Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer

Sun Baked said:
But if they still charge you $20 for the hacked/pirated version and full whack for the sealed copy ... there could still be a problem.
Click to expand...

Maybe. That isn't the situation though. They are selling you a computer running a modified version of OSX pre-installed and a sealed copy of OSX. They aren't charging you extra, they're only charging you for the hardware.

robert.j.strain said:
But then you are selling two copies, one of which is a derivative work you had no legal right to sell, or maybe even make.
Click to expand...

Wrong. They are selling the original copy and giving away derivative work for free. Would you be OK with it if instead of a derivative work, they gave you detailed and simple instructions on how to create the derivative work yourself if you chose to do so?

bikemonkey said:
So what sort of work do you need doing that an iMac cannot achieve? The current ones are faster than the old PowerMac G5s, and they were used in professional recording studios running Pro Tools etc...
Click to expand...

Can I upgrade the video card in an iMac? If I already have a monitor, can I order an iMac without a monitor? Can I put in two or three more hard drives for RAID? How many PCI slots does an iMac come with?

Get the picture yet?

Mal said:
What? Just because they also sell you the original, it's then ok to rip off someone's work and sell it for a profit?

jW
Click to expand...

Who is ripping anything off or selling anything for a profit? They are selling Leopard "for a profit" the way Amazon or any other retailer is selling it for a profit. They're making a profit on computer hardware that they order and build into a computer that runs a slightly modified version of OSX.

You, the customer own the OS and the computer when you receive your order.
 
tizy said:
I believe that even though their "END USER AGREEMENT" states you can't use the Mac OS on a non-'Mac' machine, that they haven't challenged this because as Psystar predicted that it would not hold up in court.

I think the reason Apple waited to sue was because they might fear that being the reality and only want to make an example out of them with altering with their software update to make it work with their machines.

The update is not a 'RIGHT' or a priveledge they have. Only if you bought OS X and using it on a MAC gives you the permission and entitlement to continuous updates...
Click to expand...

Oh please, fanboys stop it!

End User License Agreements get thrown out in court more often than pedophiles are convicted on DateLine NBC! HAha!

Paypal has a really great EULA that often gets thrown out. Paypal claims all its users MUST FLY TO CALIFORNIA and sue Paypal for any grievance ONLY in San Jose district court and no other place in the world! So if Paypal reverses a transaction on you erroneously, you have to immediately start buying plane tickets??? I think not.

Apple's EULA will be thrown out similarly for egregious demands on a customer. The point of Apple suing is either to intimidate Psystar to just give up and shut down or to get them to pay Apple money they don't have, which equals same result, shut down. Apple's goal will be to settle because the EULA will not stand up in court, however certain copyright violations might, and even that would probably be enough to put Psystar out of business. I hope they have a good lawyer.

And no, even as a lifelong Apple fan and a not so big fan of Psystar, I'm not taking Apple's side on this. I quite enjoyed my PowerComputing clone from way back and it outlasted many other Macs I had around the same time.
 
Mal said:
Apple does not sell their OS separately from the computers, except in upgrade form (a licensing term only, sure, but a completely valid one).



Source please? Seeing as how Macs are available only with an operating system already installed, I doubt very much that your statement is true, and if it were, it would be an incredibly stupid law. Sure, buying a computer without an operating system installed is a good thing for those who want it, but for a government to tell a company they have to offer their product that way is absolutely outrageous. Quite frankly, I don't think even in Europe that would be the case.

jW
Click to expand...

Personally, I find it no more outrageous than a company telling me what computer I can or can't install their operating system on. If I buy a copy of Leopard, I should have a right to install it on any (ONE) machine I want to. Apple may not support it, they may not encourage it, and they can even try to restrict it but so long as I'm not violating the one computer/one license rule, it should be fine.

But no, it isn't like I think I should be able to go to Apple tech support when I have a problem.
 
bikemonkey said:
So what sort of work do you need doing that an iMac cannot achieve? The current ones are faster than the old PowerMac G5s, and they were used in professional recording studios running Pro Tools etc...
Click to expand...

The iMacs are nice, I think that'll be my next Mac.

