Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

First Customer Receives Psystar Mac Clone

CWallace said:
The same way Apple would prevent the installation of OS X on non-Apple-branded computers: legal challenges against those breaking the "EULA".

One of the main points of debate is how successful such a challenge would be.
Click to expand...

I took that as an invitation to think things through. If I got a letter from a corporation telling me that I did not have their permission to install the stereo that I quite legally, openly bought from them, I would just laugh and proceed to install the stereo.

Wouldn't you do the same? :confused:
 
macrumorino said:
I took that as an invitation to think things through. If I got a letter from a corporation telling me that I did not have their permission to install the stereo that I quite legally, openly bought from them, I would just laugh and proceed to install the stereo.

Wouldn't you do the same? :confused:
Click to expand...

Only the letter would be coming from the circuit court advising you of the suit filed against you. You could ignore it I suppose .....
 
saltyzoo said:
Only the letter would be coming from the circuit court advising you of the suit filed against you. You could ignore it I suppose .....
Click to expand...


Actually the FIRST letter would come from the Corporation giving you notice of a claimed infraction. Once you ignored it then they would have to decide if they want to proceed with a legal case. Once they file suit, then you would get served with notice of the suit. Failure to respond would likely result in a summary judgement against you.

In the case of a stereo, it is clear that Ford doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The Supreme Court has ruled on this already.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1470.ZS.html

The Supreme Court 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.

Any suit brought by Ford would be tossed by the courts quite quickly.

BTW, this is my personal opinion and I am not a lawyer.
 
aoresteen said:
Actually the FIRST letter would come from the Corporation giving you notice of a claimed infraction. Once you ignored it then they would have to decide if they want to proceed with a legal case. Once they file suit, then you would get served with notice of the suit. Failure to respond would likely result in a summary judgement against you.

In the case of a stereo, it is clear that Ford doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The Supreme Court has ruled on this already.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1470.ZS.html

The Supreme Court 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.

Any suit brought by Ford would be tossed by the courts quite quickly.

BTW, this is my personal opinion and I am not a lawyer.
Click to expand...

But Apple has an option due to the software nature of OS X that Ford would not with the stereo: All Apple has to do is revise the retail box of OS X to an upgrade that requires a prior installation of OS X for the upgrade. They can keep on selling OS X on Macs, sell upgrades for new revisions of OS X, and completely control the distribution and hardware that OS X is run on.

It seems like this completely sidesteps any EULA issues, first sale doctrine issues, and any other lawsuits. This still seems to be the most rock solid stance they could take, if their objective is to control the distribution of OS X and the hardware it runs on.
 
czachorski said:
But Apple has an option due to the software nature of OS X that Ford would not with the stereo: All Apple has to do is revise the retail box of OS X to an upgrade that requires a prior installation of OS X for the upgrade. They can keep on selling OS X on Macs, sell upgrades for new revisions of OS X, and completely control the distribution and hardware that OS X is run on.

It seems like this completely sidesteps any EULA issues, first sale doctrine issues, and any other lawsuits. This still seems to be the most rock solid stance they could take, if their objective is to control the distribution of OS X and the hardware it runs on.
Click to expand...


Perhaps so. This means that Apple will abandon any user who has a pre-OSX Apple computer (or force them to get an older version of OSX loaded first) that is capable of running OSX. The upgrade will have to detect the existence of OSX on the target machine AND determine that it is an Apple motherboard. Without Apple ROMS on the motherboard this may be hard to do. This will also cause some problems when upgrading or replacing failed hard drives (Vista gets a lot of heat for this).

What it doesn’t do is solve the legal issue of tying OSX to their hardware. The 1984 DigiDyne Corp. Vs. Data General (734 F.2d 1336 (9th circuit, 1984)) says you can’t do that. As far as I can tell, Apple has never tested their tying arrangement in court. They may not want to put it to the test for fear of loosing. So why put it in the EULA in the first place? Only Apple can answer those questions.

There’s another issue that bears some thought. If Apple sues someone over violation of the EULA then they will have to go through legal discovery and turn over internal Apple documents and emails related to OSX and hardware. They may not want to do that as the documents would become public at some point. Discovery requests are always a pain and I’m sure Steve Jobs has some emails that he doesn’t want to become public.

The toothpaste has been squeezed out of the tube and it will be hard for Apple to put it back in. We will just have to wait and see what Apple will do, if anything.
 
saltyzoo said:
Only the letter would be coming from the circuit court advising you of the suit filed against you. You could ignore it I suppose .....
Click to expand...

