legal is attempting to sue just to prevent an article about Steve Jobs from being published! LOL

HyperZboy
Aug 17, 2009, 04:55 PM
No, it isn't. If you look back, Apple has several Psystar machines, therefore, they are customers.

So if I sell my Hackintosh on Ebay, maybe Steve Jobs will be the highest bidder? LOL

But seriously, I've never understood people who support the current DMCA law.

It is totally anti-consumer and makes lots of people guilty before proven innocent for IP.

I hope it eventually goes to the Supreme Court and gets the tossing it deserves.

Obviously Apple is basing much of its case on the DMCA law which gives them ridiculous protections and even the ability to SUE HACKINTOSH users if they wanted to!

I'm sorry, but that IS Big Brother scary and that's an incredible irony considering Apple's initial "Big Brother" Super Bowl commercial for the introduction of the Macintosh. :(

BaldiMac
Aug 17, 2009, 04:57 PM
I personally think Psystar has broken the law in at least their initial installation process, but then again I think the DMCA law is an abomination that should have never happened, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there because I come from a completely different perspective.

I agree that the DMCA is a horrible law that was horribly written and is overly broad in its application. What do we have to agree to disagree about?

However, I still believe Apple's EULA will never survive a full court challenge as it's way too egregious by almost any legal or ethical standard.

This case is a full court challenge. What terms of Apple's SLA are "way too egregious"?

Apple is just trying to sue Psystar out of business and it appears they'll play the Big Brother role and pry into Psystar buyers' computers. I think that's a BIG BROTHER scary thing.

Where did you get that idea?

Will Apple go after individual Hackintosh customers next?

I doubt it, but maybe. But that's a risk you take by playing in those legally gray areas.

I know all the Fanbois hate Psystar and I don't even like them really.

Why does it matter who likes them?

But Apple is starting to look scary these days.

You keep saying that. You must be easily frightened.

In another article on here, Apple legal is attempting to sue just to prevent an article about Steve Jobs from being published! LOL

Did you just make that up? I haven't seen any mention of a court case.

HyperZboy
Aug 17, 2009, 05:09 PM
Did you just make that up? I haven't seen any mention of a court case.

It's in another Macrumors.com thread. I'm sorry that I read more than you do.

http://www.macrumors.com/

And if you don't think Apple's SLA or EULA is way too egregious, then there is really no further point in arguing.
We'll have to agree to disagree.

And yes, I think Apple's EULA will get thrown out in court, but they won't let that happen.

Their plan is to sue Psystar out of business before it ever goes to court and so far, they're pretty darn close.

If a judge ever got a hold of Apple's EULA, it would be picked to pieces the same way the EU hammered Microsoft.

Almost ALL EULAs are egregious in my opinion and deliberately written that way for more of the warning purpose than the legal purpose. I seriously doubt Apple wants its MacOS X EULA tested in court because they have more to lose than they do by winning. No one is buying Psystar computers. However, if Apple's EULA gets tossed in part, DELL could be selling MacOS X computers. That is what this case is REALLY about.

BaldiMac
Aug 17, 2009, 05:11 PM
It's in another Macrumors.com thread. I'm sorry that I read more than you do.

http://www.macrumors.com/

You may read, but not well. The MacRumors story makes no mention of any "attempting to sue".

BellsWhistles
Aug 17, 2009, 05:11 PM
Not that I am here to reinforce Apple's position. But who in their LEGAL mind thinks that it is OK for Psystar to use the purchased OS in that fashion. First, Apple is a hardware company that is selling an update to their OS. If Nokia offered software updates to their phones, would it be OK for LG to strip it out and use it on their phones??? Of course not. Second, it states in the EULA that the Boot ROM, is to be used on Apple hardware. So, where does the sophomoric concept come along and lead someone to believe that Apple is behaving in a Fascist approach?

Extracted from the OS EULA: "Apple Boot ROM code and firmware is provided only for use on Apple-labeled hardware and you may not copy, modify or redistribute the Apple Boot ROM code or firmware, or any portions thereof.

Even if it was altered to proceed without the hash from the Apple boot ROM, than the EULA is be violated by reverse engineering. So why would you think at all, that a court would not side with APPLE's brief?

HyperZboy
Aug 17, 2009, 05:26 PM
Not that I am here to reinforce Apple's position. But who in their LEGAL mind thinks that it is OK for Psystar to use the purchased OS in that fashion. First, Apple is a hardware company that is selling an update to their OS. If Nokia offered software updates to their phones, would it be OK for LG to strip it out and use it on their phones??? Of course not. Second, it states in the EULA that the Boot ROM, is to be used on Apple hardware. So, where does the sophomoric concept come along and lead someone to believe that Apple is behaving in a Fascist approach?

Extracted from the OS EULA: "Apple Boot ROM code and firmware is provided only for use on Apple-labeled hardware and you may not copy, modify or redistribute the Apple Boot ROM code or firmware, or any portions thereof.

Even if it was altered to proceed without the hash from the Apple boot ROM, than the EULA is be violated by reverse engineering. So why would you think at all, that a court would not side with APPLE's brief?

Obviously you think the DMCA law is a good thing. Once again we'll have to agree to disagree.

Under DMCA and your quote from Apple's EULA, I've been a criminal for decades and so have many people on this site. Let's all go to jail together huh?

And so has practically EVERYONE ELSE on this site who's ever jailbroken an iPhone or installed MacOS 8.5 on an unsupported machine. Geez, I once installed Tiger on a PowerMac 7500!

I once sold a Mac on Ebay that had Tiger installed and it was an unsupported machine so that violated the EULA!
I had to do a workaround to install Tiger.

Looks like I'm going to jail. Thank you EULA. Thank you Apple.

Trust me, if there is ever a court challenge of MANY companies' EULAs, they almost certainly will be picked to pieces or tossed completely.

Once again I'll say, I'm not a big fan of Psystar, but this will set a TERRIBLE BIG BROTHER precedent if Apple wins.

Why hasn't Apple shut this company down ?

http://eshop.macsales.com/OSXCenter/XPostFacto/

They are clearly hacking Apple software and code too.

BellsWhistles
Aug 17, 2009, 06:01 PM
Obviously you think the DMCA law is a good thing. Once again we'll have to agree to disagree.

Under DMCA and your quote from Apple's EULA, I've been a criminal for decades and so have many people on this site. Let's all go to jail together huh?

And so has practically EVERYONE ELSE on this site who's ever jailbroken an iPhone or installed MacOS 8.5 on an unsupported machine. Geez, I once installed Tiger on a PowerMac 7500!

I once sold a Mac on Ebay that had Tiger installed and it was an unsupported machine so that violated the EULA!
I had to do a workaround to install Tiger.

Looks like I'm going to jail. Thank you EULA. Thank you Apple.

Trust me, if there is ever a court challenge of MANY companies' EULAs, they almost certainly be picked to pieces or tossed completely.

Once again I'll say, I'm not a big fan of Psystar, but this will set a TERRIBLE BIG BROTHER precedent if Apple wins.