However a lot of people on this forum don't like being forced to get the buiilt-in display. They'd rather re-use their previous display and save some coin.
 
oban14 said:
Maybe. That isn't the situation though. They are selling you a computer running a modified version of OSX pre-installed and a sealed copy of OSX. They aren't charging you extra, they're only charging you for the hardware.

Wrong. They are selling the original copy and giving away derivative work for free. Would you be OK with it if instead of a derivative work, they gave you detailed and simple instructions on how to create the derivative work yourself if you chose to do so?
Click to expand...

Wrong. According to Psystar's website, Leopard pre-installed is $155. Leopard costs $129 to purchase from Apple or it's resellers. That means you would be charged $26 for their version of Leopard that they preload, assuming they pay full price for their copies of Leopard.

Can I upgrade the video card in an iMac? If I already have a monitor, can I order an iMac without a monitor? Can I put in two or three more hard drives for RAID? How many PCI slots does an iMac come with?

Get the picture yet?
Click to expand...

Do you need a Mac? If you need to do those things, and you can't afford a Mac Pro, buy a PC. No one's forcing you to use a Mac. You're not going to be harmed by not using a Mac. It's not illegal for Apple to not produce a product that fits your exactly desires, but it is illegal for someone to sell you a product intended to do that which is an unauthorized derivation of someone else's copyrighted work.

Who is ripping anything off or selling anything for a profit? They are selling Leopard "for a profit" the way Amazon or any other retailer is selling it for a profit. They're making a profit on computer hardware that they order and build into a computer that runs a slightly modified version of OSX.

You, the customer own the OS and the computer when you receive your order.
Click to expand...

I, as a customer, possess one license for OS X per machine I own. Psystar, as a corporation, does not have the right to sell or distribute those licenses, nor for that matter the software itself. And no, they are not selling Leopard for a profit the same way Amazon and other retailers are. They are distributing a hacked version alongside a legitimate version, and providing hacked updates for said product. I can't imagine why anyone would support these idiots.

jW
 
oban14 said:
Personally, I find it no more outrageous than a company telling me what computer I can or can't install their operating system on. If I buy a copy of Leopard, I should have a right to install it on any (ONE) machine I want to. Apple may not support it, they may not encourage it, and they can even try to restrict it but so long as I'm not violating the one computer/one license rule, it should be fine.

But no, it isn't like I think I should be able to go to Apple tech support when I have a problem.
Click to expand...

Will you please read before you post? Apple's not stopping you from doing exactly what you're saying. They're stopping another company from selling a hacked version of their operating system. End of story.

jW
 
oban14 said:
Maybe. That isn't the situation though. They are selling you a computer running a modified version of OSX pre-installed and a sealed copy of OSX. They aren't charging you extra, they're only charging you for the hardware.
Click to expand...

Then they changed it since I last looked, still won't help them out.

The $400 computer they advertised, and the $555 computer they shipped still will make Apple dissect the price to show a $400 system and $130 for Leopard and $25 for the free install.

Just because they changed the price and say it is suddenly FREE, doesn't always make it so -- especially considering their first press releases.

There is enough press on their $400 system to make everyone think they are still charging for the FREE install.
 
oban14 said:
You, the customer own the OS and the computer when you receive your order.
Click to expand...

Thats where you are dead wrong, you NEVER own any rights to commercial proprietary software. Period. Just like music, you don't own the song, you have rights to certain uses of it.

Try sampling someone's music and giving it away with a legal copy of the cd you sampled from, offer it on a large scale, and let me know how that legally works out for you. Here's a hint, incorporate first, you don't want to lose all your personal assets.
 
Here's to hoping this brings up talks about Apple possibly practicing monopolistic policies. What Apple does is in a gray area, restricting software to only there own hardware is a bit sketchy at this point. Imagine if Windows only ran on a Microsoft PC (if it existed). It's a very anti-competitive practice towards other PC hardware manufacturers. Sure it helps with quality control, but at least give the user the option to run OS X on a PC. I almost wonder if Apple toyed with the idea of making Snow Leopard PC compatible, but changed there mind. They might have a had a deal go south with Dell or HP and decided to suddenly pursue Psystar.
 
good move by apple legal. I'm sure they researched the matter fully before deciding to act. psystar is about to get owned. no pity.
 
bikemonkey said:
So what sort of work do you need doing that an iMac cannot achieve? The current ones are faster than the old PowerMac G5s, and they were used in professional recording studios running Pro Tools etc...
Click to expand...

