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

[BaldiMac]

Who installs the OS is relevant. The fact that my neighbor installs OSX on his PC is relevant to me not being liable for infringement if I don't do it. That installation is installed by the customer, not Systar. Systar need not ever run the SMC emulation. And, per my previous explanations, I don't see how they can be contributorily liable for infringement.

In your scenario, Systar still provides tools whose only function is to allow the installation of OS X on their PC. And I am only referring to the code in the bootloader specifically required to install OS X and not any other OS. The fact that they don't run the code doesn't matter.

Lexmark tried to use the DMCA to lockout 3rd party ink and the courts said that they can't do that.

also there are other cases of trying to use the DMCA to lock out 3rd party stuff.

Getting things to come down to the DMCA isn't good news at all. Under the DMCA it's been held that it's a violation to even link to information or software that facilitates circumvention/interoperability–something which occurs on this very forum.

My understanding is that the point of the Lexmark case is that the DMCA isn't applicable in situations in which you circumvent some sort of digital encryption in order to do something that is otherwise legal. Unless the court determines that Apple's tying of OS X to Apple hardware through licensing is illegal, the DMCA would apply.

 

[chocolaterabbit]

An analogy is like the Prohibition era, illegal to actually sell the stuff, but would people buy them from shady places anyway, yes. You can't stop it.

 

[charlituna]

My understanding is that the point of the Lexmark case is that the DMCA isn't applicable in situations in which you circumvent some sort of digital encryption in order to do something that is otherwise legal. Unless the court determines that Apple's tying of OS X to Apple hardware through licensing is illegal, the DMCA would apply.

that illegality would have to come down to one of two things

1. Apple doesn't have a proper copyright on the software
2. tying is a violation of anti-trust

in reply

1. Apple did in fact create the GUI and thus has a copyright on it even if they can't claim copyright to the open source code that operates underneath said GUI. Further, despite Psystar's claim, that copyright exists even without LOC registration (which only plays into the ability to get more than actual damages). Further again, Psystar was in error claiming that Apple never filed their copyright with the LOC. They in fact did

2. Psystar's very first claim was anti-trust, trying to say that Apple holds 100% of the market. the Judge tossed it on the grounds that the market is Personal Computer Systems, not Macintosh Computer Systems. So until Psystar can get a Judge to override that call, they are out on anti-trust. and this attempt against Snow Leopard will likely fail for the same reason

 

[drsmithy]

That's not what I was arguing. I never said that it would be technically infeasible - its just not worth it.

I was replying to all the Chicken Littles who thought that any such system would be inherently complicated and intrusive.

Not to mention that all it's going to do is just be beaten anyway like Windows is. Hackers can do lots of things when they have direct access to the system. The low market of Apple just makes such a system pointless.

The point isn't to stop "hackers", the point is to stop companies like Psystar.

Plus we have to inquire how it works, over the internet?

Of course not. There's just a big list of past, present and future serial numbers, etc, included with the OS X installer disk.

This is the point. When the presence of certain hardware is guaranteed, all that "fancy" stuff is completely unnecessary. The biggest reason most software "registration" schemes are a pain is because they are, ultimately, just taking a well-educated guess.

That's not why it would be dismissed though - the reason would be that such actions are unenforceable in a practical manner. The courts can simply establish that those two clauses, while not illegal, have no bearing on violation. In other words, they can be there, but they can't be used for grounds because it cannot be practically enforced.

I find it hard to believe a court would rule in such an indecisive and obviously inconclusive manner.

 

[pdjudd]

I was replying to all the Chicken Littles who thought that any such system would be inherently complicated and intrusive.

Ah, My bad.

The point isn't to stop "hackers", the point is to stop companies like Psystar.

1) I doubt that will stop companies like Pystar from defeating this.
2) Once Apple gets successful at Suiting Psystar, it has the advantage of using this case as precedence to go after others who may be inspired. They don't need to do something that requires so much overhead for them

Of course not. There's just a big list of past, present and future serial numbers, etc, included with the OS X installer disk.

