Apple Wins Permanent Injunction Against Psystar

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/15/apple-wins-permanent-injunction-against-psystar/)

On Tuesday, Apple won a permanent injunction against Psystar following summary judgement in favor of Apple's claims of copyright infringement and violation of the DMCA. (court document PDF (http://images.macrumors.com/article/judgement.pdf)). The court orders that Psystar is now prevented from the following:1. Copying, selling, offering to sell, distributing, or creating derivative works of plaintiff’s copyrighted Mac OS X software without authorization from the copyright holder;
2. Intentionally inducing, aiding, assisting, abetting, or encouraging any other person or entity to infringe plaintiff’s copyrighted Mac OS X software;
3. Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access to plaintiff’s copyrighted Mac OS X software, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers;
4. Manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to plaintiff’s copyrighted Mac OS X software, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers;
5. Manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively protects the rights held by plaintiff under the Copyright Act with respect to its copyrighted Mac OS X software.Psystar must come into compliance by December 31, 2009 at the latest and take the quickest path to compliance. It seems this order marks the end of Psystar as well as the hope of any other company from following in their footsteps.

Article Link: Apple Wins Permanent Injunction Against Psystar (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/15/apple-wins-permanent-injunction-against-psystar/)

[*LTD*]

An obvious ruling. Totally expected.

Alsup said he did so because Psystar's statements to the court avoided saying specifically what Rebel EFI does

More evasive BS chicanery from Psystar. These fools will go to any length to waste everyone's time.

"Whether such a defense would be successful on the merits, or face preclusion or other hurdles, this order cannot predict," Alsup said. "What is certain, however, is that until such a motion is brought, Psystar will be selling Rebel EFI at its peril, and risks finding itself in contempt if its new venture falls within the scope of the injunction."

Good enough, for now, but it just prolongs this fiasco. it seems the Revel EFI issue isn't quite decided yet because Psystar evidently withheld information about it.

[pullfocus]

Finally.... Our long, national nightmare is over.

[Creative One]

It will be interesting to find out who the financial backers were. When will we find this out?

[djgamble]

Finally.... Our long, national nightmare is over.

Will this stop them? They always seem to find an outlet and keep selling their junk rather than listening to the courts...

Surely such behaviour should get them in more trouble?

[Some_Big_Spoon]

I still want to know the backstory on Psystar. Yes, I read the articles on them, 2 brothers, or whatever, but their strategy doesn't make sense. It was obvious all along that they would lose, so what was the motivation?

It can't have been to sell clones; maybe to bilk investors out of money, hence their wildly inflated sales projects? Maybe it was just publicity, like white House crashers and balloon boy? Whatever happened to Apple's contention that there was someone behind the curtain funding them, a' la' SCO?

There's more to this.

[satcomer]

It will be interesting to find out who the financial backers were. When will we find this out?

I would also like to know! However I bet the next thing that is coming is bankruptcy coming the Psystar.

[djgamble]

It will be interesting to find out who the financial backers were. When will we find this out?

No idea 'ay? They had millions though... enough to mount some pretty high-level court cases across multiple states, and also to keep manufacturing, marketing and presumably selling machines (despite not making a cent from their company.)

My guess is that somebody must have helped them...

[synth3tik]

this is bull ****. Anything above preventing pystar from selling computers with OS X installed is overkill and really IMO is a misuse of civil law.

[justaregularjoe]

I have been hating on Psystar ever since i found out that they were using work pulled straight from insanelyMac's (FREE) community and selling it.

Not to mention the fact that I gave up on hackintosh a long while ago... hence the sig :D

[djgamble]

I would also like to know! However I bet the next thing that is coming is bankruptcy coming the Psystar.

They tried that before, but bankruptcy required Psystar to reveal all of its backers, so somehow it reversed out of bankruptcy.

[pullfocus]

Will this stop them? They always seem to find an outlet and keep selling their junk rather than listening to the courts...

Surely such behaviour should get them in more trouble?
Well, who knows?
If the one thing Psystar proved, it was that they don't seem to care in those regards.

They may very well rear their ugly head again. Either as themselves or as some other entity.

I am in agreement with some others here, as I'd be curious to know who was really behind this all as it appears they didn't have any issues coming up with funding.

Something smells fishy.

[Michael73]

Psystar is like a bad girlfriend who doesn't take "no" for an answer and won't go away even after the judge issued a restraining order and said it's not allowed within 500 miles of Mac OS X. :mad:

[CleverClock]

Suck it up and stay down Psystar

[slotcarbob]

Well, hate to rain on this parade, but I am not glad at this outcome. I have nothing against Apple. I am a Mac consultant and troubleshooter. Never owned anything but a Mac, and probably never will. I never saw this as a threat to Apple at all. What I did see was Apple telling us what to do with a software that we "rent" from them. This is just a longer line of stink from the first time LLC's were allowed, to the late 19th century ruling that corporations are "people".

[*LTD*]

Well, hate to rain on this parade, but I am not glad at this outcome. I have nothing against Apple. I am a Mac consultant and troubleshooter. Never owned anything but a Mac, and probably never will.

Oh, then that makes your complete dismissal of Apple's IP rights under the law ok. *Phew*, for a second there I was worried.

Oh wait, you don't support anyone's IP rights under the law, and you never did.

[quagmire]

Well, hate to rain on this parade, but I am not glad at this outcome. I have nothing against Apple. I am a Mac consultant and troubleshooter. Never owned anything but a Mac, and probably never will. I never saw this as a threat to Apple at all. What I did see was Apple telling us what to do with a software that we "rent" from them. This is just a longer line of stink from the first time LLC's were allowed, to the late 19th century ruling that corporations are "people".

You defeated yourself. As you pointed out, you buy a "rent" OS X( which in the case of a OS, you buy a license). Just like when you rent a movie or something, you agree to the terms and conditions of the rental place. When you buy Mac OS X, you bought a license and agreed to Apple's terms of use.

[mdriftmeyer]

this is bull ****. Anything above preventing pystar from selling computers with OS X installed is overkill and really IMO is a misuse of civil law.

Need a tissue?

[Unique Visuals]

The beginning of the end.... maybe sorta kinda. Time will tell.
Im glad Pystar lost.

As someone thats had physical property as well as IP and two of 5 patents stolen. ( is now/was manufactured overseas now and not worth the cost of getting them back) I have also have had copyrights infringed upon. I applaud the judges decision.

I hate thieves and those that profit off of others time and ideas.

[rorschach]

What I did see was Apple telling us what to do with a software that we "rent" from them.

How many individual users has Apple sued for making a "Hackintosh"? They aren't going after you or Joe Geek, they're going after companies that try to market and sell this stuff.

Do want you want in your own home, Apple isn't stopping you and will never know. Actually Apple is extremely lenient with OS X...no DRM, no activation, no serial numbers, no checks when you pay the cheaper "Upgrade" price instead of the full version.

[Byrnes3969]

Another crushing win for Apple's iSue dept.

So ironic that Apple will sue anyone it can to protect its intellectual property yet its foundation is built on stolen Atari technology.

Sad what it's become.

[diamond.g]

The beginning of the end.... maybe sorta kinda. Time will tell.
Im glad Pystar lost.

As someone thats had physical property as well as IP and two of 5 patents stolen. ( is now/was manufactured overseas now and not worth the cost of getting them back) I have also have had copyrights infringed upon. I applaud the judges decision.

I hate thieves and those that profit off of others time and ideas.

Out of curiosity do you side with Apple or Nokia in their lawsuit.

[zackkitzmiller]

Isn't it obvious who the backer was? It was Steve Jobs.

He needed to created a fake company and use that company to create new law that favors him, in the unlikely case that someone started to sell Mac clones.

[aucl]

It will be interesting to find out who the financial backers were. When will we find this out?

i would bet one of the big ones, HP, DELL, Acer, ..., to try if they can do it,...

[*LTD*]

Another crushing win for Apple's iSue dept.

So ironic that Apple will sue anyone it can to protect its intellectual property yet its foundation is built on stolen Atari technology.

Sad what it's become.

I'm dying to know how Psystar helped the Apple community.

[mikes70mustang]

Finally.... Our long, national nightmare is over.

Really, nightmare? No one beyond these geek forums probably know about this, and even many of the people on here probably could care less what happens. But if this be sarcasm, then + 1

[powers74]

It hasn't even been a year? Wow, seems like this has been dragging on longer than that.

[cmaier]

Bye bye psystar. Proof the law works.

We may never know if they had a backer- Apple will find out, but I'm sure the information was produced under a protective order (assuming there was information to produce) in whch case the public will never know unless psystar says who it was.

[cmaier]

Really, nightmare? No one beyond these geek forums probably know about this, and even many of the people on here probably could care less what happens. But if this be sarcasm, then + 1

You're too young to recognize the reference?

[runeasgar]

Good riddance. They threatened Apple's business model, and Apple defended it (both figuratively and literally).

If you want to continue enjoying Mac OS X and Apple hardware, keep celebrating when companies like this bite the dust.

[johnl1479]

Isn't it obvious who the backer was? It was Steve Jobs.

He needed to created a fake company and use that company to create new law that favors him, in the unlikely case that someone started to sell Mac clones.

If that was indeed the case, holy crap. All legal hell would break loose.

[powers74]

Isn't it obvious who the backer was? It was Steve Jobs.

He needed to created a fake company and use that company to create new law that favors him, in the unlikely case that someone started to sell Mac clones.

That is such a preposterous claim, it just might be true!

[pullfocus]

Really, nightmare? No one beyond these geek forums probably know about this, and even many of the people on here probably could care less what happens. But if this be sarcasm, then + 1You're right on the latter.

So +1 for me, yes.

[pullfocus]

You're too young to recognize the reference?
In fact, this makes me want to watch Frost/Nixon again.

[Arcady]

Didn't anyone at Apple get anything resembling the following from all of this?

"Gee, maybe some of our customers want a mid-range mini-tower."

Nope, never, whatever. I'll keep using my Core2Quad hackintosh until they wake up. It goes nicely with my actual Macs, but doesn't replace any of them.

[balamw]

Didn't anyone at Apple get anything resembling the following from all of this?

"Gee, maybe some of our customers want a mid-range mini-tower."

Nope, never, whatever. I'll keep using my Core2Quad hackintosh until they wake up. It goes nicely with my actual Macs, but doesn't replace any of them.
Yeah, all 781 of them that Psystar sold.

B

[cmaier]

Didn't anyone at Apple get anything resembling the following from all of this?

"Gee, maybe some of our customers want a mid-range mini-tower."


Yeah, that must be why Psystar sold so many. Oh, wait....

And I, too, want to go watch Frost/Nixon again.

[Unique Visuals]

Out of curiosity do you side with Apple or Nokia in their lawsuit.

I have only briefly looked at that lawsuit and some of the details and I can see many gray areas that I don't have the education,knowledge nor expertise to make any kind of educated decision or opinion of my own.

I only followed the Pystar status out of curiosity and because of my own past with what IMO appeared to be flagrant miss-use of a copyright etc.

[Xavier]

One big lol at Psystar yet again

[*LTD*]

Isn't it obvious who the backer was? It was Steve Jobs.

He needed to created a fake company and use that company to create new law that favors him, in the unlikely case that someone started to sell Mac clones.

Except there is no "new law" being created here.

That is such a preposterous claim, it just might be true!

I'm thinking Elevation Partners . . .

[ULFoaf]

These guys couldn't pay their legal bills. This was so obviously illegal, no "big company" would risk associating their name with it or financially support it.

These were just two guys with no sense of the law trying to make money off of Apple.

[cmaier]

Except there is no "new law" being created here.

Shh. The "Psystar was a legitimate competitor to Apple, and not like a guy 'competing' with Best Buy by selling stolen car radios out of the back of a truck" crowd thinks there was some point of legal novelty here.

[kdarling]

No idea 'ay? They had millions though... enough to mount some pretty high-level court cases across multiple states, and also to keep manufacturing, marketing and presumably selling machines (despite not making a cent from their company.)

My guess is that somebody must have helped them...

My money's on The Woz.

;)

[MagnusVonMagnum]

All this does is prevent Psystar from copying OSX or modifying OSX (i.e. copyright, not anti-trust). How does that mean "the end" of Psystar or anything else? It only deals with them modifying OSX early on. I really think these articles jump to conclusions.

[cmaier]

No idea 'ay? They had millions though... enough to mount some pretty high-level court cases across multiple states, and also to keep manufacturing, marketing and presumably selling machines (despite not making a cent from their company.)

My guess is that somebody must have helped them...

What's so "high-level" about the court cases? Seemed pretty amateurish to me. Drafting a declaratory judgment complaint isn't rocket science.

[cmaier]

All this does is prevent Psystar from copying OSX or modifying OSX (i.e. copyright, not anti-trust). How does that mean "the end" of Psystar or anything else? It only deals with them modifying OSX early on. I really think these articles jump to conclusions.

No. The injunction prevents them from inducing, contributing to, or having anything to do with installing OS X on non Apple computers.

[Tofaha]

good...mac + apple inc. = :)

[*LTD*]

No. The injunction prevents them from inducing, contributing to, or having anything to do with installing OS X on non Apple computers.

In other words, Psystar's entire raison d'etre.

[libertyforall]

Well, now RebelEFI will just become Open Source and be the new XPostfacto-like software...

Some stuff is here:
https://foundry.psystar.com/

Other details:
http://wiki.psystar.com/index.php/Rebel_EFI_Wiki

Download version 0.88, before it disappears:
http://cdn.psystar.com/rebelefi_latest.iso
:rolleyes:

[cmaier]

In other words, Psystar's entire raison d'etre.

Yes, copyright infringement is the sine qua non of Psystar's business. See? I just wrote that in no time at all - just like Psystar's D.J. complaint was written in no time at all, and without evil microsoft/dell/Blackwater funding.

[Eric5h5]

So ironic that Apple will sue anyone it can to protect its intellectual property yet its foundation is built on stolen Atari technology.

I have no idea where you got that idea. Generally people go on about "stolen Xerox technology"...that's still wrong, but at least it's understandable.

--Eric

[ucfgrad93]

Suck it up and stay down Psystar

Agreed, they should know when to quit.

[Eric S.]

it seems the Revel EFI issue isn't quite decided yet because Psystar evidently withheld information about it.

Good. Keep Rebel EFI going, Psystar, until my hackintosh is completed.

[cmaier]

I have no idea where you got that idea. Generally people go on about "stolen Xerox technology"...that's still wrong, but at least it's understandable.

--Eric

The original apple mouse was based on the shape of pac man :D

[cmaier]

Good. Keep Rebel EFI going, Psystar, until my hackintosh is completed.

On Dec. 31 they're going to have to take all that down or else they're going to find themselves in front of Judge Alsup on the losing end of a contempt of court motion.

[r.j.s]

Well, now RebelEFI will just become Open Source and be the new XPostfacto-like software...

Aren't there already OS solutions from OSx86 and InsanelyMac?

Psystar is done, unless they just become another manufacturer of computer systems - but then they'd have to actually compete and have a business model, records, and such.

[bjeadeh]

Psystar should just make PC's. If it just happens to run the Mac OS, cool, no IP problems. Running OSX on an apple computer? Why doesn't Apple insist that the monitor be an Apple monitor. The keyboard be an Apple keyboard. There are thousands of hacks out there, I would imagine there already is a PC that can do it. Just got to find the brilliant hackers.

[dongmin]

Well, now RebelEFI will just become Open Source and be the new XPostfacto-like software...

Some stuff is here:
https://foundry.psystar.com/

Other details:
http://wiki.psystar.com/index.php/Rebel_EFI_Wiki

Download version 0.88, before it disappears:
http://cdn.psystar.com/rebelefi_latest.iso
:rolleyes:

Hmm, not really sure why Psystar is spending the time/money to push open source on this, when they're trying to make $$$ off their Rebel EFI thing.

I'm inclined more than ever to think that the Psystar was created to bring media buzz on this whole hackintosh thing. They (whoever "they" really turn out to be) had no intention EVER of making money.

[jimglidewell]

Do want you want in your own home, Apple isn't stopping you and will never know. Actually Apple is extremely lenient with OS X...no DRM, no activation, no serial numbers, no checks when you pay the cheaper "Upgrade" price instead of the full version.

This is the primary reason that I supported Apple in this battle. If Apple lost the ability to control the uses of its OS by legal (shrink-wrap) means, then they would be effectively forced into using technical means to prevent both widespread usage on non-Apple gear and piracy.

The sort of activation BS that Apple would be forced to use would be a bad thing for Mac users.

