100% Correct, Thank You!
EXACTLY!! I couldn't agree more and I cannot fathom how anyone can see this any other way.
EXACTLY!! I couldn't agree more and I cannot fathom how anyone can see this any other way.
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 Wins Judgement Against Psystar for Mac OS X Copyright Infringement
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agreed. I like these people who are upset that Apple won. How do these people like it if they had an OS or something and someone else was making copies and selling it.
These kinds of threads always attract so many people that are totally ignorant about intellectual property rights and have somehow developed an entitlement mentality.... "I want it, so therefore it should be." Its sad that our education system has brought us to this point, but encouraging that many people do get it and understand the issues correctly.
I'm glad that the court is nailing these guys to the wall. They are breaking the law and should be punished.
I still say the simplest way for Apple to solve this stuff once and for all is to sell a legal license of OSX that is legit to run on 3rd party hardware, and just price it at $5,000 per seat. Then they can be quite happy for Pystar to buy all they want and run it legally, and no one would be able to try to imply that the regular OSX license is OK to run on non-Apple hardware. The absence of this causes people to be able to argue that they can.
I'm glad that the court is nailing these guys to the wall. They are breaking the law and should be punished.
I still say the simplest way for Apple to solve this stuff once and for all is to sell a legal license of OSX that is legit to run on 3rd party hardware, and just price it at $5,000 per seat. Then they can be quite happy for Pystar to buy all they want and run it legally, and no one would be able to try to imply that the regular OSX license is OK to run on non-Apple hardware. The absence of this causes people to be able to argue that they can.
An injunction has not been issued yet (or ruled on), but my guess is that its next on Apples list of things to do. If they file injunctions to stop Psystars business operations (selling Hackintoshes), they are likely to be granted due to the rulings in court on Friday. Pretty clear that Psystar is guilty of infringement and that is not going to fly as a business practice.
I don't know why anyone would buy anything from them, but I'm just wondering whether this legal decision implies that Psystar has to stop being a company, or if they just have to stop hacking OS X.
As I said above, that is what any sane company would have tried instead of blatantly disregarding copyrights and license agreements. Now, I think there is little chance of Psystar "coming back" as anything. They did it to themselves.
I just hope this does not have any repercussions for the OSx86 scene as a whole. I don't have one, but it is nice to know that the option is out there.
DIY is the only way to go for cost and it is unlikely that Apple would start suing individuals 'cause that worked so well for the RIAA.
B
I feel the same way, and to top it off Psystar even tried to pass off the OSx86’s community’s work as their own intellectual property.
"In fact, members of one such group — the "osx86project" — have since claimed that the Pedrazas used their work to hack into Apple's hardware.
Rudy scoffs at the idea he borrowed from the Hackintosh scene. 'The first thing you have to do is unlearn everything you've read online about how to make this work,' Rudy says, 'because it's all wrong.'
Robert says he found his own way around Apple's built-in security devices.”
Yeah right.
http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/200...-rebel-south-florida-company-takes-on-apple/3
It's not nitpicking at all - as an example, the entire Logic Studio 9 suite sells for $499, which is *thousands* below it's equivalent on other platforms. They build software primarily in order to sell hardware, not as a business in and of itself (and to a lesser degree, to sell an ecosystem and a unified experience).
That's why Apple doesn't want to (and shouldn't) sell OSX or other software by itself, because it negates the benefit of having it tied to hardware sales, which keeps them in business.
That's also why anyone who thinks they should sell software separately is painfully naive - without the financial benefit of the coupled hardware sales, Apple would not be able to remain solvent (it almost bankrupted them the last time they tried that), and you would lose that nice warm and fuzzy experience, where people actually give a crap that things work together seamlessly. Let's be honest, Apple is one of the few companies anywhere that has been able to pull off software+hardware+content+delivery+experience with any measure of success. There's a reason for that. And if you separate the hardware from that equation, you've just undone that reason.
Just to answer this question..
It happens all the time. Case in point: Linux. Linus and his guys write/code the OS. RedHat, SuSE/Novell, and others bundle that with their own packages, and sells it for hundreds of dollars, especially when bundled with a server.
