Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
There is no copyright issue in this case, no Title 17 violation. It is a licensing contractual dispute between Apple and ANYONE using OSX on a non-Apple labeled computer. Perhaps I've missed something in Title 17, show me the exact section and I will take a look at it.

All good points by you and TechHistorian. While I can see clearly your point on this being a contractual EULA issue, I happen to agree more with TH on this one, and here is why: the fundamental question is whether Apple, or any other device maker, has the right to distribute the software that comes with their device in whatever manner in which they choose. I can see a court case on this going all the way to the top, due to just the issues you have been debating, but at the end of the road, even it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, eventually, they will see the parallels between this and the rights of a copyright holder to control distribution, and rule in favor of Apple.
 
Apple is the copyright holder. And as such, Apple -- and Apple alone -- gets to determine how its copyrighted material is distributed. Period. Black-letter law.

Oh, no. That's far too extreme.

Apple can only make such a determination to the extent that the law permits it. Just watch what would happen if, say, Apple said that Jews were not allowed to run OSX.

There are laws, judges, and juries with higher authority than Apple. Black-letter law, since you like that phrase. :)
 
All good points by you and TechHistorian. While I can see clearly your point on this being a contractual EULA issue, I happen to agree more with TH on this one, and here is why: the fundamental question is whether Apple, or any other device maker, has the right to distribute the software that comes with their device in whatever manner in which they choose. I can see a court case on this going all the way to the top, due to just the issues you have been debating, but at the end of the road, even it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, eventually, they will see the parallels between this and the rights of a copyright holder to control distribution, and rule in favor of Apple.

Perhaps you are right. As I have always stated, it will take a court case to settle the argument.

Consider books. You buy a book from Borders and then decide to sell it. Can the Publisher prevent you from selling the book because you are not an authorized dealer for their titles? When you buy a book you do not buy the copyright, you buy a copy that you can use (read). Following your logic you could not sell a book you bought unless the publisher allowed it.

Remember the 1998 Supreme Court case I mentioned? They said that according to the "first sale" doctrine, once a copyright owner places a copyrighted item in the stream of commerce, it has no further right to control its distribution. Thus any lawful purchaser of such products may dispose of them as they please without further obligation.

The more I think about this I'm leaning to the idea that Apple won't do anything. There's too much risk for them to lose in court and no real upside. Sure they could make a court case very expensive for PsyStar. What if someone with real deep pockets decides to back PsyStar? Or a large integrator such as Dell or one of the Linux vendors decided to offer OSX as an option without Apple's approval? Will Apple fight every clone vendor that pops in in every state? What about the EU?

I'll bet that there are some very intense discussions going on inside Apple right now on this issue. I would guess that they have retained at least two outside law firms to research the issues and advise them on their options. Mayby someday we will get the inside story as to what is going on right now inside Apple dealing with the PsyStar Clone Wars. Could be a Bob Woodward book in the making.
 
Perhaps you are right. As I have always stated, it will take a court case to settle the argument.

Consider books. You buy a book from Borders and then decide to sell it. Can the Publisher prevent you from selling the book because you are not an authorized dealer for their titles? When you buy a book you do not buy the copyright, you buy a copy that you can use (read). Following your logic you could not sell a book you bought unless the publisher allowed it.

Remember the 1998 Supreme Court case I mentioned? They said that according to the "first sale" doctrine, once a copyright owner places a copyrighted item in the stream of commerce, it has no further right to control its distribution. Thus any lawful purchaser of such products may dispose of them as they please without further obligation.

This is clearly going to create new case law. I see your points, but I also could see the court drawing a parallel between reselling a book and reselling a Mac, and calling that the appropriate "first sale" doctrine. To me, a better parallel for what Psystar has done is taking a book that the copyright holder decides to only publish in hardcover, and copying it to paper back and reselling it for profit.

I believe the courts will recognize the software authors rights to a distribution of their choice. If they don't, we will have some interesting new case law in this country, and it will change the behavior of device makers. (would we even have OS X now, if 7-10 years ago when Apple was developing it, they knew they would be unable to control its distribution and what hardware it is sold on?)
 
Good lord! First it was that they weren't a real company. Then it was that they were breaking laws. Then it was that Apple's EULA would stop them dead in their tracks. Then it was all a hoax because of the way the cables were twisted in the Psystar video. Now Apple's legal team will take them down, even though Apple has shown not one sign of moving that direction, not with Psystar nor with the OSX86 project.

Did any of you opposing this ever stop to think that, you know, maybe you're just flat-out wrong? Even for a second?