But in general, I am against shrink-wrap licenses - at least those that purport to take away rights that you would normally have as the purchaser of a copy of a copyrighted item.

The simple-minded "you must obey anything the shrinkwrap license says" folks in this thread don't seem to be aware that this is a largely unsettled legal matter. UCC 2B was supposed to settle things once and for all. It went down in flames. UCITA replaced it, but it was only ratified by two states, last I heard.

The "purchase" versus "license" debate still goes on between various factions of the IP legal community. It is far from settled. But both sides of that debate still support the right of an IP owner to profit and control their creations - the fundamental difference of opinion is whether that control should end when money changes hands. And what sorts of rights can't be taken away by a shrink-wrap "license". (such as the right to publish a negative review, for example...)

I had no doubt that Apple would prevail on the DMCA issues - the licensing was a bit more dicey. And I still have a lot of concerns about the consumer-friendliness of allowing software vendors to hide unfair or even abusive legally-binding clauses in contracts that essentially nobody ever reads.

IANAL.

[r.j.s]

Psystar should just make PC's. If it just happens to run the Mac OS, cool, no IP problems. Running OSX on an apple computer? Why doesn't Apple insist that the monitor be an Apple monitor. The keyboard be an Apple keyboard. There are thousands of hacks out there, I would imagine there already is a PC that can do it. Just got to find the brilliant hackers.

They way I understand the injunction, they can just make PCs, but they have never wanted to do that. They have made their business around OS X on their machines.

They can make PCs, but they cannot do anything that enables or allows OS X to install on it.

The simple-minded "you must obey anything the shrinkwrap license says" folks in this thread don't seem to be aware that this is a largely unsettled legal matter. UCC 2B was supposed to settle things once and for all. It went down in flames. UCITA replaced it, but it was only ratified by two states, last I heard.

You can contest anything in a license, but is it worth it?


And I still have a lot of concerns about the consumer-friendliness of allowing software vendors to hide unfair or even abusive legally-binding clauses in contracts that essentially nobody ever reads.

IANAL.

They are not hidden, they are there for anyone to read. Choosing not to read a contract before agreeing to it doesn't make it non-binding.

[mingoglia]

You defeated yourself. As you pointed out, you buy a "rent" OS X( which in the case of a OS, you buy a license). Just like when you rent a movie or something, you agree to the terms and conditions of the rental place. When you buy Mac OS X, you bought a license and agreed to Apple's terms of use.

In turn you defeated yourself. This is the same as Sony Pictures saying that the movie you rented (in your argument) can only be played on a Sony branded DVD player.

[quagmire]

Psystar should just make PC's. If it just happens to run the Mac OS, cool, no IP problems. Running OSX on an apple computer? Why doesn't Apple insist that the monitor be an Apple monitor. The keyboard be an Apple keyboard. There are thousands of hacks out there, I would imagine there already is a PC that can do it. Just got to find the brilliant hackers.

Apple doesn't insist that you must use their monitor( unless you get the iMac) or keyboard. Hell that is the whole point of the Mac Mini. You can use your own monitor, keyboard, and mouse since it doesn't come with any of that.

[cmaier]

The simple-minded "you must obey anything the shrinkwrap license says" folks in this thread don't seem to be aware that this is a largely unsettled legal matter. UCC 2B was supposed to settle things once and for all. It went down in flames. UCITA replaced it, but it was only ratified by two states, last I heard.



UCITA is quite dead.

[pullfocus]

In turn you defeated yourself. This is the same as Sony Pictures saying that the movie you rented (in your argument) can only be played on a Sony branded DVD player.
I disagree with this analogy.
Because one can use OS X on their own hackintosh if they so choose, but if one started selling those hackintoshes in order to profit, ala Psystar, this is where the problems of intellectual property arise.

[bjeadeh]

Apple doesn't insist that you must use their monitor( unless you get the iMac) or keyboard. Hell that is the whole point of the Mac Mini. You can use your own monitor, keyboard, and mouse since it doesn't come with any of that.

So the CPU is fair game?

[Mr. Gates]

Apple doesn't insist that you must use their monitor( unless you get the iMac) or keyboard. Hell that is the whole point of the Mac Mini. You can use your own monitor, keyboard, and mouse since it doesn't come with any of that.

Yeah, but the MacMini Kinda really Blows

[quagmire]

In turn you defeated yourself. This is the same as Sony Pictures saying that the movie you rented (in your argument) can only be played on a Sony branded DVD player.

How did I defeat myself? If Sony wants their movies to only play in Sony DVD players, then it is their right and if that was the case I wouldn't be renting it if I didn't have a Sony DVD player.

Yeah, but the MacMini Kinda really Blows

Then get a Mac Pro. :p

Either way, you're not being forced to use Apple's displays, keyboards, and mouse. Even on the iMac, if you don't want to use the iMac's built in monitor, you could attach another display to the iMac and use that one.

[cmaier]

I disagree with this analogy.
Because one can use OS X on their own hackintosh if they so choose, but if one started selling those hackintoshes in order to profit, ala Psystar, this is where the problems of intellectual property arise.

Practically, yes. But not legally. Even if you hackintosh for yourself, not for profit, you are violating the DMCA, creating a derivative work, and violating the EULA. No one will sue you, but it's certainly just as much of a violation of these things. From your post, it's not clear whether you are saying Apple won't go after you for hackintoshing (true) or whether you are saying its not a violation of the EULA to do so (false).

[pullfocus]

Practically, yes. But not legally. Even if you hackintosh for yourself, not for profit, you are violating the DMCA, creating a derivative work, and violating the EULA. No one will sue you, but it's certainly just as much of a violation of these things. From your post, it's not clear whether you are saying Apple won't go after you for hackintoshing (true) or whether you are saying its not a violation of the EULA to do so (false).
Think of it this way. If I legally purchased a copy of OS X and installed it on my own Hackintosh system, Apple is not going to enforce the EULA in regards to your own personal use. But, and this is addressed to everyone who says Psystar is perfectly within their rights to sell computers with OS X pre-installed, that's not what Psystar was doing. They are using it to make a profit. The home user, who does it on their own, has every right to do so, because Apple will not claim violation of the EULA, because the user who does it for their own personal preference isn't selling Apple's software without paying licensing fees to Apple. But Psystar did, whether preinstalled or not, and that is the problem.
Even if Psystar legally purchased every copy of OS X they installed or shipped with their Open Computer, they are still not within their rights.

As a filmmaker, if I make a film, and I want to put a Springsteen song FROM A CD THAT I OWN (thus, the COPY of the song is mine) on the soundtrack, I can, and Springsteen and the record label won't care, UNTIL I decide to release the film to market and sell tickets. I am legally obligated to pay for the rights to do so, both to the record label and the publishing company, and in some cases the artist as well. Why? Because it is not my intelletual property to do with as I please.

So, the argument that Psystar could do whatever they wanted, even if they paid for each copy, is wrong. Not necessarily logical, or even fair, but still illegal.

[bjeadeh]

Then get a Mac Pro. :p

Either way, you're not being forced to use Apple's displays, keyboards, and mouse. Even on the iMac, if you don't want to use the iMac's built in monitor, you could attach another display to the iMac and use that one.[/QUOTE]

But won't I get in trouble for using some other company's hardware?

[cmaier]

Think of it this way. If I legally purchased a copy of OS X and installed it on my own Hackintosh system, Apple is not going to enforce the EULA in regards to your own personal use. But, and this is addressed to everyone who says Psystar is perfectly within their rights to sell computers with OS X pre-installed, that's not what Psystar was doing. They are using it to make a profit. The home user, who does it on their own, has every right to do so, because Apple will not claim violation of the EULA, because the user who does it for their own personal preference isn't selling Apple's software without paying licensing fees to Apple. But Psystar did, whether preinstalled or not, and that is the problem.
Even if Psystar legally purchased every copy of OS X they installed or shipped with their Open Computer, they are still not within their rights.

As a filmmaker, if I make a film, and I want to put a Springsteen song FROM A CD THAT I OWN (thus, the COPY of the song is mine) on the soundtrack, I can, and Springsteen and the record label won't care, UNTIL I decide to release the film to market and sell tickets. I am legally obligated to pay for the rights to do so, both to the record label and the publishing company, and in some cases the artist as well. Why? Because it is not my intelletual property to do with as I please.

So, the argument that Psystar could do whatever they wanted, even if they paid for each copy, is wrong. Not necessarily logical, or even fair, but still illegal.

By chopping your post in half (the post to which I responded) and using half as a response to my post, you have created a circular loop.

Again, let's be clear: you are not permitted, by law, to hackintosh, but this is of little consequence since no one will ever enforce it.

[quagmire]

Think of it this way. If I legally purchased a copy of OS X and installed it on my own Hackintosh system, Apple is not going to enforce the EULA in regards to your own personal use. But, and this is addressed to everyone who says Psystar is perfectly within their rights to sell computers with OS X pre-installed, that's not what Psystar was doing. They are using it to make a profit. The home user, who does it on their own, has every right to do so, because Apple will not claim violation of the EULA, because the user who does it for their own personal preference isn't selling Apple's software without paying licensing fees to Apple. But Psystar did, whether preinstalled or not, and that is the problem.

You're still violating the EULA due it stating you can't install OS X on a non-apple computer because you are only buying a license to OS X. It's just they chose not to enforce it dealing with individuals. Just like they don't care if you install OS X on more then one computer even though you only bought the single license copy and not the Family Pack.



But won't I get in trouble for using some other company's hardware?



No you won't.

[pullfocus]

By chopping your post in half (the post to which I responded) and using half as a response to my post, you have created a circular loop.

Again, let's be clear: you are not permitted, by law, to hackintosh, but this is of little consequence since no one will ever enforce it.
I am not talking personal legality here. I am speaking of when the legalities actually matter. Illegal or not, I can put OS X on a hackintosh which, by the way, I have no interest in doing.
I can make as many copies of OS X as I choose, I can hand them out to friends if I want, and Apple won't bother with me. But the second I try to profit from that, that is where they will begin to care.

If anything, Psystar's downfall was it's own belligerence.

Oh, and the only reason I responded with what I chopped off was because I added it later, and wasn't aware you had seen it. I did not mean, in any way, to create a circular loop.

[bjeadeh]

You're still violating the EULA due it stating you can't install OS X on a non-apple computer because you are only buying a license to OS X. It's just they chose not to enforce it dealing with individuals. Just like they don't care if you install OS X on more then one computer even though you only bought the single license copy and not the Family Pack.


No you won't.

Isn't Apple getting in trouble for being able to run Windows on a Mac? I mean Psystar's software is sort of like Boot Camp, isn't it?

[pullfocus]

Isn't Apple getting in trouble for being able to run Windows on a Mac? I mean Psystar's software is sort of like Boot Camp, isn't it?
Apple isn't selling their computers with Windows pre-installed.

[cmaier]

Apple isn't selling their computers with Windows pre-installed.

It wouldn't matter if they did sell it pre-installed. The Windows OEM license allows a manufacturer to pre-install windows on a computer, and sell it. The Mac license allows no such thing. As long as Apple obeys the Windows license and pays for each copy, it can't get in trouble.

[r.j.s]

Isn't Apple getting in trouble for being able to run Windows on a Mac? I mean Psystar's software is sort of like Boot Camp, isn't it?

No, because MS allows Windows to be installed on any machine. Different business model.

[pullfocus]

It wouldn't matter if they did sell it pre-installed. The Windows OEM license allows a manufacturer to pre-install windows on a computer, and sell it. The Mac license allows no such thing. As long as Apple obeys the Windows license, it can't get in trouble.Of course. I forgot about that.

[bjeadeh]

Apple isn't selling their computers with Windows pre-installed.

Phew, I was sweating it for a minute. I thought that when Mac Mall, Mac Connection, Mac Zone, Mac Warehouse, or CDW sold me my MacBook Pro with Vista and Fusion in it, Microsoft said it was ok.

[pullfocus]

Phew, I was sweating it for a minute. I thought that when Mac Mall, Mac Connection, Mac Zone, Mac Warehouse, or CDW sold me my MacBook Pro with Vista and Fusion in it, Microsoft said it was ok.
See above.

[quagmire]

Isn't Apple getting in trouble for being able to run Windows on a Mac? I mean Psystar's software is sort of like Boot Camp, isn't it?

No, because there is nothing in Windows EULA( or at least I don't think it does haven't read it :p ) that you can't install Windows on a Mac. Plus, Microsoft is profiting from it as it still requires the end user to buy a license of Windows. It doesn't cost Microsoft a dime by having Macs run Windows because that is Microsoft's business model( software). Also, Apple doesn't have Macs come preinstalled with Windows( if they did Apple would have to pay MS for the licenses). Where Psystar hasn't even been legally buying licenses of OS X( despite them claiming they do, the CEO stated those records were "lost").

In Apple's case though, hardware is their business model and why they stated in the EULA OS X can only run on Apple hardware. So with Psystar profiting from selling hardware with OS X pre-installed, Psystar is breaking the EULA. With the Rebel EFI, Psystar is profiting from aiding users to install OS X on non-Macs and why Apple cares about that as well.

[AppleMojo]

All this does is prevent Psystar from copying OSX or modifying OSX (i.e. copyright, not anti-trust). How does that mean "the end" of Psystar or anything else? It only deals with them modifying OSX early on. I really think these articles jump to conclusions.

Oh no, the only thing this injunction left out was:

6: Use of sign language, uttering words, making sounds similar to or shaping the mouth in an attempt to connect O, S and X together in the respective order.

[tyson12zoll]

As long as you have an apple keyboard hooked up to that pystar you are totally within the law.

[pdjudd]

As long as you have an apple keyboard hooked up to that pystar you are totally within the law.

No, a keyboard is not a computer - in fact you do not install anything on a keyboard.

Nice try though....

[cmaier]

As long as you have an apple keyboard hooked up to that pystar you are totally within the law.

no you're not. Ignoring that ridiculous construction of the Eula, you still violate the dmca by defeating an effective protection mechanism, and you still have created a derivative work.

And, of course, your construction of the Eula, while cute, is not going to be supported by any court of law.

[AppleMojo]

Practically, yes. But not legally. Even if you hackintosh for yourself, not for profit, you are violating the DMCA, creating a derivative work, and violating the EULA. No one will sue you, but it's certainly just as much of a violation of these things. From your post, it's not clear whether you are saying Apple won't go after you for hackintoshing (true) or whether you are saying its not a violation of the EULA to do so (false).

Exactly! Well said.

And because Apple does not come after you, does not make it legal.

[bjeadeh]

No, a keyboard is not a computer - in fact you do not install anything on a keyboard.

Nice try though....

Has anybody actually opened up an Apple computer and has actually seen what is there? Intel, Samsung, Texas Instruments, Crucial, Marvell Yukon, Broadcom, Nvidia, SMP, and that isn't even cracking open the case. What part of that is Apple?

[robotartfashion]

Well, hate to rain on this parade, but I am not glad at this outcome. I have nothing against Apple. I am a Mac consultant and troubleshooter. Never owned anything but a Mac, and probably never will. I never saw this as a threat to Apple at all. What I did see was Apple telling us what to do with a software that we "rent" from them. This is just a longer line of stink from the first time LLC's were allowed, to the late 19th century ruling that corporations are "people".

If Apple started to allow the unrestricted use of their software then they would:

A) Have to start spending $$$$$$$$$$$$$ and hours and hours of time writing drivers to support all the &)#&(# hardware out there ala Microsoft. This means much more $$$ for the right to use their software and hours of my time cursing to the heavens as I live with BSOD's like I used to with PCs

Unless of course you were planning on writing the drivers? Very kind of you.

B) An end to Apple's wonderfully engineered and beautifully designed hardware sets as they are pushed out of the market by all the crapware companies that undercut the *@&)@* out of Apple's hardware prices and we see Apple die a slow Linux distro related death

P.S. Look at Psytar, there computers were generic and ugly. I pay not only for the ease of use and lack of stress, but also for the design asthetic

Thanks!

[macnerd93]

So ironic that Apple will sue anyone it can to protect its intellectual property yet its foundation is built on stolen Atari technology.

Sad what it's become.


Stolen Atari Technology???, never heard that one before lol. Mac OS X foundation is based from BSD Unix, the kernel underpinnings are nicknamed darwin, Steve Jobs use to work at Atari before him and Woz founded Apple, maybe your getting muddled

[cmaier]

Has anybody actually opened up an Apple computer and has actually seen what is there? Intel, Samsung, Texas Instruments, Crucial, Marvell Yukon, Broadcom, Nvidia, SMP, and that isn't even cracking open the case. What part of that is Apple?