Other distros do the same thing and sell them separately, or throw it up on a site for free (Slackware, Fedora, CentOS, etc.).
BL.
This is fairly weak and not really anything to celebrate. The EULA is upheld despite a long history of EULAs being shown in court not to be legally binding contracts. They have historically only been used to combat piracy which this is clearly not an instance of.
So yippee for Apple, not so much for end user rights.
Just one of those little things that makes me eye my Ubuntu laptop and consider making it my primary OS.
So yippee for Apple, not so much for end user rights.
Just one of those little things that makes me eye my Ubuntu laptop and consider making it my primary OS.
1. Psystar is a business, and in Germany contracts between businesses (like a EULA or Apple's SLA) are taken very seriously. Psystar would have been crunched in a German court ages ago. For a company, EULA = legally enforceable contract.
2. In Germany, the text of an end user license agreement must be available to the consumer before the sale happens. Guess what Apple writes on its box: The sale is subject to acceptance of the license. The SLA is not available before you leave the job, but it is available before the sale happens.
I know what you are saying, thats my point. They aim to make money selling hardware to use cheap software - in my mind that makes them a hardware company first and a real close second a software company. Doesnt change the facts of course, but their entire strategy is built around their ability to sell hardware - in my mind that makes it a more important part of their business.
It's all about the $ not the law.
The windows/Linux PC business only works when you can keep margins and thus prices low, Psystar would not be able to keep costs down and margins up if they have to pay big damages to Apple and somehow manage to stay in business.
B
I couldn't agree more as I have been a mac user since the IIe days and have had many different macs over the years.
I would like to see people whom like to tinker and make a hackintosh continue for the own personal fun and enjoyment.
I know those arguments and I aint making them
. I like the preemptive strike. I just know that some jerk (not naming names) is going to bring up the same tired arguments and these are the top two I think we will see. Along with mentions of the German company PearC. How much you wanna bet that nobody is going to read our posts Gnasher? I bet even money.
Psystar was found guilty of copyright violations for the copies of OS X they pre-installed on the HDD of the computers they sold. Apparently they all originated from a single DVD.
How is this clearly not piracy?
B
Next step is Apple asking for damages and the court deciding what damages need to be paid. And a while ago Psystar entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in an attempt to slow down the litigation, which backfired on them, and they can't go into Chapter 11 protection for about 8 more months. So in practice, expect them to seize being a company soon.
I am curious what Apple will be doing next. Psystar has been found guilty of "contributory copyright infringement", which means anyone using a Psystar computer with MacOS X installed is committing copyright infringement. I think Apple will ask the court for the identities of those infringers and take them to the cleaners, to deter copycats.
Wouldn't that be taking it too far though?
I had a company that was distributing a VBA Macro I made. I was quite beside myself. THE LICENSE WAS $10 A POP! $10NZD! I took them to the disputes tribunal.
Yep. The greedy Psystar pirate scum should lose everything they own and never be allowed to run a business again ... of course the "legal" system is hopelessly inadequate and all Psystar will get is a slap on the wrist, a minor fine and be back in business (probably under a different name) again in a few weeks.
I still would like to know where the money came from
A little rinky-dink company like Psystar does not normally have the kind of money to start multiple suites against the like of Apple. Someone must have been providing them the cash.
Even companies as large as DELL have very slim profit margins, a company like Psystar would be lucky to pocket 10 Grands a month after all expenses. Not hte kind of money in the bank to support legal action.
Someone with money must have been behind them.
A little rinky-dink company like Psystar does not normally have the kind of money to start multiple suites against the like of Apple. Someone must have been providing them the cash.
Even companies as large as DELL have very slim profit margins, a company like Psystar would be lucky to pocket 10 Grands a month after all expenses. Not hte kind of money in the bank to support legal action.
Someone with money must have been behind them.
Not to mention that (I believe it was their CEO) swore under oath that they could not provide evidence that they have purchased any copies of OSX legitimately. In short they have no defense whatsoever right now.