Steve Jobs and Apple invented the Hackintosh. Why is it illegal?

[snberk103]

....
That doesn't stop you from doing whatever you want. The chances of them finding out are pretty low, and the chances of them actually taking legal action are even lower. Of course, this being a Mac forum people will try to persuade you otherwise, lol. ...

My objection in discussions about this topic are that people will dismiss it as being perfectly 'legal' or 'legitimate'. I just wish more people acknowledged that they are doing something they know is not quite right. I don't really care if someone builds a hackintosh - just don't rationalize it as legal just because you want to believe it.

By the same token - I routinely run the Stop sign at the bottom of my road. Just about every time unless there is traffic. I will admit it's illegal... I don't try rationalized the legality. I do stop at all other Stop signs however. Fully and completely.

So go ahead and build a hackintosh. It's good for people to know how things work. Just admit it's a technical violation of the EULA - and don't infringe on other people's intellectual property. That is... just because you choose to run one Stop sign does not give you the right to run them all.

 

[macproredux]

I'm just going to leave this link here and let people hash it out

http://pearc.de/ueber-pearc-eng-1?parentid=72&parentname=ueber-pearc

 

[Septembersrain]

Meh. It's "Illegal" to unlock certain cellphones. People still do that too don't they? I guess it'll happen one way or the other. Like speeding, you'll either get caught or you won't.

 

[gnasher729]

When you use something like iBoot though to Hackitosh, you're not copying anything. You put in the iBoot disk, it ejects, and then you put in the unmodified Retail OS X Install disk. After that, you boot and install proper kexts. To me, this is the same thing as installing Windows, and then installing drivers; other than the fact that the EULA obviously forbids it.

If you're getting it to run simply by adding in software, as opposed to modifying OS X, I don't believe there is any copyright infringement taking place.

DMCA violation. Every Mac has a chip somewhere containing a 64 bit code, and that 64 bit code is used to decrypt parts of the operating system. Without that code, MacOS X doesn't work. What "something like iBoot" does is make the computer pretend it has this chip, so that MacOS X works. That's circumventing the copy protection in MacOS X, which is a DMCA violation.

 

[dukebound85]

You bought a license to use OSX in accordance with the T&Cs attached to it. You don't "own" OS X.

The T&Cs state :

Whois going to stop him

T and C is not law

 

[gnasher729]

It's against the terms of the license agreement because those are the terms Apple decided to go with. Apple doesn't want to license OS X for use on computers not sold by Apple, end of story.

That doesn't stop you from doing whatever you want. The chances of them finding out are pretty low, and the chances of them actually taking legal action are even lower. Of course, this being a Mac forum people will try to persuade you otherwise, lol.

I don't think anyone here tries to convince people not to build their own Hackintosh computers. It's just that when people make loud claims that it is legal, that needs to be corrected.

 

[JoeG4]

I'm standing somewhere in the middle, mostly neutral on this topic. The OP asked why it was illegal, and got various answers, including my favorite that it's a civil matter and not a criminal matter.

Ultimately, I'd suggest heeding caution. You want to see Apple keep making OS X? Then keep buying Macs where it makes sense to. As a hobbyist myself, I love doing things that "shouldn't be done". That's how great stuff usually happens and lessons are learned.

That said, I'm not currently running OS X on anything not made by Apple, and I won't confirm nor deny that I've done so in the past. You can learn an awful lot from trying it, particularly about ACPI and the basics on how operating systems work and how they're started.. depending on the case.

It also opens the doors to people who, at the time either can't afford apple hardware, or are using a piece of equipment apple will never make.

 

[Renzatic]

I'd like to see Apple stop me. Illegal my rear. I bought my copy of OS X, I own it, I get to choose how I use it.

It breaks the EULA, which is...you know...frowned upon, but is rarely ever enforceable. It's a breach of a contract that wasn't ever very binding to begin with.

Though with Apple bundling OSX with Macs for free these days, the only way you can truly be legally unburdened when hackintoshing these days is to own an actual Mac capable of running the version of OSX you're installing on another computer.

 

[pdjudd]

It's a breach of a contract that wasn't ever very binding to begin with..