The CPU is just one part of a computer. That is the one strong point of my iMac. Those G5s have expansion slots for audio connection cards, hard drives that are removable and upgradable, 16x/40x CD/DVD burners, and room for lots of RAM. The iMac is pretty much your standard best buy fair in a smaller and more elegant package.
 
Mal said:
Wrong. According to Psystar's website, Leopard pre-installed is $155. Leopard costs $129 to purchase from Apple or it's resellers. That means you would be charged $26 for their version of Leopard that they preload, assuming they pay full price for their copies of Leopard.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that resellers are only allowed to charge 129 for Leopard? What if they want to charge more, or less? Psystar may simply be charging 129 for Leopard and 26 dollars for an installation.

Do you need a Mac? If you need to do those things, and you can't afford a Mac Pro, buy a PC. No one's forcing you to use a Mac. You're not going to be harmed by not using a Mac. It's not illegal for Apple to not produce a product that fits your exactly desires, but it is illegal for someone to sell you a product intended to do that which is an unauthorized derivation of someone else's copyrighted work.
Click to expand...

Yes, I need a Mac. I run Logic and other Apple only software, so a PC isn't an option.

I, as a customer, possess one license for OS X per machine I own. Psystar, as a corporation, does not have the right to sell or distribute those licenses, nor for that matter the software itself. And no, they are not selling Leopard for a profit the same way Amazon and other retailers are. They are distributing a hacked version alongside a legitimate version, and providing hacked updates for said product. I can't imagine why anyone would support these idiots.

jW
Click to expand...

It sounds like they are simply selling Hackintoshes and providing their own support. If they weren't providing support or lied and said that Apple would support these boxes, I'd support the legal action. My take on it is fairly simple: They are providing a service and product that Apple won't, and their success is the only reason they're being sued.

Mal said:
Will you please read before you post? Apple's not stopping you from doing exactly what you're saying. They're stopping another company from selling a hacked version of their operating system. End of story.

jW
Click to expand...

Really? So now it's OK for me to build a Hackintosh out of random PC parts, buy a copy of Leopard, find a hack around the EFI bios and install it? That's all Psystar is doing.

robert.j.strain said:
Thats where you are dead wrong, you NEVER own any rights to commercial proprietary software. Period. Just like music, you don't own the song, you have rights to certain uses of it.

Try sampling someone's music and giving it away with a legal copy of the cd you sampled from, offer it on a large scale, and let me know how that legally works out for you. Here's a hint, incorporate first, you don't want to lose all your personal assets.
Click to expand...

I have the right to play a CD in my car, in my home, at my workplace. I have the right to rip it and play it on an ipod and stream it anywhere I want to listen to it. I can play it at a barbecue.

If a CD was sold with a EULA stating that it could only be played on Sony CD players, do you think that EULA would be legal? Would you consider me a thief for playing it on a Panasonic CD player?
 
oban14 said:
I have the right to play a CD in my car, in my home, at my workplace. I have the right to rip it and play it on an ipod and stream it anywhere I want to listen to it. I can play it at a barbecue.
Click to expand...

You do have those rights. You do NOT own the music on that CD. That is my point. READ what I write.

I like how you change your argument and analogies to fit your argument every time.
 
oban14 said:
If you're required to buy a full copy of the CD (in this case, Leopard) like everyone is doing, I really don't see the problem.

I can record/remix do whatever I want with a CD I've purchased. Why not with software?
Click to expand...

A few years ago a company in Utah advertised a service in that a customer could buy a VHS tape of the movie Titanic, then for a small fee, the company would edit what was deemed objectionable content off the tape. They thought they were within their legal rights because the customer first had to purchase a new, unmodified movie before any editing was done. In essence, their logic matched yours that you can do whatever you want with something you purchased.

The Hollywood studios sued and won, shutting down this company that provided the editing. The courts ruled that a company is not allowed to set up a business model dependant solely on modifying someone else's copywrited material without their consent.

Precident means a lot in court cases, and precident lays heavily on the side of whoever created and owns content, which means Apple is on pretty solid ground.

