Apple Wins Permanent Injunction Against Psystar

[cmaier]

Apple isn't selling their computers with Windows pre-installed.

It wouldn't matter if they did sell it pre-installed. The Windows OEM license allows a manufacturer to pre-install windows on a computer, and sell it. The Mac license allows no such thing. As long as Apple obeys the Windows license and pays for each copy, it can't get in trouble.

 

[r.j.s]

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?

No, because MS allows Windows to be installed on any machine. Different business model.

 

[movieator]

It wouldn't matter if they did sell it pre-installed. The Windows OEM license allows a manufacturer to pre-install windows on a computer, and sell it. The Mac license allows no such thing. As long as Apple obeys the Windows license, it can't get in trouble.

Of course. I forgot about that.

 

[bjeadeh]

Apple isn't selling their computers with Windows pre-installed.

Phew, I was sweating it for a minute. I thought that when Mac Mall, Mac Connection, Mac Zone, Mac Warehouse, or CDW sold me my MacBook Pro with Vista and Fusion in it, Microsoft said it was ok.

 

[movieator]

Phew, I was sweating it for a minute. I thought that when Mac Mall, Mac Connection, Mac Zone, Mac Warehouse, or CDW sold me my MacBook Pro with Vista and Fusion in it, Microsoft said it was ok.

See above.

 

[quagmire]

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?

No, because there is nothing in Windows EULA( or at least I don't think it does haven't read it ) that you can't install Windows on a Mac. Plus, Microsoft is profiting from it as it still requires the end user to buy a license of Windows. It doesn't cost Microsoft a dime by having Macs run Windows because that is Microsoft's business model( software). Also, Apple doesn't have Macs come preinstalled with Windows( if they did Apple would have to pay MS for the licenses). Where Psystar hasn't even been legally buying licenses of OS X( despite them claiming they do, the CEO stated those records were "lost").

In Apple's case though, hardware is their business model and why they stated in the EULA OS X can only run on Apple hardware. So with Psystar profiting from selling hardware with OS X pre-installed, Psystar is breaking the EULA. With the Rebel EFI, Psystar is profiting from aiding users to install OS X on non-Macs and why Apple cares about that as well.

 

[AppleMojo]

All this does is prevent Psystar from copying OSX or modifying OSX (i.e. copyright, not anti-trust). How does that mean "the end" of Psystar or anything else? It only deals with them modifying OSX early on. I really think these articles jump to conclusions.

Oh no, the only thing this injunction left out was:

6: Use of sign language, uttering words, making sounds similar to or shaping the mouth in an attempt to connect O, S and X together in the respective order.

 

[tyson12zoll]

As long as you have an apple keyboard hooked up to that pystar you are totally within the law.

 

[pdjudd]

As long as you have an apple keyboard hooked up to that pystar you are totally within the law.

No, a keyboard is not a computer - in fact you do not install anything on a keyboard.

Nice try though....

 

[cmaier]

As long as you have an apple keyboard hooked up to that pystar you are totally within the law.

no you're not. Ignoring that ridiculous construction of the Eula, you still violate the dmca by defeating an effective protection mechanism, and you still have created a derivative work.

And, of course, your construction of the Eula, while cute, is not going to be supported by any court of law.

 

[AppleMojo]

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).

Exactly! Well said.

And because Apple does not come after you, does not make it legal.

 

[bjeadeh]

No, a keyboard is not a computer - in fact you do not install anything on a keyboard.

Nice try though....

Has anybody actually opened up an Apple computer and has actually seen what is there? Intel, Samsung, Texas Instruments, Crucial, Marvell Yukon, Broadcom, Nvidia, SMP, and that isn't even cracking open the case. What part of that is Apple?

 

[robotartfashion]

Well, hate to rain on this parade, but I am not glad at this outcome. I have nothing against Apple. I am a Mac consultant and troubleshooter. Never owned anything but a Mac, and probably never will. I never saw this as a threat to Apple at all. What I did see was Apple telling us what to do with a software that we "rent" from them. This is just a longer line of stink from the first time LLC's were allowed, to the late 19th century ruling that corporations are "people".

