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

inkswamp said:
Some of you seriously need to look into the history and uses of EULAs before commenting on them. EULAs are not a contract between Apple and you that gives them some kind of overlord-like power over anyone with one of their products (although it's curious to see many of you implicitly hoping for that on one hand; I wonder how many of you denounced Microsoft when they have attempted that kind of thing in the past.)

The EULA is primarily a tool that a software company uses to head-off piracy and copyright infringement. Not only have the contractual legality of EULAs been successfully shot down in court, but it has been generally agreed that where EULAs overstep their legal bounds is where they attempt to control what an end-user may do with their software where it doesn't involve copyright infringement or piracy.

If Psystar is paying Apple for the copy of OS X they install on their hardware then no piracy is happening and no amount of prayer to your EULA gods is going to stop them.
Click to expand...

Not entirely (although I see where you're coming from). Even without the EULA, standard copyright law applies, which grants the copy owner (in the first instance, PsyStar, then PsyStar's customer) the right of fair use. Although fair use is a vague term, I'd suggest that modification and re-sale of the work is beyond fair use. However, self-build Hackintoshes would probably fall within fair use so long as it's done for personal use only.

Note that the scenario above is entirely based on standard copyright law which applies immediately to any work. We're not even in the realm of licencing-versus-ownership of the copy. Ignoring the EULA, that puts OS X in the same realm as a novel. Assuming no EULA, if I buy a book (or Mac OS X), I own that copy and may do what I wish with it in private and for my own use. With the book, I can record myself reading it for use as an audiobook, but I can't pass that recording to anyone else. With OS X, I may tweak, change and generally mess with it -- get it to run on a toaster, even -- but I'd be outside of fair use to commercialise Mac OS X Toaster Edition and resell it. Simply because I do not own the vast majority of what consitiutes OS X Toaster Edition.
 
beast said:
Unlikely

What's more likely: The next software update bricks the Psystar clone and then the forums are awash with people bitching about how apple bricked their machine.
Click to expand...

Quite possible, though they best be careful, depending on how close to being an exact clone they are Apple needs to be careful not to brick the real thing. More than likely there is something "different" that they can use to identify the clones.... that being said... whats worse? a few hundred clones in the wild or a few thousand legitimate devices bricked by an update.

No need to rush, at most there are maybe 100 machines in the wild, it is more important for Apple to respond correctly than quickly.
 
craigsharp@spym said:
So what are you referring to in your post? that OSX is Better but running on crippled Apple's Hardware or that OSX is crippled running on Apple's better Hardware?
Click to expand...

You forgot Psystar in there. To make it easier: I would rather have Apple's poorer HW offering (mini) but with supported and upgradeable OS than faster hardware (psystar box) with non-upgradeable OS. Of course, comparing at low price point here.
 
oban14 said:
It has an EFI bios, which basically means you see graphics instead of text during the low level initialization of the machine.
Click to expand...

In a few ways, that is true, but it is a lot easier to extend EFI with new functionality (say Firewire Target Mode), and HFS+ booting support than it is BIOS. BIOS assumes you have an MBR and a lot of other legacy stuff that is hard to reconcile with the nice pre-boot environment Apple has had for awhile.

Plus, Intel already did a lot of the grunt work with the reference EFI implementation. All Apple did was customize it to give it the same UI as the Open Firmware implementation Apple previously used. Plus things like Wireless booting with the Air would have been rather difficult to pull off with BIOS as the core.

oban14 said:
The fanboyness here really is hysterical, and I'd like to see someone answer this... to help out, I figured I'd pose a few questions (with the assumed fanboy answer in parentheses).

1) Is it OK to run OSX on a Mac Pro? (YES)
2) Is it OK to run OSX on a Mac Pro if I had to swap out the ram, hard drive, and graphics card? (MAYBE)
3) Is it OK to run OSX on a Mac Pro if I had to swap out the motherboard/processors with something faster than it shipped with? (NO)
4) What if I pulled everything out, but still kept the Mac Pro case? (NO)
5) You mean it still isn't an "Apple branded" computer as specified in the EULA? (I DON'T KNOW!!! LEAVE ME ALONE!!!)

In all seriousness, I'd love to see you all answer these questions.

Also, why is everyone so giddy and confident about Apple pursuing litigation with the company?
Click to expand...

1-2 is a definite Yes, and hell, 3 is a partial yes (the Mobo needs to remain intact, but the CPU can be swapped out). 4 is a no. 5 is a question looking for someone to bite and say the wrong thing.

The reason is that from a technical perspective, you need the right mobo in order to get that particular EFI implementation to boot. Beyond that, as long as the rest of the components are compatible with the mobo and EFI combo, you are in good shape.

