Psystar Announces Program for Third-Party PC Manufacturers to Enable Snow Leopard Installation

[sneezymarble]

Oversimplification is a bitch. Evidently he has not stolen the hammer. He just looses the right to use it. He is not pirating "the hammer", he is pirating the "hammering". You can still hammer but you just cannot do any "hammering the Apple way".

So he loses the right to use the hammer, but then he uses it. On one definition pirating something is the unauthorized use of it. But, according to you, he has not pirated a thing, he's pirated an action...

That's not the case. Because you cannot use both copies of Safari at the same time.

Oh, my bad, let me quote a bit more of that SLA for you:

You may make one copy of the Apple Software in machine-readable form for backup purposes only

It doesn't matter if you use them or not. More than one copy is a violation of a term in the SLA and according to what's been said, violating a term in a SLA is also copyright infringement.

 

[weckart]

You don;t pay for it outright. You license it. Big difference.

A lot of the hot air in this thread is generated from the assumption that Apple does not sell OS X but merely licenses it according to its strict requirements for use and that any deviation from those requirements is a breach of copyright.

Autodesk thought the same, too.

A pity that the judiciary thought otherwise. Fact is, Apple sells OS X like it sells iPods, external hard drives and notebook sleeves. It is a product that becomes your property once you part with cash for it and you can do what you like with it.

 

[cumanzor]

Ditto.

I start my hackintosh project soon. Just need to borrow someone else's mac to create the boot disk (I purchased a copy of Leopard from an Apple store).

This, a million times this. They should just give access to the bootloader.

 

[pdjudd]

Of course, the SL SLA only mentions Leopard. So, going from Tiger to SL using a $30 upgrade disc is most certainly piracy based on what's been said in this thread.

Or we can interpret that it is referencing the Up to date discs which are intended as an upgrade. The problem is that Apple has several scenarios for a license agreement for SL: Single Install, Family Pack and Leopard Upgrade. The don't specify SKU's but, Apple does have a SKU for an Up to Date. There is nothing on SL box that indicates that it is the "Leopard Upgrade" referenced in the license.

Also, it may not reference a particular SKU, but rather as an installation scenario (since all 3 specify Apple hardware in general) since installation of any kind involves copying. In this case, Single and Family pack could be covering blank hardware installations (the difference being that a family pack constitutes multiple installations on several Macs) and the third scenario being a Leopard Upgrade scenario. The fact is, the terms do not make Leopard an absolute term since it can be reasonably argued that the retail disc is a "single use license". You can't just say that the license for "leopard upgrade" refers to any one version (although it does mention the Box Set which in my opinion rules out the retail version").

Furthermore, it can also be argued, that because there is no technical reason that you can do a Tiger-> Snow Leopard, that it has to be supported on some level though that might be a stretch.

I have produced a couple of real plausible scenarios on which your interpretation of the licensing can be wrong. Apple SLA only mentions the family pack and the Box set as specific product types - it does not mention the retail, restore, or up to date discs (which are basically no different than retail discs at a discount).

 

[paradox00]

I'm pretty sure using the terms "OSX", "Mac OS X", "Leopard", "Snow Leopard", "Mac" or whatever else in sentences where its asserted that compatibility is certified falls under fair use of a trademark.

The discussion has moved past this but I'm pretty sure what Psystar is doing wouldn't be considered fair use. They are essentially offering to sell other manufacturers an OSX certified badge.

Fair use would involve a hardware manufacturer stating that their own hardware is compatible with OSX. A third party can't sell the right to be called OSX compatible.

 

[DavidSan]

Show me that they advertise that. Maybe you're right. But glancing over their web page all I can find is that they claim to make computers–regular run-of-the-mill computers on which several OSs can be installed and run.

They imply it. They are not as stupid as saying it. But in any case, implying is as good as saying.

A computer without software and support.

Of course... Sorry for the way I asked. A computer without software and support, cannot compute. So technically, is not a computer, just a hardware box.

I'm just asking whether installation of a store bought copy of Snow Leopard constitutes more than a breach of contract and whether the more than a breach of contract part constitutes something more than a civil matter. Just to be clear, your response to those questions is that the answers can't be given in a forum. I don't understand why.

Because forums are to exchange ideas.