The fact that they designed it, sold it to you, and service it for you, and the fact that they supply the OS which they wrote.

[cathul]

If Apple started to allow the unrestricted use of their software then they would:

A) Have to start spending $$$$$$$$$$$$$ and hours and hours of time writing drivers to support all the &)#&(# hardware out there ala Microsoft. This means much more $$$ for the right to use their software and hours of my time cursing to the heavens as I live with BSOD's like I used to with PCs

Unless of course you were planning on writing the drivers? Very kind of you.


Why would Apple have to write the drivers in this case?
Couldn't they say "Hey, we removed the restriction of running OSX only on our Hardware, but we don't care about drivers for other hardware than ours. We have a driver API which you can use if you want, but we will not write drivers for graphic cards that we don't sell ourselfes."?
Not that it matters that Apple supports a lot more hardware than they integrate into their computers, but could Apple really be forced to explicitly write drivers for others in this case?

[robotartfashion]

Psystar should just make PC's. If it just happens to run the Mac OS, cool, no IP problems. Running OSX on an apple computer? Why doesn't Apple insist that the monitor be an Apple monitor. The keyboard be an Apple keyboard. There are thousands of hacks out there, I would imagine there already is a PC that can do it. Just got to find the brilliant hackers.

because those devices are plug and play, no need to build specialized drivers or spend time supporting them

EDIT * and they kind of do, they ship their own keyboards and mice with almost every computer, and all but 3 systems offered include monitors with no choice to remove them (all except MacPro, Mac Mini, X-Serve)

[glimp7]

I'm suprised at how happy everybody is with this case. Let's think of the people who can't afford a $1k mac. I know, there's the mini, but come on Apple! Macs are a huge value, don't get me wrong, but why can't OSX be an open operating system?

Buy a mac pro for $2500, or a $1000 PC with a core i7 920 and overclock it. Jeez, it's such a difficult choice...

Rebel EFI is a dream! Someone posted that Psystar stole all the kexts and software from InsanelyMac. That's partly true, but their software makes the install much simpler than what's provided by the hackintosh community.

[quagmire]

EDIT * and they kind of do, they ship their own keyboards and mice with almost every computer, and all but 3 systems offered include monitors with no choice to remove them (all except MacPro, Mac Mini, X-Serve)

And most PC makers ship their own keyboard and mice as well. And if you don't want to use the display on the iMac, you can just attach another monitor for it.

And last time I checked, most laptops have non-removable displays and keyboards. :p

I'm suprised at how happy everybody is with this case. Let's think of the people who can't afford a $1k mac. I know, there's the mini, but come on Apple! Macs are a huge value, don't get me wrong, but why can't OSX be an open operating system?

Buy a mac pro for $2500, or a $1000 PC with a core i7 920 and overclock it. Jeez, it's such a difficult choice...

Rebel EFI is a dream! Someone posted that Psystar stole all the kexts and software from InsanelyMac. That's partly true, but their software makes the install much simpler than what's provided by the hackintosh community.

Because Apple's business model is hardware sales. The software is there to help sell the hardware. If Apple allowed OS X to be installed on any PC, Apple's profits would plummet and enter Chapter 7 because no one would buy Apple's hardware anymore. If Apple wanted to survive, they would have to change their business model and start charging $300 for OS X.

[robotartfashion]

Why would Apple have to write the drivers in this case?
Couldn't they say "Hey, we removed the restriction of running OSX only on our Hardware, but we don't care about drivers for other hardware than ours. We have a driver API which you can use if you want, but we will not write drivers for graphic cards that we don't sell ourselfes."?
Not that it matters that Apple supports a lot more hardware than they integrate into their computers, but could Apple really be forced to explicitly write drivers for others in this case?

Apple knows their bread and butter is the ease of use. This is why they control everything with an iron grip. Case in point is the recent freak out of Hackintosh users regarding the 10.6.2 and Atom processors in netbooks. Apple has decided not to use Atom processors and therefore do not support them creating problems for the Hackintosh community. If Apple wanted it to "just work" on all hardware they would have to develop for it to do so. (i.e. Atoms, Ions, AMD processors)

Consider every iteration of Windows since the dawn of time. When hardware crashes the system or does not work properly your average users don't complain about Nvidia or Creative Labs or Gigabyte, they bitch about WINDOWS. MS has to spend time and money trying to work with companies to resolve issues and conflicts.

Apple survives and profits because of its exclusivity.

[macnerd93]

I'm suprised at how happy everybody is with this case. Let's think of the people who can't afford a $1k mac. I know, there's the mini, but come on Apple! Macs are a huge value, don't get me wrong, but why can't OSX be an open operating system?

Umm because if OS X was opened up it would suck big time, sure it would still look pretty, but there would be countless driver issues, crashes on bad hardware, more viruses and security threats. Apple make the software and chose the hardware which goes into their Macs, so its the ultimate optimisation with drivers etc. If OS X was set free it would prevent it being unique & the Mac seen as a luxury item, if you cant afford a Mac buy a PC. I own 7 Macs :D they rule, never own a PC again

[Eric S.]

On Dec. 31 they're going to have to take all that down or else they're going to find themselves in front of Judge Alsup on the losing end of a contempt of court motion.

That should be plenty of time.

[robotartfashion]

"And most PC makers ship their own keyboard and mice as well. And if you don't want to use the display on the iMac, you can just attach another monitor for it.

And last time I checked, most laptops have non-removable displays and keyboards. :p"

haha, I know :) I was supporting my argument listed right about that edit.

[aucl]

In turn you defeated yourself. This is the same as Sony Pictures saying that the movie you rented (in your argument) can only be played on a Sony branded DVD player.

As a matter of fact, the dvd player app on osx works only with apple devices cause of similar licensing reasons.
I have an external 3rd party drive, and Apple support kindly confirmed that issue to me.

[r.j.s]

Why would Apple have to write the drivers in this case?
Couldn't they say "Hey, we removed the restriction of running OSX only on our Hardware, but we don't care about drivers for other hardware than ours. We have a driver API which you can use if you want, but we will not write drivers for graphic cards that we don't sell ourselfes."?
Not that it matters that Apple supports a lot more hardware than they integrate into their computers, but could Apple really be forced to explicitly write drivers for others in this case?

Becuase users don't see it that way. If Apple doesn't have drivers for certain hardware, users will run to Apple when there are issues, or blame Apple for it not working.

I'm suprised at how happy everybody is with this case. Let's think of the people who can't afford a $1k mac. I know, there's the mini, but come on Apple! Macs are a huge value, don't get me wrong, but why can't OSX be an open operating system?

Yes, let's think of all the people that can't afford things they want. I want a Maserati, but I can't afford it - why won't someone just come up with a way for me to get one at the price of a Kia. :rolleyes:

[Stridder44]

this is bull ****. Anything above preventing pystar from selling computers with OS X installed is overkill and really IMO is a misuse of civil law.

OMG everyone the sky is falling!! :rolleyes:

When you use OS X you agree to it's licensing claims. This should come to the surprise of NO ONE, and Windows along with almost every other commercial software out there has a similar EULA as well. Apple is a hardware company first and foremost, so selling their machines is vital, hence why OS X isn't available for anyone to install on any random PC box. Stop being so damn dramatic.

And honestly, what's the point of an buying a computer from them specifically to hackintosh? You can run Linux/Ubuntu and/or Windows on a Mac already anyway, so what's the point?

[mingoglia]

Speaking of Darwin... I'm a BSD guy, have been for years. That's what eventually made a Mac "okay" in my book and I bought my first mac about 3 years ago. I have a hard time condemning a company for "stealing" code or an idea from the open source community and selling it (the hakintosh projects), when the core of Apple's OS is based on something "free". Granted they're well within their right to do so due to the open source licensing... but I still think it's got a slight bit of pot calling the kettle black going on.

Mike

[Bregalad]

Look at Psytar, there computers were generic and ugly. I pay not only for the ease of use and lack of stress, but also for the design asthetic. Thanks!

I may be in the minority here, but I don't give a hoot whether my computer has an aesthetic design or not. I mean seriously, how many seconds per day do you actually look at your computer? My old G5 sat on the floor beside my desk where I couldn't see it. My current mini is on the desk because that makes hooking up all the cables easier, but it's usually covered in papers so I can't see it either.

What matters? The quality of the displays I have to look at for 8-10 hours per day, the quality of the operating system, the quality of the applications I run and the reliability of all the unseen hardware.

Apple could make the case out of sanitized manure for all I care.

[bjeadeh]

The fact that they designed it, sold it to you, and service it for you, and the fact that they supply the OS which they wrote.

They designed it, but sold it to CDW, who modified it, who sold it to me.

[robotartfashion]

I may be in the minority here, but I don't give a hoot whether my computer has an aesthetic design or not. I mean seriously, how many seconds per day do you actually look at your computer? My old G5 sat on the floor beside my desk where I couldn't see it. My current mini is on the desk because that makes hooking up all the cables easier, but it's usually covered in papers so I can't see it either.

What matters? The quality of the displays I have to look at for 8-10 hours per day, the quality of the operating system, the quality of the applications I run and the reliability of all the unseen hardware.

Apple could make the case out of sanitized manure for all I care.

To each their own, but as an artist I appreciate the thought and effort that goes into the crafting. Especially every time I'm sitting next to someone with my Macbook Pro and they have some ugly plastic HP, Acer, or Dell.

It's just another piece of the overall pleased puzzle for me :)

P.S. it's not just the view, its the interior industrial design as well. I've never appreciated the interior of a computer like I have with my MacPro, beautiful and easy to work with.

[bjeadeh]

Apple could make the case out of sanitized manure for all I care.[/QUOTE]

I think you got something here but why sanitized? Don't get me wrong, I love all my Macs, ever since 1990 for me. But I would love to play with a Hackintosh along with all my Apples.

[mdriftmeyer]

Speaking of Darwin... I'm a BSD guy, have been for years. That's what eventually made a Mac "okay" in my book and I bought my first mac about 3 years ago. I have a hard time condemning a company for "stealing" code or an idea from the open source community and selling it (the hakintosh projects), when the core of Apple's OS is based on something "free". Granted they're well within their right to do so due to the open source licensing... but I still think it's got a slight bit of pot calling the kettle black going on.

Mike

Have a philosophical debate with Jordan Hubbard and the rest of the history of BSD and NeXT. Sorry, but the BSD License exists for a reason. Without the likes of Sun, NeXT, Apple, DEC and more BSD would not have sustained itself over the past two decades.

[Byrnes3969]

I have no idea where you got that idea. Generally people go on about "stolen Xerox technology"...that's still wrong, but at least it's understandable.

--Eric


"Using borrowed parts from Atari, having the main PCB printed up by Atari employee Howard Cantin, and receiving further assistance from Atari employee Ron Wayne, two non-employees, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, created and marketed their own home computer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Bushnell

"Jobs leaves Atari soon after, and he helps himself to some electronics that eventually end up integrated into the prototype computer Woz and Jobs create under the auspices of thier newly founded Apple Computer Company"

http://www.emuunlim.com/doteaters/play2sta1.htm

I wonder what would have happened if Atari has sued Apple for "borrowing parts"? My point here is that Apple, once a small start up company with dreams of "Thinking Different" looks more and more like a greedy, heartless corporation, crushing anyone that tries innovating or enhancing their products. Psystar is the latest casualty.

I can only pray that Woz replaces Jobs when he finally kicks the bucket.

[r.j.s]

"Using borrowed parts from Atari, having the main PCB printed up by Atari employee Howard Cantin, and receiving further assistance from Atari employee Ron Wayne, two non-employees, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, created and marketed their own home computer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Bushnell

I wonder what would have happened if Atari has sued Apple for "borrowing parts"? My point here is that Apple, once a small start up company with dreams of "Thinking Different" looks more and more like a greedy, heartless corporation, crushing anyone that tries innovating or enhancing their products. Psystar is the latest casualty.

I can only pray that Woz replaces Jobs when he finally kicks the bucket.

And what makes you assume the borrowed parts were stolen, and not in fact borrowed, on the promise of payment later?

[fifthworld]

Because Apple's business model is hardware sales. The software is there to help sell the hardware. If Apple allowed OS X to be installed on any PC, Apple's profits would plummet and enter Chapter 7 because no one would buy Apple's hardware anymore. If Apple wanted to survive, they would have to change their business model and start charging $300 for OS X.

This is the worst Apple business model defense I have heard: You are saying that Mac hardware have no extra value compared to a PC; hence, the only reason to buy Mac hardware is the OS. In this case please know that Apple is charging in average well above $1,000 for OS X, not just $300.

[Winni]

You Americans have my sympathies. This ruling is just another evidence for how screwed up your legal system is. Once again, the customer loses and a large corporation with an equally large legal department gets away with its customer hostile business practices. The sole purpose of the OS X EULA is to create a vendor lock-in and to force those who are locked into the OS X platform to purchase overpriced computer systems that are based on cheap industry standards. And yet, you guys applaud. Einstein was right about the infinity of certain things.

[Andronicus]

Hmm, everything Mac OS X related on Pystars website is out of stock...how strange...:D

[Livestfastest]

How many individual users has Apple sued for making a "Hackintosh"? They aren't going after you or Joe Geek, they're going after companies that try to market and sell this stuff.

Do want you want in your own home, Apple isn't stopping you and will never know. Actually Apple is extremely lenient with OS X...no DRM, no activation, no serial numbers, no checks when you pay the cheaper "Upgrade" price instead of the full version.

Everyone knew they were going to lose and nobody's going to miss Psystar, but I don't think anyone predicted this huge of a precedent being set across the board on all counts.

No, Apple isn't going to sue anyone in their homes, no doubt about that.

But say goodbye to all those Hackintosh websites now. BABYE!

Apple can easily take them all down with this ruling if they want to and throw the whole Hackintosh movement under the bus. I don't think they will immediately, but I do think they will ultimately do that.

[fifthworld]

"Using borrowed parts from Atari, having the main PCB printed up by Atari employee Howard Cantin, and receiving further assistance from Atari employee Ron Wayne, two non-employees, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, created and marketed their own home computer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Bushnell

I wonder what would have happened if Atari has sued Apple for "borrowing parts"? My point here is that Apple, once a small start up company with dreams of "Thinking Different" looks more and more like a greedy, heartless corporation, crushing anyone that tries innovating or enhancing their products. Psystar is the latest casualty.

I can only pray that Woz replaces Jobs when he finally kicks the bucket.

You conveniently forgot the last part of the quote:

"Using borrowed parts from Atari, having the main PCB printed up by Atari employee Howard Cantin, and receiving further assistance from Atari employee Ron Wayne, two non-employees, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, created and marketed their own home computer. They offered the design to Bushnell, but Atari had no desire to build computers at the time, instead focusing on the arcade and home console markets."

And also forgot that Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak created a brand new Apple computer not a clone of an Atari.

[Mac Kiwi]

I can only pray that Woz replaces Jobs when he finally kicks the bucket.


Oooh hell yes Woz at the helm :D....buy one get one free or something similar,Woz is to much of a humanitarian / hard case to be a CEO.


On Psystar again - I do not think their backer will be able to play hide and seek forever,the internet / media will find out who it is eventually.

[WeegieMac]

As my favourite all time videogame, Sega Rally, used to say ...

"Game Over Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeah"!!!!

[Pika]

I hate Psystar the same way i hat PeTA.

[gnasher729]

Another crushing win for Apple's iSue dept.

So ironic that Apple will sue anyone it can to protect its intellectual property yet its foundation is built on stolen Atari technology.

Sad what it's become.

This is the second worst nonsense that I've ever heard.

[gnasher729]

You Americans have my sympathies. This ruling is just another evidence for how screwed up your legal system is. Once again, the customer loses and a large corporation with an equally large legal department gets away with its customer hostile business practices. The sole purpose of the OS X EULA is to create a vendor lock-in and to force those who are locked into the OS X platform to purchase overpriced computer systems that are based on cheap industry standards. And yet, you guys applaud. Einstein was right about the infinity of certain things.

Opinion on Groklaw is that your favorite computer seller, PearC, will soon find out how quick German courts can act when they are asked to act.

[gnasher729]

I'm suprised at how happy everybody is with this case. Let's think of the people who can't afford a $1k mac. I know, there's the mini, but come on Apple! Macs are a huge value, don't get me wrong, but why can't OSX be an open operating system?

Buy a mac pro for $2500, or a $1000 PC with a core i7 920 and overclock it. Jeez, it's such a difficult choice...

