My question was poorly worded. I wasn't interested in an opinion about US law, but whether it is morally wrong for someone to hire a company to perform a modification for you.
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
My question was poorly worded. I wasn't interested in an opinion about US law, but whether it is morally wrong for someone to hire a company to perform a modification for you.
I don't see it as a truly black-and-white issue that can be easily expressed with a binary "yes/no" answer.
Consider programs like iToner during the "Wars of the Ringtones". iToner didn't touch iTunes' codebase. All it did was modify an MP3 file in a way that iTunes thought it was a ringtone bought from the Apple Store. Apple didn't sue iToner because they likely didn't have any grounds. And, in a nod to englishman, Apple saw enough "civil disobedience" by people like myself using programs like iToner to bypass the ringtone restriction that Apple eventually tired of spending time re-coding iTunes every week and just let us use our own ringtones like every other bloody phone on the planet. I obviously don't view that as "wrong" since I did it.
But if iToner had required me to download and run a special "iTonerTunes" hacked edition of iTunes to work, I would not have done so - admittedly more out of support reasons then anything else.
That does not change the fact that there is no hardware modification going on. I wouldn't know what Psystar tries to convince you of.
True, but Apple's complaint is that there is software modification going on - specifically software they hold various patents and copyrights on.
I agree with you that it is a grey area. I'm just surprised that there was no uproar when people started jailbreaking iphones.
1) I don't want a cheaper Mac - its no big deal to me - its the principle thats's important and I guess to many here arguing on my side
2) I have no love for Psystar - again its the principles (free responsible enterprise, big guy v small, fairness etc)
It's non-Apple hardware, that's part of the issue. Psystar's Open Macs are sold running OS X using hacks. You can't do that, as they are about to discover.
I ask again: What about a company that jailbreak iphones for a small fee? Is that wrong?
Nebulous terms (such as good and bad, or right and wrong) can, and typically do, mean different things to different people. If you want to argue that a given law "isn't fair" in court you'd need to cite some legal basis for your opinion or provide some evidence to support your "belief", etc.
In the interest of full disclosure, I used AppTap (sic) to jailbreak my iPhone for a few days to see what all the fuss was about. If AppTap used external means to allow my iPhone to run third-party applications, I must admit I would not go out of my way to castigate them for doing so.
If, however, they modified the firmware and I then uploaded that new firmware to my iPhone, I do believe they were in the wrong.
By extension, I was likely in the wrong myself either way, because I expect if I bothered to read the iPhone EULA it prohibits me from modifying my iPhone's firmware. Just as those who create Hackintoshes or buy Psystar computers are in violation of Apple's EULA on running OS X on a non-Apple-branded PC.
Which makes this whole thing a rather sticky-widget to debate. It's quite easy to make oneself a raging (as opposed to a mild) hypocrite.
In the technical sense I think I can be construed as illegal, yes. Saying it's wrong has strong moral or ethical connotations and that's a different debate.
englishman said:
I don't Apple is being irresponsible...how are you, as a customer, being injured or unfairly restrained by having to have OS X paired with Mac hardware? There are tons of other PCs of similar capability an price out there. Nobody id forcing you to use OS X.
I would argue that Windows' near-100% markeshare of the PC market in years past was FAR more onerous, but little came of that legally - the IE bundling case was merely a slap on the wrist.
I think it's totally OK to disagree with the way Apple does business. I really think they should be selling a mid-tower or cheaper MacPro myself. But that doesn't mean we have the right to get the products we feel that they should make, or that that gives Psystar the right to thumb its nose at Apple by using OS X on the OpenMac. Some people used to the Windows world take it for granted that an OS should be able to run on any technically compatible hardware, but that is not the case.
Which makes this whole thing a rather sticky-widget to debate. It's quite easy to make oneself a raging (as opposed to a mild) hypocrite.
I'm not out to make anyone look like a hypocrite. Even though I argue, that Psystar aren't doing anything wrong, I'm not sad to see them go. I don't like the idea of them capitalizing on what is essentially someone else's work. That applies not only to Apple, but to the people that, through hard work, made it possible to run OSX on generic hardware (for free, I might add). On the other hand, I think we would all benefit if Apple had a bit more competition on the hardware side.
What I don't understand, however, is the outrage. Not from you, but in general.
So, what? The owner of the building is selling. Usually, the tenant is unaffected.
My friends, who rent, have had different owners many times...
Slightly confused - you don't like them
But you don't think it's wrong? Again, I'd say the question is one of legality here not moral rights, but their use of Apple's intellectual property is arguably both wrong and (more importantly) illegal.
The point is that the owner appears to be offering the building for sale to a new occupant - which means Psystar would be out. If they can't afford to own their own headquarters they will have a hard time flexing any legal muscle in their upcoming lawsuit.
