That's some dang fine lawyer speak ya got goin on there. Welp not bein a law dog and not wantin ta make war with a big company like Apple, I'd tend to abide by the rules they make concernin their stuff
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.
Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's some dang fine lawyer speak ya got goin on there. Welp not bein a law dog and not wantin ta make war with a big company like Apple, I'd tend to abide by the rules they make concernin their stuff
I have the Tiger and the Leopard retail boxes and packaging right in front of me and the best I can see, the word "upgrade" doesn't appear anywhere on it.
BTW, if you're about to counter with something about how the EULA specifies that it's an upgrade, don't bother. The EULA is not a legal contract and only enforceable in situations that involve piracy.
Psystar didn't steal Mac OS, they re-sell it installed in their PC, hence their argument. Big difference. If they fight Apple, the courts will have to decide if Apple's agreement is indeed legal.
WOAH! The PDF lists the "Mac" as a separate entity from the Mac Pro, iMac, and Mac Mini!
HOLY COW, EVERYONE, THE xMac IS REAL!
Apple Lawsuit File said:
Did you read the link? The courts decided, rightfully, once you "buy" the software "you own it". Mac OS is a product, Psystar bought and re-sold it to its customers installed in a PC. Where is the horrible crime?
Link to this "decision"?
You don't own any commercial software. Where do people get this idea? If you own it, you can change whatever you want and resell it as your own, legally, without even crediting the original creator.
Brainwashed me... I don't think so. Maybe I could say Microsoft brainwashed people, even you, into thinking that hardware cannot be innovative. Not not just about the OS. Very close-minded way of looking at it. My point is that a Mac is a single solution.... they sell computers... not one or the other. This fact gives them an edge. If Windows could be made to conform to Dell's every desire and only their PCs.. Windows would be leaps and bounds better.Sure if you have some PowerPC emulator.
A Mac is anything you want it to be, its the OS and that is the end of it. If I gut a MP and take those components and put it into a generic box it still boots Mac OS X, its a Mac. If I take a generic PC components and put it into a Mac case its is a PC. If I install Windows or Linux on a Mac its a Windows or Linux system. The box the components reside in does not define the OS. Though Steve Jobs and his RDF have brainwashed you into thinking otherwise to suck more out of your pockets.
Remember something, you are thinking like a geek.Everyone else out there just wants a computer. They don't care what's in it. If you believe otherwise, you must have never supported end-users.
Wake up and smell the Java, its the OS not the hardware. I can make a better looking case when compared toany day, that is my imagination and my freewill what I please to do after the purchase.
I bet you can't make me an iMac. That is what you call custom hardware.A Mac Mini is a special design. Has a PC manufacturer matched it yet? While others have tried to Make an iMac... I have never seen one as well compacted.
To say Apple does nothing with hardware design is a flat out lie. Of course its cost effective to use intel chipsets. Stealing OS X will just have them add copy protection. Since they are actually capable of that kind of work, it will become a hardware check that no PC can match.
Again, everyone acts like there is no choice. There are plenty... don't buy a Mac, I hear Windows PCs are pretty popular.
So everyone is in fact making a one time life long lease payment to the software vendor?
Don't think they even used the EULA to fight the last batches of clones, which there have been clones at several points in Apple's history.
Though the case law is there, if Psystar was smart they would have pulled every single old case Apple won against clones.
And we know they haven't done that.
If they did they likely never would have shipped an Apple OS on the same invoice, much less loaded on their machine.
Problem is the OS as it stands cannot be loaded on their PC until it is hacked and cracked, and Apple files are altered to work on the machine. So while they didn't steal it, they have hacked it.
Though the case law is there, if Psystar was smart they would have pulled every single old case Apple won against clones.
And we know they haven't done that.
If they did they likely never would have shipped an Apple OS on the same invoice, much less loaded on their machine.
Problem is the OS as it stands cannot be loaded on their PC until it is hacked and cracked, and Apple files are altered to work on the machine. So while they didn't steal it, they have hacked it.
I hope Psystar doesn't settle. Companies have been using those EULAs for too long, and it's time we test the legality of them. Psystar has stated in the past that if they got sued, they wouldn't settle.
In response to a different post: The argument that "Apple clones" are bad because people will use them, and have all kinds of problems is not really true any more. I recently build a "hackintosh", and it took all of 30min to install OSX, and get it fully operational. In fact it beats out my 8-Core MP in some tests. It's rock solid stable. The update to 10.5.4 was downloaded and installed from the software update utility with no modification whatsoever.
I love my Mac Pro, and my old G4 PowerBook and all the other Macs I have, but I don't think Apple should tell you what to do with your software after you pay for it.
I will wait for more info before making a judgment about the Psystar case, nobody at this point knows what exactly they did in regards to the software.
We will see.
Wrong. Microsoft became the most powerful software company in the world, and they did it without selling hardware. Now that OSX runs on Intel hardware (coupled with the fact that Vista sucks), Apple could really eat into that market share. You have no idea how much money they could make with such a move... and that's why you're posting on a forum rather than making decisions in Cupertino. Son, stop thinking in terms of the past.
Wrong. The Apple EULA states that I can only install Leopard onto an Apple branded computer. I don't think that is legal, but I guess we might find out in this court case.