If Apple started to allow the unrestricted use of their software then they would:

A) Have to start spending $$$$$$$$$$$$$ and hours and hours of time writing drivers to support all the &)#&(# hardware out there ala Microsoft. This means much more $$$ for the right to use their software and hours of my time cursing to the heavens as I live with BSOD's like I used to with PCs

Unless of course you were planning on writing the drivers? Very kind of you.

B) An end to Apple's wonderfully engineered and beautifully designed hardware sets as they are pushed out of the market by all the crapware companies that undercut the *@&)@* out of Apple's hardware prices and we see Apple die a slow Linux distro related death

P.S. Look at Psytar, there computers were generic and ugly. I pay not only for the ease of use and lack of stress, but also for the design asthetic

Thanks!

 

[macnerd93]

So ironic that Apple will sue anyone it can to protect its intellectual property yet its foundation is built on stolen Atari technology.

Sad what it's become.

Stolen Atari Technology???, never heard that one before lol. Mac OS X foundation is based from BSD Unix, the kernel underpinnings are nicknamed darwin, Steve Jobs use to work at Atari before him and Woz founded Apple, maybe your getting muddled

 

[cmaier]

Has anybody actually opened up an Apple computer and has actually seen what is there? Intel, Samsung, Texas Instruments, Crucial, Marvell Yukon, Broadcom, Nvidia, SMP, and that isn't even cracking open the case. What part of that is Apple?

The fact that they designed it, sold it to you, and service it for you, and the fact that they supply the OS which they wrote.

 

[cathul]

If Apple started to allow the unrestricted use of their software then they would:

A) Have to start spending $$$$$$$$$$$$$ and hours and hours of time writing drivers to support all the &)#&(# hardware out there ala Microsoft. This means much more $$$ for the right to use their software and hours of my time cursing to the heavens as I live with BSOD's like I used to with PCs

Unless of course you were planning on writing the drivers? Very kind of you.

Why would Apple have to write the drivers in this case?
Couldn't they say "Hey, we removed the restriction of running OSX only on our Hardware, but we don't care about drivers for other hardware than ours. We have a driver API which you can use if you want, but we will not write drivers for graphic cards that we don't sell ourselfes."?
Not that it matters that Apple supports a lot more hardware than they integrate into their computers, but could Apple really be forced to explicitly write drivers for others in this case?

 

[robotartfashion]

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.

because those devices are plug and play, no need to build specialized drivers or spend time supporting them

EDIT * and they kind of do, they ship their own keyboards and mice with almost every computer, and all but 3 systems offered include monitors with no choice to remove them (all except MacPro, Mac Mini, X-Serve)

 

[glimp7]

Apple needs to be a bit more like M$

I'm suprised at how happy everybody is with this case. Let's think of the people who can't afford a $1k mac. I know, there's the mini, but come on Apple! Macs are a huge value, don't get me wrong, but why can't OSX be an open operating system?

Buy a mac pro for $2500, or a $1000 PC with a core i7 920 and overclock it. Jeez, it's such a difficult choice...

Rebel EFI is a dream! Someone posted that Psystar stole all the kexts and software from InsanelyMac. That's partly true, but their software makes the install much simpler than what's provided by the hackintosh community.

 

[quagmire]

EDIT * and they kind of do, they ship their own keyboards and mice with almost every computer, and all but 3 systems offered include monitors with no choice to remove them (all except MacPro, Mac Mini, X-Serve)

And most PC makers ship their own keyboard and mice as well. And if you don't want to use the display on the iMac, you can just attach another monitor for it.

And last time I checked, most laptops have non-removable displays and keyboards.

I'm suprised at how happy everybody is with this case. Let's think of the people who can't afford a $1k mac. I know, there's the mini, but come on Apple! Macs are a huge value, don't get me wrong, but why can't OSX be an open operating system?