Is it? You have to agree with it to use the software otherwise they tell you to return the software for a refund. If you agree to the license I would consider it binding unless the terms are themselves illegal - which in the case of OSX, I doubt that they are not.

Apple has gone after Psystar in civil court and won. I don’t recall that the EULA was brought up by Apple necessarily but I recall that it was talked about. If memory serves, the claims were mostly about copyright infringement (since you have to modify Apple code to mackintosh) and DMCA claims. However your installation of the software requires you to get permission from the copyright holder. Thats enough to me.

 

[MagicBoy]

Whois going to stop him

T and C is not law

Apple, if they choose to enforce the contract.

 

[gnasher729]

It breaks the EULA, which is...you know...frowned upon, but is rarely ever enforceable. It's a breach of a contract that wasn't ever very binding to begin with.

Though with Apple bundling OSX with Macs for free these days, the only way you can truly be legally unburdened when hackintoshing these days is to own an actual Mac capable of running the version of OSX you're installing on another computer.

Assume Apple had a slightly different EULA. Instead of "you must only install this software on an Apple branded computer", it said "you agree to pay Apple $10,000 for every installation on a computer that is not Apple branded". With that EULA, things get much clearer.

If you now install MacOS X on a Dell computer and Apple finds out and asks for $10,000, you can perfectly well claim "I never accepted that EULA", and Apple can _not_ in any way force you to pay $10,000. Apple _can_ say that because you didn't agree to the EULA, you had no right to copy the software and committed copyright infringement. So you have the choice what to claim, and you'll claim what is cheaper. Cheaper for you is claiming there was never a binding contract, but by claiming so you admit you had no right to use the software.

 

[MagicBoy]

To quote from Under Siege II : "Assumption is the mother of all **** ups".

 

[costara]

You know how many Hackintosh users are buying in the end a real Mac? They have benefits from Hackintosh.

 

[Tech198]

Apple can say anything they like in their EULA's, it doesn't mean anything to the users who wanna do it.

Apple would like to prevent this surly, but no matter what they do, users get around it..... Its the same for anything..

 

[johnnyturbouk]

I'd like to see Apple stop me. Illegal my rear. I bought my copy of OS X, I own it, I get to choose how I use it.

lol, maybe with dr dre working over a cupetino, they may send in the heaviez and pop a cap in ya a$$

 

[Nightarchaon]

I bought it, i own it and will do what the hell i like with it...

If i decide to install my copy of windows on a mac, i will, also , if i choose to install my copy of OSX (legally owned with the purchase of my mac) on a PC i will..

Too many laws protect monopolies and large companies and make consumers unable to own what they purchase, bugger that.. they have had my money, as far as im concerned for personal use, ill do what the hell i want with "my property"

 

[maflynn]

Too many laws protect monopolies and large companies and make consumers unable to own what they purchase, bugger that.. they have had my money, as far as im concerned for personal use, ill do what the hell i want with "my property"

It technically not a law but a user agreement. I don't think any company can drag a consumer to court over a broken end user license agreement.

 

[MagicBoy]

If memory serves Apple dragged Psystar through the courts under the DMCA for building Hackintoshes, sorry Open Computers.

 

[Nightarchaon]

It technically not a law but a user agreement. I don't think any company can drag a consumer to court over a broken end user license agreement.

Console companies did so, successfully, over people "modding" consoles, the act of modding an Xbox to run linux was deemed illegal in some countries, as was the act of creating and installing "mod chips" to allow such actions.

In an ideal world Mod chips, and modification of the console to run software other than the maker intended for personal use should be allowable..

the people pirating the games should be who they go after, but its easier to alienate your legitimate customers and be draconian and restrictive to everyone than it is to be open and honest and only focus on the people actually breaking the law

 

[Lenno121]

I'd like to see Apple stop me. Illegal my rear. I bought my copy of OS X, I own it, I get to choose how I use it.

although you payed for osx you dont own it. apple say that in the license agreement.

 

[keysofanxiety]

It technically not a law but a user agreement. I don't think any company can drag a consumer to court over a broken end user license agreement.

You're right in that no company would, though they technically could. Regardless the legal fees/mess just to crush a single person, plus the negative fallout, just wouldn't be worth it in the slightest.