You bring up a good question of what defines an 'Apple-branded computer', although the answer is invariably some form of 'what Apple sells, even if modified to some extent'. Claiming the case itself makes a computer 'Apple-branded' is very likely not enough to pass muster. Apple is also in a position where breaking upgrades and modifications to Apple-manufactured hardware will get them more negative PR than clamping it down and saying things like a CPU upgrade in your Mac Mini or Mac Pro means you aren't allowed to run OS X anymore. I think in the strictest sense, the logic board + EFI combo that Apple sells you is what makes the Mac, an Apple-branded piece of hardware. Everything else is free game, so-to-speak, for hardware modders.

But even with all this debate, it isn't really about what passes muster with the EULA, is it? It is about if the EULA is enforceable, and who Apple can go after for violations. With Apple /not/ actively going after OSx86 groups, the EULA lines seem to boil down to giving them an out for saying "We don't support OS X on your Hackintosh, if it crashes, we get to shrug and not do anything to help you." It also may give them clout with 3rd parties who want to sell virtualization software and clone hardware ("may" being the key word). Of course, this is speculation, as EULAs of the shrinkwrapped variety haven't been fully tested in court, unlike what someone else claims on the thread. Clickthrough EULAs for online services have been found to be unenforceable for the most part in court, though. This does vary on what nation you live in to boot.
 
what if...

oban14 said:
The fanboyness here really is hysterical, and I'd like to see someone answer this... to help out, I figured I'd pose a few questions (with the assumed fanboy answer in parentheses).
Click to expand...

What if the Beatles' record company started to make compatible computers? Could we install OSX on them since they would be 'Apple' branded?
Wouldn't it be fun to see the expressions on the legal team from Apple (computers) walk into the court room?
'oh boy, they got us now...'
 
displaced said:
Not entirely (although I see where you're coming from). Even without the EULA, standard copyright law applies, which grants the copy owner (in the first instance, PsyStar, then PsyStar's customer) the right of fair use. Although fair use is a vague term, I'd suggest that modification and re-sale of the work is beyond fair use. However, self-build Hackintoshes would probably fall within fair use so long as it's done for personal use only.

Note that the scenario above is entirely based on standard copyright law which applies immediately to any work. We're not even in the realm of licencing-versus-ownership of the copy. Ignoring the EULA, that puts OS X in the same realm as a novel. Assuming no EULA, if I buy a book (or Mac OS X), I own that copy and may do what I wish with it in private and for my own use. With the book, I can record myself reading it for use as an audiobook, but I can't pass that recording to anyone else. With OS X, I may tweak, change and generally mess with it -- get it to run on a toaster, even -- but I'd be outside of fair use to commercialise Mac OS X Toaster Edition and resell it. Simply because I do not own the vast majority of what consitiutes OS X Toaster Edition.
Click to expand...

And so long as Psystar is only assembling hardware that does not require reverse engineering etc of the OS then they are more on the right side than the wrong side.... if they need to sell a system with "part # xyz version a.bc" and no other version they are ok, if they need to reverse engineer the OS somehow to get any version of said part functioning then they are screwed no matter what.
 
Belly-laughs said:
You forgot Psystar in there. To make it easier: I would rather have Apple's poorer HW offering (mini) but with supported and upgradeable OS than faster hardware (psystar box) with non-upgradeable OS. Of course, comparing at low price point here.
Click to expand...

It is NOT non-upgradeable :) you just need to check if the update breaks something before you install it... most updates cause no problems... only some system core updates cause problems...
I know cos i tried to run OSX on my old AMD machine... and it worked perfectly... but i put windows back cos i have no time to play arround...
my main machine is an iMac :)
 
jbernie said:
And so long as Psystar is only assembling hardware that does not require reverse engineering etc of the OS then they are more on the right side than the wrong side.... if they need to sell a system with "part # xyz version a.bc" and no other version they are ok, if they need to reverse engineer the OS somehow to get any version of said part functioning then they are screwed no matter what.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, running OS X on non-Apple hardware does indeed require the modification of the operating system (hence PsyStar's credit on their site to the community projects which developed the necessary patches). Selling that modified operating system would certainly seem to be beyond fair use.
 
yawn

yawn.
:rolleyes:
who really cares? obviously apple isn't the least bit concerned.
if you can't even run software updates, then what's the point? seems like an expensive disposable mac.
if u could run updates it'd be a much different story, but u can't, so i think this story and the company will vanish from existence before too long....
 
oban14 said:
1) Is it OK to run OSX on a Mac Pro? (YES)
2) Is it OK to run OSX on a Mac Pro if I had to swap out the ram, hard drive, and graphics card? (MAYBE)
3) Is it OK to run OSX on a Mac Pro if I had to swap out the motherboard/processors with something faster than it shipped with? (NO)
4) What if I pulled everything out, but still kept the Mac Pro case? (NO)
5) You mean it still isn't an "Apple branded" computer as specified in the EULA? (I DON'T KNOW!!! LEAVE ME ALONE!!!)
Click to expand...

Thought I'd just answer these as matter-of-factly as I can:

1) Of course.

2) Of course. Apple explicitly define these as user-serviceable parts. Plus, these components are not Apple-manufacturerd or designed.

