I have no idea where you got that idea. Generally people go on about "stolen Xerox technology"...that's still wrong, but at least it's understandable.
--Eric
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 Permanent Injunction Against Psystar
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have no idea where you got that idea. Generally people go on about "stolen Xerox technology"...that's still wrong, but at least it's understandable.
--Eric
On Dec. 31 they're going to have to take all that down or else they're going to find themselves in front of Judge Alsup on the losing end of a contempt of court motion.
Aren't there already OS solutions from OSx86 and InsanelyMac?
Psystar is done, unless they just become another manufacturer of computer systems - but then they'd have to actually compete and have a business model, records, and such.
Whatever!
Psystar should just make PC's. If it just happens to run the Mac OS, cool, no IP problems. Running OSX on an apple computer? Why doesn't Apple insist that the monitor be an Apple monitor. The keyboard be an Apple keyboard. There are thousands of hacks out there, I would imagine there already is a PC that can do it. Just got to find the brilliant hackers.
Psystar should just make PC's. If it just happens to run the Mac OS, cool, no IP problems. Running OSX on an apple computer? Why doesn't Apple insist that the monitor be an Apple monitor. The keyboard be an Apple keyboard. There are thousands of hacks out there, I would imagine there already is a PC that can do it. Just got to find the brilliant hackers.
Well, now RebelEFI will just become Open Source and be the new XPostfacto-like software...
Some stuff is here:
https://foundry.psystar.com/
Other details:
http://wiki.psystar.com/index.php/Rebel_EFI_Wiki
Download version 0.88, before it disappears:
http://cdn.psystar.com/rebelefi_latest.iso
Hmm, not really sure why Psystar is spending the time/money to push open source on this, when they're trying to make $$$ off their Rebel EFI thing.
I'm inclined more than ever to think that the Psystar was created to bring media buzz on this whole hackintosh thing. They (whoever "they" really turn out to be) had no intention EVER of making money.
This is the primary reason that I supported Apple in this battle. If Apple lost the ability to control the uses of its OS by legal (shrink-wrap) means, then they would be effectively forced into using technical means to prevent both widespread usage on non-Apple gear and piracy.
The sort of activation BS that Apple would be forced to use would be a bad thing for Mac users.
But in general, I am against shrink-wrap licenses - at least those that purport to take away rights that you would normally have as the purchaser of a copy of a copyrighted item.
The simple-minded "you must obey anything the shrinkwrap license says" folks in this thread don't seem to be aware that this is a largely unsettled legal matter. UCC 2B was supposed to settle things once and for all. It went down in flames. UCITA replaced it, but it was only ratified by two states, last I heard.
The "purchase" versus "license" debate still goes on between various factions of the IP legal community. It is far from settled. But both sides of that debate still support the right of an IP owner to profit and control their creations - the fundamental difference of opinion is whether that control should end when money changes hands. And what sorts of rights can't be taken away by a shrink-wrap "license". (such as the right to publish a negative review, for example...)
I had no doubt that Apple would prevail on the DMCA issues - the licensing was a bit more dicey. And I still have a lot of concerns about the consumer-friendliness of allowing software vendors to hide unfair or even abusive legally-binding clauses in contracts that essentially nobody ever reads.
IANAL.
They way I understand the injunction, they can just make PCs, but they have never wanted to do that. They have made their business around OS X on their machines.
They can make PCs, but they cannot do anything that enables or allows OS X to install on it.
You can contest anything in a license, but is it worth it?
They are not hidden, they are there for anyone to read. Choosing not to read a contract before agreeing to it doesn't make it non-binding.
In turn you defeated yourself. This is the same as Sony Pictures saying that the movie you rented (in your argument) can only be played on a Sony branded DVD player.
Apple doesn't insist that you must use their monitor( unless you get the iMac) or keyboard. Hell that is the whole point of the Mac Mini. You can use your own monitor, keyboard, and mouse since it doesn't come with any of that.
I disagree with this analogy.
Because one can use OS X on their own hackintosh if they so choose, but if one started selling those hackintoshes in order to profit, ala Psystar, this is where the problems of intellectual property arise.
How did I defeat myself? If Sony wants their movies to only play in Sony DVD players, then it is their right and if that was the case I wouldn't be renting it if I didn't have a Sony DVD player.
Then get a Mac Pro.
Either way, you're not being forced to use Apple's displays, keyboards, and mouse. Even on the iMac, if you don't want to use the iMac's built in monitor, you could attach another display to the iMac and use that one.
Practically, yes. But not legally. Even if you hackintosh for yourself, not for profit, you are violating the DMCA, creating a derivative work, and violating the EULA. No one will sue you, but it's certainly just as much of a violation of these things. From your post, it's not clear whether you are saying Apple won't go after you for hackintoshing (true) or whether you are saying its not a violation of the EULA to do so (false).
Think of it this way. If I legally purchased a copy of OS X and installed it on my own Hackintosh system, Apple is not going to enforce the EULA in regards to your own personal use. But, and this is addressed to everyone who says Psystar is perfectly within their rights to sell computers with OS X pre-installed, that's not what Psystar was doing. They are using it to make a profit. The home user, who does it on their own, has every right to do so, because Apple will not claim violation of the EULA, because the user who does it for their own personal preference isn't selling Apple's software without paying licensing fees to Apple. But Psystar did, whether preinstalled or not, and that is the problem.
Even if Psystar legally purchased every copy of OS X they installed or shipped with their Open Computer, they are still not within their rights.
As a filmmaker, if I make a film, and I want to put a Springsteen song FROM A CD THAT I OWN (thus, the COPY of the song is mine) on the soundtrack, I can, and Springsteen and the record label won't care, UNTIL I decide to release the film to market and sell tickets. I am legally obligated to pay for the rights to do so, both to the record label and the publishing company, and in some cases the artist as well. Why? Because it is not my intelletual property to do with as I please.
So, the argument that Psystar could do whatever they wanted, even if they paid for each copy, is wrong. Not necessarily logical, or even fair, but still illegal.
Then get a Mac Pro.
Either way, you're not being forced to use Apple's displays, keyboards, and mouse. Even on the iMac, if you don't want to use the iMac's built in monitor, you could attach another display to the iMac and use that one.[/QUOTE]
But won't I get in trouble for using some other company's hardware?
Either way, you're not being forced to use Apple's displays, keyboards, and mouse. Even on the iMac, if you don't want to use the iMac's built in monitor, you could attach another display to the iMac and use that one.[/QUOTE]
But won't I get in trouble for using some other company's hardware?
By chopping your post in half (the post to which I responded) and using half as a response to my post, you have created a circular loop.
Again, let's be clear: you are not permitted, by law, to hackintosh, but this is of little consequence since no one will ever enforce it.
You're still violating the EULA due it stating you can't install OS X on a non-apple computer because you are only buying a license to OS X. It's just they chose not to enforce it dealing with individuals. Just like they don't care if you install OS X on more then one computer even though you only bought the single license copy and not the Family Pack.
No you won't.
I am not talking personal legality here. I am speaking of when the legalities actually matter. Illegal or not, I can put OS X on a hackintosh which, by the way, I have no interest in doing.
I can make as many copies of OS X as I choose, I can hand them out to friends if I want, and Apple won't bother with me. But the second I try to profit from that, that is where they will begin to care.
If anything, Psystar's downfall was it's own belligerence.
Oh, and the only reason I responded with what I chopped off was because I added it later, and wasn't aware you had seen it. I did not mean, in any way, to create a circular loop.
Isn't Apple getting in trouble for being able to run Windows on a Mac? I mean Psystar's software is sort of like Boot Camp, isn't it?