If you can't afford a "$1k mac", how can you afford a $100 PC with a core i7 920? You either have the money or you don't. If Rebel EFI is a dream for you, what about some cheap burglary tools? If you want to buy Rebel EFI so that you can illegally use MacOS X on a cheap PC, why not invest in some burglary tools, so you might be able to use MacOS X on a real, but stolen, Mac?

Good. Keep Rebel EFI going, Psystar, until my hackintosh is completed.

You are misunderstanding the injunction. Psystar wanted the injunction to specifically exclude Rebel EFI. Since they didn't tell the court what Rebel EFI exactly was, it wasn't excluded from the injunction. However, Psystar is not allowed to sell anything that can be used to help you install MacOS X on a non-Apple computer, including your hackintosh. As the judge said, they can sell it "at their own peril". The peril would be contempt of an injunction.

The simple-minded "you must obey anything the shrinkwrap license says" folks in this thread don't seem to be aware that this is a largely unsettled legal matter. UCC 2B was supposed to settle things once and for all. It went down in flames. UCITA replaced it, but it was only ratified by two states, last I heard.

To quote from Judge Alsup's ruling on the injunction: "In sum, customers were contractually precluded from: (1) installing and running Mac OS X on any non-Apple computer system, (2) enabling others to install or run Mac OS X on any non-Apple computer system, (3) modifying or creating derivative works of the software, and (4) transferring the software to others except as expressly authorized by the license agreement."

Sounds rather settled to me.

I disagree with this analogy.
Because one can use OS X on their own hackintosh if they so choose, but if one started selling those hackintoshes in order to profit, ala Psystar, this is where the problems of intellectual property arise.

See Judge Alsup's quote above.

[gnasher729]

All this does is prevent Psystar from copying OSX or modifying OSX (i.e. copyright, not anti-trust). How does that mean "the end" of Psystar or anything else? It only deals with them modifying OSX early on. I really think these articles jump to conclusions.

They sold about 780 computers. The number of computers sold without MacOS X is probably a lot lower (my estimate: zero). They can't sell computers with MacOS X anymore, they can't sell anything that would aid in copying MacOS X (which shoots down their Rebel EFI stuff), so they have to really work hard now to grow their business selling computers with Windows or Linux, and then they have to pay more than $2.5 million to Apple.

[newb16]

Didn't anyone at Apple get anything resembling the following from all of this?

"Gee, maybe some of our customers want a mid-range mini-tower."


And then these customers will insert third-party expansion boards, video cards,
install buggy drivers, experience crashes and even worse - blog about it, write articles and all such.

[BRLawyer]

An obvious ruling. Totally expected.

Alsup said he did so because Psystar's statements to the court avoided saying specifically what Rebel EFI does

More evasive BS chicanery from Psystar. These fools will go to any length to waste everyone's time.

"Whether such a defense would be successful on the merits, or face preclusion or other hurdles, this order cannot predict," Alsup said. "What is certain, however, is that until such a motion is brought, Psystar will be selling Rebel EFI at its peril, and risks finding itself in contempt if its new venture falls within the scope of the injunction."

Good enough, for now, but it just prolongs this fiasco. it seems the Revel EFI issue isn't quite decided yet because Psystar evidently withheld information about it.

Legally speaking, this was obvious and more than expected...an important ruling nevertheless to stop all those STUPID HACKERS from trying a similar criminal act in the future. Psystar deserves to buried to the ground without mercy, and sucked dry of any remaining resources they might have gotten from "invisible" sponsors...the Rebel EFI is pretty much in, also, through Alsup's words: "...Psystar will be selling Rebel EFI at its peril, and risks finding itself in contempt if its new venture falls within the scope of the injunction." So it will come next, worry not.

And to all the morons who bought hackintoshes from Psystar, without any due regard to Apple's R&D: SUCK IT, PUNDITS! Once more, congratulations, Apple!

[AlexisV]

Buy a mac pro for $2500, or a $1000 PC with a core i7 920 and overclock it. Jeez, it's such a difficult choice...

But your $1000 PC would look like *****.

[dudemac]

I still want to know the backstory on Psystar. Yes, I read the articles on them, 2 brothers, or whatever, but their strategy doesn't make sense. It was obvious all along that they would lose, so what was the motivation?

It can't have been to sell clones; maybe to bilk investors out of money, hence their wildly inflated sales projects? Maybe it was just publicity, like white House crashers and balloon boy? Whatever happened to Apple's contention that there was someone behind the curtain funding them, a' la' SCO?

There's more to this.
\
Since I am always up for controversy, I think a more likely source would be Apple themselves. They have more to gain from this than anyone else. The guys selling clones where not moving very many and probably not making much money on the cloning. But by bring this to court and getting a ruling in Apple's favor means that others that have been helping put OSX on vanilla intel machines will be more easily dealt with legally. It is sad but this to me is a much more likely path than some malevolent outsider bent on destroying the MAC eco system.

thedude

[haravikk]

Good, glad this finally got resolved. Last thing Apple needs is legalised piracy when it's market share is still pretty low.

[dudemac]

Well, hate to rain on this parade, but I am not glad at this outcome. I have nothing against Apple. I am a Mac consultant and troubleshooter. Never owned anything but a Mac, and probably never will. I never saw this as a threat to Apple at all. What I did see was Apple telling us what to do with a software that we "rent" from them. This is just a longer line of stink from the first time LLC's were allowed, to the late 19th century ruling that corporations are "people".

I couldn't agree more. We should all be saddened by this. But I think that most do no understand the consequences of actions like these. They are not helping anyone. And if you would go back to the 70's when Steve and Steve were making stuff and selling it out of their garage they would not have liked it either.

thedude

[twilson]

this is bull ****. Anything above preventing pystar from selling computers with OS X installed is overkill and really IMO is a misuse of civil law.

How so, as this case was about trademark and copyright infringement. Therefore, ALL issues relating to copyright infringement have to be addressed.

You can't cherry pick, it either infringes or it doesn't. If it infringes or promotes infringement, it must stop!

[TMay]

I'm suprised at how happy everybody is with this case. Let's think of the people who can't afford a $1k mac. I know, there's the mini, but come on Apple! Macs are a huge value, don't get me wrong, but why can't OSX be an open operating system?

Buy a mac pro for $2500, or a $1000 PC with a core i7 920 and overclock it. Jeez, it's such a difficult choice...

Rebel EFI is a dream! Someone posted that Psystar stole all the kexts and software from InsanelyMac. That's partly true, but their software makes the install much simpler than what's provided by the hackintosh community.

"Let's think of the people who can't afford a $1k mac".

It's called the used market, and there are plenty of quite adequate macs available for pennies on the original dollar, and lots of older but legal versions of popular apps as well. More to the point, and I agree that there are many people that would have trouble coughing up $1000, why is it okay to live off of someone else's work? You speak of open source like it is some kind of free giveaway program, but it reality, it is funded by companies like Apple, and both paid and volunteer programmers are involved.

As a person that uses computers and very pricey software in my business (engineering/manufacturing), nothing ticks me off more than competitors freeloading.

Hackintosh people, rationalize the ethics, and knock yourselves out. But profit on someone else's work and you are a freeloader. Psystar was freeloading, and I am happy with Apple's success.

[twilson]

Isn't it obvious who the backer was? It was Steve Jobs.

He needed to created a fake company and use that company to create new law that favors him, in the unlikely case that someone started to sell Mac clones.

Interesting idea, but for one major flaw...no new law has been created.

There is however, now a precedent that has been set using EXISTING laws.

[ouimetnick]

Wait, so the case in florida won't help them. Is Psystar permanently screwed? Will they go out of business.

I can't wait to find out.:D

[lkrupp]

Another crushing win for Apple's iSue dept.

So ironic that Apple will sue anyone it can to protect its intellectual property yet its foundation is built on stolen Atari technology.

Sad what it's become.

Get a dictionary and look up the words "revisionist" and "delusional".

[lkrupp]

The hackintosh crowd has created, by shear force of repetition, the myth of a massive market for cheap Mac clones. They are delusional. It simply doesn't exist. But they continue on with their irrational theories. Even their hero, the "mighty" Psystar, only sold something like 768 clones in all of 2009. Now, in their despair, some are even claiming that at Apple itself was behind Psystar (see previous posts alleging just that). Repeat a lie often enough and hope somebody will believe it? Wow.

So much for the clone market. So much for the mythical hackintosh market.:D

[BRLawyer]

Another crushing win for Apple's iSue dept.

So ironic that Apple will sue anyone it can to protect its intellectual property yet its foundation is built on stolen Atari technology.

Sad what it's become.

Atari? That's some strong pot you're smoking, Sir...if you wanna talk BS, you may at least try to repeat what most ignorants already say: that Apple stole from Xerox. :rolleyes:

[Byrnes3969]

Get a dictionary and look up the words "revisionist" and "delusional".

Get a dictionary and look up "fanboy" and "zealot". Did you even read the articles? Does the truth hurt? Is the Mac your new religion? That would make Steve your God.

[Byrnes3969]

You conveniently forgot the last part of the quote:

"Using borrowed parts from Atari, having the main PCB printed up by Atari employee Howard Cantin, and receiving further assistance from Atari employee Ron Wayne, two non-employees, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, created and marketed their own home computer. They offered the design to Bushnell, but Atari had no desire to build computers at the time, instead focusing on the arcade and home console markets."

And also forgot that Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak created a brand new Apple computer not a clone of an Atari.

That's right, Atari passed on the offer. They didn't SUE APPLE into non-existance. Psystar sold 780 computers. What kind of threat did they pose?

[Rot'nApple]

So is it over?! :confused:

Can this fat guy start singing??? :eek:

Is it over or just a reappearing bad dream? :rolleyes:

[JHankwitz]

Isn't it obvious who the backer was? It was Steve Jobs.

He needed to created a fake company and use that company to create new law that favors him, in the unlikely case that someone started to sell Mac clones.

What new law was created here? This was effective implementation of existing law!

[JHankwitz]

That's right, Atari passed on the offer. They didn't SUE APPLE into non-existance. Psystar sold 780 computers. What kind of threat did they pose?

Like, DUH! Atari wasn't in the computer business so Apple was not a threat on their business. Apple is in the computer business, so Psyster computers are a threat on their business. Breaking the law a little bit is still breaking the law. It's like being a little bit pregnant, you're either pregnant or not.

[Goona]

The hackintosh crowd has created, by shear force of repetition, the myth of a massive market for cheap Mac clones. They are delusional. It simply doesn't exist. But they continue on with their irrational theories. Even their hero, the "mighty" Psystar, only sold something like 768 clones in all of 2009. Now, in their despair, some are even claiming that at Apple itself was behind Psystar (see previous posts alleging just that). Repeat a lie often enough and hope somebody will believe it? Wow.

So much for the clone market. So much for the mythical hackintosh market.:D

Even then not all those computers they sold were clones.

[Byrnes3969]

And what makes you assume the borrowed parts were stolen, and not in fact borrowed, on the promise of payment later?

Because Jobs ripped off his best friend Woz, so he could keep the Atari bonus for himself. Woz did all the work and Jobs kept most of the money. Steve would rip off his friend but pay back his employer? Doubt it.

But maybe Apple legal advised him to do so after the fact. Who knows?

[cathul]

The hackintosh crowd has created, by shear force of repetition, the myth of a massive market for cheap Mac clones. They are delusional. It simply doesn't exist. But they continue on with their irrational theories. Even their hero, the "mighty" Psystar, only sold something like 768 clones in all of 2009. Now, in their despair, some are even claiming that at Apple itself was behind Psystar (see previous posts alleging just that). Repeat a lie often enough and hope somebody will believe it? Wow.

So much for the clone market. So much for the mythical hackintosh market.:D

Neither did the real hackintosh community create a myth of a massive market, nor was Psystar their hero.

[*LTD*]

Has anybody actually opened up an Apple computer and has actually seen what is there? Intel, Samsung, Texas Instruments, Crucial, Marvell Yukon, Broadcom, Nvidia, SMP, and that isn't even cracking open the case. What part of that is Apple?

That has always been the case. Open up an old Powermac and you'll see much the same thing.


You conveniently forgot the last part of the quote:

"Using borrowed parts from Atari, having the main PCB printed up by Atari employee Howard Cantin, and receiving further assistance from Atari employee Ron Wayne, two non-employees, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, created and marketed their own home computer. They offered the design to Bushnell, but Atari had no desire to build computers at the time, instead focusing on the arcade and home console markets."

And also forgot that Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak created a brand new Apple computer not a clone of an Atari.

Not exactly theft, now is it?

[*LTD*]

double

[TMay]

That's right, Atari passed on the offer. They didn't SUE APPLE into non-existance. Psystar sold 780 computers. What kind of threat did they pose?

I'm missing out on the intellectual property that Atari lost. If anything, Atari benefited from the relationship with Jobs, even though they opted out on the early PC market. Jobs offered the computer to HP as well, yet another place the Woz worked for a bit, but HP couldn't see the market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs

In the autumn of 1974, Jobs returned to California and began attending meetings of the Homebrew Computer Club with Steve Wozniak. He took a job as a technician at Atari, a manufacturer of popular video games, with the primary intent of saving money for a spiritual retreat to India.

< non relevant material removed>

He returned to his previous job at Atari and was given the task of creating a circuit board for the game Breakout. According to Atari founder Nolan Bushnell, Atari had offered US$100 for each chip that was reduced in the machine. Jobs had little interest or knowledge in circuit board design and made a deal with Wozniak to split the bonus evenly between them if Wozniak could minimize the number of chips. Much to the amazement of Atari, Wozniak reduced the number of chips by 50, a design so tight that it was impossible to reproduce on an assembly line. At the time, Jobs told Wozniak that Atari had only given them $600 (instead of the actual $5000) and that Wozniak's share was thus $300.[25][26][27][28][29][30]

Jobs was a dick for stiffing Woz, and you can argue that he misused Atari resources to have his board produced, and the various parts that he "borrowed" from Atari, but he did offer them the finished product, so it must not have been a big deal to Atari.

I have trouble seeing Psystar as a victim here. They really haven't created much of anything other than an easier install of OSX for Hackintosh, using other's work at that, and they are acknowledged by this legal action to have wronged Apple.

[*LTD*]

All this does is prevent Psystar from copying OSX or modifying OSX (i.e. copyright, not anti-trust). How does that mean "the end" of Psystar or anything else? It only deals with them modifying OSX early on. I really think these articles jump to conclusions.

Given the details of the ruling, Psystar is pretty much barred from having anything to do with OS X and having anything to do with technology that would either aid them or the user in installing OS X or otherwise infringing Apple's EULA. So it looks like all they have left is the option to sell anytihing else that has nothing to do with Apple or OS X.

The ruling, with which Psystar must comply by Dec. 31:

1. Copying, selling, offering to sell, distributing, or creating derivative works of plaintiff’s copyrighted Mac OS X software without authorization from the copyright holder;
2. Intentionally inducing, aiding, assisting, abetting, or encouraging any other person or entity to infringe plaintiff’s copyrighted Mac OS X software;
3. Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access to plaintiff’s copyrighted Mac OS X software, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers;
4. Manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to plaintiff’s copyrighted Mac OS X software, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers;
5. Manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively protects the rights held by plaintiff under the Copyright Act with respect to its copyrighted Mac OS X software.

That seems to cover ALL the bases.

And with regard to Atari . . . I'm not even sure how that made its way into the dicussion. The Atari argument (which has been proven wrong) is the refuge of the outed and defeated. This is about Psystar in 2009. The ruling has been made, enjoy your hackintoshes, but as for OS X sold on fake Macs, forget it.

[Byrnes3969]

Like, DUH! Atari wasn't in the computer business so Apple was not a threat on their business. Apple is in the computer business, so Psyster computers are a threat on their business. Breaking the law a little bit is still breaking the law. It's like being a little bit pregnant, you're either pregnant or not.

Atari DID enter the computer business. Did you ever hear of the Atari 400 or 800? Atari COULD have sued Apple but chose not to.

[cmaier]

You Americans have my sympathies. This ruling is just another evidence for how screwed up your legal system is. Once again, the customer loses and a large corporation with an equally large legal department gets away with its customer hostile business practices. The sole purpose of the OS X EULA is to create a vendor lock-in and to force those who are locked into the OS X platform to purchase overpriced computer systems that are based on cheap industry standards. And yet, you guys applaud. Einstein was right about the infinity of certain things.

