This isn't about the customer. It was never about the customer. This was about the integrity of IP law and the rights of individuals and entities that depend on the integrity of IP rights to make a living. Many of them are not large corporations, but one-man operations or small companies that are at serious risk of getting ripped off were laws not in place to prevent that. Many of the individuals whose work is protected by such laws are consumers themselves.
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
This isn't about the customer. It was never about the customer. This was about the integrity of IP law and the rights of individuals and entities that depend on the integrity of IP rights to make a living. Many of them are not large corporations, but one-man operations or small companies that are at serious risk of getting ripped off were laws not in place to prevent that. Many of the individuals whose work is protected by such laws are consumers themselves.
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.
Ok, sorry, I've been watching this debate in various forms for months and this last statement is just over the top.
The following is my opinion.
No content producer has any moral right to say that their content can only be used on specific hardware. None. Any company that asserts such a right is absolutely, flat out wrong and is behaving immorally and unethically and should be shut down permanently. Any laws that are in conflict with this fundamental moral principle should be changed to be in accordance with it or they too are wrong and immoral and unethical laws.
Similarly, no hardware manufacturer has any moral right to say that only certain content may be used with their hardware. Any company that asserts such a right should be shutdown permanently. Any laws that are in conflict with this fundamental moral principle should be changed to properly reflect it.
The laws, rules and regulations have gone WAY too far in favor of content producers and it is time for consumers to fight back. Copyright terms need to be shortened back to something like 37 years from date of first publication. Patents on processes, software algorithms, and genetic engineering should be eliminated entirely.
The whole concept of software "licenses" is bogus and should be eliminated. I don't need a license to read a cook book and use the knowledge and instructions therein to create what those instructions describe. Likewise, a computer should not need a license to read a computer program and create the functionality that that program describes.
The laws need changing because they are currently wrong. Until they are changed, they should be obeyed, but they need to be changed.
I think whoever said 'new law' was created was certainly mistaken. However, what was set by this ruling was precedent, which is, in my opinion, just as good as a 'law'. So the next time someone tries to do the same (or similar) as Psystar, the courts can point to the outcome of this case and compare any future ruling with the nature of this one.
My point was:
It's ironic how Steve Jobs "borrowed" technology from Atari and ripped off his partner to start HIS business but will sue ANYONE who gets near his.
Greed and ego I guess. Reminds me of what Big Oil is doing to green companies.
So what's keeping you from putting Windows 7 on that $1000 PC? After all, Windows fanboys are always telling me how there's not much difference between OS X and Windows. Or are you telling me that you have some kind of "fundamental right" to use OS X however you please?
Let's think of all the people that can't afford a $250,000 home.
From what I read, the judge is telling "Psystar" that they now need to fly right. So if they change their name to CloneStar, will they be able to keep doing business?
I agree only with your last paragraph.
I think that when I create something I morally should be allowed to determine it's disposition, even if the way I want it to be used is not how others would want to use it. (so long as moral absolutes like not hurting others or their property are obeyed).
But you are entitled to your philosophy, and we both agree that the laws are not sufficient to cope with today's technology. I agree that 120 years is too long a copyright for any medium. I also think software needs a different set of laws instead of the copyright laws, as software raises different issues.
I think that when I create something I morally should be allowed to determine it's disposition, even if the way I want it to be used is not how others would want to use it. (so long as moral absolutes like not hurting others or their property are obeyed).
But you are entitled to your philosophy, and we both agree that the laws are not sufficient to cope with today's technology. I agree that 120 years is too long a copyright for any medium. I also think software needs a different set of laws instead of the copyright laws, as software raises different issues.
OMG I cannot believe you sat on Appleinsider and macrumours no doubt spamming the refresh button to be the first one to comment on this news. That sir is some awesome fanboy dedication /golfclap
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105523
Ignoring the Atari non-issue... (because steve jobs certainly pulled some scummy maneuvers back in the day)
jobs suing now is not ego. He has shareholders. He doesn't own the company. He has to protect Apple's IP because it doesn't belong to HIM.
The content-creator having no control over the use and distribution of their content??
Seriously? Wow. Your tone would change pretty quick if you were a content-creator and depended on the integrity of IP law in order to make a living. The same laws you hate also protect the "little guy."
Of course, when all else fails, just call the law wrong and unjust and move on.
By the way, that cookbook has terms and conditions governing its resale and the use of the materials therein. All books have this.
This is as you stated your opinion. I personally do not agree with your opinion. Innovation happens because people see a need, and see a way of financially benefiting from filling that need. Now of course there are those that would want to fill the need just for its own sake. But that is the minority. Whether good or bad OSX is the operating system it is partially due to apples business model. It would not be the same OS if apple's business model was different.
I too am very interested in knowing this. For a company that didn't sell a lot of products, they certainly spent a lot of money on legal fees rather than just agree to Apple's terms long ago without the need of a trial. Even a financial backer had to know the outcome of this was obvious. A friend of mine who happens to like Apple products and followed this case, seem to think it was Microsoft or at least Bill Gates and/or Steve Ballmer or Michael Dell. While it seems possible they would do it, I find it very unlikely at least the upper echelons of Microsoft to finance it, especially when they have a professional, working business relationship that benefits them both.
And Michael Dell would very much like to sell Dell computers with OS X, I would assume he would only do so if the opportunity was presented to him, legally, by Apple itself.
Common sense tells me this individual is wrong and I would hope we do find out who financed Psystar.
Now that this injunction is ordered, and after reading the brief in its entirety, I can't see how Psystar can still continue to sell Rebel EFI when the order prohibits methods of distributing OS X that will circumvent.