Laws have a specific vocabulary and way of saying things. I cannot tell you in a forum: breaking this, that and that, part that and that. Because, per se, this is a Mac forum not a legal forum. It will only heat up the conversation into something completely out of the Mac topic. So I would be breaking the agreement I agreed when I entered MacForums.

Aren't you implicitly giving me an answer that you just said you could not give in a forum? If this is like stealing cars, then that means installing store bought copies of Snow Leopard on non-Apple hardware has to be more than a civil matter because stealing is more than a civil matter.

The stealing car example, was only to illustrate the use of the "EULA sticker"

You keep giving analogies where you already presuppose one of the issues in question–whether the act in question is civil or criminal.

I give analogies, just to try to make the thing clearer. Not because it is the same thing.

Ok, illegal in what sense. Illegal in the sense that a contract was broken, or illegal in the sense that a contract was broken and a crime was committed?

Oversimplifying: criminal can put you in jail. Civil will make you pay money.

Pystar "as a company" cannot be put in jail. What are you going to put in jail? The statement of the company?

If guilty, Pystar can pay fees and stop doing what they are doing. Maybe go broke.

Now, if you explain to me what you understand as illegal in the sense that a contract was broker or illegal in the sense.....

What do you expect? Or what you imagine?

 

[pdjudd]

A lot of the hot air in this thread is generated from the assumption that Apple does not sell OS X but merely licenses it according to its strict requirements for use and that any deviation from those requirements is a breach of copyright.

Autodesk thought the same, too.

A pity that the judiciary thought otherwise. Fact is, Apple sells OS X like it sells iPods, external hard drives and notebook sleeves. It is a product that becomes your property once you part with cash for it and you can do what you like with it.

That involves resale of software. Not licensing in general. All that court case was deciding weather or not you can transfer a license legally (auto desk said no, bit the court said that that certain provision was invalid). It has no applicability to licensing as a whiole in terms of intellectual property ownership and it doesn't apply to Apple since their SLA includes terms under which you can transfer your license.

In the case you mentioned the defendant (Verner) was reselling software that he never used or modified - he was just reselling a disk that was not labled "not for resale". Its about Autodesks claim that Verner cannot use First sale doctorine. Also relivant is that Psystar is not an individual but rather a business - First sale rights tend not to apply to businesses and it doesn't allow for modification (something that Verner never did neither did he claim to be a rights holder to Auto Cad).

From your own PDF:

There is no dispute that Autodesk licensed its software to CTA. The court makes this observation because the parties and their witnesses too often suggest that their dispute is about whether Autodesk “sold” rather than “licensed” its software. That dispute is not determinative, because the use of software copies can be licensed while the copies themselves are sold. Autodesk unquestionably licensed the software in that it limits the right to use it. For example, the License takes away fair use right to reverse engineer the software. License: RESTRICTIONS. The License also expands the right to use software. For example, it permits the licensee to install the software on two computers, whereas § 117(a) would permit only a single installation. License: GRANT OF LICENSE. There is also no question that most software is transferred to consumers via licenses that restrict and expand their right to use it, although no party has presented
competent evidence of the terms of any other software maker’s license. The question before the court is whether the Autodesk License is a license that transfers ownership of the software copies included in AutoCAD packages.

Emphasis mine. The document in essence agrees with the statement that software is not sold, its licensed. Yes you do buy a disk, but that is not really relevant.

 

[sneezymarble]

Or we can interpret that it is referencing the Up to date discs which are intended as an upgrade. The problem is that Apple has several scenarios for a license agreement for SL: Single Install, Family Pack and Leopard Upgrade. The don't specify SKU's but, Apple does have a SKU for an Up to Date. There is nothing on SL box that indicates that it is the "Leopard Upgrade" referenced in the license.

Also, it may not reference a particular SKU, but rather as an installation scenario (since all 3 specify Apple hardware in general) since installation of any kind involves copying. In this case, Single and Family pack could be covering blank hardware installations (the difference being that a family pack constitutes multiple installations on several Macs) and the third scenario being a Leopard Upgrade scenario. The fact is, the terms do not make Leopard an absolute term since it can be reasonably argued that the retail disc is a "single use license". You can't just say that the license for "leopard upgrade" refers to any one version (although it does mention the Box Set which in my opinion rules out the retail version").