Me agree with you.

There seems to be much anti-Pystar because they are...um, new? A startup? Offering something outside the Mac monopoly?

I can't see (in any fashion) how purchasing MacOSX and installing it on a machine can be illegal. Apple enforce the EULA because they make money from their hardware. I buy Mac's because of the operating system, not the machines.

If Psystar can offer a competitively priced Mac and overcome the update barrier, they'd be inundated with orders.
 
To me, a better parallel for what Psystar has done is taking a book that the copyright holder decides to only publish in hardcover, and copying it to paper back and reselling it for profit.

If Psystar is taking the OS X install DVD, reverse-engineering the code to figure out how it works, writing additional code needed to support their computers, and then re-compiling that code and pressing DVD's called "OS P" which they then offer for sale, then yes, it would be a better parallel.

But at that point, Psystar would be in violation of the DMCA.

It sounds like Psystar is taking an OS X install DVD and installing it on their machine in an unmodified state and then applying additional drivers (and perhaps code) external to OS X's code that is required to get the machine to run.

And at that point, that is no different then when I install a 2004-era Windows XP on my 2008-era machine at work and then apply all the drivers necessary to get it to work because the 2004-era Windows code does not recognize my 2008-era network card, video card, SATA controller, sound card, etc. etc. etc. But I am not de-compiling the Windows code, inserting new code, and then re-compiling that code into a new version of "Windows C". I am just patching the original codebase as allowed under the Windows EULA. And since I am now running OS X 10.5.2 when my DVD is 10.5.0, it is clear that Apple's EULA allows me to patch my OS X codebase, as well.
 
There seems to be much anti-Pystar because they are...um, new? A startup? Offering something outside the Mac monopoly?

.....because there is a concern around here that if Apple loses the ability to control distribution of OS X, their Mac business model may fall apart and it would profoundly change the Mac universe that we know and love.

To try to spin it like those who are concerned about Psystar are just spiteful or in the tank for apple is quite presumptuous. And this recurring theme of referring to the Mac as a monopoly just cracks me up every time I see it. A monopoly at 8% market share. :rolleyes: I suppose every company that sells a product has a monopoly: they alone can sell their product, by the same logic. :D There is another monopoly that Apple has that has been government sanctioned since the 80's: their monopoly ability to sell their own stock. :p
 
The benefits of the Macintosh platform certainly go beyond just running OS X. Apple's vertical integration across their entire product line both reinforces the brand's image and the company's bottom line.

Macintosh computers still generate a very good percentage of Apple's revenue, so there is reason for Apple to fear the effects of cheaper systems undercutting Apple's own product line. However, Apple's image is exceptionally strong and both Psystar and the OSx86 project cannot deliver the same user experience that Apple can with their Macintosh line.

Psystar may actually come to benefit Apple Macintosh owners/users. If Psystar finds a strong market (five million-plus units annually) for their product, it should be proof enough to Apple that the mini-tower form factor is one worth pursuing, as the overall sales increase will offset the loss in the iMac and Mac Pro lines as customers who would have bought them move to the Mac MiniTower.


Indeed. Let's hope they don't move to an MS activation model. :eek:

Such a model runs diametrically counter to Apple's stated goal of making things easy to use and operate, so I would be inclined to believe it would never happen (outside of perhaps a physical check of a chip only found on Apple systemboards that would be transparent to the end-user).
 
.....because there is a concern around here that if Apple loses the ability to control distribution of OS X, their Mac business model may fall apart and it would profoundly change the Mac universe that we know and love.

Eh, sorry, I've bought enough hardware from Apple to qualify as a member of the "we" class, as far as I'm concerned, and the only thing I like ("love" is far too strong a word) is the GUI that Apple put on top of its Unix distribution.

I accept the hardware that I've bought, but it was too expensive to love.

The attempt by Apple to force a particular hardware purchase upon those of us that wish to run their Unix GUI is starting to chafe us. If they don't shape up, we'll have to look for alternatives. Whether that be a mature linux distro, or a hackintosh, remains to be seen.

The idea that Apple can restrict the hardware choice for us when we wish to use their Unix distro is pretty goofy, when you think about it. Just because they make less money from that? Well, thanks, but I am not here to serve Apple shareholders and management--it should be the other way around.

Anyway, it's a little big planet and the USA courts of law do not run it. Apple will have to convince more or less every legal system in the world that they can do that which so many of us find unacceptable. I expect them to fail if they try to do so.
 