But what you are missing is that they can't subvert the update process without changing Apple's codebase. Somehow they are getting the update process to look to them for updates rather than Apple. Think about it.
Do you really think that a company suing for copyright infringement is in any way remotely a human rights violation? Really? We should overthrow our government because we don't agree with copyright law? Are you for real? Do you really mean this, or is it just an overdramatic attempt to make a point? If you don't mean it, I wish you'd stop it, because it's ridiculous. It demeans those that have fought for human rights.
This is the fun part of the discussion for me mentally. If there isn't a difference, then do companies violate copyright if they pre-install programs that modify the registry on windows machines? Are we violating copyright when we change the settings in a program? I think the waters get muddy fast in that area.
It isn't really all that muddy is it? Read section 117
However, distribution of altered code (created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine) without the permission of the copyright owner isn't permitted.
Nope, not particurlarly.
I'm not very interested in the legal argument, because legal arguments from non-lawyers are not very interesting to me.
Let me put it this way. I have a hackintosh. I did a lot of research and installed it using a retail DVD bought from Apple. OS X runs great and works well with my hardware. I don't think that I have done anything wrong. Furthermore, my next laptop will be an Apple laptop which would probably not had happened otherwise.
I do realize, that not everyone have the technical skills to install Windows, let alone OS X on a PC. Psystar are essentially providing a service to those people lacking the skills to build their own, and they get paid for doing so. Even though I don't think this is wrong per se, I don't think it is an especially reputable way to do business. I realize the difference is subtle. Maybe I'm just being mildly hypocritical as well.
Apple has many complaints about Psystar. The first and biggest one is copyright infringement for Psystar installing Leopard on a computer that is not Apple-labelled. That complaint would obviously go away if Psystar doesn't install Leopard.
There are other complaints: If Psystar advised customers to install Leopard on a Psystar computer, that would be inducing customers to infringe on Apple's copyright, and that is illegal interference with Apple's business. If Apple (or Parallels, or VMWare) told customers to use pirated customers of Windows with Bootcamp, or Parallels, or Fusion, they would be in trouble in the same way. If Psystar advertised their computers as Leopard-compatible (and let the customers draw their own conclusions), they would be benefiting from Apple's good name, that's where the trade dress complaint comes from.
A situation where Apple couldn't do anything would be a company producing a computer that is just by coincidence Leopard compatible, not advertising it in any way, and if then word spread about it and people would buy these machines. As soon as a company actively tries to use Apple's reputation to sell their own computers, they are in legal trouble. And obviously while selling and buying such a machine would be perfectly legal, installing Leopard would not.
But - Apple is trying to prevent buyers from having a HW choice to run OSX on, in an artificial and unfair way. Likewise I think I heard that Apple is being challenged about tying contracts to certain operators on their iPhones. At least they haven't tried to prevent 3rd party memory, disks or batteries being used,
Its late - but someone on these forums must be able to think of many non-Apple examples of unfair restrictions - hypothetical or real.
aaah I thought of one. In the UK when taking your pension - you used to have to buy Annuities from the company that you had the pension with - this has now been changed as it was deemed unfair. You are now free to take your money from Company X - and seek the best annuity rates with company y or z.
You should be able to buy OSX - and buy your own free choice of hw to run it on.
Let's face it - the only reason Apple is fighting this is because it reveals what many of us know - their hw choice and implementation has weaknesses in price and limited configuration.
If Psystar's clone HW was so poor then no-one would buy it.
People talk about tying OS X to the hardware like they are two separate products, they are not. OS X is sold retail as an upgrade for older Macs, plain and simple. You can not buy a Mac without OS X, so you have no need for a standard "full version" DVD.
This is where the problem lies, since you can buy a Leopard DVD at the store, people think they are separate products. You don't hear people complaining that Apple wont let them run their iPod OS on a Zune, or some other hardware. Think about how ridiculous a request that would be. Essentially, it is the same thing.
OS X never has been a separate piece of software, it has always been an upgrade to the OS already on the Mac, makes no difference that it doesn't check for a previous version, they deem that a waste of time and resources.
This is where the problem lies, since you can buy a Leopard DVD at the store, people think they are separate products. You don't hear people complaining that Apple wont let them run their iPod OS on a Zune, or some other hardware. Think about how ridiculous a request that would be. Essentially, it is the same thing.
OS X never has been a separate piece of software, it has always been an upgrade to the OS already on the Mac, makes no difference that it doesn't check for a previous version, they deem that a waste of time and resources.
That's not quite right - many people try to run Linux on all manner of hw that it is either legal or illegal. eg http://dslinux.org/
I see no reason why someone shouldn't be able to run a modified version of OSX on anything if that's what they want to do, certainly if they've paid for it.
It would be wrong to pass off these clones as Macs - or not to pay for OSX. But Apple should be able to sell its HW in the free marketplace on its own merits.