Furthermore, it can also be argued, that because there is no technical reason that you can do a Tiger-> Snow Leopard, that it has to be supported on some level though that might be a stretch.

I have produced a couple of real plausible scenarios on which your interpretation of the licensing can be wrong. Apple SLA only mentions the family pack and the Box set as specific product types - it does not mention the retail, restore, or up to date discs (which are basically no different than retail discs at a discount).

Hold on, so it's your position that going to the Apple store, paying $30 for an SL disc and then using that disc to install SL on a Mac with Tiger on it does not constitute a violation of the SL SLA.

If that's your position then this seems odd doesn't it?:

Maybe you're right. In which case everyone can justifiably upgrade from Tiger to SL without any worry of violating Apples SLA and by extension committing piracy.

 

[SG1-1]

A lot of the hot air in this thread is generated from the assumption that Apple does not sell OS X but merely licenses it according to its strict requirements for use and that any deviation from those requirements is a breach of copyright.

Autodesk thought the same, too.

A pity that the judiciary thought otherwise. Fact is, Apple sells OS X like it sells iPods, external hard drives and notebook sleeves. It is a product that becomes your property once you part with cash for it and you can do what you like with it.

English
Apple Computer, Inc.
Software License Agreement for Mac OS X
Single Use License

PLEASE READ THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (”LICENSE”) CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THE SOFTWARE. BY USING THE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. IF YOU ARE ACCESSING THE SOFTWARE ELECTRONICALLY, SIGNIFY YOUR AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE BY CLICKING THE “AGREE/ACCEPT” BUTTON. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE SOFTWARE AND (IF APPLICABLE) RETURN THE APPLE SOFTWARE TO THE PLACE WHERE YOU OBTAINED IT FOR A REFUND OR, IF THE SOFTWARE WAS ACCESSED ELECTRONICALLY, CLICK “DISAGREE/DECLINE”.

IMPORTANT NOTE: To the extent this software may be used to reproduce materials, it is licensed to you only for reproduction of materials you are authorized or legally permitted to reproduce.

1. General.
The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the
Apple Computer, Inc.
Software License Agreement for Mac OS X
Single Use License

PLEASE READ THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (”LICENSE”) CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THE SOFTWARE. BY USING THE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. IF YOU ARE ACCESSING THE SOFTWARE ELECTRONICALLY, SIGNIFY YOUR AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE BY CLICKING THE “AGREE/ACCEPT” BUTTON. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE SOFTWARE AND (IF APPLICABLE) RETURN THE APPLE SOFTWARE TO THE PLACE WHERE YOU OBTAINED IT FOR A REFUND OR, IF THE SOFTWARE WAS ACCESSED ELECTRONICALLY, CLICK “DISAGREE/DECLINE”.

IMPORTANT NOTE: To the extent this software may be used to reproduce materials, it is licensed to you only for reproduction of materials you are authorized or legally permitted to reproduce.

1. General.
The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the “Apple Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Computer, Inc. (“Apple”) for use only under the terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you. The rights granted herein are limited to Apple’s and its licensors’ intellectual property rights in the Apple Software and do not include any other patents or intellectual property rights. You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple’s licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself. The terms of this License will govern any software upgrades provided by Apple that replace and/or supplement the original Apple Software product, unless such upgrade is accompanied by a separate license in which case the terms of that license will govern.
Computer, Inc. (“Apple”) for use only under the terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you. The rights granted herein are limited to Apple’s and its licensors’ intellectual property rights in the Apple Software and do not include any other patents or intellectual property rights. You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple’s licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself. The terms of this License will govern any software upgrades provided by Apple that replace and/or supplement the original Apple Software product, unless such upgrade is accompanied by a separate license in which case the terms of that license will govern.


Autodesk was under completely different circumstances.

If you where aware of this you would not be pushing this Nonsense.

Read it again Fully with this direct Link, http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/MacOSX.htm

And don't quote the Autodesk case it has no baring in the Apple Case at all, your argument was already brought up months ago in these same forums and is completely irrelevant to this New case,Case law was not made in direct correlation to the circumstances in even a general sense it can not be used in any determination as such.



One Added thing, The Autodesk Case was partial relying on the First Sale, and as such in not what has been brought up in the case with Apple.
All the circumstances are different, But believe what you will.
But there is no reason to convince anyone of this, People will see what they want to see and believe things that aren't really there as fact.