The attempt by Apple to force a particular hardware purchase upon those of us that wish to run their Unix GUI is starting to chafe us.

More than you've been chafed in the past 25 years by this identical, consistent practice by Apple?
 
More than you've been chafed in the past 25 years by this identical, consistent practice by Apple?

Well, no, the lineage goes back to the NeXT machine (which I didn't buy, in case you're wondering!).

The name "Apple" is there for the purposes of corporate ownership, but the software/engineering/quality lineage was begun by Mr. Jobs in what was then his new company.

It would have never crossed my mind to buy an Apple machine before OSX; on the rare occasions where I had to use one of those machines, I found them even more exasperating than their Microsoft-OS counterparts (which is saying something).

However, when the company-that-was-NeXT took charge of Apple's design, software, etc., we started on the path that we're now.

So, yes, it chafes more now than 25 years ago; back then, Apple wasn't selling anything that most of us would have wanted to use. Today it's different.

btw there is a bit of a tricky thing going on here with Apple using the fairly open Unix codebase to layer its GUI on top of it. 25 years ago, they weren't doing that, as far as I know--things were more in-house. But Apple's OS today owes a whole bunch of essential functionality to the Unix community, and yes, their attitude chafes.

Of course, they could take their "only rich guys for us" attitude and go the way of Sun Corp. :D
 
But Apple's OS today owes a whole bunch of essential functionality to the Unix community, and yes, their attitude chafes.

Of course, they could take their "only rich guys for us" attitude and go the way of Sun Corp. :D

At least they haven't yet "pulled an SCO" and sued all the other Linux and Unix distro makers for “devaluing” OS X by not releasing as good a GUI. :D
 
At least they haven't yet "pulled an SCO" and sued all the other Linux and Unix distro makers for “devaluing” OS X by not releasing as good a GUI. :D

Oh, yes, SCO... what a bunch of sweethearts. :D

The Unix vendor scene back in the day was a sorry sight, wasn't it? That's probably how we ended up getting Linux. Even THAT development was propitiated by a chafing attitude: Dr. Tenenbaum refused to make his little Unix distro (published in his OS textbook) available for the general public (for no good reason that anyone else could see), so a bright Finnish teenager put a message on some newsgroup, iirc, suggesting that the community roll out its own OS... and the rest is history that is still in the making.

Speaking of the good old days, remember how "they" said that Unix could never be an OS for the masses? Yet here we are... and ironically, many members of "the mass" might still not know what Unix is, even though they're using a Mac.

Yep, no deficiency of ironies here.
 
Me agree with you.

There seems to be much anti-Pystar because they are...um, new? A startup? Offering something outside the Mac monopoly?

I can't see (in any fashion) how purchasing MacOSX and installing it on a machine can be illegal. Apple enforce the EULA because they make money from their hardware. I buy Mac's because of the operating system, not the machines.

If Psystar can offer a competitively priced Mac and overcome the update barrier, they'd be inundated with orders.
It could be argued that the EULA makes it clear that retail copies of OS X are intended to be installed only on machines that already have an existing copy of OS X. Therefore, retail of copies of OS X are really licensed as upgrades only. PsyStar is selling OS X as if it is a full copy, not an upgrade.

Sort of like if they were selling a copy of MS Office Upgrade as if it were the full retail package. If they did, MS should and would pursue the matter in court.
 
It sounds like Psystar is taking an OS X install DVD and installing it on their machine in an unmodified state and then applying additional drivers (and perhaps code) external to OS X's code that is required to get the machine to run.

Yes, that's my understanding.

Psystar are not reverse engineering anything, they're simply engineering something that OSX can run on. That's it.
 
Apple is the copyright holder. And as such, Apple -- and Apple alone -- gets to determine how its copyrighted material is distributed. Period. Black-letter law. This is why the principle of EULAs, though not necessarily given specifics of the aforementioned, are legally binding. This is all fairly straight-forward, basic copyright law.

Read Aoresteen's post above. You are just flat out WRONG. Installing software and copying it are two different things under law and as he said courts have upheld suits against companies tying software to specific hardware. Psystar has purchased a license for OSX when they buy the OSX package. They can transfer that on when they sell the machine. If they can make a retail version of OSX install without hacking it (it CAN be done with a firmware simulator), then there are no grounds for Apple to sue. In fact, they can be sued for illegally tying their OS to only THEIR hardware thus unfairly eliminating competition.
 
.....because there is a concern around here that if Apple loses the ability to control distribution of OS X, their Mac business model may fall apart and it would profoundly change the Mac universe that we know and love.