The problem is that new Macs are being sold and made all the time - that requires the discs to be constantly updated (not cheap) not only for Apple retailers, but all other retailers too. Thats alot of overhead just to stop someone that can be sued - Apple spends that money anyway no matter what.

This is the point. When the presence of certain hardware is guaranteed, all that "fancy" stuff is completely unnecessary. The biggest reason most software "registration" schemes are a pain is because they are, ultimately, just taking a well-educated guess.

Predicting future hardware is the big trick. Apple changes hardware every year, but they don't have a tight enough control. At best they only know after they buy the parts, but we are still talking overhead for Apple. That cost has to be made up somewhere.

I find it hard to believe a court would rule in such an indecisive and obviously inconclusive manner.

Judge to paliniff: Can you prove that the required action of wearing socks and facing East actually occurs and there is a valid reason for that to occur?
Plaintiff: Not really no, it was just for fun really...
Judge: Well its not good enough grounds for a violation, try again.

Point being the actions themselves are not illegal, so they could be put in there, however there not going to be sufficient to base a violation off of anyway. It would get laughed out. It was an absurd argument.

 

[pdjudd]

An analogy is like the Prohibition era, illegal to actually sell the stuff, but would people buy them from shady places anyway, yes. You can't stop it.

Which is why Apple doesn't bother to go after individuals since its a waste of resources. They will go after companies because they are larger in size and are easier to get because business have higher expectations on such legalities.

 

[retrolutionary]

While I don't necessarily agree that what Psystar does is right, the fact that people have successfully run OS X on a Dell Mini 9 (a relatively cheap netbook) does prove that you do NOT need a complete powerhouse machine to efficiently run the OS.

Hmmm....I thought the Mac Mini was proof enough. I have seen several non-Apple machines that perform better than the Mini, iMac, or Mac Pro models. They have the same motherboard the Mac Pro uses along with 3GHz Nehalem Intel processors. Oddly, they were 64-bit capable and could support 64GB RAM. They used a third party dongle to boot up Snow Leopard from the BIOS screen. It was kind of like Parallels, only in reverse. I would appreciate it if some of you would do a little research before making assumptions about hardware. Apple does not make their own chips, motherboards, Hard Drives, Optical Drives, or PCI cards. All those devices are bought from PC vendors who also supply HP, Gateway, Dell, and others.

One of the machines I've had the great pleasure of perusing was a Super Alien X tower sporting an Apple Mac Pro logic board (that allows it to boot OSX natively since the Mac BIOS ROM is already there.), 32GB RAM, 6-2TB Seagate HD's, and 5 Pioneer Blu-Ray player DVD+-RW optical drives. He paid a grand total of $4,486.27 for all of the hardware. If you were to equip an Apple Mac Pro from the store as comparable as you could to it, you'd pay a little over $26,000.00 and still wouldn't be close to what that machine has.

I used to be a flag waving, card carrying, hard-line supporter of all things Apple, but then they turned their back on my G4 and G3 iMac and excluded me, and several million G-Series Mac owners from using Snow Leopard. That's what lead me to want to build my own Mac. In that quest, I've met lots of great people who are on a similar pilgrimage. They would like an affordable solution to the dilemma Apple left us in, as well. Some of them dream of an affordable, mid-sized, upgradable tower from Apple, but I'm not holding my breath on that one. I just got a G4 Cube to slap some Mac Mini guts into it. I saw one recently another guy had built. Like him, I might even document the build online for others to follow suit. Of course, I will make mine a little different just for decorum's sake.

 

[MacDSmith2]

I would appreciate it if some of you would do a little research before making assumptions about hardware. Apple does not make their own chips, motherboards, Hard Drives, Optical Drives, or PCI cards. All those devices are bought from PC vendors who also supply HP, Gateway, Dell, and others.

I don't think too many on this board appreciate the Mac Mini or the flexibility of a small tower computer. In fact, as one hardware guru put it, if the Mac Mini had a 3 by 6 by 6 case model, it woud BE the headless tower so many people talk about because you could put two 3.5 inch drive combinations in it, where as now, it is limited to 2.5 inch HDD and one 3.5 inch HDD or Optical drive.