Not sure what to say. Obviously you have construed your own point of view. And made your own set of justifications.

I have done my fair share of non-conformed usage. But, than again, I didn't give the hardware company the finger in defiance either.

My point was there is NO legal ground for Psystar's stance. If Psystar were to prevail .... the ramifications in the other direction, for APPLE to protect its' future investments, would make your skin crawl. Think about it .. what if it was YOUR millions (billions) at risk.

HyperZboy
Aug 17, 2009, 06:55 PM
Not sure what to say. Obviously you have construed your own point of view. And made your own set of justifications.

I have done my fair share of non-conformed usage. But, than again, I didn't give the hardware company the finger in defiance either.

My point was there is NO legal ground for Psystar's stance. If Psystar were to prevail .... the ramifications in the other direction, for APPLE to protect its' future investments, would make your skin crawl. Think about it .. what if it was YOUR millions (billions) at risk.

You're assuming Apple can prove all of this of course.
This is yet to be seen or that Psystar prevailing would doom Apple to failure.

Maybe Apple would make multi-million dollar licensing deals with Dell and HP to license MacOS X ?

I know the Mac clone thing has been done before, but it was never done with any companies willing to pay Apple some serious money before now.

Both Motorola and PowerComputing both basically ripped Apple off in a way far worse than Psystar is doing. Well, in PowerComputing's case, because they did it legally and started selling too many computers and Apple made really bad deals with both companies, and Apple basically didn't have very good competitive products back then.
Yes, back then PowerComputing was just plain making better more powerful computers than Apple.

So, when Steve Jobs came back to Apple, one of the first things he did was buy PowerComputing and cancel Motorola's license.

I have a strong feeling that not to long in the distant future, Apple will own Psystar.

Because Apple has far more to lose as you said and there's no way that EULA will completely pass a court test! That's why Apple is filing motion after motion, to LEGALLY COST this company out of business.

But isn't that kind of very anti-competitive? I guess we could debate that forever, but I'm not sure I'm liking Apple's actions here or with the iPhone or stopping Steve Jobs Bio from being published.

Yes, I think its beginning to look like a scary Big Brother scenario. Other fanbois may disagree.

BellsWhistles
Aug 17, 2009, 07:35 PM
You're assuming Apple can prove all of this of course.
This is yet to be seen or that Psystar prevailing would doom Apple to failure.

Maybe Apple would make multi-million dollar licensing deals with Dell and HP to license MacOS X ?

I know the Mac clone thing has been done before, but it was never done with any companies willing to pay Apple some serious money before now.

Both Motorola and PowerComputing both basically ripped Apple off in a way far worse than Psystar is doing. Well, in PowerComputing's case, because they did it legally and started selling too many computers and Apple made really bad deals with both companies, and Apple basically didn't have very good competitive products back then.
Yes, back then PowerComputing was just plain making better more powerful computers than Apple.

So, when Steve Jobs came back to Apple, one of the first things he did was buy PowerComputing and cancel Motorola's license.

I have a strong feeling that not to long in the distant future, Apple will own Psystar.

Because Apple has far more to lose as you said and there's no way that EULA will completely pass a court test! That's why Apple is filing motion after motion, to LEGALLY COST this company out of business.

But isn't that kind of very anti-competitive? I guess we could debate that forever, but I'm not sure I'm liking Apple's actions here or with the iPhone or stopping Steve Jobs Bio from being published.

Yes, I think its beginning to look like a scary Big Brother scenario. Other fanbois may disagree.

Yeah, your right we could discuss this from the different points. The courts will decide it. But, the monopoly thing is silly. There are OTHER companies to buy computers from. And most likely Apple would NOT license their software, because it would dilute their hardware sales (as you referred to while in the Gilbert Amelio days). Why does Coke and Pepsi not reveal to each other what they have developed? Simple, they control their product.

BaldiMac
Aug 17, 2009, 07:55 PM
Obviously you think the DMCA law is a good thing. Once again we'll have to agree to disagree.

What does whether or not the DMCA is a good law have to do with anything? I think its horrible. It's still the law.

Under DMCA and your quote from Apple's EULA, I've been a criminal for decades and so have many people on this site. Let's all go to jail together huh?

Violating the DMCA is not a criminal offense. No jail.

And so has practically EVERYONE ELSE on this site who's ever jailbroken an iPhone or installed MacOS 8.5 on an unsupported machine. Geez, I once installed Tiger on a PowerMac 7500!

I once sold a Mac on Ebay that had Tiger installed and it was an unsupported machine so that violated the EULA!
I had to do a workaround to install Tiger.

Looks like I'm going to jail. Thank you EULA. Thank you Apple.

Blah, blah, blah.

Trust me, if there is ever a court challenge of MANY companies' EULAs, they almost certainly will be picked to pieces or tossed completely.

Why? What provisions of Apple's SLA are illegal?

Once again I'll say, I'm not a big fan of Psystar, but this will set a TERRIBLE BIG BROTHER precedent if Apple wins.

Have you read "1984"? What does suing to protect your rights under the law have to do with Big Brother?

You're assuming Apple can prove all of this of course.

Right now the burden of proof appears to be on Psystar for most claims. They are basically admitting to the violations, but claiming they were entitled to because Apple is misusing copyright.

This is yet to be seen or that Psystar prevailing would doom Apple to failure.

Apple wouldn't be doomed even if they lost. They could simply rewrite their license, change their protection mechanism, or change the way the sell OS X.

Maybe Apple would make multi-million dollar licensing deals with Dell and HP to license MacOS X ?

I know the Mac clone thing has been done before, but it was never done with any companies willing to pay Apple some serious money before now.

Ain't gonna happen. At least not as a result of this trial whether Apple wins or loses. Apple really has very little to lose in this trial.

I have a strong feeling that not to long in the distant future, Apple will own Psystar.

What would they have to gain from buying Psystar? :confused:

Because Apple has far more to lose as you said and there's no way that EULA will completely pass a court test!

Why not?

That's why Apple is filing motion after motion, to LEGALLY COST this company out of business.

Actually, from the legal analysis that I have read, there is not an exceptional amount of motions from Apple in this case. It's pretty normal.

But isn't that kind of very anti-competitive? I guess we could debate that forever, but I'm not sure I'm liking Apple's actions here or with the iPhone or stopping Steve Jobs Bio from being published.

Anti-competitive? How is it anti-competitive to sue to protect your IP? That's how the system works.

Yes, I think its beginning to look like a scary Big Brother scenario. Other fanbois may disagree.

Fantastic argument. Anyone who disagrees is a fanboy.

Again, read "1984". Nothing in this case is reminiscent of Big Brother.

HyperZboy
Aug 17, 2009, 08:14 PM
There are probably more people on this website that have violated Apple's EULA than the opposite.

I've personally sold a computer on Ebay that was not under the Tiger EULA authorized to run that operating system.

Technically, I've done EXACTLY the SAME thing Psystar has done.

That basically puts me in the same category as Psystar by the Fanboi opinions here.