What is psystar's business model was breaking into apple stores at night and stealing machines and selling them at a discount? Are we to root for them in that scenario?

Because their business model was, in reality, theft. They were not competition for apple. They were thieves. If they wanted to compete, they should write their own operating system instead of free-riding on Apples R&D.

You complain about the US legal system, but rulings like this are why most innovation happens here. Intellectual Property is protected, which gives people the incentive to put in the large investments needed to develop killer products like Mac OS X.

[matthewscott661]

I like how the court document referenced Wikipedia for info on Mac OS X.

[cmaier]

Interesting idea, but for one major flaw...no new law has been created.

There is however, now a precedent that has been set using EXISTING laws.

Precedent is law (there are two sources of law - statutory and precedential [the so-called "common law"]).

This is merely a technical nit, though. The precedent isn't new, either. This case ended just like every similar case that has gone before. No new law or surprising result here, and apple didn't fund this - that would be a fraud on th court.

[*LTD*]

You Americans have my sympathies. This ruling is just another evidence for how screwed up your legal system is. Once again, the customer loses and a large corporation with an equally large legal department gets away with its customer hostile business practices. The sole purpose of the OS X EULA is to create a vendor lock-in and to force those who are locked into the OS X platform to purchase overpriced computer systems that are based on cheap industry standards. And yet, you guys applaud. Einstein was right about the infinity of certain things.

This isn't about the customer. It was never about the customer. This was about the integrity of IP law and the rights of individuals and entities that depend on the integrity of IP rights to make a living. Many of them are not large corporations, but one-man operations or small companies that are at serious risk of getting ripped off were laws not in place to prevent that. Many of the individuals whose work is protected by such laws are consumers themselves.

[Hirth]

How did I defeat myself? If Sony wants their movies to only play in Sony DVD players, then it is their right and if that was the case I wouldn't be renting it if I didn't have a Sony DVD player.



Then get a Mac Pro. :p

Either way, you're not being forced to use Apple's displays, keyboards, and mouse. Even on the iMac, if you don't want to use the iMac's built in monitor, you could attach another display to the iMac and use that one.

Ok, sorry, I've been watching this debate in various forms for months and this last statement is just over the top.

The following is my opinion.

No content producer has any moral right to say that their content can only be used on specific hardware. None. Any company that asserts such a right is absolutely, flat out wrong and is behaving immorally and unethically and should be shut down permanently. Any laws that are in conflict with this fundamental moral principle should be changed to be in accordance with it or they too are wrong and immoral and unethical laws.

Similarly, no hardware manufacturer has any moral right to say that only certain content may be used with their hardware. Any company that asserts such a right should be shutdown permanently. Any laws that are in conflict with this fundamental moral principle should be changed to properly reflect it.

The laws, rules and regulations have gone WAY too far in favor of content producers and it is time for consumers to fight back. Copyright terms need to be shortened back to something like 37 years from date of first publication. Patents on processes, software algorithms, and genetic engineering should be eliminated entirely.

The whole concept of software "licenses" is bogus and should be eliminated. I don't need a license to read a cook book and use the knowledge and instructions therein to create what those instructions describe. Likewise, a computer should not need a license to read a computer program and create the functionality that that program describes.

The laws need changing because they are currently wrong. Until they are changed, they should be obeyed, but they need to be changed.

[mac1984user]

What new law was created here? This was effective implementation of existing law!

I think whoever said 'new law' was created was certainly mistaken. However, what was set by this ruling was precedent, which is, in my opinion, just as good as a 'law'. So the next time someone tries to do the same (or similar) as Psystar, the courts can point to the outcome of this case and compare any future ruling with the nature of this one.

[Byrnes3969]

And with regard to Atari . . . I'm not even sure how that made its way into the dicussion. The Atari argument (which has been proven wrong) is the refuge of the outed and defeated. This is about Psystar in 2009. The ruling has been made, enjoy your hackintoshes, but as for OS X sold on fake Macs, forget it.

My point was:

It's ironic how Steve Jobs "borrowed" technology from Atari and ripped off his partner to start HIS business but will sue ANYONE who gets near his.

Greed and ego I guess. Reminds me of what Big Oil is doing to green companies.

[OnePotato]

I'm suprised at how happy everybody is with this case. Let's think of the people who can't afford a $1k mac. I know, there's the mini, but come on Apple! Macs are a huge value, don't get me wrong, but why can't OSX be an open operating system?

Buy a mac pro for $2500, or a $1000 PC with a core i7 920 and overclock it. Jeez, it's such a difficult choice...

Rebel EFI is a dream! Someone posted that Psystar stole all the kexts and software from InsanelyMac. That's partly true, but their software makes the install much simpler than what's provided by the hackintosh community.

So what's keeping you from putting Windows 7 on that $1000 PC? After all, Windows fanboys are always telling me how there's not much difference between OS X and Windows. Or are you telling me that you have some kind of "fundamental right" to use OS X however you please?

Let's think of all the people that can't afford a $250,000 home.

From what I read, the judge is telling "Psystar" that they now need to fly right. So if they change their name to CloneStar, will they be able to keep doing business?

[*LTD*]

My point was:

It's ironic how Steve Jobs "borrowed" technology from Atari and ripped off his partner to start HIS business but will sue ANYONE who gets near his.

Greed and ego I guess. Reminds me of what Big Oil is doing to green companies.

Did the Atari issue ever go to court?

[cmaier]

I agree only with your last paragraph.

I think that when I create something I morally should be allowed to determine it's disposition, even if the way I want it to be used is not how others would want to use it. (so long as moral absolutes like not hurting others or their property are obeyed).

But you are entitled to your philosophy, and we both agree that the laws are not sufficient to cope with today's technology. I agree that 120 years is too long a copyright for any medium. I also think software needs a different set of laws instead of the copyright laws, as software raises different issues.

Ok, sorry, I've been watching this debate in various forms for months and this last statement is just over the top.

The following is my opinion.

No content producer has any moral right to say that their content can only be used on specific hardware. None. Any company that asserts such a right is absolutely, flat out wrong and is behaving immorally and unethically and should be shut down permanently. Any laws that are in conflict with this fundamental moral principle should be changed to be in accordance with it or they too are wrong and immoral and unethical laws.

Similarly, no hardware manufacturer has any moral right to say that only certain content may be used with their hardware. Any company that asserts such a right should be shutdown permanently. Any laws that are in conflict with this fundamental moral principle should be changed to properly reflect it.

The laws, rules and regulations have gone WAY too far in favor of content producers and it is time for consumers to fight back. Copyright terms need to be shortened back to something like 37 years from date of first publication. Patents on processes, software algorithms, and genetic engineering should be eliminated entirely.

The whole concept of software "licenses" is bogus and should be eliminated. I don't need a license to read a cook book and use the knowledge and instructions therein to create what those instructions describe. Likewise, a computer should not need a license to read a computer program and create the functionality that that program describes.

The laws need changing because they are currently wrong. Until they are changed, they should be obeyed, but they need to be changed.

[MH01]

An obvious ruling. Totally expected.

Alsup said he did so because Psystar's statements to the court avoided saying specifically what Rebel EFI does

More evasive BS chicanery from Psystar. These fools will go to any length to waste everyone's time.

"Whether such a defense would be successful on the merits, or face preclusion or other hurdles, this order cannot predict," Alsup said. "What is certain, however, is that until such a motion is brought, Psystar will be selling Rebel EFI at its peril, and risks finding itself in contempt if its new venture falls within the scope of the injunction."

Good enough, for now, but it just prolongs this fiasco. it seems the Revel EFI issue isn't quite decided yet because Psystar evidently withheld information about it.

OMG I cannot believe you sat on Appleinsider and macrumours no doubt spamming the refresh button to be the first one to comment on this news. That sir is some awesome fanboy dedication /golfclap

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105523

[cmaier]

My point was:

It's ironic how Steve Jobs "borrowed" technology from Atari and ripped off his partner to start HIS business but will sue ANYONE who gets near his.

Greed and ego I guess. Reminds me of what Big Oil is doing to green companies.

Ignoring the Atari non-issue... (because steve jobs certainly pulled some scummy maneuvers back in the day)

jobs suing now is not ego. He has shareholders. He doesn't own the company. He has to protect Apple's IP because it doesn't belong to HIM.

[*LTD*]

Ok, sorry, I've been watching this debate in various forms for months and this last statement is just over the top.

The following is my opinion.

No content producer has any moral right to say that their content can only be used on specific hardware.

Similarly, no hardware manufacturer has any moral right to say that only certain content may be used with their hardware.

The laws, rules and regulations have gone WAY too far in favor of content producers and it is time for consumers to fight back.

The whole concept of software "licenses" is bogus and should be eliminated.

The content-creator having no control over the use and distribution of their content??

Seriously? Wow. Your tone would change pretty quick if you were a content-creator and depended on the integrity of IP law in order to make a living. The same laws you hate also protect the "little guy."

Of course, when all else fails, just call the law wrong and unjust and move on. :(

By the way, that cookbook has terms and conditions governing its resale and the use of the materials therein. All books have this.

[ditzy]

Ok, sorry, I've been watching this debate in various forms for months and this last statement is just over the top.

The following is my opinion.

No content producer has any moral right to say that their content can only be used on specific hardware. None. Any company that asserts such a right is absolutely, flat out wrong and is behaving immorally and unethically and should be shut down permanently. Any laws that are in conflict with this fundamental moral principle should be changed to be in accordance with it or they too are wrong and immoral and unethical laws.

Similarly, no hardware manufacturer has any moral right to say that only certain content may be used with their hardware. Any company that asserts such a right should be shutdown permanently. Any laws that are in conflict with this fundamental moral principle should be changed to properly reflect it.

The laws, rules and regulations have gone WAY too far in favor of content producers and it is time for consumers to fight back. Copyright terms need to be shortened back to something like 37 years from date of first publication. Patents on processes, software algorithms, and genetic engineering should be eliminated entirely.

The whole concept of software "licenses" is bogus and should be eliminated. I don't need a license to read a cook book and use the knowledge and instructions therein to create what those instructions describe. Likewise, a computer should not need a license to read a computer program and create the functionality that that program describes.

The laws need changing because they are currently wrong. Until they are changed, they should be obeyed, but they need to be changed.

This is as you stated your opinion. I personally do not agree with your opinion. Innovation happens because people see a need, and see a way of financially benefiting from filling that need. Now of course there are those that would want to fill the need just for its own sake. But that is the minority. Whether good or bad OSX is the operating system it is partially due to apples business model. It would not be the same OS if apple's business model was different.

[jweinraub]

It will be interesting to find out who the financial backers were. When will we find this out?

I too am very interested in knowing this. For a company that didn't sell a lot of products, they certainly spent a lot of money on legal fees rather than just agree to Apple's terms long ago without the need of a trial. Even a financial backer had to know the outcome of this was obvious. A friend of mine who happens to like Apple products and followed this case, seem to think it was Microsoft or at least Bill Gates and/or Steve Ballmer or Michael Dell. While it seems possible they would do it, I find it very unlikely at least the upper echelons of Microsoft to finance it, especially when they have a professional, working business relationship that benefits them both.

And Michael Dell would very much like to sell Dell computers with OS X, I would assume he would only do so if the opportunity was presented to him, legally, by Apple itself.

Common sense tells me this individual is wrong and I would hope we do find out who financed Psystar.

Now that this injunction is ordered, and after reading the brief in its entirety, I can't see how Psystar can still continue to sell Rebel EFI when the order prohibits methods of distributing OS X that will circumvent.

I suppose since we don't know what Rebel EFI does, due to it being excluded from discovery, however, obviously it is the component that allows the bootloader to be hacked. That itself would be a violation of 17 USC 1201(a) and 1201(c).

[gnasher729]

Ok, sorry, I've been watching this debate in various forms for months and this last statement is just over the top.

The following is my opinion.

No content producer has any moral right to say that their content can only be used on specific hardware. None. Any company that asserts such a right is absolutely, flat out wrong and is behaving immorally and unethically and should be shut down permanently. Any laws that are in conflict with this fundamental moral principle should be changed to be in accordance with it or they too are wrong and immoral and unethical laws.

Similarly, no hardware manufacturer has any moral right to say that only certain content may be used with their hardware. Any company that asserts such a right should be shutdown permanently. Any laws that are in conflict with this fundamental moral principle should be changed to properly reflect it.

I would say that you haven't thought that through.

If ten years ago a law had been passed that no company has the right to restrict use of its software to its own hardware, then you still wouldn't be able to use MacOS X on a Dell computer. You know why? Because Apple wouldn't have bought a pre-alpha version of MacOS X for $400 million and spent over a billion dollars to make it what it is today. Instead, Apple would be a mediocre PC maker selling PCs not with Windows 7, but with Windows 3.7 or 3.8 if you're lucky, just like everyone else.

[cmaier]

From what I read, the judge is telling "Psystar" that they now need to fly right. So if they change their name to CloneStar, will they be able to keep doing business?

Of course not. Changing the name of the company doesn't relieve them of the court's jurisdiction any more than a convicted murderer can be let out of prison just because he changes his name.

[TMay]

My point was:

It's ironic how Steve Jobs "borrowed" technology from Atari and ripped off his partner to start HIS business but will sue ANYONE who gets near his.

Greed and ego I guess. Reminds me of what Big Oil is doing to green companies.

Steve Jobs was able to get a couple guys at Atari run a PCB based on a layout that Woz designed. The board was populated with parts that were "borrowed" from Atari, the assembly probably being done by Woz.

There wasn't any Atari IP involved, it was basically misuse of Atari equipment and materials and at worst, theft of electronic components. A crime, misdemeanor theft, was probably created, Nolan probably was aware of what was going on and nothing came of it except a computer that Atari was shown and didn't want.

[Xenomorph]

I really hope all their work was GPL'd or open-sourced.

They contributed a lot to the community.

You don't need to have purchased a Psystar computer to have Psystar's code in your system!

[jmadlena]

You Americans have my sympathies. This ruling is just another evidence for how screwed up your legal system is. Once again, the customer loses and a large corporation with an equally large legal department gets away with its customer hostile business practices. The sole purpose of the OS X EULA is to create a vendor lock-in and to force those who are locked into the OS X platform to purchase overpriced computer systems that are based on cheap industry standards. And yet, you guys applaud. Einstein was right about the infinity of certain things.

Keep your sympathies. The courts made a fine judgement, in my opinion. What's the point of innovating and spending millions upon millions of dollars in research and development if someone else is going to take your product and sell it?

[*LTD*]

I really hope all their work was GPL'd or open-sourced.

They contributed a lot to the community.

You don't need to have purchased a Psystar computer to have Psystar's code in your system!

Wasn't Psystar accused of stealing from the community?

[farmboy]

Because Jobs ripped off his best friend Woz, so he could keep the Atari bonus for himself. Woz did all the work and Jobs kept most of the money. Steve would rip off his friend but pay back his employer? Doubt it.

But maybe Apple legal advised him to do so after the fact. Who knows?

And you "know" all this stuff you're regurgitating about personal and non-public events how? Were you there? Did you watch Wozniak do all the work while Jobs stood around or went to lunch? Or is it just a case where you believe everything someone without an editor posts on the web.

[gohanmzt]

How many individual users has Apple sued for making a "Hackintosh"? They aren't going after you or Joe Geek, they're going after companies that try to market and sell this stuff.

Do want you want in your own home, Apple isn't stopping you and will never know. Actually Apple is extremely lenient with OS X...no DRM, no activation, no serial numbers, no checks when you pay the cheaper "Upgrade" price instead of the full version.

I agree 100% with rorschach. Apple didn't get into this battle to stop individuals from installing OSX on non apple computers. It did it to stop a company from doing it and then selling those computers.

[*LTD*]

I agree 100% with rorschach. Apple didn't get into this battle to stop individuals from installing OSX on non apple computers. It did it to stop a company from doing it and then selling those computers.

I wish more people would understand this.

[hwhalers]

Psystar is a crummy, cheap company using crummy, cheap tactics to build crummy, cheap knockoffs. They're in the same league as Chinese counterfeiters. It's a good thing they're most likely going out of business. They never innovated one bit, and never contributed anything worthwhile to the community. And no, creating exploits to run OS X on unauthorized hardware isn't innovative. OS X runs on x86 hardware already. So, good riddance. Apple is well within their rights to burn it to the ground.

You are not entitled to run Mac OS X on any PC you build or buy. Sorry. Buying physical OS X media does not give you the right to run it. If you don't like that, you don't have to buy it. No software company is under any obligation to license you anything. Every single piece of software you use has an EULA, and every single one of them has restrictions of one type or another. Even software licensed under the GPL doesn't have to be given to you if it isn't publicly distributed.

