I didn't say linux, as a matter of fact, I had iPod linux on my 5G iPod for a little while, just to see. I don't think Apple stops you from that either. Read my post, I was very deliberate in what I wrote.
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
I didn't say linux, as a matter of fact, I had iPod linux on my 5G iPod for a little while, just to see. I don't think Apple stops you from that either. Read my post, I was very deliberate in what I wrote.
OS X is sold separately, making it a separate product. It does not magically become an update just by Apple saying it it, does it?
I already said that it is sold separately, and yes, if Apple deems it an upgrade, it is. Or would you like them to implement some kind of previous version check to make our lives more difficult?
I know - any SW should not be unfairly tied to particular HW - LInux/OSX/iPod OS - my point is a universal one.
But that difference isn't the point - its tying sw to hw - open source or not.
You're probably missing out then...
I've known lawyers that weren't very concerned about a worker's comp case because the guy on the other side was "just" a personnel manager with 25 years of experience. They lost because that guy had more experience in dealing with laws and understood the details of how it works and how the courts had interrupted the law than the lawyer did.
Most lawyers you'd hire off the street for a $50 30-minute talk wouldn't know crap about intellectual property laws. Often times however, people who make all or part of their income from the creation of intellectual properties will have more far insight into those laws and a better understanding of them than the typical divorce lawyer would.
I can remember in 1995 being told by the attorney general's office of a certain US state that his office "planned to make copyright laws that would make it illegal for anyone other than the state of <state name here> to publish anything about the state of <state name here> on the Internet." In other words, the only information allowed online about that state online would have to come from that state -- a vacationer couldn't visit that state and then post pictures of her vacation there online because it wasn't "official" information about that state, etc.
Needless to say this lawyer didn't have a clue... states can't pass copyright laws for one thing, but there's far to many legally "wrong" things about this concept to go into here...
Apple would not need permission for installs, though I would be under the impression that no system that Apple sells actually has any version of MS Windows pre installed, they allow you the consumer to install Bootcamp and then install MS Windows.
For the licensing, Microsoft will allow you to install Windows on any computer so long as you have the appropriate license to do the install. ie a full license for each system you install the OS on. So basically they are the complete opposite to Apple. OSX on only Apple systems, Windows on anything you can get it to install. Going back to the Windows NT 3.51 days you could install on Alpha, Power PC & x86 systems, possibly more.
Just because they make it easier for the user by keeping the full version on a DVD does not mean it isn't an upgrade.
Besides, you can upgrade from 10.0 to 10.5, would you want to pay for 10.4 first? Or install 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 and then 10.5 before your system was up-to-date after a fresh install. The choice to make it easier on the consumer does not negate the fact that it is, and always has been, an upgrade.
But do we know for a fact that they are, indeed, doing this? Psystar says they have their own "native Software Updater" that handles downloading updates to the operating system. Is this "native Software Updater" a hacked version of Apple's Software Update application, or is it a separate application that points to Psystar's own servers that holds the update? And if the latter, is that update an unmodified version of Apple's update?
One of my former employers used Altiris to deploy updates to Microsoft Windows. Microsoft releases their updates on a Tuesday via WSUS/Windows Update. Altiris releases these exact same updates via their own servers on a Thursday - two days later. Why? I suppose to see if Microsoft suddenly says "whoops! pull that update and use this one instead" within 48 hours of releasing it.
Now, is Altiris using Microsoft's WSUS/Windows Update code to offer this functionality? No they are not. They perform the upgrade through their own code. Now, Altiris might very well need (and obtained) permission from Microsoft to distribute these updates, but they are not using or modifying any MS intellectual property to do so.
The same might be with Psystar.
That being said, Apple might have EULAs attached to their updates that limit it to being downloaded only from Apple-operated servers and/or via Software Update. In such a case, then Psystar would be violating that EULA, as well, even if they are not modifying Apple's Software Update source code.
Just installing Leopard unmodified on the machine is not a violation of copyright law since Apple has not sought and been granted a copyright that encompasses OS X on an Apple-branded computer. It may very well be impossible to be granted such a copyright, which is why Apple is forced to use an EULA to enforce such a pairing.
The argument Apple is putting forward - and this trial will discover - is that Psystar is making direct modifications and alterations to the OS X codebase, which would be a copyright violation.