Now THIS is someone who should be making decisions in Cupertino!
Again, stop thinking in the past. Microsoft made a lot more money than Apple has ever made without selling hardware. Apple will have the opportunity to do the same thing in the coming years. You'll probably be the first to state how brilliant Steve Jobs is if and when he makes that decision.
Wrong. They are selling an Open PC that happens to run a modified version of OSX. They are hardly selling "Macs".
Wrong again. It violates the Apple EULA, so no, technically Psystar or I can't do that in our basement. I look forward to seeing if Psystar's lawyers can shoot a hole in that EULA.
Really? They play music before every concert I've ever been to, and I've never seen anyone sued (or won) more money than I'll ever make in my lifetime.
Are you selling it? As many posters have mentioned---do you just not get this distinction? Don't ever represent yourself in a courtroom, even for a parking ticket; you won't like the outcome.[/QUOTE]
I've actually represented myself for a speeding ticket before, got the fine dropped by 75% and traffic school (which I technically wasn't eligible for).
Finally, someone who actually gets what is happening here!
Stop, stop!! You're making the fanbois cry!!
Yeah. I have a feeling that isn't legal, but don't ask the fanbois.
No to low-end
What's so great about growing to the masses?
There are immense numbers of companies on the planet that sell quality products without producing a "WalMart" model. I wish people would get over this idea that Apple "has to" or "should" produce low-end models. Dell does, and look at them. Not too great. The Windows PC market has low-ended itself into a struggling industry.
And the software in the low-end ---- Microsoft has about twelve times the market share of Apple, but only 2.5 times the worth. There's nothing inherently great about focussing on the low-end. Why would Apple want to compete there?
What's so great about growing to the masses?
There are immense numbers of companies on the planet that sell quality products without producing a "WalMart" model. I wish people would get over this idea that Apple "has to" or "should" produce low-end models. Dell does, and look at them. Not too great. The Windows PC market has low-ended itself into a struggling industry.
And the software in the low-end ---- Microsoft has about twelve times the market share of Apple, but only 2.5 times the worth. There's nothing inherently great about focussing on the low-end. Why would Apple want to compete there?
Sounds like you need a mac pro then, I mean come on seriously if apple do ever release a mid range tower its not going to have 4 HD bays, it's not going to have 8 Ram slots, and it's not going to have 4 Pcie slots, it would more than likely have half of all the above, so as not to compete too much with the mac pro.
But saying all that with what I do in audio a mac pro is a little over powered, and the imac underpowered, so I wouldn't say no to a mid range tower (all though bragging rights would like 8 cores et-al, even if I'd never use them).
As for the new clone wars, I've got a feeling that psystar are going to get their assess handed to them, 'cause I think a few laws may have been broken, EULA withstanding.
Too bad history shows that EULAs are not very effective in court.
Once again, EULAs are not legally binding contracts. This has been confirmed repeatedly in court.
Yeah. I have a feeling that isn't legal, but don't ask the fanbois.
Dude, your whole case is rendered invalid by the misuse of the term "fanbois". The correct spelling is "Fanboy" or if plural "Fanboy's".
If you are offended by my correction to your incorrect reference please understand you can use what ever spelling you like so long as it is not part of a legal proceeding
I don't have any problem with people going out and buying a copy of Leopard and installing it on their own hackintosh system, in fact I plan on doing that myself as a little home server. I do have a problem with a company using another company's product in a way it wasn't intended and selling it. Last time I checked psystar isn't an official Apple retailer.
And this is the biggest fault to commercial software. Anything else you buy you can alter, change, re-sell to your heart's content....not commercial software.
Apple has two issues with it. Installing on a non Apple computer and modification of the code in order to make it run on the Psystar.
It's this latter issue that is Apples strongest legal point.
Shhh, car companies go out and buy their competitors products and pull them apart to see how they work and what parts are being used etc etc.
Once the product is sold you have trouble enforcing how the product should be used. If you decide to buy a dozen MacPro's, weld them together, and use them as a wrecking ball (yes, i know, why would you do that?) then as the owner of the product you can go and do that even though Apple did not intent for the product to be used that way.
Now if you are renting/leasing the products and must return them in the same condition as when you rented/leased them (ie a rental car) then wrecking balls is probably not for you unless you bought the insurance.
You are also contradicting yourself, you don't like Psystar doing it but you are happy to do it yourself. You are commiting the same act they are but you are doing nothing illegal? Even if you do not "sell" the little server you create, you are in effect doing what Psystar is doing, and you still could "sell" the system to a friend.
Dude, your whole case is rendered invalid by the misuse of the term "fanbois". The correct spelling is "Fanboy" or if plural "Fanboy's".
If you are offended by my correction to your incorrect reference please understand you can use what ever spelling you like so long as it is not part of a legal proceeding
Actually, the plural of "fanboy" as you've spelled it would be "fanboys" without the apostrophe.
I hope you aren't offended by my correction of your incorrect reference either. Also, both spellings are in fact correct:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fanboi
Not quite true, you can buy a copy of "Gone with the Wind" and alter it and resell it if you like
."Frankly my dear, I do kind of sort of maybe give a damn, but my memory isn't good so I will probably forget this episode by morning"