 

[DavidSan]

Of course, the SL SLA only mentions Leopard. So, going from Tiger to SL using a $30 upgrade disc is most certainly piracy based on what's been said in this thread.

Apple sells updates for Tiger users also. that's why I put in parenthesis (or tiger).

And yes, using the SL $30 update on Tiger is a violation of the agreement.

Howeve, I do not have a Tiger upgrade box here to see what it says.

 

[sneezymarble]

Now, if you explain to me what you understand as illegal in the sense that a contract was broker or illegal in the sense.....

What do you expect? Or what you imagine?

I think that installing OSX on non-Apple hardware is illegal in the civil sense of breaking a term in a contract. I think that some courts have held that breaking a term in a SLA or EULA entails copyright infringement. I thought that copyright infringement was always a crime, but per
BaldiMac, I guess that's mistaken. So it can be the case that SLA and EULA violations are breaches of contract and copyright infringement but no crime has been committed.

 

[sneezymarble]

A lot of the hot air in this thread is generated from the assumption that Apple does not sell OS X but merely licenses it according to its strict requirements for use and that any deviation from those requirements is a breach of copyright.

Autodesk thought the same, too.

A pity that the judiciary thought otherwise. Fact is, Apple sells OS X like it sells iPods, external hard drives and notebook sleeves. It is a product that becomes your property once you part with cash for it and you can do what you like with it.

I skimmed the Autodesk ruling and I'm pretty sure that doesn't directly apply here. It seems to have been ruled that the physical copies were owned (not licensed) but the software on those copies was licensed and not sold.

 

[sneezymarble]

And yes, using the SL $30 update on Tiger is a violation of the agreement.

Right, but is it a mere violation of the agreement or is it also copyright infringement? And, if it is also copyright infringement, is it the civil sort or the criminal sort?

 

[DavidSan]

So he loses the right to use the hammer, but then he uses it. On one definition pirating something is the unauthorized use of it. But, according to you, he has not pirated a thing, he's pirated an action...

Again, oversimplifying is a bitch. And analogies help to understand, but it does not mean is the exact case.

Because actions cannot be patented, (as far as I know). But if you imagine you can do it, then that's the case. But just for the purpose of your analogy.

You cannot compute with my software, then you cannot compute my way.

You cannot hammer with my "hammer style", then you cannot hammer my way.

Oh, my bad, let me quote a bit more of that SLA for you:It doesn't matter if you use them or not. More than one copy is a violation of a term in the SLA and according to what's been said, violating a term in a SLA is also copyright infringement.

I think you are being too literal in this regard. Taking a file and making 3000 copies does not make you a "criminal" because there is no cause-effect. There is no purpose of doing that and no consequences. You need "INTENTION".

And here "intention" means something specific in legal vocabulary. It is not the "intention" as "trying" to reproduce (in street speaking).

(If a tree falls in the forrest and no one hears it... Has it really fallen?)

 

[pdjudd]

Hold on, so it's your position that going to the Apple store, paying $30 for an SL disc and then using that disc to install SL on a Mac with Tiger on it does not constitute a violation of the SL SLA.

No, you're shifting Goalposts. The 10.6 SLA doesn't talk about Tiger upgrades, thats enforced (rather loosely) in the system requirements page found in the OSX tech specs. That upgrade path is controlled differently (probably under teh Leopard Upgrade portion of the SLA since thats the only spot they mention the Box set). You initially brought up installing on a blank drive. I already showed how that can be allowed under the existing SLA's since it was not expressly forbidden.

Tiger to SL installations are handled differently and probably wouldn't be allowed per the SLA since it doesn't talk about Tiger in name - it just covers various allowed scenarios on the types of licenses (the single, family pack, and upgrading a prior OS - in this case Leopard). These are OR situations, not AND. You meet one set if installation terms, the rest don't apply.

 

[gnasher729]

A lot of the hot air in this thread is generated from the assumption that Apple does not sell OS X but merely licenses it according to its strict requirements for use and that any deviation from those requirements is a breach of copyright.

Autodesk thought the same, too.

A pity that the judiciary thought otherwise. Fact is, Apple sells OS X like it sells iPods, external hard drives and notebook sleeves. It is a product that becomes your property once you part with cash for it and you can do what you like with it.