It has always been my opinion that Apple's EULA will NEVER be tested in court and that is the reason Apple will ultimately attempt to buy Psystar and there will be no disclosure of why, basically the same way they bought Powercomputing.

Trust me, this is how it will go down ultimately.

Even if Psystar loses, which is very likely, Apple has far more to lose and if even parts of Apple's EULA are tossed, it could pry open the door to far more challenging Mac-clone competitors than this ridiculous Psystar sham company.

Apple is starting to remind me of the old Apple sound... sosumi

Irony of all ironies. How soon people forget history.

Copyright? DMCA you say?

(PS: Paul McCartney's on tour! YAY! LOL)

r.j.s
Aug 17, 2009, 08:24 PM
Technically, I've done EXACTLY the SAME thing Psystar has done.

Technically, no, you haven't. You haven't based an entire business around doing it.

HyperZboy
Aug 17, 2009, 08:33 PM
Technically, no, you haven't. You haven't based an entire business around doing it.

Of course I didn't say I based an entire business on it... For LEGAL reasons! :D

Brother Beware, The Apple BIG BROTHER is watching! LOL

PS: Since the statute of limitations is probably up, I my as well say about 10 years ago, as a side business, I was selling re-habbed old Macs that had Jaguar & Tiger on them, all of which technically violated Apple's EULA and technically could have put me in the same position Psystar is in.
The only distinction would be that they weren't Intel machines, they were Apple machines, but totally against the EULA to install MacOS X on. So it's a valid comparison.

I'm not defending Psystar btw, I'm just saying Apple is getting totally Big Brother lawsuit crazy lately.

BaldiMac
Aug 17, 2009, 09:54 PM
There are probably more people on this website that have violated Apple's EULA than the opposite.

I've personally sold a computer on Ebay that was not under the Tiger EULA authorized to run that operating system.

Technically, I've done EXACTLY the SAME thing Psystar has done.

That basically puts me in the same category as Psystar by the Fanboi opinions here.

Is this stuff supposed to give you some street cred or something?

It has always been my opinion that Apple's EULA will NEVER be tested in court and that is the reason Apple will ultimately attempt to buy Psystar and there will be no disclosure of why,

What would Apple have to gain from buying Psystar?

basically the same way they bought Powercomputing.

You mean in a financial transaction? :confused:

Trust me, this is how it will go down ultimately.

Why?

Even if Psystar loses, which is very likely, Apple has far more to lose and if even parts of Apple's EULA are tossed, it could pry open the door to far more challenging Mac-clone competitors than this ridiculous Psystar sham company.

Again, what parts of Apple's SLA are illegal?

Brother Beware, The Apple BIG BROTHER is watching! LOL

Who are they watching?

PS: Since the statute of limitations is probably up, I my as well say about 10 years ago, as a side business, I was selling re-habbed old Macs that had Jaguar & Tiger on them, all of which technically violated Apple's EULA and technically could have put me in the same position Psystar is in.
The only distinction would be that they weren't Intel machines, they were Apple machines, but totally against the EULA to install MacOS X on. So it's a valid comparison.

Out of curiosity, what clause of the SLA did you violate by selling Macs with OS X on them?

I'm not defending Psystar btw, I'm just saying Apple is getting totally Big Brother lawsuit crazy lately.

Which other "crazy" lawsuits are you referring to? And what does Big Brother have to do with anything other than your desire to spread FUD?

CPD_1
Aug 17, 2009, 09:59 PM
Have you read "1984"? What does suing to protect your rights under the law have to do with Big Brother?

I've always asked myself that question when someone like this guy makes such a ridiculous claim.

r.j.s
Aug 17, 2009, 10:00 PM
PS: Since the statute of limitations is probably up, I my as well say about 10 years ago, as a side business, I was selling re-habbed old Macs that had Jaguar & Tiger on them, all of which technically violated Apple's EULA and technically could have put me in the same position Psystar is in.
The only distinction would be that they weren't Intel machines, they were Apple machines, but totally against the EULA to install MacOS X on. So it's a valid comparison.

Ummmm ...

188896

10 years ago, OS X did not exist, much less Jaguar or Panther. Anyway, have you read the SLA? It just has to be an Apple-labeled machine, which means, if they were Macs, you could put any version of OS X on them.

Unless, you were pirating software by installing the same copy over and over again, which is a crime, not a civil matter like trademark infringement or breach of the SLA.

jordanh91
Aug 17, 2009, 11:03 PM
HyperZboy is either a troll, or incredibly noobish. (same thing IMO)
Apple isn't Big Brother at all because they filed a lawsuit against a company that was violating the usage terms explicitly stated in OS X's SLA. And like R.J.S. said, OS X didn't even exist 10 years ago, rofl.


HyperZboy, lern2law pls.;)

jacobgaul
Aug 18, 2009, 01:22 AM
hyperboy go get a life man

chan2004
Aug 18, 2009, 02:32 AM
Extracted from the OS EULA: "Apple Boot ROM code and firmware is provided only for use on Apple-labeled hardware and you may not copy, modify or redistribute the Apple Boot ROM code or firmware, or any portions thereof.


This is crap. When I buy something, I expect to have full control. I don't want anyone to dictate to me what to do with my purchase.

I don't believe that apple will change it. And unless the laws of the country make some new laws, no one can make them change.
Although I like apple, I hope they never get the kind of consumer share as windows. It will be a horrible thing for an average computer buyer as apple will squeeze them out of their last penny.:mad:

r.j.s
Aug 18, 2009, 04:49 AM
This is crap. When I buy something, I expect to have full control. I don't want anyone to dictate to me what to do with my purchase.

Guess what ... you didn't buy anything except the DVD OS X is burned on.

You don't own OS X, ever.

You do have full control over your purchase, you can do whatever you want with the physical disc. However, Apple owns the software on it - and always will. If you want to use it, you have to agree to the terms - if you don't, return the software license and disc you paid for and get a refund.

BaldiMac
Aug 18, 2009, 07:40 AM
Although I like apple, I hope they never get the kind of consumer share as windows. It will be a horrible thing for an average computer buyer as apple will squeeze them out of their last penny.:mad:

As opposed to Microsoft which has much higher profit margins than Apple and has been found to have abused their monopoly in a court of law. :rolleyes:

This whole statement is ridiculous because Apple would have to change their policies completely to gain 90% market share. They would look nothing like the Apple of today.

BellsWhistles
Aug 18, 2009, 10:32 AM
I still find it surprising that some people just don't get how our commercial planet functions. They feel that just because it exists, it should be made available to them. A completely narcissistic point of view. I love the notion of free software, and participate in open source as much as possible. But, I also respect the efforts of companies and individuals. If I like it, I buy it. If i don't, I pass on it. Maybe that is the core at the heart of discontent, lack of respect.

Anyway, I digress.

Perhaps some here should refresh themselves with the Digital Millennium copyright act. It was past about 10 years ago, and pissed off a bunch of people than. I can see that not much has changed in that vein. And with that in place, the Apple OS has gone where it has. If you really want to have an OS to muck around with. USE LINUX !!!!!