 

[Buzz Bumble]

I don't think too many on this board appreciate the Mac Mini or the flexibility of a small tower computer. In fact, as one hardware guru put it, if the Mac Mini had a 3 by 6 by 6 case model, it woud BE the headless tower so many people talk ...

Only if Apple also put in a much faster chip and proper graphics card. The whiners want super-fast, super-expandable, and super-cheap ... at most only two of those is actually really possibly, and it's already being made by Apple as the Mac Pro.

 

[Buzz Bumble]

Talking of agreements, I just read this in the book I'm reading ...

Hal is looking through the freezer for something to eat and has reached the last pot of five pre-packaged meals.

Hal took it out and studied the damp label, which showed a pile of steaming meatballs on a bed of brown rice, running with rich, brown gravy. "I don't remember having these before." ...

Hal pressed the pot into the heater and closed the lid, then counted to ten as it warmed under his hands. He pulled the pot out and put it on the table quickly, before it burnt his fingers. He peeled back the lid, and a cloud of steam rose from the pot, temporarily obscuring the contents. Then it cleared, revealing a thin, greasy soup.

Hal stirred the mixture with a disposable fork, and a couple of small brown lumps bobbed to the surface. "When I'm filthy rich, I'm going to set aside half my fortune to sue these {beep} for false advertising."

"You can't," said the Navcom. "You waived your rights when you opened the package. It's part of the end-user agreement."

"What end-user agreement?"

"The one inside the lid."

Hal Spacejock
by Simon Haynes​

 

[kurosov]

Talking of agreements, I just read this in the book I'm reading ...

Hal is looking through the freezer for something to eat and has reached the last pot of five pre-packaged meals.

Hal took it out and studied the damp label, which showed a pile of steaming meatballs on a bed of brown rice, running with rich, brown gravy. "I don't remember having these before." ...

Hal pressed the pot into the heater and closed the lid, then counted to ten as it warmed under his hands. He pulled the pot out and put it on the table quickly, before it burnt his fingers. He peeled back the lid, and a cloud of steam rose from the pot, temporarily obscuring the contents. Then it cleared, revealing a thin, greasy soup.

Hal stirred the mixture with a disposable fork, and a couple of small brown lumps bobbed to the surface. "When I'm filthy rich, I'm going to set aside half my fortune to sue these {beep} for false advertising."

"You can't," said the Navcom. "You waived your rights when you opened the package. It's part of the end-user agreement."

"What end-user agreement?"

"The one inside the lid."

Hal Spacejock
by Simon Haynes​

Yet he could have gotten a refund.

 

[drsmithy]

Only if Apple also put in a much faster chip and proper graphics card. The whiners want super-fast, super-expandable, and super-cheap ... at most only two of those is actually really possibly, and it's already being made by Apple as the Mac Pro.

No, they want fast, expandable, and not expensive.

For example: Apple should be able to deliver a "Mac" - single Core i7 CPU (2.66Ghz), 6 DIMM slots (3GB standard), 2 hard disk bays (500GB standard), a PCIe x16 slot (Radeon 4350), a PCIe x4 slot and two PCIe x1 slots - for the cost of an entry-level iMac. Fast, expandable, and not expensive (though still ~30% more than Dell).

The people who want a mid-range tower are not asking for anything remotely unreasonable or uneconomical.

 

[drsmithy]

1) I doubt that will stop companies like Pystar from defeating this.

Technically, no. Legally, a much stronger case.

2) Once Apple gets successful at Suiting Psystar, it has the advantage of using this case as precedence to go after others who may be inspired. They don't need to do something that requires so much overhead for them

Assuming they win, of course.

The problem is that new Macs are being sold and made all the time - that requires the discs to be constantly updated (not cheap) not only for Apple retailers, but all other retailers too. Thats alot of overhead just to stop someone that can be sued - Apple spends that money anyway no matter what.

All it requires is for Apple to know Serial+MAC+UUID for a reasonable time in advance - say, 3 years. Even if they don't already know that information (which I would find surprising), it certainly wouldn't take them long to define it.

Predicting future hardware is the big trick. Apple changes hardware every year, but they don't have a tight enough control. At best they only know after they buy the parts, but we are still talking overhead for Apple. That cost has to be made up somewhere.