3) Processors you'd be fine with (not Apple's in the first place). The logic board, no. That is an Apple-designed part.

4) No. You have replaced Apple-designed parts with non-Apple-designed parts.

5) :rolleyes:

The machine stops being an Apple machine when you replace an Apple-designed part with a non-Apple part. Pretty simple. Swap the RAM (Hynix, Samsung) or the hard drive (Seagate, Maxtor) or the video card (ATI, NVIDIA) as much as you like. They're both non-Apple parts and explicitly user-serviceable components. Hell, you could even replace a capacitor on the logic board and it'd still be an Apple machine since a) Apple don't design capacitors and b) If you replace the capacitor with an equivalent part, you have not affected the design of the board (Apple's design).
 
it would seem...

...that what you gotta do is backwards engineer the mobo and the OS software.
Build yer machine from there at your HQ with it's Antarctica based DBA address.
Keep a crack team on hand to analyze every core update that comes along and
send out a comparable fix to yer clients. oh, sure we can afford to do that.

'oh, no, we're gonna get sued....'

but I sort of am curious to take a copy of OSX and just try to install it
on every x86 machine I see, like the numerous people who write in to these forums: "well, I got it running on my older winamdtel box, it seems to run
just fine" ...probably there is already a site that keeps tabs on these kinds of
attempts?
 
the beatles records and apple has an oral agreement (or even written) that the 2 companies wouldnt cross eachothers field.
well ofc apple inc. kinda broke it with the platform itunes.
well never trust steve jobs words.
 
Here's what Apple Inc is doing: they wait and watch to see Psystar selling a whole bunch of computers..and Psystar gets some money in the bank from the sales of these machines.
THEN Apple sues, and asks for Psystar to write them a check. When the judge also asks Psystar to write Apple a check, it all ends.
Or perhaps that might be the judge TELLS Psystar to write Apple a check...and include Apple's court/legal costs.
Apple is just waiting so they can do this and not have to spend a dime to have it taken care of...why try to squeeze money out of the thief who has only stolen a nickel? Wait till he gets away with millions, and then Apple will end up making money off of Psystar's misadventure instead of spending it to retrieve the nickel.
 
Apple, go OPEN. Mac OS X on any hardware. Windows will be dead in three years. NOW IS THE MOMENT TO DO IT.
 
TBH I think Apple will leave it. Psystar will run themselves out of business, due to OS X fecking up on the computer, various other problems.

Apple don't get the bad publicity, don't have to do anything. It will sort itself out.
 
Time to buy!

This is great news !
I hope they ship to EU so I can get a hold of my decently priced Mac !!
 
skyview said:
This is great news !
I hope they ship to EU so I can get a hold of my decently priced Mac !!
Click to expand...

im sure the parts psystar uses for "opencomputer" will be known shortly... so you wiil be able to buy that components and install that yourself... :)
 
displaced said:
The machine stops being an Apple machine when you replace an Apple-designed part with a non-Apple part. Pretty simple. Swap the RAM (Hynix, Samsung) or the hard drive (Seagate, Maxtor) or the video card (ATI, NVIDIA) as much as you like.
Click to expand...

There's one computer in Apple's entire product line which actually HAS a video card. And it costs over $2000.

This isn't a legitimate example, unless you're trying to demonstrate why PsyStar is flooded with orders. A shoddy company with amateur PR, amateur practices, yet flooded with orders.
 
Rendwich said:
Complete, total, and utter ******** of the highest degree. Welcome to the cult.
Click to expand...

I've seen no definitive judgment that EULAs are unenforcable. If such a judgement had been made, we would have seen them disappear from installers.

Every court case I've seen involving EULAs where the EULA 'breacher' dealt solely with the legality of one or more provisions within the EULA, not the notion of an EULA itself.

Licences are not unusual. Licences are simply an expression, within the framework of Copyright Law, of what a receiver of a work may do with that work. The GPL states that if I modify a work and distribute the result, I must make available, for free, my modifications. Licences for other software, such as the Mozilla Public Licence have clauses which define what I may or may not call any self-compiled version of Mozilla software. If I compile Firefox myself, I cannot call it Firefox or use the Firefox artwork if I distribute it. Apple's licence says I can't run OS X on non-Apple hardware.

Traditionally, licences must be signed or agreed to within the presence of others. But computer software has pretty much bypassed that. Hence the practice of 'use of this software constitutes agreement to the terms...' -- and you'll find that (or similar) everywhere from the OS X EULA to the GPL. In the past EULAs have caused problems with the return of software. It's vitally important to the legality of a licence that, should the receiver disagree with the terms, he or she must be able to reject the licence and forfeit use of the work without detriment to him/herself. For example, having the EULA inside a product shrink-wrap, where the seller will not accept the returned item once the seal's broken puts the buyer in a Catch-22. It is, of course, not fair to require acceptance of an EULA if return of the product is impossible without penalty.
 
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