Apple doesn't really care about end users making Hackintosh products, or even pirating their software. You'd only see legal pursuits when larger companies do these sorts of things and resell the products.

 

[maflynn]

Apple doesn't really care about end users making Hackintosh products, or even pirating their software. You'd only see legal pursuits when larger companies do these sorts of things and resell the products.

Of course but they'd be using the civil courts, to do that, not the criminal courts and I was trying to make that point.

Illegal means the police will be knocking on your door and you'll be arrested. Civil - subpoenaed and sued.

Apple has taken a blind eye (so far) to the sites that offer/host the info on how to create a hackintosh and most businesses wouldn't want to take a chance (rightfully so) because of the cost of legal fees as you mentioned.

 

[Tech198]

Back in 2001, Steve Jobs and some other team at Apple modified a Sony Vaio to run OS X (however for demonstrating OS X on Intel and an idea to make Sony Vaios OS X-compatible although was quickly scrapped as Apple will lose sales due to the cheaper Sonys), effectively creating the first Hackintosh. Nowadays, the act of modifying non-Apple hardware to run Apple OS is illegal. Why is that when Apple invented it?$

Not to mention some Apple-clones "escaped"..

Funny when u think about it..... Its "illegal" on a hackintsh as a violation of their EULA, but its ok, when it comes to virtual hardware like VMWare and Parallels just by using the "hook" that, "well... you may be running it in on "PC-virtual/software", but its still psychically on our hardware.. so it's "ok"

I never got that part.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

I know, it's an old thread, but this whole "I bought it, I own it" thing really gets to me.

A landlord rents out an apartment. The newspaper ad said he's renting it, the tenant signs a piece of paper labeled, "Rental Agreement." The tenant isn't going to get very far if he says, "I paid for the apartment, now I own it." All the tenant paid for is the use of the apartment. The tenant could stay in the same apartment for 40 years and he still wouldn't own it.

Handing someone money does not mean you automatically own something. What matters is the terms under which the money changes hands. It's an agreement between two parties. That could be a car rental, a trinket bargained for in a bazaar, an employment contract (that's right - paying someone a salary does not mean the boss owns the employee), or a software EULA. The terms and conditions of the transaction are whatever they happen to be.

The distinction between physical/real property and intellectual/virtual property doesn't even enter into it. This is a commercial transaction. The property owner proposes the terms and conditions. Maybe the customer gets to negotiate the terms, maybe the owner says, "That's the deal, take it or leave it." Once the customer says, "I agree...."

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Not to mention some Apple-clones "escaped"..

Funny when u think about it..... Its "illegal" on a hackintsh as a violation of their EULA, but its ok, when it comes to virtual hardware like VMWare and Parallels just by using the "hook" that, "well... you may be running it in on "PC-virtual/software", but its still psychically on our hardware.. so it's "ok"

I never got that part.

It seems completely consistent to me. Apple's issue is the hardware - selling the machine. They only sanction the use of Apple OSes on Apple hardware. While Parallels or VMWare Fusion could be run on a Hackintosh, the normal assumption is that it's running on a Mac.

(Parallels doesn't make a virtualization product that runs on Windows or Linux, and while VMWare does make them, they do not actively market the fact that OS X can be run on them - if it was OK with Apple, don't you think VMWare would trumpet that capability?)

If you're running Snow Leopard in a virtual machine on a Mac natively running El Cap... it's still running on Apple hardware, and therefore covered by the EULA. I don't see this as fundamentally different than having multiple partitions or physical drives, each with a different version of OS X.

I'm pretty confident that it would not be OK with Apple to run Snow Leopard in a Parallels virtual machine if Parallels was running on a Hackintosh. The copy of OS X running natively on the Hackintosh would be illegal, so why would it matter if the copy running in the VM was "legal?" As soon as the illegal installation was shut down, the whole house of cards collapses.

I don't see a fundamental difference between running Snow Leopard in Parallels on a Mac with a native El Capitan installation and having a Mac with multiple disk partitions or HDs, each of which has a different version of OS X on it. I may be wrong, but I don't think the EULA says, "You may install only one copy of OS X on each Mac."