The serial, MAC and UUID are all dictated by Apple, not the vendor supplying them the components.

Point being the actions themselves are not illegal, so they could be put in there, however there not going to be sufficient to base a violation off of anyway. It would get laughed out. It was an absurd argument.

Point being the only reason Psystar's actions would be illegal is if the EULA, in an of itself, can make them so. If an EULA can't make tying software usage to specific clothes a "requirement", then by the same logic it can't make tying software to a specific piece of hardware a "requirement".

 

[charlituna]

Point being the only reason Psystar's actions would be illegal is if the EULA, in an of itself, can make them so. If an EULA can't make tying software usage to specific clothes a "requirement", then by the same logic it can't make tying software to a specific piece of hardware a "requirement".

actually the EULA really is not the issue. Copyright, the DMCA and related laws, and anti-trust are the issues. The latter was tossed in Florida because Psystar tried to argue there is a Mac Computer Market and there isn't. It will likely be tossed in California as well. Copyright and the DMCA are still being worked out. But it is worth noting that one can be guilty of violating the DMCA clause against bypassing access controls without a copyright claim. And Psystar is most definitely guilty of that with this whole boat loader game

 

[drsmithy]

actually the EULA really is not the issue. Copyright, the DMCA and related laws, and anti-trust are the issues.

The Copyright and DMCA issues will only carry weight if the EULA is upheld.

But it is worth noting that one can be guilty of violating the DMCA clause against bypassing access controls without a copyright claim. And Psystar is most definitely guilty of that with this whole boat loader game

I thought there was a "reverse engineering is OK for interoperability" clause in the DMCA ?

 

[MorphingDragon]

The Copyright and DMCA issues will only carry weight if the EULA is upheld.


I thought there was a "reverse engineering is OK for interoperability" clause in the DMCA ?

For proprietary formats. Plus the DMCA is an American law. Phystar would just need to change their location to somewhere like France.

How in the world is Mac OSX a format?

 

[pdjudd]

I thought there was a "reverse engineering is OK for interoperability" clause in the DMCA ?

There might be, but I doubt that it would be allowable - the limitations of running OSX on non apple hardware are not technical, but rather a licensing agreement between two parties - you can't use an interoperability argument as a loophole to a restriction that you agreed to.

 

[petedskier]

Originally Posted by drsmithy
charlituna: actually the EULA really is not the issue. Copyright, the DMCA and related laws, and anti-trust are the issues.
drsmithy: The Copyright and DMCA issues will only carry weight if the EULA is upheld.
charlituna: But it is worth noting that one can be guilty of violating the DMCA clause against bypassing access controls without a copyright claim. And Psystar is most definitely guilty of that with this whole boot loader game
drsmithy: I thought there was a "reverse engineering is OK for interoperability" clause in the DMCA ?

For proprietary formats. Plus the DMCA is an American law. Psystar would just need to change their location to somewhere like France.

How in the world is Mac OSX a format?

These make an interesting point and why this case is difficult to predict. First, I agree with charlie on this point. If you wrote a program to circumvent the built in copy protection of a DVD, the program itself would violate the DMCA.

re: DMCA restrictions.
drsmithy is correct on reverse engineering, with the proviso that a system is obsolete. That proviso should not apply here.

I now see how actual code becomes important here. If Psystar alters the Apple OS, then they would be in guilty of copyright infringement. If Psystar wrote a program that enabled circumventing copy protection, they would violate provisions of the DMCA. There is an implication that an unprotected OS X code could be captured that no longer is subject to any DRM protection. However, I don't know if the OS X disk actually has a DRM copy protection scheme on it. I am not saying it doesn't, I am just saying I never tried to make a copy of it.

So, this asks a new question. If Psystar wrote a boot loader program that did not alter OS X, if it did not seek to circumvent copy protection of the disk, if it did not seek to steal the intellectual property contained on the disk, did they violate the provisions of the DMCA?

 

[pdjudd]

Technically, no. Legally, a much stronger case.

Perhaps. Hard to say really.

Assuming they win, of course.