To try to spin it like those who are concerned about Psystar are just spiteful or in the tank for apple is quite presumptuous. And this recurring theme of referring to the Mac as a monopoly just cracks me up every time I see it. A monopoly at 8% market share. :rolleyes: I suppose every company that sells a product has a monopoly: they alone can sell their product, by the same logic. :D There is another monopoly that Apple has that has been government sanctioned since the 80's: their monopoly ability to sell their own stock. :p

You don't see a monopoly because you aren't looking in the right direction. You are comparing operating systems to other operating systems. We're talking about a monopoly on HARDWARE that will run OSX specifically. It doesn't matter if OSX is a small quardrant in the larger Microsoft ocean. We're talking about Apple making boatloads of money because by in their little quadrant, they are the only ones allowed to provide fishing boats AND they get all the fish. Thus they make money off both the fish caught and selling the fishing boats. No one else is allowed to sell fishing boats in their small quadrant of the ocean. Microsoft cannot sell fishing boats (hardware) in the ocean without having to allow others to sell them also. Thus competition for fishing boats (hardware) is alive and well in that part of the ocean even if they still get all the fish. Apple may be a small part of that ocean, but they get ALL the fish in that part and sell ALL of the fishing boats. The problem is that selling fishing boats and selling fish are TWO DIFFERENT BUSINESSES and you CANNOT artificially tie them together and prevent competition in one area from the other area.

IN other words, Apple's OSX is competing against Microsoft's Windows. Apple's hardware is competing against??? The answer is NO ONE because NO ONE else is ALLOWED to compete against their hardware running OSX. THERE is the legal problem and it's why Apple will lose in court.
 
You don't see a monopoly because you aren't looking in the right direction. You are comparing operating systems to other operating systems. We're talking about a monopoly on HARDWARE that will run OSX specifically. It doesn't matter if OSX is a small quardrant in the larger Microsoft ocean. We're talking about Apple making boatloads of money because by in their little quadrant, they are the only ones allowed to provide fishing boats AND they get all the fish. Thus they make money off both the fish caught and selling the fishing boats. No one else is allowed to sell fishing boats in their small quadrant of the ocean. Microsoft cannot sell fishing boats (hardware) in the ocean without having to allow others to sell them also. Thus competition for fishing boats (hardware) is alive and well in that part of the ocean even if they still get all the fish. Apple may be a small part of that ocean, but they get ALL the fish in that part and sell ALL of the fishing boats. The problem is that selling fishing boats and selling fish are TWO DIFFERENT BUSINESSES and you CANNOT artificially tie them together and prevent competition in one area from the other area.

IN other words, Apple's OSX is competing against Microsoft's Windows. Apple's hardware is competing against??? The answer is NO ONE because NO ONE else is ALLOWED to compete against their hardware running OSX. THERE is the legal problem and it's why Apple will lose in court.

The problem with this analogy is that vertical integration (this hardware/software tie-in you speak of) is only illegal if you use a monopoly in one to apply pressure on another and gain a monopoly there.

Apple has no monopoly on OS software (they have 10% marketshare), and they have no monopoly on PC hardware (they have 10% marketshare there too). If the two /are/ different markets as you claim, then Apple has no run-in with anti-trust because they have no monopoly in either, which to abuse and expand their monopoly into other markets. If they are the same market, then they still don't have a monopoly, and aren't trying to extend into different markets.

Remember, a monopoly by itself isn't illegal (like MSFT Windows), what is illegal is using that monopoly power to create a monopoly in other markets (vertically or horizontally) via anti-competitive means. Anti-trust law does not apply to Apple in a market they don't have monopoly power in.

Yes, Apple is using vertical integration of two perceived product markets to sell a closed product. No, that is not illegal. Yes, it does suck for someone who doesn't like Apple's software, but likes the hardware, or likes the software and doesn't like the hardware.

Now, if you had evidence for a claim that Apple was using iTunes and the iPod to /force/ consumers to migrate to OS X, then you have a case. But until it is an actual monopoly in the market /as a whole/, then it doesn't pass the legal litmus test for being a monopoly. You can't subdivide a market to say "See, they have a monopoly if you ignore 90% of the people buying similar products."
 
