I remember those. I got called a fanboy quite often in those threads for pointing out the flaw in logic in Psystar's business model.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Appeals Court Sides with Apple in Dispute over Psystar's Unauthorized Mac Clones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I remember those. I got called a fanboy quite often in those threads for pointing out the flaw in logic in Psystar's business model.
Some people are not very smart.
For example, this guy who copied Cut the Rope threatened to sue me due to my article ousting the copy:
http://obamapacman.com/2011/05/coun...rry-game-developer-aztux-threatens-to-sue-op/
Thankfully, Cut the Rope developer took care of it.
Didn't expect they'd win, BUT ....
I can actually admire their willingness not to accept a cease & desist letter lying down, and to actually fight for their business model.
Essentially, Psystar was trying to get the courts to question Apple's ability to enforce concepts written in their EULAs, including the assertion that all retail copies of Mac OSX were only "upgrade editions" (despite not saying that anywhere on their boxes).
Basically, that's been Apple's defense/excuse for why it's illegal to BUY an OS X installation CD or DVD and proceed to install it on generic hardware of one's choosing. Theoretically, the ONLY way to purchase an initial "full install" OS X license is by purchasing a new Apple Mac computer that comes with it.
Everything else they've done to prevent such a disc from installing and working on non-Apple branded hardware was done artificially. (Their machines contain the same Intel architecture as any other PC clone.) So it was at least a *possibility* that one could succeed in arguing in the courtroom that these measures were anti-competitive moves on Apple's part. (After all, if you PAID Apple for the operating system disc, it's not like you "pirated" their software. You're simply trying to BUY their software but use it on alternate hardware, vs. being artificially coerced into buying the Apple hardware to go with it, right?)
But IMO, none of these "anti competitive" arguments would hold any water unless you got courts to agree first that there was no real basis for claiming the retail purchased OS X discs were in fact simply "upgrade editions, not for use for a new, full OS X installation".
I can actually admire their willingness not to accept a cease & desist letter lying down, and to actually fight for their business model.
Essentially, Psystar was trying to get the courts to question Apple's ability to enforce concepts written in their EULAs, including the assertion that all retail copies of Mac OSX were only "upgrade editions" (despite not saying that anywhere on their boxes).
Basically, that's been Apple's defense/excuse for why it's illegal to BUY an OS X installation CD or DVD and proceed to install it on generic hardware of one's choosing. Theoretically, the ONLY way to purchase an initial "full install" OS X license is by purchasing a new Apple Mac computer that comes with it.
Everything else they've done to prevent such a disc from installing and working on non-Apple branded hardware was done artificially. (Their machines contain the same Intel architecture as any other PC clone.) So it was at least a *possibility* that one could succeed in arguing in the courtroom that these measures were anti-competitive moves on Apple's part. (After all, if you PAID Apple for the operating system disc, it's not like you "pirated" their software. You're simply trying to BUY their software but use it on alternate hardware, vs. being artificially coerced into buying the Apple hardware to go with it, right?)
But IMO, none of these "anti competitive" arguments would hold any water unless you got courts to agree first that there was no real basis for claiming the retail purchased OS X discs were in fact simply "upgrade editions, not for use for a new, full OS X installation".
It must have been the 3 families behind this! No one else can hide that well.
Clearly there's no other explanation!!
Am I right??
I got your reference, so that makes two.
Too bad that was a terrible story arc on that series. I doubt it will come back from season 5 now.
Apple wants total complete control over the entire Mac ecosystem, keeping it closed so they can have as much control over the software you use as well as the upgrades and peripherals you add...
To give only one good example, look at the recent iMacs, which have been virtually near impossible (but not totally with work) to add internal upgrades such as additional drives, such as solid-state drives, which require a lengthy process to disassemble the machine, a non-user upgradable process...