There is merit to the argument that FOSS advocates make about free software being a worthy cause. Free software is generally better in most circumstances, for everyone involved. But there are innovative people who are making closed software that has certain requirements to use. If you think it is worthwhile, they deserve to benefit from their innovation. The simple fact that they made something good doesn't mean it's instantly right to co-opt their work for your gain.

If you have such a profound lack of respect for proprietary EULAs, then put your money where your mouth is and stop engaging in business with organizations that use them. Stop using hardware and software that requires contractual agreements if you disagree with the terms. Otherwise, work with what you have and can afford. Is it going to be perfect? No. Few things ever are. Improve it. Learn and advance. If a fraction of the effort expended to screw with the work of others was used to improve things that are open to public contribution, in a short period of time there'd probably be such a small demarcation between the two that the proprietary vendors would have to compete intensely with the open ones. And that'd be better for everyone.

But whatever. Install RebelEFI on your new core i7 instead of buying a used Mac Mini for tasks that require OS X. Enjoy incompatibilities and a sub-par experience.

[cjmillsnun]

Has anybody actually opened up an Apple computer and has actually seen what is there? Intel, Samsung, Texas Instruments, Crucial, Marvell Yukon, Broadcom, Nvidia, SMP, and that isn't even cracking open the case. What part of that is Apple?
The firmware is apple

[MH01]

I agree 100% with rorschach. Apple didn't get into this battle to stop individuals from installing OSX on non apple computers. It did it to stop a company from doing it and then selling those computers.

100% agree with you. Though there are a number of people on this forum who have been insinuating that Apple may go after people who run a hackintosh, so even though Apple probably could not care lesss, these individuals are happy to jump on their high horses, and point out that running OS X on anything but a mac is illegal.

Frankly no company has the right to make computers running OS X, and therefore make a profit, as for individuals, they can do what they like with the copy they bought.

[maxp1]

Frankly no company has the right to make computers running OS X, and therefore make a profit, as for individuals, they can do what they like with the copy they bought.

WRONG!!!

It may seem like you 'bought' the software but you haven't. You bought the physical media but the software on the disk is licensed to you and is subject to the EULA. Apple gets to decide what you can do with that software, what machines you can legally install it on and whether you can modify it or not. You might not like it but this is fairly well decided law.

[KnightWRX]

Speaking of Darwin... I'm a BSD guy, have been for years. That's what eventually made a Mac "okay" in my book and I bought my first mac about 3 years ago. I have a hard time condemning a company for "stealing" code or an idea from the open source community and selling it (the hakintosh projects), when the core of Apple's OS is based on something "free". Granted they're well within their right to do so due to the open source licensing... but I still think it's got a slight bit of pot calling the kettle black going on.

Mike

What are you blabbering about ?

OS X is not open source. The OS X distribution is very much under copyright to Apple and is distributed as a closed source ecosystem. They have the right to impose any of the restrictions they want, and if you're such a BSD guy, you probably also know that their business model is the old "Big-iron Unix" business model. The software is there to push the hardware sales. Your software runs on HP-UX, so you buy a RX7640. Your software is Solaris based ? You buy a T5140. Your software is OS X based ? Well you buy a Mac.

The portions that are open source, Apple very much respects the different open source licenses. They contribute code back to the community and even have a website dedicated to it :

http://opensource.apple.com/

Now, compare all of this to what Psystar is doing. Psystar is trying to be the next Power Computing, except without Apple's blessing. I don't see no pot or kettle being called black here. On one side, we have a community engaged, license respecting company that values IP rights and act within their rights and on the other we have some rogue company that stole some GPL software to make their Rebel EFI product and doesn't mind breaking a EULA to sell a few systems without even purchasing licenses to the OS.

Now, there is a reason Steve Jobs' first act as temporary CEO of Apple in 1998 was to close down the operations of the different clone makers like Power Computer : they were killing what was left of Apple Computers Inc.

So a company trying to do the same was essentially trying to do the same thing, kill Apple. That would mean no more OS X. Good riddance Psystar.

[mdriftmeyer]

I really hope all their work was GPL'd or open-sourced.

They contributed a lot to the community.

You don't need to have purchased a Psystar computer to have Psystar's code in your system!

Really? They stole a lot of code from the Hackintosh community.

[gnasher729]

I really hope all their work was GPL'd or open-sourced.

They contributed a lot to the community.

You don't need to have purchased a Psystar computer to have Psystar's code in your system!

In reality, Psystar didn't contribute to anything. Everything they did was taken from x86.org without attribution or recognition, and most definitely against the express wishes of some people who wrote the real code.

Rebel EFI has possibly a worse history. Half of it doesn't work, and historically problems were fixed only after the x86.org community fixed a problem and then the result was ripped off. People who complained about it were then threatened with lawsuits, and while a company like Psystar can just close down if they can't pay the cost of a lawsuit, individuals can't do that.

[gohanmzt]

100% agree with you. Though there are a number of people on this forum who have been insinuating that Apple may go after people who run a hackintosh, so even though Apple probably could not care lesss, these individuals are happy to jump on their high horses, and point out that running OS X on anything but a mac is illegal.

Frankly no company has the right to make computers running OS X, and therefore make a profit, as for individuals, they can do what they like with the copy they bought.

Actually, if you install OSX in a "non-apple" computer you ARE breaking the license contract that you MUST agree to to install it. If Apple decides not to do anything about it it doesn't make it less illegal (not criminal, but illegal nevertheless).

[gohanmzt]

WRONG!!!

It may seem like you 'bought' the software but you haven't. You bought the physical media but the software on the disk is licensed to you and is subject to the EULA. Apple gets to decide what you can do with that software, what machines you can legally install it on and whether you can modify it or not. You might not like it but this is fairly well decided law.

Sad (for some) but true.

[Mark Booth]

Anyone with any level of common sense knew months ago this is where this was heading. All you whining ladies that hate the "evil Apple" need to learn to suck it up and get on with your lives.

Now, hopefully, we can get to the juice of this matter. WHO is the big money behind Psystar? They really don't want us to know, which makes it all that much more interesting to know! :)

Mark

[synth3tik]

I can't believe some of you condemn Psystar for offering hackintosh computers, but then defend X86.org who's code psystar used. Then on top of that you want to cry that Psystar didn't give recognition to X86.org.

Really? :confused:

Kind of a double standard don't you think? YAY X86, BOO Psystar?

[jamesryanbell]

I can't believe some of you condemn Psystar for offering hackintosh computers, but then defend X86.org who's code psystar used. Then on top of that you want to cry that Psystar didn't give recognition to X86.org.

Really? :confused:

Kind of a double standard don't you think? YAY X86, BOO Psystar?

LOL!! I was about to post the same thing.

[Byrnes3969]

And you "know" all this stuff you're regurgitating about personal and non-public events how? Were you there? Did you watch Wozniak do all the work while Jobs stood around or went to lunch? Or is it just a case where you believe everything someone without an editor posts on the web.

No fanboy, read, http://www.woz.org/letters/general/91.html

[bitWrangler]

In turn you defeated yourself. This is the same as Sony Pictures saying that the movie you rented (in your argument) can only be played on a Sony branded DVD player.

So why couldn't they do this if they wanted? They could foreseeably come out with a "bluray" only release. The only thing stopping Sony is common sense, they would have to be certain that the amount of revenue lost in limiting such a release would be countered by folks going out and buying a Sony/bluray player just to play the media, and those numbers are not likely to work out any time soon (though they are getting better with the increase in sales of large screen tv's).

As always, if you don't like their license terms, don't buy their product.

[mingoglia]

Atari DID enter the computer business. Did you ever hear of the Atari 400 or 800? Atari COULD have sued Apple but chose not to.

I have an Atari 400 (may be the 800) in my attic. It has a big sticker on the box that says, "Now with 48k of RAM!!!". :D Okay, back on topic.

[Bill&Rose]

I disagree with this analogy.
Because one can use OS X on their own hackintosh if they so choose, but if one started selling those hackintoshes in order to profit, ala Psystar, this is where the problems of intellectual property arise.

Wrong, just because you are not selling the system does not make it legal for you to do the same thing Psystar was doing.

I do not agree with the ruling by the way. Apple charges a good sum for their software, don't try to use how cheap this last upgrade version was, because this should have been free as it was nothing more then a bunch of upgrades that brought it up to 64 bit tech.

If anything Apple cheated all of us by charging for this upgrade and patch version that still was not right and had to have a patch released within its first two weeks of release.

Apple normally charges over 100 dollars for a copy of their software, gee not to far off of what Microsoft charges for a copy of Windows.

You fan boys are only painting yourself into a corner of higher prices for under performing equipment from Apple.

[pdjudd]

Now, hopefully, we can get to the juice of this matter. WHO is the big money behind Psystar? They really don't want us to know, which makes it all that much more interesting to know! :)

Mark


Psystar already revealed its debtors months ago when they tried to file for Bankruptcy. Nothing amazing showed up there. If there were any other backers, Psystar would be in big trouble if they failed to identify them back then. In reality, their finances are nothing spectacular and are no more than what your typical entrepreneur has for a business the size of Psystar. The only outstanding thing is their legal activity's which can easily be explained as follows: Pro bono or pay on win. Lawyers frequently will represent people as idiotic as Psystar for little to no money down in the hopes of a settlement percentage.

There is no evidence that this is simply the case of someone with lots of loans getting a legal team to take nothing on initially. We do know that Psystar was trying to get investors based on promising huge sales, but as far as I can tell that never went anywhere.

This case requires no mysterious backers. Any suggestion by Apple was simply insurance in the initial phases to cast a wide net when it was clear that Psystar was keen on delay tactics. Thats it. My guess is that there are no backers.

[pdjudd]

Apple normally charges over 100 dollars for a copy of their software, gee not to far off of what Microsoft charges for a copy of Windows.

No, All the full version copies of Windows starts at at least 200 bucks and goes up from there. OEM copies don't count since Apple does not sell OEM licenses of their OS. True their upgrade copies are cheaper, but that's exactly what Apple licenses - upgrades.

[gohanmzt]

I can't believe some of you condemn Psystar for offering hackintosh computers, but then defend X86.org who's code psystar used. Then on top of that you want to cry that Psystar didn't give recognition to X86.org.

Really? :confused:

Kind of a double standard don't you think? YAY X86, BOO Psystar?

I think the problem is that osx86.org does not try to make a business out of selling code or computers with OSX preinstalled, it's more of an educational outlet. It's the principle that Psystar violated. Like I said, if you're an individual doing it for fun or for learning purposes, it's still illegal but not warrant for Apple to go after you (yet) as long as you don't try to make a living out of it.

[Bill&Rose]

100% agree with you. Though there are a number of people on this forum who have been insinuating that Apple may go after people who run a hackintosh, so even though Apple probably could not care lesss, these individuals are happy to jump on their high horses, and point out that running OS X on anything but a mac is illegal.

Frankly no company has the right to make computers running OS X, and therefore make a profit, as for individuals, they can do what they like with the copy they bought.

Wrong again, read the license, you may need to take remedial reading.

[pdjudd]

No fanboy, read, http://www.woz.org/letters/general/91.html


I like this part, from Woz:

I was hurt in later years when I heard that Steve was paid more than he'd told me, and I don't think that I hurt easily. But it was a long time ago and I prefer to get away from it. Steve has always been a good friend to me in many ways more than just palling around. It's so ancient that maybe it didn't happen, and maybe the Atari people that said it and wrote it were wrong in their own memories. I do believe that this is possible. Also, if my own self, or my own children, or my own friends did such a thing in their life, it's easy to excuse it if the circumstances were as I described. It's not 'necessarily' akin to stealing. If there was some dishonesty, I'm over that. Who hasn't done some things that would be considered bad, anyway? I doubt that I'd find such a person interesting.

Emphasis mine. Its ancient history to him.

[Hirth]

The content-creator having no control over the use and distribution of their content??

Seriously? Wow. Your tone would change pretty quick if you were a content-creator and depended on the integrity of IP law in order to make a living. The same laws you hate also protect the "little guy."

Of course, when all else fails, just call the law wrong and unjust and move on. :(

By the way, that cookbook has terms and conditions governing its resale and the use of the materials therein. All books have this.

Whoa. One moment, please. I said absolutely nothing about distribution. When I read a book I am not distributing that book. When a computer runs a program, it is not distributing it.

The law is wrong and unjust. This is my opinion. It is every bit as valid as those who think the law is perfectly just and fine.

In my opinion when I walk into a store and buy a box containing some media with bits on it, then I should own that copy of those bits and be able to do whatever the heck I want with those bits short of duplicating them and distributing them to others. Copyright makes sense to me as an incentive to produce creative works and be able to have a limited monopoly for a time over the copying and distribution of those works. However, how an end-user USES a copyrighted work is no ones business but the end user's. No entity has any, inherent moral right to interfere with that, unless the use itself is immoral. (Extreme examples: using a gun to commit murder, or using a software program to defraud someone.)

I should be legally able to use any technical means to use any hardware with any software. I should be legally able to use any technical means available to use any two pieces of hardware together. The use of any technical or legal means to prevent the use of arbitrary hardware and software together should be prohibited by law.

I believe in obeying the law. I also believe in getting laws that are unjust or immoral changed through legal means.

Does my position limit the power creators have over their work? Yes. Does it limit them on how much they may benefit financially from their work? Yes. Does having copyrights that last over a century limit how much creative works can benefit the society as a whole? Absolutely. Does is limit further creativity by preventing the timely enrichment of the public domain. Absolutely.

The purpose of IP rights is not so that individuals can benefit from their creativity without limit. It is to grant them limited benefit from their creativity for a limited period of time as an incentive so that people will make creative works, which will benefit society as a whole. In our present society these goals have been grossly perverted to perpetuate strangleholds on creative works that are harming the public good.

The pendulum has been swinging for too long in one direction.

In my opinion, a company like PyStar should be allowed to do what they did. It should be legal to do. It should be illegal to attempt to stop them. The laws should be changed so that this is so.

In my opinion, a company like Palm should be allowed to do what they did. It should be legal to do. It should be illegal to attempt to stop them. The laws should be changed so that this is so.

It should be illegal for a company to deliberately break compatibility between software and hardware in their next version. They should be under no obligation to make sure that compatibility is maintained, but any intent to make changes solely to make it so that their own hardware and software no longer works with a third party's (or works worse, see the recent FTC filing against Intel). The intent matters.

[mingoglia]

What are you blabbering about ?

OS X is not open source. The OS X distribution is very much under copyright to Apple and is distributed as a closed source ecosystem. They have the right to impose any of the restrictions they want, and if you're such a BSD guy, you probably also know that their business model is the old "Big-iron Unix" business model. The software is there to push the hardware sales. Your software runs on HP-UX, so you buy a RX7640. Your software is Solaris based ? You buy a T5140. Your software is OS X based ? Well you buy a Mac.

The portions that are open source, Apple very much respects the different open source licenses. They contribute code back to the community and even have a website dedicated to it :

http://opensource.apple.com/

Now, compare all of this to what Psystar is doing. Psystar is trying to be the next Power Computing, except without Apple's blessing. I don't see no pot or kettle being called black here. On one side, we have a community engaged, license respecting company that values IP rights and act within their rights and on the other we have some rogue company that stole some GPL software to make their Rebel EFI product and doesn't mind breaking a EULA to sell a few systems without even purchasing licenses to the OS.

Now, there is a reason Steve Jobs' first act as temporary CEO of Apple in 1998 was to close down the operations of the different clone makers like Power Computer : they were killing what was left of Apple Computers Inc.

So a company trying to do the same was essentially trying to do the same thing, kill Apple. That would mean no more OS X. Good riddance Psystar.

The post was a response to the comment about how Psystar was piggy backing their company on the efforts of the folks involved with the hackintosh project and turning a profit. Apple piggy backed on the efforts of the open source community that has created the x86 version of BSD and others and is selling a commercial product built on top of it... turning a (massive) profit. OSX licensing aside, I wanted to point that fact out. It's well within their (Apple) right to do this, but I wanted to make the point that it's not uncommon (in fact it's typically encouraged) to take open source and make it your own. OSX would not be what it is today without the open source community. The large number of network/systems engineers (like myself) and software developers only considered it a viable OS because of the UNIX underpinnings. If it wasn't for the underpinnings it would still be an operating system catering to the typical end user and "artsy" graphics guys. :apple:

[Hirth]

I would say that you haven't thought that through.