Since Apple assumes that any machine is is being installed on an Apple-branded machine (since the EULA implicitly states this needs to be the case) and since no Apple Macintosh (or licensed clone) was ever sold without a copy of OS X pre-installed, they chose to forgo the check for the previous edition and implicitly allow you to install it on an Apple-branded machine that may not have any previous OS on it.
You can buy a Windows Vista Upgrade and install it on a machine with no operating system by installing it twice - it technically upgrades itself. However, Microsoft does not intend you to do it this way and has likely subsequently modified it's EULA to prohibit such action (assuming the original EULA did not already prohibit it).
Well, the website says to go to Software Update in the upper left corner ... and warns not to download the updater from Apple's site ... I don't know for sure, but sounds fishy to me.
I seem to think that it is not possible for something to be a full version and an upgrade at the same time. In fact, I would argue that the definition of an upgrade is, that it is not a full version. Call me crazy
Fair enough, but you need to recognize that legal arguments define what companies may or may not do, and thus have a massive impact on the products you can buy.
Assuming you purchased the OS X DVD (which is technically an upgrade-only piece of software), you haven't pirated anything but are in violation of the EULA. That's a discussion for another thread.
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.
If you don't have the skills to build your own hackintosh you probably shouldn't be using one because it is not supported by Apple - which means you're completely on your own in the case of major hardware or software failures.
Psystar, like all business, isn't so much into benevolently providing the less-advantaged with a valuable service so much as making lots of money - the same reason, by the way, that Apple does business the way it does. I don't "feel bad" for Apple that Psystar are selling Apple's intellectual property but I agree that Apple is perfectly within their rights to call Psystar to account.
The hackintosh is a DIY machine for motivated individuals. Nobody is doing the consumer a favor by commercializing the hackintosh.
Nonsense. Apple has written their own proprietary operating system (at their own expense), and has decided to use it as a vehicle to drive sales of their own hardware. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Nobody complained about this "lack of choice" when Apple used PowerPC architecture, even though Apple wasn't the only user of the PowerPC.
I disagree completely. I would argue that the issue is that PC users attracted to the OS X platform don;t like the idea of being funneled into a relatively limited series of hardware choices. I completely relate. However, the result is that people are inventing all sorts of conspiracies as to why Apple won't sell OS X as a standalone PC operating system. Terms like "freedom" are being thrown around as if we're in the movie "Braveheart".
Apple have been selling their own hardware and software for years and nobody gave a hoot. Now all the sudden it's repression and tyranny and "give me hackintosh or give me death". What gives?
I seem to think that it is not possible for something to be a full version and an upgrade at the same time. In fact, I would argue that the definition of an upgrade is, that it is not a full version. Call me crazy
Actually, if I remember correctly, Windows 98 Upgrade only checked for a previous windows cd. That was an upgrade, but contained the full version. Just because something is an upgrade, doesn't mean it has to use previous version's files. Think about that, Why would an upgrade use an older file than the full version. All upgrades contain the full version.
It does, indeed. Which is part of the problem. Like Apple in their complaint, many of us are operating under the belief that Psystar is indeed modifying Apple's source code to enable certain functionality that an unmodified version of OS X would not.
That is why I do hope this goes to trial - especially if Psystar is not modifying the source code.
It's not semantics when people here are basing their entire argument on a false premise that OS X is a separate product from the Mac.
I bought a Win XP upgrade disk about a year ago. I formated the hard drive on the computer then inserted the disk and booted to the installer. I was prompted to prove eligibility for the "upgrade". Inserting my legal copy of Win NT Workstation from 1995 satisfied that requirement. Win XP was installed on the (blank) hard drive and validated online, etc.
I believe that Psystar has you download a scripted installer that effectively prevents Software Update from installing updates known to break OS X on the Open Mac hackintoshes.
I don't know that Psystar has done any code-modification. However, I think the critical issue will be more related to the sale and distribution of OS X with the Open Mac more than anything else.
You can rest assured that Apple have obtained examples of Open Mac's entire line and all of their software for careful scrutiny, as well as monitored their business practice. If Psystar modified any Apple code they will know about it.
See, that's my point. Just because the license for something says upgrade, doesn't mean the full version isn't on the disc.
Allright then. The 10.5.4 combo upgrade is an actual upgrade, in that it does not contain all the files needed to run OS X. The retail DVD is not an upgrade, in that it contains all the files needed to run OS X. If some company chooses to discount a full version because you own a full previous version does not make that full version an upgrade.