They almost DO NOT WANT end users adding anything to their machine, getting inside the computer, hacking their Mac, etc....The iOS "jailbreak" situation is another example of this..."Total ecosystem control"
Something has to give...the Apple spirit of olde has always been "freedom to the user, love and own your Mac, customize it and spec it to your liking" -- not "BUY IT, USE IT TRASH IT" which seems to be the standard now.
To give only one good example, look at the recent iMacs, which have been virtually near impossible (but not totally with work) to add internal upgrades such as additional drives, such as solid-state drives, which require a lengthy process to disassemble the machine, a non-user upgradable process...
They almost DO NOT WANT end users adding anything to their machine, getting inside the computer, hacking their Mac, etc....The iOS "jailbreak" situation is another example of this..."Total ecosystem control"
Something has to give...the Apple spirit of olde has always been "freedom to the user, love and own your Mac, customize it and spec it to your liking" -- not "BUY IT, USE IT TRASH IT" which seems to be the standard now.
That's one rationalization. But in reality, it was about copyright law. Apple owns the copyright to OS X. Psystar infringed upon Apple's copyrights without Apple's permission. Reproduction, distribution, and derivative works. Pretty simple.
They do say so in the minimum requirements and the EULA. And the EULA is pointed out right there on the box.
No, what Psystar was trying to get the courts was to question any vendor's ability to prevent others from lifting their hard work and undercutting them in the market without having to invest into R&D. If Psystar really wanted to be more than a "Windows" PC OEM, then they should have done like Apple and built their own OS.
And what about this part:
What, only larger companies deserve to win court cases? If you honestly can't afford to fight (in the right or not), then you shouldn't bother?
What, only larger companies deserve to win court cases? If you honestly can't afford to fight (in the right or not), then you shouldn't bother?
Yep
Every copy of OS X they shipped was legally purchased from Apple, pre-installed on the machine, with a retail disc included. Apple got their OS X money for every PsyStar machine sold.
This was a dangerous precedent. It says that even if you pay for software, the company that sold it to you has complete control post-sale. Kiss the doctrines of First Sale and Fair Use goodbye. The corporations own your ass.
Every copy of OS X they shipped was legally purchased from Apple, pre-installed on the machine, with a retail disc included. Apple got their OS X money for every PsyStar machine sold.
This was a dangerous precedent. It says that even if you pay for software, the company that sold it to you has complete control post-sale. Kiss the doctrines of First Sale and Fair Use goodbye. The corporations own your ass.
I get where you're coming from, but I see it differently. They are turning the personal computer into a consumer electronics device. Instead of a fully upgradable architecture, it's like buying a phone. You buy the phone, use it until it breaks, or until you want to sell it/trade it in for a new one. Macs keep their resale value. It's actually not a bad idea to sell your mac in 2-4 years and buy a new one.
I knew PsyStar would lose. The corporations wrote the copyright law, and the courts bow down to their deriving ultimate power from what is supposed to be a limited copyright about 99% of the time.
I don't really remember too much about what Psystar did explicitly, but if they weren't installing the OS, how in the world is this not just favoring the person with the bigger pockets?
If you sell a legit copy of OSX (which they were doing), and they were selling a machine that they claim could run that copy of OSX if you were to install it using a specific method -- since you bought that software, after all -- how is this a problem?
I could see the problem if they were selling it pre-installed. Sort of.
Sure, it's "ripping off" the Hackintosh community's work -- but that's like saying that a vendor that sells a machine with Linux pre-installed is "ripping off" the Linux community's work. Not a valid argument, they were just providing it all in a one-stop package and taking the guesswork out of it.
If you sell a legit copy of OSX (which they were doing), and they were selling a machine that they claim could run that copy of OSX if you were to install it using a specific method -- since you bought that software, after all -- how is this a problem?
I could see the problem if they were selling it pre-installed. Sort of.
Sure, it's "ripping off" the Hackintosh community's work -- but that's like saying that a vendor that sells a machine with Linux pre-installed is "ripping off" the Linux community's work. Not a valid argument, they were just providing it all in a one-stop package and taking the guesswork out of it.