How much more straight forward can it be ?!?!?!?!

dejo
Aug 18, 2009, 10:46 AM
This is crap. When I buy something, I expect to have full control. I don't want anyone to dictate to me what to do with my purchase.
Hey, have I got a shirt for you:

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=85938&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1190738859

Music_Producer
Aug 18, 2009, 07:50 PM
There are probably more people on this website that have violated Apple's EULA than the opposite.

I've personally sold a computer on Ebay that was not under the Tiger EULA authorized to run that operating system.

Technically, I've done EXACTLY the SAME thing Psystar has done.


Dude, you sold ONE computer.Psystar doesn't exactly sell one computer only - they've setup a business to sell in volume. People usually get away with doing one or two stupid things, but not when you're doing it in the hundreds and blatantly advertising it.

cohibadad
Aug 18, 2009, 09:29 PM
Maybe Apple would make multi-million dollar licensing deals with Dell and HP to license MacOS X ?


Ooooooh. Big Bucks!

yoyo5280
Aug 18, 2009, 09:30 PM
Cohibadad, I know this is irrelevant to the post. But I'm feeling the L avatar love :p

-Omi

quagmire
Aug 18, 2009, 11:03 PM
Guess what ... you didn't buy anything except the DVD OS X is burned on.

You don't own OS X, ever.

You do have full control over your purchase, you can do whatever you want with the physical disc. However, Apple owns the software on it - and always will. If you want to use it, you have to agree to the terms - if you don't, return the software license and disc you paid for and get a refund.

^^^

This. You buy a license( or 5 with the family pack) of OS X. Apple owns OS X and has the right to dictate on how its software runs on what hardware. Don't like it? Buy a PC.

Evangelion
Aug 19, 2009, 02:34 AM
It's in another Macrumors.com thread. I'm sorry that I read more than you do.

Apple PR told them that they discourage such stories about their execs. Nowhere did they threaten with a lawsuit.

Reading and understanding what you read are two different things. While you might be able to read (congratulations), you don't seem to understand what you are reading.

And if you don't think Apple's SLA or EULA is way too egregious, then there is really no further point in arguing.

Could you provide some tangible examples of this "egreriousness"?

And yes, I think Apple's EULA will get thrown out in court, but they won't let that happen.

So why hasn't it been thrown out of court?

Their plan is to sue Psystar out of business before it ever goes to court and so far, they're pretty darn close.

So, Apple is taking Psystart to court before they are taken to the court?

If a judge ever got a hold of Apple's EULA, it would be picked to pieces the same way the EU hammered Microsoft.

They already have their EULA, and it hasn't been picked to pieces. And MS was hammered because they abused their monopoly. Apple is not a monopoly, so they have no monopoly to abuse.

gnasher729
Aug 19, 2009, 03:27 AM
Either Psystar made an attempt to get within the legal limits in how they were installing MacOS X by changing their installation practices.

or

They were deliberately destroying evidence to prevent Apple from proving their case.

The end game though is, unless Apple can prove what the evidence (code) was or that is was deliberately destroyed for the purposes of evading the law, Apple is going to lose.

This is not a criminal case, it is a civil case between two companies. In a civil case, the accusing party doesn't have to prove anything. They can ask the other party for any evidence that exists, and the accused party must give that evidence. The accused party has the legal duty to preserve any evidence as soon as they are aware that they could be sued. In the case of Psystar, I would think that time started as soon as they planned to put MacOS X on non-Apple computers.

In other words, it was Psystar's legal duty to keep copies of any version of their software that they ever produced. If they can't produce these copies, then the court will automatically assume that these copies would have contained evidence against Psystar. In this case, it is worse for Psystar because _they had been ordered_ by the judge to deliver this evidence.

For example, if it turned out that their latest software version doesn't constitute a DMCA violation, but Apple claims that earlier versions did, and asks Psystar for these versions, and Psystar doesn't have them, then the court _will_ side with Apple and _will_ judge as if the evidence against Psystar was there.

Destroying evidence in a civil court case is _not_ a clever idea. And may I say that hiring the lawyers who just managed to increase the fine for copying 24 songs from $220,000 to $1,920,000 for one of their clients is probably not a good idea either.

Out of curiosity, what clause of the SLA did you violate by selling Macs with OS X on them?

Just to explain to everyone: The SLA allows you to install _one_ copy of MacOS X on _one_ _Apple labeled_ computer. So the license fully allows you to install MacOS X on any Macintosh, no matter how old. The installer may try to prevent this. It is completely legal for you to work around that by any means (as long as the goal is something that is legal in itself; if the installer prevents you from installing on a Psystar computer, then working around this is illegal). Your old G3 machine might not have the chip that MacOS X is looking for, you are allowed to work around that as well, even though this is circumventing Apple's copyright protection, because you have the right to install the OS on that machine. And finally, it is legal for you to sell this Apple computer with MacOS X installed, again because the SLA says so. Obviously only if you don't keep any other copies of the OS.

It has always been my opinion that Apple's EULA will NEVER be tested in court and that is the reason Apple will ultimately attempt to buy Psystar and there will be no disclosure of why, basically the same way they bought Powercomputing.

Power Computing had a _license_ from Apple that allowed it to build Macintosh clones and install MacOS 7.5 on them. They had a contract with Apple, had paid Apple money for a license that allowed them to do this, and Apple wanted to stop them. Since PowerComputing had the right to do what they did, Apple had no choice other than either letting them continue with their business, or offering them money to stop. Which is what they did.

Psystar has no license. What they are doing is purely illegal. You may think that Apple will buy Psystar; I think Apple will win this case, make Psystar bankrupt, then start court proceedings against their officers because that whole business was in bad faith and they will be held personally responsible, and lastly Apple will get Psystar's customer list and send a nice letter to each of their customers. Just to make sure nobody else starts something like this.

California
Aug 19, 2009, 05:26 AM
This is not a criminal case, it is a civil case between two companies. In a civil case, the accusing party doesn't have to prove anything. They can ask the other party for any evidence that exists, and the accused party must give that evidence. The accused party has the legal duty to preserve any evidence as soon as they are aware that they could be sued. In the case of Psystar, I would think that time started as soon as they planned to put MacOS X on non-Apple computers.

In other words, it was Psystar's legal duty to keep copies of any version of their software that they ever produced. If they can't produce these copies, then the court will automatically assume that these copies would have contained evidence against Psystar. In this case, it is worse for Psystar because _they had been ordered_ by the judge to deliver this evidence.

For example, if it turned out that their latest software version doesn't constitute a DMCA violation, but Apple claims that earlier versions did, and asks Psystar for these versions, and Psystar doesn't have them, then the court _will_ side with Apple and _will_ judge as if the evidence against Psystar was there.

Destroying evidence in a civil court case is _not_ a clever idea. And may I say that hiring the lawyers who just managed to increase the fine for copying 24 songs from $220,000 to $1,920,000 for one of their clients is probably not a good idea either.