It's a bummer when you find a court case and only look at the things you want to see, missing the important bits. Vernor sold complete boxes containing AutoCAD. He didn't make any copies, he didn't install them anywhere, so this case is completely different from Apple vs. Psystar. And that same court also stated that Autodesk customers who sold their used software to Vernor may have very well be in violation of their agreement with Autodesk and Autodesk could sue them, which Autodesk then promptly did.

And you can't do what you like with it. The court decision in Vernor vs. Autodesk was only about the sale of boxes. Vernor never made any copies of the software. Vernor never claimed, and the court never decided, that whoever finally had the box in their hands had any rights to use the software other than in agreement with Autodesk's licensing terms. Psystar has the right to buy as many boxes from Apple with MacOS X inside as they want, sell them to anyone they want, and there is nothing that Apple can do about that. That, however, is not what they are doing: They are making copies of the software, and that they can only do according to the license terms.

 

[paradox00]

Right, but is it a mere violation of the agreement or is it also copyright infringement? And, if it is also copyright infringement, is it the civil sort or the criminal sort?

What ultimate answer are you looking for here? Are you trying to determine if individuals within Psystar should be put in jail instead of the company merely being forced to stop selling computers with OSX pre-installed and pay damages to Apple? And on an individual level, would breaking a licensing agreement be a civil or a criminal wrong?

If that is what you are after, I'm pretty sure the answer to both questions would be civil. No one will end up in jail for this. Now if individuals in Psystar are found to have lied to the courts (about purchasing copies of OSX for example) they could be found criminally responsible.

 

[pdjudd]

Right, but is it a mere violation of the agreement or is it also copyright infringement? And, if it is also copyright infringement, is it the civil sort or the criminal sort?

It's kinda both since you no longer have rights to the content on the disc. Apple maintains that you own the physical disc which you can use for any purpose you wish. However if your wish is to install OSX, well that right is reserved under Apple's terms via a Civil agreement. It depends on your intent. Apple could care less if you buy the disc and use it as a coaster for example. Licensing doesn't apply until you try to use it as a software program.d

If the disc was purchased but the license was violated, it is just civil infringement like the current case between Apple and Psystar is now.

If the physical disk was not obtained legally, then it becomes a criminal matter for law enforcement.

 

[pdjudd]

No one will end up in jail for this. Now if individuals in Psystar are found to have lied to the courts (about purchasing copies of OSX for example) they could be found criminally responsible.

It's darned unlikely, but if Psystar cannot prove that they ever purchased the OS in the first place (something they have yet to prove) the courts can infer that they never did. Criminal matters can be taken from there since Apple can file criminal charges. I don't see that happening though - they can just stick to civil damages based on computer sales or the like.

 

[sneezymarble]

I think you are being too literal in this regard. Taking a file and making 3000 copies does not make you a "criminal" because there is no cause-effect. There is no purpose of doing that and no consequences. You need "INTENTION".

And here "intention" means something specific in legal vocabulary. It is not the "intention" as "trying" to reproduce (in street speaking).

(If a tree falls in the forrest and no one hears it... Has it really fallen?)[/QUOTE]

Ok, here's my intention–violate the Safari SLA. The Safari SLA says I cannot make more than one backup copy of Safai. I make two. Have I violated the SLA. Have I committed copyright infringement? Have I committed a crime?

You initially brought up installing on a blank drive. I already showed how that can be allowed under the existing SLA's since it was not expressly forbidden.

Granted.

Tiger to SL installations are handled differently and probably wouldn't be allowed per the SLA since it doesn't talk about Tiger in name - it just covers various allowed scenarios on the types of licenses (the single, family pack, and upgrading a prior OS - in this case Leopard). These are OR situations, not AND. You meet one set if installation terms, the rest don't apply.

Agreed.

 

[sneezymarble]

What ultimate answer are you looking for here? Are you trying to determine if individuals within Psystar should be put in jail instead of the company merely being forced to stop selling computers with OSX pre-installed and pay damages to Apple? And on an individual level, would breaking a licensing agreement be a civil or a criminal wrong?

If that is what you are after, I'm pretty sure the answer to both questions would be civil. No one will end up in jail for this. Now if individuals in Psystar are found to have lied to the courts (about purchasing copies of OSX for example) they could be found criminally responsible.