And everyone who wants to redefine the computer market and say Mac is a market to themselves is just being silly. If that were the case, every company that made any product could be considered a monopoly because someone else isn't allowed to make it. "I have to buy Kraft salad dressing from Kraft!! This is an outrage, what about my rights!!! What about my freedom of choice!!!"
 
"your dead wrong" - "no you are"...and back and forth it goes. ;)

I suppose its time to sit back and laugh at how childish we are.
Not only here on the boards, but this sue happy mentality in which people/companies try to lord over people what they can or cannot do in their life.

We as people are quite unique and funny.
Its amazing we are able to progress at all with the amount of egos that we carry around with us.

All to easy getting caught up in identifying with stories about who is right and who is wrong...who 'stole' my idea or didnt, etc.

No one really owns anything if you think about the plain reality of the situation.
Ownership is the biggest illusion, or rather the biggest mind game.

All you own is the space your body currently (notice present tense) occupies. At any moment, possessions, etc can go. ;)

So - let us as a species back off of the competition... contrary to popular belief competition does not help the world move forward...it helps it stagnate as corporations give the appearance of trying to out do the other.
(Perhaps they are really trying)

Point is, Collaboration.
Put your resources together and you will get further.

But its all down to choice.
This kindergarten called earth is all we are used to.
We are playing with big peoples toys, yet havent learned to crawl. ;)

Peace

dAlen
 
robert.j.strain said:
You do have those rights. You do NOT own the music on that CD. That is my point. READ what I write.

I like how you change your argument and analogies to fit your argument every time.
Click to expand...

I like how you responded to the establishment of my premise without even reading my counterpoint to your argument. Do you work for the DMV or something?

I'll ask you again, point blank: If a CD comes with a EULA that says I can only play it on Sony branded CD players, do you think I should be bound by that agreement? What if I know a trick to make it play on all CD players? Do you even that EULA is legally enforceable?
 
oban14 said:
If a CD was sold with a EULA stating that it could only be played on Sony CD players, do you think that EULA would be legal? Would you consider me a thief for playing it on a Panasonic CD player?
Click to expand...

No, and I never said you were a theif. Stop confusing copyright with EULAs. Do some research before you come here with two unrelated arguments.
 
oban14 said:
I like how you responded to the establishment of my premise without even reading my counterpoint to your argument. Do you work for the DMV or something?

I'll ask you again, point blank: If a CD comes with a EULA that says I can only play it on Sony branded CD players, do you think I should be bound by that agreement? What if I know a trick to make it play on all CD players? Do you even that EULA is legally enforceable?
Click to expand...

Give me a minute to address two separate issues before you try jumping down my throat.
 
oban14 said:
If a CD was sold with a EULA stating that it could only be played on Sony CD players, do you think that EULA would be legal? Would you consider me a thief for playing it on a Panasonic CD player?
Click to expand...

If you 'bought a song' from the iTunes Music Store, and it had an EULA stating that it could only be played on iPods, do you think THAT EULA would be legal? Would you consider me a thief for playing it on a Zune? :D
 
So, some people here think that they can buy something someone else worked hard to create, agree to the owners terms of sale, and are still entitled to do whatever they want with the owner's work without any permission, because they want to?
 
oban14 said:
I like how you responded to the establishment of my premise without even reading my counterpoint to your argument. Do you work for the DMV or something?

I'll ask you again, point blank: If a CD comes with a EULA that says I can only play it on Sony branded CD players, do you think I should be bound by that agreement? What if I know a trick to make it play on all CD players? Do you even that EULA is legally enforceable?
Click to expand...

Please stop with your weak arguments. You can personally do what ever the hell you like with OSX stick it in a pc, cd player, your ear. What you cannot do is form a company who's sole purpose is to sell a product using Apple's(or any other companies) name in order to make a profit, w/o consent of course.

If PsyStar sold a computer with exact specs as a mac pro and an EXACT copy of OSX called pOS do you think they would make as many sales as they are? I don't think they would, they are making money by selling Apple OSX which they do not have the right to do.

I have no problem with hackintoshes and whatnot, but when a company starts illegally using another companies product to gain sales there is a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back