Oh dear... now you imagine that your local judge (what country are we talking about, now?) would just go along with it. Mighty tall assumption...
 
macrumorino said:
Oh dear... now you imagine that your local judge (what country are we talking about, now?) would just go along with it. Mighty tall assumption...
Click to expand...

Yeah, it sucks, but they kind of can't just completely ignore lawsuits that are filed just because they don't agree. Funny thing that.
 
saltyzoo said:
Who wins isn't up to you, nor is it up to the judge when it is filed. If you ignore it it probably won't bode well for you.
Click to expand...

oooh, you sound so scary...

Eric S. said:
CNET's Tom Krazit is now using the Psystar for his daily work, as an experiment:
http://www.news.com/8301-13579_3-9939388-37.html

And surprise! he says the fan noise is not bad. Apparently Psystar is now shipping a quieter fan. However, the CDROM sounds like an airplane engine. :)
Click to expand...

Damn, if they can get that noisy DVD platter thing fixed, I hope they call Apple and share the magic solution so I can get my Mac Pro to stop making that jet airplane sound whenever I pop a movie into the DVD slot.
 
macrumorino said:
This one, on the other hand, is now offering a security update,

http://www.psystar.com/security_update_2008_002_v11_leopard.html
Click to expand...

Apparently this is the way that Psystar will handle the update problem, by testing them first and then having customers download those that are OK directly from the Psystar website. I wonder if Apple has any legal restrictions on allowing other companies to provide Apple's software updates? :rolleyes:

Also of note is that the standard product now has an all-new case.
 
From what I've read, when you purchase a Psystar computer with OSX installed the OSX DVD copy has not been opened. This means that Psystar has not installed that legally purchased Apple product but is installing what amounts to a pirated copy of OSX on the machine and selling you a marked up copy of Apple's OSX.

So technically you are buying a PC with an illegal copy of OSX installed and a marked up Apple OSX DVD from a unauthorized reseller.

Does this mean that not only can Apple refuse to support your OS-hardware product but can also take legal steps against you, the purchaser.

????? :eek:
 
Eric S. said:
Also of note is that the standard product now has an all-new case.
Click to expand...

show_image_in_imgtag.php


and at no extra charge too, nice...

I guess they are doing brisk business as the original "V1" cases are backordered.
 
fastlanephil said:
From what I've read, when you purchase a Psystar computer with OSX installed the OSX DVD copy has not been opened. This means that Psystar has not installed that legally purchased Apple product but is installing what amounts to a pirated copy of OSX on the machine and selling you a marked up copy of Apple's OSX.

So technically you are buying a PC with an illegal copy of OSX installed and a marked up Apple OSX DVD from a unauthorized reseller.

Does this mean that not only can Apple refuse to support your OS-hardware product but can also take legal steps against you, the purchaser.

????? :eek:
Click to expand...

Its not a pirated copy, its a master copy. A pirated copy would be one where no money changes hands. The license is tied to the retail copy. As long as that is purchased it doesn't matter if your install from from that one or another disc.
 
fastlanephil said:
From what I've read, when you purchase a Psystar computer with OSX installed the OSX DVD copy has not been opened. This means that Psystar has not installed that legally purchased Apple product but is installing what amounts to a pirated copy of OSX on the machine and selling you a marked up copy of Apple's OSX.
Click to expand...

<cough> Please refresh my memory of maritime history, which is quite spotty. Which pirates were known for boarding ships and then proceeding to remunerate all parties concerned at regular retail prices? :confused:
 
macrumorino said:
<cough> Please refresh my memory of maritime history, which is quite spotty. Which pirates were known for boarding ships and then proceeding to remunerate all parties concerned at regular retail prices? :confused:
Click to expand...

Doesn't your statement implicitly assume that the retail price of OS X today is the same as what Apple would set if they were selling it for generic X86 machines? I doubt they would sell it for $129.
 
fastlanephil said:
From what I've read, when you purchase a Psystar computer with OSX installed the OSX DVD copy has not been opened. This means that Psystar has not installed that legally purchased Apple product but is installing what amounts to a pirated copy of OSX on the machine and selling you a marked up copy of Apple's OSX.

So technically you are buying a PC with an illegal copy of OSX installed and a marked up Apple OSX DVD from a unauthorized reseller.

Does this mean that not only can Apple refuse to support your OS-hardware product but can also take legal steps against you, the purchaser.

????? :eek:
Click to expand...

The copy is not illegal if Apple is paid their $129. How do you think Dell, IBM, and all the other PC vendors load Windows onto their hard drives? They clone hard drives 16 at a time from a master image. Some include Vista CDs or restore CDs that have never been opened.

Apple can file a breech of contract suit against the user claiming violation of the EULA. So far they have never done so for a user running OSX on non-Apple labeled hardware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back