Thank you. I'm just trying to get clear on where these sorts of things go from civil to criminal. At the outset of this thread my understanding was that all piracy (read: copyright infringement) was a criminal matter. Thus, it seemed to me that claims that Psystar were pirating OSX were also claims that they were committing a crime and not merely breaching a contract (or facilitating breach of contract).

My new understanding is that not all occasions of piracy (copyright infringement) are occasions of criminal acts. So, as it stands now, my understanding is that if you install a store bought copy of OSX on non-Apple hardware you have breached a contract (specifically, a term in the SLA) and you have also committed copyright infringement (piracy); but, you have not committed a crime. Also, if this is right, it holds just as true for Jailbroken iPhones as it does for Hackintosh computers–a SLA or EULA term is violated and thus a contract is breached which then terminates the license between the license, which means that any continued use is an unauthorized use and since copyright infringement (piracy) is the unauthorized use of the licensend software, it follows that continued use of a Jailbroken iPhone is an act of copyright infringement. But, using a Jailbroken iPhone apparantly doesn't constitute a crime...or maybe it does...anyone?

 

[pdjudd]

Ok, here's my intention–violate the Safari SLA. The Safari SLA says I cannot make more than one backup copy of Safai. I make two. Have I violated the SLA.

OK.

Have I committed copyright infringement?

Yes. THe SLA disctates the terms you can copy the software.

Have I committed a crime?

Yes, it would be a civil matter. The problem is the word "crime" doesn't typically get used in civil matters - it tends to get reserved for, well, criminal matters. Its not the kind of crime that will get you in jail, but it is a civil crime that is restricted on its application - in civil court.

For all intents in purposes, we should be using the word "crime" as "Civil crime". The meaning can be inferred since nobody is seriously thinking that Psystar is going to jail for a day. Shut down? Perhaps. Anybody suggesting that anybody is going to jail though is mis-informed.

 

[DavidSan]

I think that installing OSX on non-Apple hardware is illegal in the civil sense of breaking a term in a contract. I think that some courts have held that breaking a term in a SLA or EULA entails copyright infringement. I thought that copyright infringement was always a crime, but per
BaldiMac, I guess that's mistaken. So it can be the case that SLA and EULA violations are breaches of contract and copyright infringement but no crime has been committed.

Ok! but even if the broken SLA caused a murder (which is highly improbable) you cannot put Pystar in jail.

So, in this practical sense (and to Apple) this might not be "criminal".

However, if you read this article:

http://www.osnews.com/story/22233/The_Difference_Between_EULAs_and_Open_Source_Licenses

You can have an idea of the Pystar problem. Pystar is walking a line into the "rights area" of its customers, by taking the "liberty" to agree to install something that they cannot.

"Usually" when you violate "fundamental rights" of other people (the right to live, the right to own, the right to pursue happiness, the right to choose, etc.) the civil matter could become a criminal matter. (However, this is a clear over simplification)

However, criminal law is usually enforced by the government. So far, the government has not take action on it (As far as I know). So, it is a civil issue so far. Apple vs Pystar.

 

[pdjudd]

My new understanding is that not all occasions of piracy (copyright infringement) are occasions of criminal acts.

Correct. The only time that it becomes a criminal matter is when you are trying to sell counterfeit goods (like they do in Asia on the streets) - but thats a bit different.

So, as it stands now, my understanding is that if you install a store bought copy of OSX on non-Apple hardware you have breached a contract (specifically, a term in the SLA) and you have also committed copyright infringement; but, you have not committed a crime.

Close. Copyright infringement can be a crime (copyright is coded in Law), but it is limited to civil action and the probablility of having penalties levied to you by a court of law.

Its a distinction between civil and criminal. A law is being broken here. That makes the guilty party a criminal. Its just the party involved that is different. We may jest be arguing over minor symantics though.

 

[BaldiMac]

It's darned unlikely, but if Psystar cannot prove that they ever purchased the OS in the first place (something they have yet to prove) the courts can infer that they never did. Criminal matters can be taken from there since Apple can file criminal charges. I don't see that happening though - they can just stick to civil damages based on computer sales or the like.

Just a nitpick, but Apple can't file criminal charges. They can only press for the appropriate government prosecutor to file criminal charges.