Just to explain to everyone: The SLA allows you to install _one_ copy of MacOS X on _one_ _Apple labeled_ computer. So the license fully allows you to install MacOS X on any Macintosh, no matter how old. The installer may try to prevent this. It is completely legal for you to work around that by any means (as long as the goal is something that is legal in itself; if the installer prevents you from installing on a Psystar computer, then working around this is illegal). Your old G3 machine might not have the chip that MacOS X is looking for, you are allowed to work around that as well, even though this is circumventing Apple's copyright protection, because you have the right to install the OS on that machine. And finally, it is legal for you to sell this Apple computer with MacOS X installed, again because the SLA says so. Obviously only if you don't keep any other copies of the OS.



Power Computing had a _license_ from Apple that allowed it to build Macintosh clones and install MacOS 7.5 on them. They had a contract with Apple, had paid Apple money for a license that allowed them to do this, and Apple wanted to stop them. Since PowerComputing had the right to do what they did, Apple had no choice other than either letting them continue with their business, or offering them money to stop. Which is what they did.

Psystar has no license. What they are doing is purely illegal. You may think that Apple will buy Psystar; I think Apple will win this case, make Psystar bankrupt, then start court proceedings against their officers because that whole business was in bad faith and they will be held personally responsible, and lastly Apple will get Psystar's customer list and send a nice letter to each of their customers. Just to make sure nobody else starts something like this.


So basically, Psystar was trying to pull a 'THINKSECRET" and get paid off?

Difference is, as you said, bad faith.

SPUY767
Aug 19, 2009, 07:33 AM
I was referring to the current case between Apple and Psystar and this discussion not the world as a whole.

Perhaps you should take a remedial course in english.

Oh snap! Demi-God fight!

gnasher729
Aug 19, 2009, 07:53 AM
So basically, Psystar was trying to pull a 'THINKSECRET" and get paid off?

Difference is, as you said, bad faith.

I wouldn't dare making any suggestions what is going on in Psystar's minds. If you look at everything that happened, it is quite possible that they are just stupid and it never crossed their minds that Apple might not be happy with what they are doing. The fact that their CEO is down $125,000 of his own money seems to make this more plausible.

I think that is also why Apple thinks or thought there might be secret backers with some unknown agenda; they probably bought a machine, let their engineers examine it, and concluded that Psystar can't be making money from these machines, so there had to be some other reason.

pdjudd
Aug 19, 2009, 07:55 AM
So, Apple is taking Psystart to court before they are taken to the court?

My memory of the timeline may be a bit screwy but I seem to recall that Psystar tried to sue first (or at least on the same day) claiming the ridiculous anti-trust claims that Judge Allsup promptly rejected. Whatever the time may be though. the point is clear, Every single attempt that Psystar has made in an attack against Apple has been rejected. All they have left is one defensive argument that Apple hasn't gotten dropped. So far, Apple's SLA remains enforceable, but Apple isn't directly testing it's legality in court and I don't think Psystar is doing so or can. Apple is using trademarks to enforce their property and using the EULA to enforce that. Hard to weasel around that when Psystar isn't able to comply with the courts demands.

But again, this is a civil matter and not a federal case. Two very different things here. If Apple's licence is going to be tested, it would not be in a civil court since it would only apply to one party. I doubt such a case is going to get very far.

pdjudd
Aug 19, 2009, 08:03 AM
I think that is also why Apple thinks or thought there might be secret backers with some unknown agenda; they probably bought a machine, let their engineers examine it, and concluded that Psystar can't be making money from these machines, so there had to be some other reason.

That is a good analysis of what I would think Apple's thinking is. That and their total legal incompetence is giving Apple pause in thinking that they are doing this on their own.

If there is a backer (which I am not so sure on), it defiantly isn't the usual suspects people toss around: Dell, HP, Microsoft, Gates, Jobs... None of these guys have any interest in weakening software licensing in general. I think, as you probably do, that the heads of Psystar are stupidly thinking that playing David is going to get them enough of a sympathy vote and such is enough to risk the huge amounts of debt.

Apple knows that they aren't going to get any cash off of this, by now their objective is to shut down Psystar and send a clear message to other cloners. Next time they will have an even better defense.

gnasher729
Aug 19, 2009, 11:50 AM
My memory of the timeline may be a bit screwy but I seem to recall that Psystar tried to sue first (or at least on the same day) claiming the ridiculous anti-trust claims that Judge Allsup promptly rejected. Whatever the time may be though. the point is clear, Every single attempt that Psystar has made in an attack against Apple has been rejected. All they have left is one defensive argument that Apple hasn't gotten dropped. So far, Apple's SLA remains enforceable, but Apple isn't directly testing it's legality in court and I don't think Psystar is doing so or can.

It was actually Apple who sued first, and then Psystar countersued. My theory about this: Apple sued, Psystar got themselves some decent lawyers (they were Burst's lawyers in Burst vs. Apple) and asked for help. So these lawyers looked at the case and said: Guys, you're dead. Psystar didn't take that for an answer and asked: What can you do to defend us? The lawyers said: We can always come up with some counter claims; it won't help, you will lose in the end, but it will delay things. Psystar said: Ok then.

Many months later, Psystar asks: What can we do to further delay losing this case? Lawyers say: At this point, the only possible delay comes from declaring bankruptcy. By the way, you owe us $88,000 and we haven't seen a penny of that yet, so if you declare bankruptcy, we guess you'll have to find yourself some different lawyers. Guess what happened next.

BellsWhistles
Aug 19, 2009, 11:53 AM
But again, this is a civil matter and not a federal case. Two very different things here. If Apple's licence is going to be tested, it would not be in a civil court since it would only apply to one party. I doubt such a case is going to get very far.

It's not a criminal case ... yet! So far it seems there has just surreptitious behaviour. Once, some of the "customers" decide that they have been duped, the tone may change.

pdjudd
Aug 19, 2009, 12:02 PM
It was actually Apple who sued first, and then Psystar countersued. My theory about this: Apple sued, Psystar got themselves some decent lawyers (they were Burst's lawyers in Burst vs. Apple) and asked for help. So these lawyers looked at the case and said: Guys, you're dead. Psystar didn't take that for an answer and asked: What can you do to defend us? The lawyers said: We can always come up with some counter claims; it won't help, you will lose in the end, but it will delay things. Psystar said: Ok then.

Many months later, Psystar asks: What can we do to further delay losing this case? Lawyers say: At this point, the only possible delay comes from declaring bankruptcy. By the way, you owe us $88,000 and we haven't seen a penny of that yet, so if you declare bankruptcy, we guess you'll have to find yourself some different lawyers. Guess what happened next.

You're right. My timing was off and I think your analysis is spot on. Of course I think getting Burst's lawyers agreed first and then looked at it and said "settle", but maybe I am over analyzing things.

It's not a criminal case ... yet! So far it seems there has just surreptitious behaviour. Once, some of the "customers" decide that they have been duped, the tone may change.

If it ever became a criminal case (which I doubt), it would be a separate case entirely and it would be against Psystar - I doubt Apple would open themselves to criminal prosecution by mounting a civil case. I don't think that you can even do that since the courts are too different.