I suppose since we don't know what Rebel EFI does, due to it being excluded from discovery, however, obviously it is the component that allows the bootloader to be hacked. That itself would be a violation of 17 USC 1201(a) and 1201(c).
I would say that you haven't thought that through.
If ten years ago a law had been passed that no company has the right to restrict use of its software to its own hardware, then you still wouldn't be able to use MacOS X on a Dell computer. You know why? Because Apple wouldn't have bought a pre-alpha version of MacOS X for $400 million and spent over a billion dollars to make it what it is today. Instead, Apple would be a mediocre PC maker selling PCs not with Windows 7, but with Windows 3.7 or 3.8 if you're lucky, just like everyone else.
Of course not. Changing the name of the company doesn't relieve them of the court's jurisdiction any more than a convicted murderer can be let out of prison just because he changes his name.
Steve Jobs was able to get a couple guys at Atari run a PCB based on a layout that Woz designed. The board was populated with parts that were "borrowed" from Atari, the assembly probably being done by Woz.
There wasn't any Atari IP involved, it was basically misuse of Atari equipment and materials and at worst, theft of electronic components. A crime, misdemeanor theft, was probably created, Nolan probably was aware of what was going on and nothing came of it except a computer that Atari was shown and didn't want.
J
jmadlena
Guest
Keep your sympathies. The courts made a fine judgement, in my opinion. What's the point of innovating and spending millions upon millions of dollars in research and development if someone else is going to take your product and sell it?
And you "know" all this stuff you're regurgitating about personal and non-public events how? Were you there? Did you watch Wozniak do all the work while Jobs stood around or went to lunch? Or is it just a case where you believe everything someone without an editor posts on the web.
I agree 100% with rorschach. Apple didn't get into this battle to stop individuals from installing OSX on non apple computers. It did it to stop a company from doing it and then selling those computers.
Psystar is a crummy, cheap company using crummy, cheap tactics to build crummy, cheap knockoffs. They're in the same league as Chinese counterfeiters. It's a good thing they're most likely going out of business. They never innovated one bit, and never contributed anything worthwhile to the community. And no, creating exploits to run OS X on unauthorized hardware isn't innovative. OS X runs on x86 hardware already. So, good riddance. Apple is well within their rights to burn it to the ground.
You are not entitled to run Mac OS X on any PC you build or buy. Sorry. Buying physical OS X media does not give you the right to run it. If you don't like that, you don't have to buy it. No software company is under any obligation to license you anything. Every single piece of software you use has an EULA, and every single one of them has restrictions of one type or another. Even software licensed under the GPL doesn't have to be given to you if it isn't publicly distributed.
There is merit to the argument that FOSS advocates make about free software being a worthy cause. Free software is generally better in most circumstances, for everyone involved. But there are innovative people who are making closed software that has certain requirements to use. If you think it is worthwhile, they deserve to benefit from their innovation. The simple fact that they made something good doesn't mean it's instantly right to co-opt their work for your gain.
If you have such a profound lack of respect for proprietary EULAs, then put your money where your mouth is and stop engaging in business with organizations that use them. Stop using hardware and software that requires contractual agreements if you disagree with the terms. Otherwise, work with what you have and can afford. Is it going to be perfect? No. Few things ever are. Improve it. Learn and advance. If a fraction of the effort expended to screw with the work of others was used to improve things that are open to public contribution, in a short period of time there'd probably be such a small demarcation between the two that the proprietary vendors would have to compete intensely with the open ones. And that'd be better for everyone.
But whatever. Install RebelEFI on your new core i7 instead of buying a used Mac Mini for tasks that require OS X. Enjoy incompatibilities and a sub-par experience.
You are not entitled to run Mac OS X on any PC you build or buy. Sorry. Buying physical OS X media does not give you the right to run it. If you don't like that, you don't have to buy it. No software company is under any obligation to license you anything. Every single piece of software you use has an EULA, and every single one of them has restrictions of one type or another. Even software licensed under the GPL doesn't have to be given to you if it isn't publicly distributed.
There is merit to the argument that FOSS advocates make about free software being a worthy cause. Free software is generally better in most circumstances, for everyone involved. But there are innovative people who are making closed software that has certain requirements to use. If you think it is worthwhile, they deserve to benefit from their innovation. The simple fact that they made something good doesn't mean it's instantly right to co-opt their work for your gain.
If you have such a profound lack of respect for proprietary EULAs, then put your money where your mouth is and stop engaging in business with organizations that use them. Stop using hardware and software that requires contractual agreements if you disagree with the terms. Otherwise, work with what you have and can afford. Is it going to be perfect? No. Few things ever are. Improve it. Learn and advance. If a fraction of the effort expended to screw with the work of others was used to improve things that are open to public contribution, in a short period of time there'd probably be such a small demarcation between the two that the proprietary vendors would have to compete intensely with the open ones. And that'd be better for everyone.
But whatever. Install RebelEFI on your new core i7 instead of buying a used Mac Mini for tasks that require OS X. Enjoy incompatibilities and a sub-par experience.
100% agree with you. Though there are a number of people on this forum who have been insinuating that Apple may go after people who run a hackintosh, so even though Apple probably could not care lesss, these individuals are happy to jump on their high horses, and point out that running OS X on anything but a mac is illegal.
Frankly no company has the right to make computers running OS X, and therefore make a profit, as for individuals, they can do what they like with the copy they bought.
WRONG!!!
It may seem like you 'bought' the software but you haven't. You bought the physical media but the software on the disk is licensed to you and is subject to the EULA. Apple gets to decide what you can do with that software, what machines you can legally install it on and whether you can modify it or not. You might not like it but this is fairly well decided law.