If ten years ago a law had been passed that no company has the right to restrict use of its software to its own hardware, then you still wouldn't be able to use MacOS X on a Dell computer. You know why? Because Apple wouldn't have bought a pre-alpha version of MacOS X for $400 million and spent over a billion dollars to make it what it is today. Instead, Apple would be a mediocre PC maker selling PCs not with Windows 7, but with Windows 3.7 or 3.8 if you're lucky, just like everyone else.

You are entitled to your belief that this would be the case.

Perhaps a different scenario would have played out and MAC OS would be the dominant OS in the world today.

Without actually being able to test either hypothesis, I cannot say which is more likely.

What I have thought through is that the way things are now and the way we are going, it appears we are heading toward more and more control of our lives by big corporations and governments, with more and more restrictions on what I see as essential individual freedoms and liberties.

Of course, this is also speculation, and others will see things differently and draw their own conclusions.

[gohanmzt]

... If it wasn't for the underpinnings it would still be an operating system catering to the typical end user and "artsy" graphics guys. :apple:

Hey! What's wrong with being an "artsy" graphics guy? :) ;)

[Hirth]

WRONG!!!

It may seem like you 'bought' the software but you haven't. You bought the physical media but the software on the disk is licensed to you and is subject to the EULA. Apple gets to decide what you can do with that software, what machines you can legally install it on and whether you can modify it or not. You might not like it but this is fairly well decided law.

This may be the way it is in law, but it is not the way things should be. When I buy that software program, the ownership of that copy of the software should be mine, to use as I see fit, on the computer I choose, with no interference from the software maker or distributor. I should, at some future time, be able to stop using that software and sell the copy I bought to a third party, again with no restrictions. The laws need changing.

[hwhalers]

The pendulum has been swinging for too long in one direction.

Indeed it has. I agree with essentially everything you say in principle, but a lot of it is not realistic in the current state of things.

The problem is that all the prior attempts to modernize contract and copyright law have been written by media lobbyists. This will continue to happen, however, so we're kinda screwed no matter what. At least in the US there hasn't been a push for an individual 'digital bill of rights'. And until that happens there will not be any advancement in individual users' rights. Civil and criminal law needs to concentrate on the heavy threats: Counterfeiters, Patent Trolling, and P2P, as opposed to non-threats: media backup, the storage and use of purchased content in whatever format/media you decide, and hobbyist modifications.

Are copyright terms too long? Yes. Is the DMCA unreasonably restrictive in a lot of ways? Yes. Can corporations unreasonably control what you do with things you've purchased? Yes. Is any of it going to change in the current climate? No. I say this as a semi-professional software developer and artist, who wouldn't mind one day making a living off of either or both of those endeavours. Current IP law can, in a lot of ways, screw a small player. Ever seen how much it costs to have a Blu-Ray disc pressed? It's unreasonable for an independent film maker, in no small part due to Sony's AACS requirements. At the same time, copyright anarchy would serve no one. The happy medium has not been reached, and there's no signs we'll reach it soon.

[maxp1]

Whoa. One moment, please. I said absolutely nothing about distribution. When I read a book I am not distributing that book. When a computer runs a program, it is not distributing it.

...

In my opinion when I walk into a store and buy a box containing some media with bits on it, then I should own that copy of those bits and be able to do whatever the heck I want with those bits short of duplicating them and distributing them to others.

So here is the problem with your argument. You buy the physical media with the bits, which you own. But in order for those bits to be useful as a computer program you have to copy them onto your computer. You are distributing those bits when you create a copy of them on your computer. And it is that copying that creates the control that the copyright holder has over the program that you're running.

Sure, you might argue that it's immoral and wrong in any of a dozen ways. But there are just as good arguments that it's right and just and protects the holders of copyright from others stealing their work.

[MacFly123]

They tried that before, but bankruptcy required Psystar to reveal all of its backers, so somehow it reversed out of bankruptcy.

It will be interesting to find out who the financial backers were. When will we find this out?

I would also like to know! However I bet the next thing that is coming is bankruptcy coming the Psystar.

No idea 'ay? They had millions though... enough to mount some pretty high-level court cases across multiple states, and also to keep manufacturing, marketing and presumably selling machines (despite not making a cent from their company.)

My guess is that somebody must have helped them...

They have conspiracy written all over them! :D

But honestly, I would NOT be surprised AT ALL if them and this whole fiasco was funded and orchestrated by Microsoft or one of the huge tech companies! :eek: We will probably never know, especially since it is probably true lol!

EAT IT YOU DIRTY BIOTCHES! :p

[pdjudd]

But honestly, I would NOT be surprised AT ALL if them and this whole fiasco was funded and orchestrated by Microsoft or one of the huge tech companies! :eek: We will probably never know, especially since it is probably true lol!

One teeny tiny problem - all of the companies (especially MS) that you mention indireclty almost certaily to some degree run their businesses enitrely around the concept of software licensing and copyright - which is exactly what Psystar was infringing on and was arguing was legal.

MS's entire business is based on software licensing - it would be insane for them to fund any company that would run it's business the way it does - not to mention that all of the tech companies rely on copyright and licensing to some degree. All of them would be hurt way worse if this case would have succeeded for Psystar.

[*LTD*]

I can't believe some of you condemn Psystar for offering hackintosh computers, but then defend X86.org who's code psystar used. Then on top of that you want to cry that Psystar didn't give recognition to X86.org.

Really? :confused:

Kind of a double standard don't you think? YAY X86, BOO Psystar?

One is profiting from it commercially (threatening the integrity of IP law) and the other is not.

[cmaier]

I condemn the hackintoshers, too, just for consistency. If you are a hackintosher you are either:

a) stealing from apple, because you otherwise would have bought their hardware, which is factored into the OS price, OR

b) you wouldn't have bought an apple anyway, because you couldn't afford it, but you feel you are entitled to things you can't afford, which is a disturbing societal trend that needs nipping in the bud, OR

c) you feel you are entitled to a specific configuration Apple doesn't supply, which is really the same as (b) because you simply can't afford to buy more computer than you need (mac pro).

Happy now?

[BaldiMac]

Whoa. One moment, please. I said absolutely nothing about distribution. When I read a book I am not distributing that book. When a computer runs a program, it is not distributing it.

The law is wrong and unjust. This is my opinion. It is every bit as valid as those who think the law is perfectly just and fine.

In my opinion when I walk into a store and buy a box containing some media with bits on it, then I should own that copy of those bits and be able to do whatever the heck I want with those bits short of duplicating them and distributing them to others. Copyright makes sense to me as an incentive to produce creative works and be able to have a limited monopoly for a time over the copying and distribution of those works. However, how an end-user USES a copyrighted work is no ones business but the end user's. No entity has any, inherent moral right to interfere with that, unless the use itself is immoral. (Extreme examples: using a gun to commit murder, or using a software program to defraud someone.)

I should be legally able to use any technical means to use any hardware with any software. I should be legally able to use any technical means available to use any two pieces of hardware together. The use of any technical or legal means to prevent the use of arbitrary hardware and software together should be prohibited by law.

I believe in obeying the law. I also believe in getting laws that are unjust or immoral changed through legal means.

Does my position limit the power creators have over their work? Yes. Does it limit them on how much they may benefit financially from their work? Yes. Does having copyrights that last over a century limit how much creative works can benefit the society as a whole? Absolutely. Does is limit further creativity by preventing the timely enrichment of the public domain. Absolutely.

The purpose of IP rights is not so that individuals can benefit from their creativity without limit. It is to grant them limited benefit from their creativity for a limited period of time as an incentive so that people will make creative works, which will benefit society as a whole. In our present society these goals have been grossly perverted to perpetuate strangleholds on creative works that are harming the public good.

The pendulum has been swinging for too long in one direction.

In my opinion, a company like PyStar should be allowed to do what they did. It should be legal to do. It should be illegal to attempt to stop them. The laws should be changed so that this is so.

In my opinion, a company like Palm should be allowed to do what they did. It should be legal to do. It should be illegal to attempt to stop them. The laws should be changed so that this is so.

It should be illegal for a company to deliberately break compatibility between software and hardware in their next version. They should be under no obligation to make sure that compatibility is maintained, but any intent to make changes solely to make it so that their own hardware and software no longer works with a third party's (or works worse, see the recent FTC filing against Intel). The intent matters.

That's a lot of "should be's" without any practical alternative. Yes, copyright has been extended too long. Shortening the term to 37 years would have little effect on software such as OS X. What else have you suggested?

[MacFly123]

One teeny tiny problem - all of the companies (especially MS) that you mention indireclty almost certaily to some degree run their businesses enitrely around the concept of software licensing and copyright - which is exactly what Psystar was infringing on and was arguing was legal.

MS's entire business is based on software licensing - it would be insane for them to fund any company that would run it's business the way it does - not to mention that all of the tech companies rely on copyright and licensing to some degree. All of them would be hurt way worse if this case would have succeeded for Psystar.

Perhaps. Or maybe they just wanted Apple to feel a little of the monopoly, anti-trust pain that they have. Destroying Apple's control of the ecosystem would hurt Apple very badly!

Microsoft or not, it just all smells very fishy in general.

[pdjudd]

Perhaps. Or maybe they just wanted Apple to feel a little of the monopoly, anti-trust pain that they have. Destroying Apple's control of the ecosystem would hurt Apple very badly!

I doubt that MS would care - they rather liked their monopoly that was abusive - they profited immensely and the fines that they had to pay were a slap on the wrist considering what they could have faced. Lets face it - this case tried to say that software licensing was invalid - something that no company delaying in IP would have wanted. To imply that any comany wants to play around in court for no reason is silly.

Not to mention that this case had no chance of succeeding whatsoever - MS loves how Apple is - hardly a real threat to their established monopoly but still competing. Gates has long said that Apple rightfully competes with MS - albeit differently. He has no problem with it. This lawsuit would have been suicidal if Apple would have lost. MS does not want Apple to go away - that would be really bad for them legally.

Not to mention that Apple could adapt and sell their software in another fashion that nobody could get around without going through tons of effort and would result in actual theft.


Microsoft or not, it just all smells very fishy in general.
No - I see a couple of idiots that ran their company like any other SB over would and got a law firm that takes cases on contingency. Of course they might get somewhere and can con investors, but that is a side issue. I see no reason that any backers have to be there at all.

[jmadlena]

I can't believe some of you condemn Psystar for offering hackintosh computers, but then defend X86.org who's code psystar used. Then on top of that you want to cry that Psystar didn't give recognition to X86.org.

Really? :confused:

Kind of a double standard don't you think? YAY X86, BOO Psystar?

I think there is a difference. Individuals making hackintoshes really are just hobbiests. They will find a way to make it work because they love it, and they may not even be interested in buying a Mac at all. But Psystar was doing this for a profit. Selling to people who may have actually purchased a Mac, and so they are cutting into Apple's market.

When you start doing things for profit is when you get into shady areas.

[KnightWRX]

The post was a response to the comment about how Psystar was piggy backing their company on the efforts of the folks involved with the hackintosh project and turning a profit. Apple piggy backed on the efforts of the open source community that has created the x86 version of BSD and others and is selling a commercial product built on top of it... turning a (massive) profit. OSX licensing aside, I wanted to point that fact out. It's well within their (Apple) right to do this, but I wanted to make the point that it's not uncommon (in fact it's typically encouraged) to take open source and make it your own. OSX would not be what it is today without the open source community. The large number of network/systems engineers (like myself) and software developers only considered it a viable OS because of the UNIX underpinnings. If it wasn't for the underpinnings it would still be an operating system catering to the typical end user and "artsy" graphics guys. :apple:

Again, you're missing the point. Psystar isn't doing the same thing as Apple is doing. They are infringing on the copyright of the OSX86 project and not respecting the license their code is under. They have ripped off the project's code to make Rebel EFI.

Apple does no such thing. To compare the two is grossly ignorant on your part. You either don't understand the symbiotic nature that Apple shares with the BSD community (and other open source communities) where they take the code but contribute back their changes and respect the licenses or you're grossly overrating Psystar's contribution to the communities from which they take code and their respect of the licenses involved.

Again, Psystar doesn't respect the IP of the open source communities and doesn't respect Apple's IP. This is not even close to being a Pot calling a kettle black thing.

[michaelr123]

I condemn the hackintoshers, too, just for consistency. If you are a hackintosher you are either:

a) stealing from apple, because you otherwise would have bought their hardware, which is factored into the OS price, OR

b) you wouldn't have bought an apple anyway, because you couldn't afford it, but you feel you are entitled to things you can't afford, which is a disturbing societal trend that needs nipping in the bud, OR

c) you feel you are entitled to a specific configuration Apple doesn't supply, which is really the same as (b) because you simply can't afford to buy more computer than you need (mac pro).

Happy now?

Unfortunately, C is overkill, and would be wasting money for the sake of wasting money. I would like something that has the power of the iMac, but without the screen. If Apple aren't prepared to make it, they have no one but themselves to blame when people turn to other means to run OSX. Rightly or wrongly, they just have to deal with it. They either need to play the game, or get out of the game - no matter what Apple does to stop their software being installed on another computer, there's someone out there better who can get around this. Software & hardware are 2 completely different markets when it comes to computers, it's Apple that tries to combine them into one commodity market. If Apple's hardware is as brilliant as they like to make out, it should be able to stand on its own feet even if OSX is sold to run on any hardware. And if OSX is as amazing as Apple make out, then it should be able to stand on its own without the hardware.

[cmaier]

If Apple aren't prepared to make it, they have no one but themselves to blame when people turn to other means to run OSX. Rightly or wrongly, they just have to deal with it.

So Ferrari won't sell me a free car, but there's a lot of demand for it, so I have the right to break into the showroom and steal one?

[chris200x9]

it's things like this that make me wonder why anyon even uses proprietary OSes / software:rolleyes:

[cmaier]

it's things like this that make me wonder why anyon even uses proprietary OSes / software:rolleyes:

Because when software is designed by committee, it behaves like software designed by committee. I used unix (bsd, solaris, pa-risc, ibm) systems for a decade, then switched to linux for a few years, and it was a mess in comparison.

[chris200x9]

Because when software is designed by committee, it behaves like software designed by committee. I used unix (bsd, solaris, pa-risc, ibm) systems for a decade, then switched to linux for a few years, and it was a mess in comparison.

use BSD? I don't see where this is going non-proprietary != linux

[cmaier]

use BSD? I don't see where this is going non-proprietary != linux

I'm talking the original BSD Unix, not the newfangled freebsd/openbsd/netbsd/whateverbsd stuff. Back when the code came from the camel's mouth, from a small team, and wasn't a design-by-committee.

9 out of 10 "non-proprietary" apps/OS's are a mess. Crappy "kitchen sink" user interfaces full of inconsistencies and too many controls to confuse non-experts, etc.

[PeterQVenkman]

So Ferrari won't sell me a free car, but there's a lot of demand for it, so I have the right to break into the showroom and steal one?

Do these comparisons ever make sense? It reminds me of the famous "men are not potatoes" quote from Heinlein's Starship Troopers.

Perhaps a better question is, does a Ferrari run OSX?

[chris200x9]

9 out of 10 "non-proprietary" apps/OS's are a mess. Crappy "kitchen sink" user interfaces full of inconsistencies and too many controls to confuse non-experts, etc.

I disagree, I don't want to hijack this thread but yea I majorly disagree.

[MacFly123]

I doubt that MS would care - they rather liked their monopoly that was abusive - they profited immensely and the fines that they had to pay were a slap on the wrist considering what they could have faced. Lets face it - this case tried to say that software licensing was invalid - something that no company delaying in IP would have wanted. To imply that any comany wants to play around in court for no reason is silly.

Not to mention that this case had no chance of succeeding whatsoever - MS loves how Apple is - hardly a real threat to their established monopoly but still competing. Gates has long said that Apple rightfully competes with MS - albeit differently. He has no problem with it. This lawsuit would have been suicidal if Apple would have lost. MS does not want Apple to go away - that would be really bad for them legally.

Not to mention that Apple could adapt and sell their software in another fashion that nobody could get around without going through tons of effort and would result in actual theft.



No - I see a couple of idiots that ran their company like any other SB over would and got a law firm that takes cases on contingency. Of course they might get somewhere and can con investors, but that is a side issue. I see no reason that any backers have to be there at all.

Perhaps they were backed by a rival in trying to disrupt Apple's ecosystem but then once they got in legal trouble the backer abandoned them and in turn lead to their bankruptcy.

But I guess you have it all figured out!