Of course. Thats obvious though

All it requires is for Apple to know Serial+MAC+UUID for a reasonable time in advance - say, 3 years. Even if they don't already know that information (which I would find surprising), it certainly wouldn't take them long to define it.

Really? I don't think that maintaining a database like that is at all easy as you think - especially when you have to make sure that it is valid, and cannot be bypassed easily. Lets not forget that no business is going to engage in this kind of shady behavior anyway. Apple doesn't need to do this.

 

[drsmithy]

There might be, but I doubt that it would be allowable - the limitations of running OSX on non apple hardware are not technical, but rather a licensing agreement between two parties - you can't use an interoperability argument as a loophole to a restriction that you agreed to.

"It a licensing issue" assumes the EULA will be found valid.

Numerous people in this thread are arguing that Psystar's boot loader is performing a circumvention of Apple's technical methods. That is what I am referring to.

 

[drsmithy]

For proprietary formats. Plus the DMCA is an American law. Phystar would just need to change their location to somewhere like France.

Somehow I doubt that would work when it came to selling their products in the US.

How in the world is Mac OSX a format?

It's not. Whatever it is that the bootloader does to "emulate" the SMC so that OS X boots on a non-Mac is the "format".

 

[drsmithy]

However, I don't know if the OS X disk actually has a DRM copy protection scheme on it. I am not saying it doesn't, I am just saying I never tried to make a copy of it.

So, this asks a new question. If Psystar wrote a boot loader program that did not alter OS X, if it did not seek to circumvent copy protection of the disk, if it did not seek to steal the intellectual property contained on the disk, did they violate the provisions of the DMCA?

There is no copy protection of the OS X disc. You can pull an ISO image straight off it and use that in a VM, to burn more copies, etc.

Further, Psystar aren't modifying any OS X code. They install and run a standard retail edition of OS X.

 

[alent1234]

These make an interesting point and why this case is difficult to predict. First, I agree with charlie on this point. If you wrote a program to circumvent the built in copy protection of a DVD, the program itself would violate the DMCA.

re: DMCA restrictions.
drsmithy is correct on reverse engineering, with the proviso that a system is obsolete. That proviso should not apply here.

I now see how actual code becomes important here. If Psystar alters the Apple OS, then they would be in guilty of copyright infringement. If Psystar wrote a program that enabled circumventing copy protection, they would violate provisions of the DMCA. There is an implication that an unprotected OS X code could be captured that no longer is subject to any DRM protection. However, I don't know if the OS X disk actually has a DRM copy protection scheme on it. I am not saying it doesn't, I am just saying I never tried to make a copy of it.

So, this asks a new question. If Psystar wrote a boot loader program that did not alter OS X, if it did not seek to circumvent copy protection of the disk, if it did not seek to steal the intellectual property contained on the disk, did they violate the provisions of the DMCA?

there are some PC configurations where you can install OS X on it without any hacking. The Dell Mini will let you do this and a few HP models as well.

for build it yourself you just need a motherboard and the right video card to let you do this. not a big deal. there are websites out there dedicated to building hackintoshes and they have databases of compatible hardware

except for the exact models of some chips, there is really no difference between a Mac and a PC in terms of hardware

 

[charlituna]

The Copyright and DMCA issues will only carry weight if the EULA is upheld.

try the other way around. Federal laws trump contract clauses.

I thought there was a "reverse engineering is OK for interoperability" clause in the DMCA ?

this has nothing to do with interoperability, even Psystar knows that which is they haven't tried that stunt.

For proprietary formats. Plus the DMCA is an American law. Phystar would just need to change their location to somewhere like France.

the whole Berne Convention agreement is that signing countries agree to support the copyright protections of materials according to the country of creation. so France, if a signer, would uphold the US protections on materials created in the US. Even when it conflicts with their laws. So moving out of country could prove to be pointless because the US ruling on the whole copyright and DMCA would be enforced in more than the US

besides do you really thinks these losers, who probably still live at home, could afford to move out of country with all the import issues they would face as well as the rest

 

[supinternet]

i really hope this won't happen.
I wouldn't want ****** PC companies making ****** computers with OS X on them.
they'll pretty much ruin the whole thing just like they did with windows.