BellsWhistles
Aug 19, 2009, 03:46 PM
If it ever became a criminal case (which I doubt), it would be a separate case entirely and it would be against Psystar - I doubt Apple would open themselves to criminal prosecution by mounting a civil case. I don't think that you can even do that since the courts are too different.

I guess I should have clarified any kind of legal deviation would be on the pursuit of Psystar, NOT Apple. Even than, it is completely speculative on my part, and I have read nothing which would allude to pending litigation. I just know that plaintiff's pop out of the wood work when they smell money.

All tongue in cheek .....

HyperZboy
Aug 19, 2009, 07:51 PM
I amazes me that the same people here who've jailbroken an iPhone or broken Apple's EULA (and that's easily more than half the people on this site!), are so steadfastly in favor of Apple winning this case. And once again I'm not trying to make any claim that Psystar is a great company or anything.

But who's next on Apple Legal's list? The companies that make the jailbreaking iPhone software, the company that makes XPostfacto to install MacOS X on unsupported Macs, or the Hackintosh community and websites?

And btw, no it was not 10 years ago when I sold Macs on Ebay, but it was years ago (I'd just forgotten how long it had been), and I sold far more than one, mostly Beige G3s that I bought & resold that I managed to install Jaguar, Panther or Tiger on. So yes I was violating the EULA & was technically running a company that Apple could have sued.

However, the number of people here on this site that have technically violated Apple's EULA would probably be quite astounding.

Finally, the only reason I see Apple buying Psystar is that I don't think Apple will ultimately risk having their EULA tested in open court if they don't have to.
Because I think Apple's EULA is egregious and parts would be thrown out if tested. But it's clear Apple's initial plan is to legal bill this company out of existence. Maybe Psystar is a crappy company, but I find huge companies with monopolies stomping out smaller companies as a bad thing.

Who's next on Apple Legal's list to sue? Me? You?
I bet if Apple went after one of the jailbrake software companies, many of you would change your tune real quick.

r.j.s
Aug 19, 2009, 08:08 PM
I amazes me that the same people here who've jailbroken an iPhone or broken Apple's EULA (and that's easily more than half the people on this site!),

Proof?

So yes I was violating the EULA & was technically running a company that Apple could have sued.

How did you violate the SLA again? You still haven't said.

However, the number of people here on this site that have technically violated Apple's EULA would probably be quite astounding.

Again, proof? You cannot make a claim like that here and not back it up with data ... that's called trolling, and is against forum rules.

pdjudd
Aug 19, 2009, 10:52 PM
I guess I should have clarified any kind of legal deviation would be on the pursuit of Psystar, NOT Apple. Even than, it is completely speculative on my part, and I have read nothing which would allude to pending litigation. I just know that plaintiff's pop out of the wood work when they smell money.

All tongue in cheek .....

Oh of course. I feel the same.

Hugh
Aug 19, 2009, 10:54 PM
I amazes me that the same people here who've jailbroken an iPhone or broken Apple's EULA (and that's easily more than half the people on this site!), are so steadfastly in favor of Apple winning this case. And once again I'm not trying to make any claim that Psystar is a great company or anything.

But who's next on Apple Legal's list? The companies that make the jailbreaking iPhone software, the company that makes XPostfacto to install MacOS X on unsupported Macs, or the Hackintosh community and websites?


I don't know about what it takes to jailbreak an iPhone, but I'm sure you can't buy one already jailbroken. Which Apple could go after that.

And btw, no it was not 10 years ago when I sold Macs on Ebay, but it was years ago (I'd just forgotten how long it had been), and I sold far more than one, mostly Beige G3s that I bought & resold that I managed to install Jaguar, Panther or Tiger on. So yes I was violating the EULA & was technically running a company that Apple could have sued.

Did you actually read the EULA? You must haven't. In Apple's EULA states that Mac OS X can be installed on ANY APPLE BRANDED Macintosh. Installing Mac OS X on machines that Apple doesn't support. Is fine as along they are Apple Computers. The only problem might have had, is. If you where selling non Apple computers with Mac OS X. Also if you were selling these machines with illegal copies of OS X on the machine (just installing the OS and not sending the real install disk with the computer that was sold.). Would be a illegal practice, I assume you know better to not do that.

However, the number of people here on this site that have technically violated Apple's EULA would probably be quite astounding.

Finally, the only reason I see Apple buying Psystar is that I don't think Apple will ultimately risk having their EULA tested in open court if they don't have to.
Because I think Apple's EULA is egregious and parts would be thrown out if tested. But it's clear Apple's initial plan is to legal bill this company out of existence. Maybe Psystar is a crappy company, but I find huge companies with monopolies stomping out smaller companies as a bad thing.

Apple is not a monopoly, the judge has already stated that in the beginning of this.

Who's next on Apple Legal's list to sue? Me? You?
I bet if Apple went after one of the jailbrake software companies, many of you would change your tune real quick.

I think you are getting a bit too overly paranoid here, unless you start selling non Apple branded computers with Mac OS X on them for profit. Then Apple might sue you, other the that I wouldn't worry about it.

Hugh

PS If I miss quoted your message let me know. This is the first reply that I broke it up.

BaldiMac
Aug 19, 2009, 11:17 PM
I amazes me that the same people here who've jailbroken an iPhone or broken Apple's EULA (and that's easily more than half the people on this site!), are so steadfastly in favor of Apple winning this case. And once again I'm not trying to make any claim that Psystar is a great company or anything.

Regardless of the numbers that you make up, what does the fact that people jailbreak and hackintosh have to do with anything?

But who's next on Apple Legal's list? The companies that make the jailbreaking iPhone software, the company that makes XPostfacto to install MacOS X on unsupported Macs, or the Hackintosh community and websites?

FUD.

And btw, no it was not 10 years ago when I sold Macs on Ebay, but it was years ago (I'd just forgotten how long it had been), and I sold far more than one, mostly Beige G3s that I bought & resold that I managed to install Jaguar, Panther or Tiger on. So yes I was violating the EULA & was technically running a company that Apple could have sued.

However, the number of people here on this site that have technically violated Apple's EULA would probably be quite astounding.

So? Are you saying since some people are violating Apple's rights, they shouldn't bother trying to protect them at all? :confused:

Finally, the only reason I see Apple buying Psystar is that I don't think Apple will ultimately risk having their EULA tested in open court if they don't have to.

What would prevent the next company from doing the same thing? What Apple wants is a victory in this case to set a precedent.

Because I think Apple's EULA is egregious and parts would be thrown out if tested.

You keep saying this. What parts of Apple's SLA are illegal?

But it's clear Apple's initial plan is to legal bill this company out of existence. Maybe Psystar is a crappy company, but I find huge companies with monopolies stomping out smaller companies as a bad thing.

Apple does not have a monopoly in the personal computer industry. Apple does not want to "legal bill" Psystar out of existence. They want to win the trial.

Who's next on Apple Legal's list to sue? Me? You?
I bet if Apple went after one of the jailbrake software companies, many of you would change your tune real quick.

FUD.