Oh... wait... there was ONE LITTLE detail: The fact that Apple themselves thinks it was a conspiracy and that they were backed by a rival company or something of the sort! :rolleyes: I'm not saying your points aren't valid, but obviously Apple has reason to believe the same thing I expressed!

[cmaier]

Oh... wait... there was ONE LITTLE detail: The fact that Apple themselves thinks it was a conspiracy and that they were backed by a rival company or something of the sort! :rolleyes: I'm not saying your points aren't valid, but obviously Apple has reason to believe the same thing I expressed!

Says who? Not that John Does thing again? That's not what that means.

[gnasher729]

But honestly, I would NOT be surprised AT ALL if them and this whole fiasco was funded and orchestrated by Microsoft or one of the huge tech companies! :eek: We will probably never know, especially since it is probably true lol!

Microsoft most certainly didn't win Psystar to win. Imagine all the companies using Microsoft Office would stop to buy an expensive company license, and instead every third employee is asked to purchase a family license allowing three installations. So much cheaper.

[pdjudd]

Perhaps they were backed by a rival in trying to disrupt Apple's ecosystem but then once they got in legal trouble the backer abandoned them and in turn lead to their bankruptcy.

But I guess you have it all figured out!

Oh... wait... there was ONE LITTLE detail: The fact that Apple themselves thinks it was a conspiracy and that they were backed by a rival company or something of the sort! :rolleyes: I'm not saying your points aren't valid, but obviously Apple has reason to believe the same thing I expressed!

Says who? Not that John Does thing again? That's not what that means.

Exactly. The fact that a company files a John Doe suit does not mean that they actually exist - they are filed very frequently and only apply if they are actually identified or if they exist. If they do not exist, they are dropped - kinda like how the Psystar case - all the judgments have been addressed to Psystar - no John Does have been identified - if there were any we would have either seen who they are or seen a motion for them to be suppressed - we haven't.

I say, unless anybody can provide solid evidence (including names) of who is funding Psystar, we should conclude as Apple and the courts have, that none exists.

[twilson]

I had no doubt that Apple would prevail on the DMCA issues - the licensing was a bit more dicey. And I still have a lot of concerns about the consumer-friendliness of allowing software vendors to hide unfair or even abusive legally-binding clauses in contracts that essentially nobody ever reads.

It doesn't matter whether somebody reads it. The important bit it is that they agree to/sign the contract in someway.

Most people don't read mobile phone contracts, but they are wholly enforceable still as long as the contract does not require that laws are broken.

Using the "didn't read" argument would basically make contracts unenforceable. Clearly, this will never happen.

[twilson]

Has anybody actually opened up an Apple computer and has actually seen what is there? Intel, Samsung, Texas Instruments, Crucial, Marvell Yukon, Broadcom, Nvidia, SMP, and that isn't even cracking open the case. What part of that is Apple?

What's your point.

The branding, case and quite often the motherboard designs are all Apple. The EULA states it can be installed on an Apple branded computer only. i.e. A computer made by Apple. And Apple are the only ones legally entitled to use the Apple brand.

Move along!

[twilson]

Precedent is law (there are two sources of law - statutory and precedential [the so-called "common law"]).

This is merely a technical nit, though. The precedent isn't new, either. This case ended just like every similar case that has gone before. No new law or surprising result here, and apple didn't fund this - that would be a fraud on th court.

It's all just semantics at the end of the day, as the precedent was set by the application of existing laws.

[twilson]

Deleted

[Perrumpo]

Dayum, Psystar just got pwned.

[PeterQVenkman]

I condemn the hackintoshers, too, just for consistency. If you are a hackintosher you are either:

a) stealing from apple, because you otherwise would have bought their hardware, which is factored into the OS price, OR

b) you wouldn't have bought an apple anyway, because you couldn't afford it, but you feel you are entitled to things you can't afford, which is a disturbing societal trend that needs nipping in the bud, OR

c) you feel you are entitled to a specific configuration Apple doesn't supply, which is really the same as (b) because you simply can't afford to buy more computer than you need (mac pro).

Happy now?

Wow, someone is snobby today. You could just say "I condemn hackintoshers because it's illegal, and can potentially harm Apple, a company whose products I enjoy."

I would have loved to see Apple use this circus as an opportunity to fill the market void that Psystar was clearly filling. If Apple plugged that hole, nobody (or very few people) would complain, and Psystar wouldn't have had a compelling reason to try to sell hackintoshes in the first place.

Of course, I kinda hope there was some shadow corporation behind it all. It's very Tom Clancy and makes the tech world a bit more creepy and exciting! ;)

[cmaier]

It doesn't matter whether somebody reads it. The important bit it is that they agree to/sign the contract in someway.

Most people don't read mobile phone contracts, but they are wholly enforceable still as long as the contract does not require that laws are broken.

Using the "didn't read" argument would basically make contracts unenforceable. Clearly, this will never happen.

Actually, there is no contract formed without a "meeting of the minds" ( consensus ad idem, and all that). The law finds a meeting of the minds even if the two sides didn't actually read the contract, under some conditions - typically when the parties behave as though there is a contract, or should have known there was a contract (even if some of the less important terms wouldn't have been obvious), etc. It's actually a complex part of contract law, and contracts can and have been thrown out if one side or the other could not reasonably have expected to understand or realize the terms, and if the terms are unduly favorable to the other side.

[cmaier]

Wow, someone is snobby today. You could just say "I condemn hackintoshers because it's illegal, and can potentially harm Apple, a company whose products I enjoy."

If you read my post in context, you'd see I was just being argumentative because the person to whom I was responding was being overly inclusive.

[twilson]

Apple charges a good sum for their software, don't try to use how cheap this last upgrade version was, because this should have been free as it was nothing more then a bunch of upgrades that brought it up to 64 bit tech.

You keep telling yourself that. That is a statement of the ill-informed.

At least we don't have to pay for a 32-bit version of the OS and then again for a 64-bit version as with Windows (at least was the case upto Vista).

Numerous changes/features in Snow Leopard had absolutely nothing to do with moving to 64-bit.

Exchange Support for one.
Massive app re-writes from the ground up in Cocoa, not just a "quick recompile" or something that should even be considered a small job.

[twilson]

Actually, there is no contract formed without a "meeting of the minds" ( consensus ad idem, and all that). The law finds a meeting of the minds even if the two sides didn't actually read the contract, under some conditions - typically when the parties behave as though there is a contract, or should have known there was a contract (even if some of the less important terms wouldn't have been obvious), etc.

The EULA has nothing to do with "should have known", you are explicitly told that it is a contract and by clicking "I Agree" you are entering into that contract and told that if you don't agree or don't understand then don't click "I Agree".

It's actually a complex part of contract law, and contracts can and have been thrown out if one side or the other could not reasonably have expected to understand or realize the terms, and if the terms are unduly favorable to the other side.

Yet EULAs all pretty much the same boilerplate text to them and have been upheld as valid contracts on numerous occasions. The main difference in Apple's is the restriction of installation on Apple hardware only, and that hardly constitutes "unduly favourable to the other side", Apple doesn't gain from that stipulation.

[cmaier]

The EULA has nothing to do with "should have known", you are explicitly told that it is a contract and by clicking "I Agree" you are entering into that contract and told that if you don't agree or don't understand then don't click "I Agree".


The point is you said that it doesn't matter if the party didn't read the EULA. The truth is that even if the party read the EULA, if there is no "meeting of the minds" there is no contract. And if the party didn't read the EULA because it is presented in such a way that most people wouldn't read it, there is even less chance of a meeting of the minds.

That is not to say that the EULA is not binding - I am merely correcting your mistaken point of law.

[*LTD*]

Jeezus, this thread has gone on for far too long. It isn't that difficult to understand the point of the ruling.

[MH01]

Wrong again, read the license, you may need to take remedial reading.

It was my own point of view, I know the EULA agreement. But thanks for pointing out that you do not understand the difference between reading and comprehension, the best reading skills in the world will not help you with an EULA.

[MH01]

Jeezus, this thread has gone on for far too long. It isn't that difficult to understand the point of the ruling.

hmmmm Mate you are the one throwing fuel on the fire and keeping it going. First to post on it and now want your last word in.

[rileyes]

You defeated yourself. As you pointed out, you buy a "rent" OS X( which in the case of a OS, you buy a license). Just like when you rent a movie or something, you agree to the terms and conditions of the rental place. When you buy Mac OS X, you bought a license and agreed to Apple's terms of use.

copyright law, particularly with software, has gone so far beyond protecting the copyright holder. It has become a means of corporations retaining absolute control of their "product", thus retaining control of you. Go to a store and buy some software...notice they don't make you sign any license agreement BEFORE they take your money. Notice that the license agreement isnt available to read outside of the box. No, they take your money, hand you a product, and then when you try to use it they throw some legal text in front of you that you have to agree to. But get this...most stores wont refund opened software. So, your choice is either to lose your money if you don't agree to the license agreement, or else agree.

So, my support goes to psystar. They were never a threat to Apple's bottom line. It's about control, and nothing else.

[pdjudd]

copyright law, particularly with software, has gone so far beyond protecting the copyright holder. It has become a means of corporations retaining absolute control of their "product", thus retaining control of you.
Indeed, thats the entire point of copyright - to protect content that is easy to illegally copy outside of the creators wishes.

Go to a store and buy some software...notice they don't make you sign any license agreement BEFORE they take your money.

Thats irrelevant. The retailer is often not the licensee.

Notice that the license agreement isnt available to read outside of the box.
It doesn’t have to be available on the box, it just has to be available. All of Microsoft and Apples products tell you where to find versions on the software - all of these are on the box. It’s impractical to publish legal documentation on a box and expect customers to be able to read in in a store - it’s easier at home - before opening the box.

No, they take your money, hand you a product, and then when you try to use it they throw some legal text in front of you that you have to agree to. But get this...most stores wont refund opened software.
Again, retailers are often not licensees - they set their own terms. You rejecting the license is between you and the publisher (rights holder) not the retailer.

So, your choice is either to lose your money if you don't agree to the license agreement, or else agree.
Thats a false dilema. I can read Apple’s, Microsoft’s, and tons of other companies licensing terms to my hearts content long before I go to the store and open the box. In this case, Apple provides you with instructions where to find the licensing in plain English right on the box.

So, my support goes to psystar. They were never a threat to Apple's bottom line. It's about control, and nothing else.
If they (Psystar) made any money whatsoever, they are a threat - they are depriving Apple profits that they are legally entitled to.

[r.j.s]

So, your choice is either to lose your money if you don't agree to the license agreement, or else agree.

100% not true. If you do not agree to the terms, you can get your money back, probably not from the retailer, but definitely from the developer.

[nuvolino]

Another crushing win for Apple's iSue dept.

So ironic that Apple will sue anyone it can to protect its intellectual property yet its foundation is built on stolen Atari technology.

Sad what it's become.

what are you on about OSX is based on Next which was made by steve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT

[Byrnes3969]

what are you on about OSX is based on Next which was made by steve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT

Oh for Pete's sake, go back to the beginning of this post and follow my links.

[ProwlingTiger]

Finally...justice. Sorry, Pystar had no right to do this, er rather Apple had every right to defend it's OS intellectual property rights. Anyone disagreeing with that needs to verse themselves in a little law.

[NickFalk]

It doesn't matter whether somebody reads it. The important bit it is that they agree to/sign the contract in someway...

Using the "didn't read" argument would basically make contracts unenforceable. Clearly, this will never happen.
I don't think it's quite as straightforward as that, perhaps in the US, but certainly not in a lot of other countries. (Including most of Europe I would guess). Here's why:

When you enter a store you buy a physical copy of OSX. Money exchange hands an by definition a sale has been made. There is usually some small print on the packaging saying that you agree to some terms bla bla if you open the package, but frankly no-one can demand that you read this as you actually already own the copy you've bought and these terms were not made clear to you prior to your purchase.

So, if I open the box start to install the software and find that I can't agree with the EULA I believe very few merchants would refund my money...

[NickFalk]

Thats irrelevant. The retailer is often not the licensee.

Probably correct under US-law but in a lot of countries the retailer is 100% responsible towards the consumer.

[myca]

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.

Does this mean that I'm not breaking the EULA with my Hackintosh as I have a few Apple stickers on there, you know the ones included with their software and hardware from way back :D

[pdjudd]

Probably correct under US-law but in a lot of countries the retailer is 100% responsible towards the consumer.

I agree - thats why retailers say “don’t open software” yet software licensing still exists 100% as a viable business. Retailers are not licensees - if they have any online presence or a physical one, they state somewhere that when it comes to software - they are not responsible for informing you of the license - it tends to be the consumer’s responsibility since a license is a separate element to the sale. You don’t accept a license at the store - you do so at a different time after it and the license agreement (at least with Apple) tells you that you can return unused software. The retailers obligations tends to stop at defects related to what they sell you (which is the disc not the bits). That’s the key - toy buy a disc - you license the bits separately. We have already covered this on other threads.

All of these terms are available online at any point to the consumer. The retailer removes their obligation once the box is opened - if you do not wish to accept the retailers obligation that is not the fault of anybody but you.

[pdjudd]

Does this mean that I'm not breaking the EULA with my Hackintosh as I have a few Apple stickers on there, you know the ones included with their software and hardware from way back :D

No, you are not authorized to brand anything that you do not own the rights to nor do those stickers constitute branding in any sense. In fact, you would be worse off since it would constitute fraud willingly since you intend to use someone else's trademarks improperly.

[KnightWRX]

Oh for Pete's sake, go back to the beginning of this post and follow my links.

Oh for Pete's sake, your links didn't prove anything. For the most part, in the culture of the 70s and 80s, the kind of "borrowing" and initiative shown by Steve and Woz was encouraged in tech companies. Start a project, show it to the higher ups. Tech companies loved this because it was free engineering and could result in products the company could then market and ship for profit.

The links also say that Steve did show the first computer to Atari and that Atari refused it. There was no stealing, no under handed practices. Apple did not steal any Atari technology or even parts to make their first computer.

Seriously, as others have said before, at least try to stick to the "They stole from Xerox!" if you're going to even try to make that argument (never mind that the Xerox folks got Apple stock and Steve asked for permission to visit PARC and "borrow" ideas).

I know you will ignore this post like you did all the ones that said the same thing in this thread because you are a revisionist troll and don't care about facts.

So, if I open the box start to install the software and find that I can't agree with the EULA I believe very few merchants would refund my money...

Apple does :

http://www.apple.com/legal/sales_policies/retail_us.html

Note that, as an exception, you may return Apple branded software within the 14-day return period, and not be subject to a restocking fee, if you do not agree to the licensing terms, provided you do not retain any copies, including copies stored on a computer or other device. However, if your software includes a license that you can read before you break the seal or sticker on the software media packaging, you may not return the software once you break the software media packaging seal or sticker.

And it's clearly indicated on the box. My Snow Leopard box says and I quote : "Important Use of this product is subject to acceptance of the software license agreement(s) included in this package www.apple.com".

[cmaier]

No, you are not authorized to brand anything that you do not own the rights to nor do those stickers constitute branding in any sense. In fact, you would be worse off since it would constitute fraud willingly since you intend to use someone else's trademarks improperly.

He wouldn't be worse off unless he sold it. It's not trademark infringement unless someone (a potential purchaser) is likely to confuse his computer for an Apple.

Likewise, it's not fraud since no one is relying on his false statement of origin (other than he, himself).

It is, however, a EULA breach.

[3lutz3toe]

The bottom line is Apple is a hypocrite in this instance! Can you imagine if MS forbid Apple users from installing Windows OS on their computers? VMFusion, Parrallel and Bootcamp are all programs that allow Apple machines to run Windows!
—US laws usually side w/ the corp. instead w/ the consumers!

[r.j.s]

The bottom line is Apple is a hypocrite in this instance! Can you imagine if MS forbid Apple users from installing Windows OS on their computers? VMFusion, Parrallel and Bootcamp are all programs that allow Apple machines to run Windows!
—US laws usually side w/ the corp. instead w/ the consumers!

Except that isn't MS' business model. They want you to install Windows on anything and everything.

[cmaier]

The bottom line is Apple is a hypocrite in this instance! Can you imagine if MS forbid Apple users from installing Windows OS on their computers? VMFusion, Parrallel and Bootcamp are all programs that allow Apple machines to run Windows!
—US laws usually side w/ the corp. instead w/ the consumers!

No, apple is not a hypocrite. Apple, like MS, insists that its EULA is obeyed. The fact that Apple has a different EULA than MS because its business model is different doesn't make it a hypocrite.