How do you ignore the reality that was decided by one court and confirmed on appeal? The copy "pre-installed" on the machine was not legally licensed from Apple. It was a derivative work that was created, reproduced, and distributed in violation of Apple's exclusive rights granted by copyright law.
Because we aren't talking about sales, we are talking about licensing. Amazingly, when you agree to a license, you are bound to its terms (within the bounds of the law, of course.)
Are you new to the whole Mac thing? I don't remember the Mac 128k, 512k, etc. being particularly user serviceable or upgradeable. They were closed system from the word go.
They were installing the OS. They were also found to not having paid Apple for copies they did install from an imaging server (not from each individual CD). They sold something around 800 or so PCs courts document revealed and could not show invoices for purchases of proper OS X licenses.
They were also found to be guilty of breach of the DMCA for removing Apple's protection measures that prevented installation on non-authorised hardware.
Apple got their money for each copy, end of story as far as I'm concerned.
Remember what a license legally is: It is permission to do something you normally wouldn't be able to do. What can't you do? Well, that's spelled out in copyright law. You CAN do anything else. The authors should have no more power than is granted in copyright law, and shouldn't be able to seize power outside of copyright with a license.
Think if you bought some land, but with it came an easement that says people can drive through a road to get to the property behind at a maximum speed of 45 mph. That is a restriction on your exclusive use of the land. You cannot put a sign at the entrance saying "By entering this property you agree to this license that states you can only go 10 mph on this road." Sorry, you don't have the power to demand that.
When you use copyright to protect your works, you accede to the "easements" of Fair Use and First Sale, as well as any other allowances under statutory or common law. Licenses are an effort to screw us out of our rights by revoking those easements. I can't see how any consumer would support them.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)
Still have mine, runs like a charm.
Quad core 9650 3.0 Ghz with internal BluRay burner
Still have mine, runs like a charm.
Quad core 9650 3.0 Ghz with internal BluRay burner
No they didn't. Their money for each copy would include the sale of the copy of the software, plus the sale of the authentic Mac required by the EULA. If Psystar had purchased a Mac for each Psystar they sold, they might have had more of an argument.
Nice try, but not quite. The copyright law does not permit an unauthorized copy or derivative work of the software. When you run the software, it makes a copy or derivative work in memory. When you install it, it makes a copy or derivative work on disk.
The license gives you permission to do something you normally wouldn't be able to do: make a copy or derivative work. But a license may be conditioned on things. You get the license only in exchange for providing consideration, for example by buying the medium embodying the copy, or, as the courts agree in this case, by also buying an authentic Mac.
Invalid comparison. The landowner's rights were limited by the easement. Apple's rights to exclude use of its software are granted by Title 17 of the U.S.C.
I thought this was decided to be acceptable a while ago with tens of thousands of companies and government entities ghosting their legally licensed copies of Windows onto their machines in order to save install time. I was doing it in the 90s with Windows 3.1 -- press a button, Windows reinstalled on 20 machines over the network from one image on the server. This is called Fair Use.
Accounting error. Let them pay the difference. Few companies keep their licenses 100%.
Don't get me started on that horrible, industry-purchased law and its even more horrible interpretations. They did not circumvent for the purpose of infringing on copyright. They circumvented for the purpose of interoperability (the OS with the hardware). There is even an interoperability exception in the DMCA, which is universally ignored by judges of course. There's also a totally ignored exception for Fair Use and First Sale.
They only got their money for the copy on the dvd. At best, additional copies are subject to the license agreement.
Your argument is flawed right from this first paragraph. Apple has EXCLUSIVE rights to reproduction, distribution, and the creation of derivative works from OS X subject to specific limitations. Without the license agreement, what gives someone such as Psystar the right to reproduce, distribute and create derivative works from OS X?