HyperZboy
Aug 20, 2009, 03:52 AM
Again, proof? You cannot make a claim like that here and not back it up with data ... that's called trolling, and is against forum rules.

No that's called opinion, not trolling. I simply don't want Apple to win this case and believe it would set a very bad precedent for Mac user rights in the future.

But, once again, I apologize to all the Apple fanbois who go along with every single thing that Apple does as if it's the Golden Egg from the Golden Goose.

And yes, you can currently buy an iPhone already jailbroken AFAIK, I know they used to be on Ebay.
Will they be in the future? Who knows?

Didn't Apple pretty much shut down the Hymn project to remove DRM from music too?

Uh huh.

I'm just gonna have to disagree with the Apple fanbois again. I feel like if you pay Apple $129 for a piece of software, you should be able to install it on whatever computer you want. This is my opinion, and I think Apple will choose not to risk that part of the EULA in open court under any circumstances. We shall see.

My prediction still stands... Apple settles with Psystar, undisclosed details, and the company folds (which is basically Apple buying them for the purposes of shutting them down).

gnasher729
Aug 20, 2009, 04:24 AM
No that's called opinion, not trolling. I simply don't want Apple to win this case and believe it would set a very bad precedent for Mac user rights in the future.

But, once again, I apologize to all the Apple fanbois who go along with every single thing that Apple does as if it's the Golden Egg from the Golden Goose.

And yes, you can currently buy an iPhone already jailbroken AFAIK, I know they used to be on Ebay.
Will they be in the future? Who knows?

Didn't Apple pretty much shut down the Hymn project to remove DRM from music too?

Uh huh.

I'm just gonna have to disagree with the Apple fanbois again. I feel like if you pay Apple $129 for a piece of software, you should be able to install it on whatever computer you want. This is my opinion, and I think Apple will choose not to risk that part of the EULA in open court under any circumstances. We shall see.

My prediction still stands... Apple settles with Psystar, undisclosed details, and the company folds (which is basically Apple buying them for the purposes of shutting them down).

1. Who are these "fanbois" that you are disagreeing with, apologizing to, etc.?

2. Apple doesn't need to shut Psystar down. Their previous law firm, their credit card payment handlers and some others who are owed money will do that for them. They have no money, they have huge debt, and they can't get Chapter 11 protection for a year.

3. The judge who handles the Apple vs. Psystar case has already said in a judgement that Apple is absolutely in its right to have a license that allows installation of MacOS X on Apple-labeled computers only. I don't think Apple will be afraid.

4. Psystar just changed from a good and successful law firm to a lawyer who managed to increase Jammie Thomas' fine for copying 24 songs from $222,000 to $1,920,000. That's an achievement that few lawyers can claim. I guess Apple's lawyers couldn't believe their luck.

BaldiMac
Aug 20, 2009, 07:42 AM
No that's called opinion, not trolling.

An opinion is something like "Butter is good." There are arguments either way.

"that's easily more than half the people on this site!" is an incorrect fact or a lie depending on whether the person who said it lacks knowledge of the truth or is intentionally being deceitful.

I simply don't want Apple to win this case and believe it would set a very bad precedent for Mac user rights in the future.

What precedent would that be? That you shouldn't make a business out of selling unlicensed software? Seems to be a reasonable precedent.

But, once again, I apologize to all the Apple fanbois who go along with every single thing that Apple does as if it's the Golden Egg from the Golden Goose.

It's always funny how people always resort to personal attacks when they are either not winning an argument or they just can't deal with someone disagreeing with them and losing the argument.

Didn't Apple pretty much shut down the Hymn project to remove DRM from music too?

Uh huh.

Why is that a problem? They also removed DRM from music they sell completely.

I'm just gonna have to disagree with the Apple fanbois again.

It's always funny how people always resort to personal attacks when they are either not winning an argument or they just can't deal with someone disagreeing with them and losing the argument.

I feel like if you pay Apple $129 for a piece of software, you should be able to install it on whatever computer you want.

Unfortunately, your feelings are not the basis of the law. Apple is perfectly within their rights. If they didn't have the right to control the distribution and licensing of their own software, then we wouldn't have OS X at all.

This is my opinion, and I think Apple will choose not to risk that part of the EULA in open court under any circumstances. We shall see.

Again, what part of Apple's SLA is illegal?

My prediction still stands... Apple settles with Psystar, undisclosed details, and the company folds (which is basically Apple buying them for the purposes of shutting them down).

How is settling a lawsuit and buying a company the same thing?

Imhotep397
Aug 20, 2009, 12:09 PM
I don't really see Apple buying Psystar. If they were going to do that, they would have done that all the way back when this whole mess started. Apple is still committed to making an example out of Psystar because they were successful at building a successful start-up business using plainly illegal products as the cornerstone. It's one thing to be selling ten to hundred Hackintoshes on eBay, it's something completely different to be attempting to sell tens of thousands of Hackintoshes by advertising on some of the more recognizable technology portals. Had Apple not gone after Psystar it would have kicked the door open for mainstream vendors like Dell or HP to explore similar options. Apple needs to buy some more killer app/ industry standard makers like AutoDesk and or Pixologic and or UGS. Once Apple absolutely has more killer apps for the long haul they would sell 4x more hardware and actually be able to safely release a less expensive mid-tower with a desktop processor without fear the it would cannibalize the sales of other products. Once they would sell an inexpensive midtower there would be no room or temptation in the market for "Hackintosh" opportunities.

ViViDboarder
Aug 20, 2009, 01:26 PM
Let me get this straight...

So the EULA says you can't install it on a computer without an Apple Label. Then these are controlled under copyright laws...

That's actually really clever.

So, since I've been an Apple customer and legally own several of their stickers (I don't think there was an EULA for them :P), can I stick one on a computer for my personal use and install an unmodified version of OSX on an x86 computer using Boot132?

Should be nothing illegal about that after I've given it an Apple label, right?

BaldiMac
Aug 20, 2009, 01:37 PM
So, since I've been an Apple customer and legally own several of their stickers (I don't think there was an EULA for them :P), can I stick one on a computer for my personal use and install an unmodified version of OSX on an x86 computer using Boot132?

Should be nothing illegal about that after I've given it an Apple label, right?

Apple's lawyers are not all idiots. "Apple-labeled" has a specific meaning in a court of law. No, it is not what you are suggesting.

:) This suggestion seems to come up in every thread about about Apple's software license. Now we have to wait for "that guy" who suggests that Apple's "EULA" doesn't apply to Psystar because Psystar is not an "End User" despite the fact that Apple doesn't use the term "EULA" but rather "SLA".

pdjudd
Aug 20, 2009, 01:39 PM
So, since I've been an Apple customer and legally own several of their stickers (I don't think there was an EULA for them :P), can I stick one on a computer for my personal use and install an unmodified version of OSX on an x86 computer using Boot132?

Should be nothing illegal about that after I've given it an Apple label, right?


No. Putting a sticker on something as an end user does not make it a labeled product. You would guilty of trademark abuse since the Apple logo is owned by Apple. Only Apple can determine what an "Apple Labeled Computer" constitutes since it involves their trademarks. You are not an authorixed agent of Apple so if you tried to open up a business by that model it would be even worse. Those stickers are for personal use only.