You don't see a monopoly because you aren't looking in the right direction. You are comparing operating systems to other operating systems. We're talking about a monopoly on HARDWARE that will run OSX specifically. It doesn't matter if OSX is a small quardrant in the larger Microsoft ocean. We're talking about Apple making boatloads of money because by in their little quadrant, they are the only ones allowed to provide fishing boats AND they get all the fish. Thus they make money off both the fish caught and selling the fishing boats. No one else is allowed to sell fishing boats in their small quadrant of the ocean. Microsoft cannot sell fishing boats (hardware) in the ocean without having to allow others to sell them also. Thus competition for fishing boats (hardware) is alive and well in that part of the ocean even if they still get all the fish. Apple may be a small part of that ocean, but they get ALL the fish in that part and sell ALL of the fishing boats. The problem is that selling fishing boats and selling fish are TWO DIFFERENT BUSINESSES and you CANNOT artificially tie them together and prevent competition in one area from the other area.

IN other words, Apple's OSX is competing against Microsoft's Windows. Apple's hardware is competing against??? The answer is NO ONE because NO ONE else is ALLOWED to compete against their hardware running OSX. THERE is the legal problem and it's why Apple will lose in court.
I think most people consider it a vertically integrated product. In fact, Apple's chief claim to fame and reason for success is that it offers vertically integrated products. Mac hardware and Mac OS X are not intended to be marketed separately, they should be viewed as a single product, that competes with other hardware/software solutions.

Edit: Krevnik beat me to it.
 
...
IN other words, Apple's OSX is competing against Microsoft's Windows. Apple's hardware is competing against??? The answer is NO ONE because NO ONE else is ALLOWED to compete against their hardware running OSX. THERE is the legal problem and it's why Apple will lose in court.

But... but... Apple's EULA says they can't do that--who cares what the judges might say? :rolleyes:
 
It could be argued that the EULA makes it clear that retail copies of OS X are intended to be installed only on machines that already have an existing copy of OS X. Therefore, retail of copies of OS X are really licensed as upgrades only.

Not true. You can put OSX on Apple machines that never came with OSX. I bought a copy of 10.4 and loaded it on my B&W G3 that came with OS 8.6. No upgrade there.

As long as Apple offers OSX for $129 that can be loaded on a freshly formated hard drive with nothing on it, it is hard to define it as an upgrade.
 
I think most people consider it a vertically integrated product.

"It"? What do you mean by "it"?

Yes, I snipped the rest of your reply because you stopped talking about a single product.

Apple may be trying to enforce a monopoly in the following market: computer hardware that can boot OSX; enforcing it even without the recourse of a good technical reason.

Look at the kinds of replies that we've seen in several threads here in macrumors (a paragon of legal reference, I'm sure): it amounts to "Apple won't make as much money", "Apple will have to change the way it does things", "the clones will dilute Apple quality"... huh? These are the "real" reasons, and it would be quite surprising if they were the reasons offered by Apple in all the courts in the world where a local manufacturer decided to put out some OSX-booting hardware without asking Apple for permission.

Apple stopping this? Not gonna happen. :p
 
Not true. You can put OSX on Apple machines that never came with OSX. I bought a copy of 10.4 and loaded it on my B&W G3 that came with OS 8.6. No upgrade there.

As long as Apple offers OSX for $129 that can be loaded on a freshly formated hard drive with nothing on it, it is hard to define it as an upgrade.
I think that the person was saying that it was Apple's intent, and can argue that. Not sure if it valid, but I think that was the point.

"It"? What do you mean by "it"?

Yes, I snipped the rest of your reply because you stopped talking about a single product.

Apple may be trying to enforce a monopoly in the following market: computer hardware that can boot OSX; enforcing it even without the recourse of a good technical reason.

Look at the kinds of replies that we've seen in several threads here in macrumors (a paragon of legal reference, I'm sure): it amounts to "Apple won't make as much money", "Apple will have to change the way it does things", "the clones will dilute Apple quality"... huh? These are the "real" reasons, and it would be quite surprising if they were the reasons offered by Apple in all the courts in the world where a local manufacturer decided to put out some OSX-booting hardware without asking Apple for permission.

Apple stopping this? Not gonna happen. :p

Actually, their reply was in reference to OS X. The reason he was saying it works is due to the vertical integration, that they strive to maintain.
 
I'm not going back through seventeen pages of EULA bickering... here's what will happen.

Apple is obviously looking into the Psystar situation, that much is certain.

They WILL NOT ACT unless they are convinced that their argument will not lose a court case. They will fine tune this argument until it is perfect, until there are no legal loopholes. Prior to taking Psystar to court, Apple will update the wording of the Leopard EULA for the 10.5.3 update so as to solidify their case.

Then all Cupertino will break loose.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.