Buy a mac pro for $2500, or a $1000 PC with a core i7 920 and overclock it. Jeez, it's such a difficult choice...

Rebel EFI is a dream! Someone posted that Psystar stole all the kexts and software from InsanelyMac. That's partly true, but their software makes the install much simpler than what's provided by the hackintosh community.

Because Apple's business model is hardware sales. The software is there to help sell the hardware. If Apple allowed OS X to be installed on any PC, Apple's profits would plummet and enter Chapter 7 because no one would buy Apple's hardware anymore. If Apple wanted to survive, they would have to change their business model and start charging $300 for OS X.

 

[robotartfashion]

Why would Apple have to write the drivers in this case?
Couldn't they say "Hey, we removed the restriction of running OSX only on our Hardware, but we don't care about drivers for other hardware than ours. We have a driver API which you can use if you want, but we will not write drivers for graphic cards that we don't sell ourselfes."?
Not that it matters that Apple supports a lot more hardware than they integrate into their computers, but could Apple really be forced to explicitly write drivers for others in this case?

Apple knows their bread and butter is the ease of use. This is why they control everything with an iron grip. Case in point is the recent freak out of Hackintosh users regarding the 10.6.2 and Atom processors in netbooks. Apple has decided not to use Atom processors and therefore do not support them creating problems for the Hackintosh community. If Apple wanted it to "just work" on all hardware they would have to develop for it to do so. (i.e. Atoms, Ions, AMD processors)

Consider every iteration of Windows since the dawn of time. When hardware crashes the system or does not work properly your average users don't complain about Nvidia or Creative Labs or Gigabyte, they bitch about WINDOWS. MS has to spend time and money trying to work with companies to resolve issues and conflicts.

Apple survives and profits because of its exclusivity.

 

[macnerd93]

I'm suprised at how happy everybody is with this case. Let's think of the people who can't afford a $1k mac. I know, there's the mini, but come on Apple! Macs are a huge value, don't get me wrong, but why can't OSX be an open operating system?

Umm because if OS X was opened up it would suck big time, sure it would still look pretty, but there would be countless driver issues, crashes on bad hardware, more viruses and security threats. Apple make the software and chose the hardware which goes into their Macs, so its the ultimate optimisation with drivers etc. If OS X was set free it would prevent it being unique & the Mac seen as a luxury item, if you cant afford a Mac buy a PC. I own 7 Macs they rule, never own a PC again

 

[Eric S.]

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.

That should be plenty of time.

 

[robotartfashion]

"And most PC makers ship their own keyboard and mice as well. And if you don't want to use the display on the iMac, you can just attach another monitor for it.

And last time I checked, most laptops have non-removable displays and keyboards. "

haha, I know I was supporting my argument listed right about that edit.

 

[aucl]

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.

As a matter of fact, the dvd player app on osx works only with apple devices cause of similar licensing reasons.
I have an external 3rd party drive, and Apple support kindly confirmed that issue to me.

 

[r.j.s]

Why would Apple have to write the drivers in this case?
Couldn't they say "Hey, we removed the restriction of running OSX only on our Hardware, but we don't care about drivers for other hardware than ours. We have a driver API which you can use if you want, but we will not write drivers for graphic cards that we don't sell ourselfes."?
Not that it matters that Apple supports a lot more hardware than they integrate into their computers, but could Apple really be forced to explicitly write drivers for others in this case?

Becuase users don't see it that way. If Apple doesn't have drivers for certain hardware, users will run to Apple when there are issues, or blame Apple for it not working.

I'm suprised at how happy everybody is with this case. Let's think of the people who can't afford a $1k mac. I know, there's the mini, but come on Apple! Macs are a huge value, don't get me wrong, but why can't OSX be an open operating system?

Yes, let's think of all the people that can't afford things they want. I want a Maserati, but I can't afford it - why won't someone just come up with a way for me to get one at the price of a Kia.