I mean, if I put one on those stickers on my car, I cannot legitimately claim that I have an Apple branded car. Branding comes from the manufacturer (in my case Saturn). Me putting an Apple sticker on it doesn't grant Apple any rights to the usage of said car either.

gnasher729
Aug 20, 2009, 01:47 PM
Apple is still committed to making an example out of Psystar because they were successful at building a successful start-up business using plainly illegal products as the cornerstone.

I'm not so convinced about the "successful" part. They may have been successful at making a lot of noise, but last I heard the company owed $120,000 to one of the founders, $88,000 to its lawyers, and about $50,000 more to various other companies, mostly credit card handlers. :eek: That's not exactly what I would call successful.

gnasher729
Aug 20, 2009, 01:55 PM
No. Putting a sticker on something as an end user does not make it a labeled product. You would guilty of trademark abuse since the Apple logo is owned by Apple. Only Apple can determine what an "Apple Labeled Computer" constitutes since it involves their trademarks. You are not an authorixed agent of Apple so if you tried to open up a business by that model it would be even worse. Those stickers are for personal use only.

Just out of idle curiosity, what if a company like Apple Records decided that instead of buying computers for their internal use from Dell or Apple, they built their own, and put their own legitimate "Apple Records" stickers on them? Of course they couldn't sell them, that would be trademark infringement, but would that count as "Apple-labeled"?

On the other hand, if Apple Records would license the Beatles recordings to iTMS, I'm sure Apple Inc would throw in a few Macs for free :D

pdjudd
Aug 20, 2009, 02:33 PM
Just out of idle curiosity, what if a company like Apple Records decided that instead of buying computers for their internal use from Dell or Apple, they built their own, and put their own legitimate "Apple Records" stickers on them? Of course they couldn't sell them, that would be trademark infringement, but would that count as "Apple-labeled"?

On the other hand, if Apple Records would license the Beatles recordings to iTMS, I'm sure Apple Inc would throw in a few Macs for free :D


Well, I believe the end result for Apple Inc vs Apple Corps was that Apple owned all rights to the trademark of Apple - Apple Corps licenses the name. At least thats what I got from this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer#2009)source...

On 5 February 2007, Apple Inc. and Apple Corps announced a settlement of their trademark dispute under which Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to “Apple” and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. The settlement ends the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes. The settlement includes terms that are confidential, although newspaper accounts at the time stated that Apple Computer was buying out Apple Corps' trademark rights for a total of $500 million U.S..

So still it wouldn't be Apple branded - Apple determines that still. Of course this is all hypothetical - Apple corps would use Macs if anything at all!

Tailpike1153
Aug 20, 2009, 10:03 PM
I am Locutus of Apple/Borg. Resistance is futile. Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward you will service us. It wouldn't take much for Apple to turn the snitch switch function on full time in the OS. And with all its cash reserves, it could hire mercenaries to go around and blackbag people like in V for Vendetta. But that wouldn't be very nice and Microsoft would put that in a new set of I'm a PC ads.

r.j.s
Aug 20, 2009, 10:05 PM
I am Locutus of Apple/Borg. Resistance is futile. Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward you will service us. It wouldn't take much for Apple to turn the snitch switch function on full time in the OS. And with all its cash reserves, it could hire mercenaries to go around and blackbag people like in V for Vendetta. But that wouldn't be very nice and Microsoft would put that in a new set of I'm a PC ads.

189394

HyperZboy
Aug 20, 2009, 10:22 PM
I am Locutus of Apple/Borg. Resistance is futile. Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward you will service us. It wouldn't take much for Apple to turn the snitch switch function on full time in the OS. And with all its cash reserves, it could hire mercenaries to go around and blackbag people like in V for Vendetta. But that wouldn't be very nice and Microsoft would put that in a new set of I'm a PC ads.

Thank you for the good laugh. :D
I'll remember never again to argue with the Apple/Borg EULA FanBois Gods here who want consumer rights removed completely.
I have learned my lesson.

You also reminded me why it's not necessary to quote somebody 18 times to prove a point unless you have OCD.

Yes, resistance is futile. Apple/Borg is in control. LOL

BaldiMac
Aug 21, 2009, 07:41 AM
Thank you for the good laugh. :D
I'll remember never again to argue with the Apple/Borg EULA FanBois Gods here

It's always funny how people always resort to personal attacks when they are either not winning an argument or they just can't deal with someone disagreeing with them and losing the argument.

who want consumer rights removed completely.

Wanting rights and having rights are two different things. Most of us have been discussing Apple's and Psystar's current rights under the law. Personally, I am not rooting for Apple to win because they are Apple. I am expecting them to win because they are within their rights to license OS X as they do. And a loss would be a huge blow to individual and corporate IP rights.

And then the obvious question. What consumer rights are being removed?

I have learned my lesson.

You also reminded me why it's not necessary to quote somebody 18 times to prove a point unless you have OCD.

Maybe, but it is usually polite in a discussion to at least respond directly to the points made by other participants, and not simply call them names to dismiss their arguments.

ViViDboarder
Aug 21, 2009, 11:21 AM
No. Putting a sticker on something as an end user does not make it a labeled product. You would guilty of trademark abuse since the Apple logo is owned by Apple. Only Apple can determine what an "Apple Labeled Computer" constitutes since it involves their trademarks. You are not an authorixed agent of Apple so if you tried to open up a business by that model it would be even worse. Those stickers are for personal use only.

I mean, if I put one on those stickers on my car, I cannot legitimately claim that I have an Apple branded car. Branding comes from the manufacturer (in my case Saturn). Me putting an Apple sticker on it doesn't grant Apple any rights to the usage of said car either.

I wasn't suggesting sale of those computers. I was talking about personal use.

But you and the poster above you are right. There is probably a definition of "Apple-Labled" in the beginning of the SLA.

dejo
Aug 21, 2009, 11:59 AM
There is probably a definition of "Apple-Labled" in the beginning of the SLA.
Actually, there isn't.

SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MAC OS X (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf)

ViViDboarder
Aug 21, 2009, 12:15 PM
Actually, there isn't.

SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MAC OS X (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf)

So, to my understanding, that would leave it up to a judge to decide the definition...

pdjudd
Aug 21, 2009, 12:15 PM
Actually, there isn't.

SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MAC OS X (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf)

Which it doesn't matter since "Apple Branded" would be directly linked with Apple's branding and trademarks. In short - Only Apple can brand something as "Apple Branded". Anybody else doing that would be violating Apple's trademarks and copyrights related to the Apple logo or other brands.

So, to my understanding, that would leave it up to a judge to decide the definition...

Which is not that hard since the wording of "Apple" automatically refers to Apple as a company. It would be a stupid dodge.

dejo
Aug 22, 2009, 10:31 AM
Which it doesn't matter since "Apple Branded" would be directly linked with Apple's branding and trademarks.
Not sure if there's any legal difference but the SLA actually says "Apple-labeled" and not "branded". :)