So where is the copyright violation ? Psystar buy a retail copy of OS X, install it onto a computer, then sell the resulting product. Are you saying that anyone providing a service installing software is violating copyright ?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Psystar Announces Program for Third-Party PC Manufacturers to Enable Snow Leopard Installation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
uh no. Microsoft would probably never give them the license to do so plus they won't want to deal with the customer service hell of doing it and then not supporting it. or worse, supporting it and bogging down already busy Genius Bars filed with Mac OS issues
the meeting is likely because the holiday selling season will kick up at the end of the month, just like last year, and they will want to make sure the managers all have the right info about allowed rule exceptions, holiday promos and so on
Exactly. Its legal in the sense of what Compaq did years ago in order to run the same software that was available for the IBM systems back in the day - Compaq did a clean room compatibility system using their own code and got MS to license DOS/Windows to make it work the same way - it helped that the IBM systems were built with off the shelf components. Nothing was ripped off. Compaq used no code from IBM or MS. They properly licenced anything they didn't own. IBM sure wasn't happy, but Compaq didn't steal anything from IBM - they just built code that did the same thing on a binary level. A far cry from whats going on here. Pysytars systems are emulating boot code that is Apple's property - work done from other sources no doubt. A big no-no.
As Knight points out - this is very different from the Psystar situation since they are doing things without a license using code that they do not own rights to. There is nothing illegal about creating a system that is technically capable of running OSX - several Dell netbooks already do that - but Psystar is distributing stuff they have no rights to.
Except that is not "all they're doing." They are also installing OS X on those machines and providing software that enables the installation.
No - they cannot prove that they purchased anything (I even think that they have admitted to violating the license). Furthermore they do not install a retail copy - they allegedly use a boot image. Assuming they include a retail box (again they cannot prove that they did that), thats two copies. Not to mention that basically all the visual element, all the software, basically everything in OSX is copyright.
You cannot re-distribute copyright material as a business without following proper permission - especially if you alter or sell a derived portion of the that copyright.
About the only thing that Pystar can do with Apple's intellevtual property is sell it in it's original form - especially if they are operating as a business. They can buy the retail boxes of OSX and resell them unopened to their hearts content (as long as they don't violate related copyrights in their marketing), they can even purchase, use, and sell used Macintoshes all they want. That's all fine. They cannot get into the buisness of anything that involves manipulating the copyright (like creating derivatives).
A similar simulation happened years ago back when the movie Titanic was released. A Utah theater tried to show a family friendly version that removed the nudity and sex from the movie. Paramount went after them and forced them to stop that. Point is, you can't edit and distribute something you don't have permission to do so.
Not when doing so will create a scenario where you are going toe-to-toe with a company that has a 90% market share. That's suicidal. We would all like more choices from Apple, but we also want Apple to be able to stay in business too. Right now, they have a competitive advantage in how they run their business.
You can get what you want if Apple provides it in -company. Apple doesn't want to and there is no law that says that they must.
They shouldn't need to prove they didn't, it should be Apple's jobs to prove they did.
By your logic, anyone reselling OS X is violating copyright.
They're not altering any part of OS X.
You are trying to argue that anyone providing a service that in any way involves installing software, is a copyright violation. Somehow I doubt that's true.
Actually, since Apple owns the IP and can dhow that there is no agreed licensing system beween Apple and Psystar, and Apple asserts that the product cannot be loaded on generic hardware without external support, and they are alleging licensing violations (which Psystar has not denied), Psystar has to prove purchases - they are using it as a defense. As a business, this should be something that they should have. THey have yet to provide that despite court orders to that regard. In short, your wrong.
Except I have never claimed that. In fact I said that they are permitted to do just that - providing that they sell it un-modified. Apple alleges that Psystar has done just that.
Actually, They have. They have to at the very least emulate code that they have no rights to.
When you are dealing with another person's IP, you have to follow the rules that they set. Period. That goes double if you are a business. Psystar, nor anybody else other than Apple owns OSX. If you do not own it, you can't use it without permission.
Actually, it can be - current laws disagree with you. I don't think the laws allow for someone to facilitate in copyright infringement. I really doubt that IP holders would like that.
DMCA! There is protection in OS X which prevents it booting on non Apple hardware.
OS X is modified. There is a kext called Don't Steal Mac OS X, which is modified to remove some checks. If this Kext wasn't modified, you would get a permanent beach ball on non Apple hardware. Also the boot loader is modified.
But if I buy a copy of Apple OSX for my Hackintosh, it's not stealing. Surely I can modify files on my OS that I bought....
But cjmillsnun did not use the "stealing" in his post. Copyright infringement (which is what Psystar is being accused of) != theft nor is he claiming that. Nobody is saying that you cannot modify the computer that you bought. You just cannot make a business out of doing said modifications for others.
Apple likely doesn't care about individual hackintosh efforts - they never went after them in the past because it's not worth it. Its the buisess aspect of it that changies things significantly. The game changes heavily when you start calling yourself a business.
There are no similarities at all between ReactOS and what Psystar is doing. None. ReactOS is created from the ground up to emulate Windows; no code was used from MS at all. Psystar is using OS X software to sell their products while violating the EULA. Whether or not you agree with that, it's certainly not the same thing as ReactOS.
Nevermind that ReactOS is a stupid pointless endeavor for MS haters, that would have been better served just running WINE or virtualization, but of which (as was already mentioned) have been out for ages now.
Yes, but his post had the word "steal", which I highlighted.
And my question was directly related to his comment about modified files.
You should read a little more carefully, and not jump into arguments that don't have a agood basis in the thread.
Apple did by simply saying that they haven't licensed OS X to Psystar. Now the ball's in Psystar court to prove to produce a license under which they distribute OS X. As of yet, they have failed to even show they payed for the copies of OS X they shipped, much less provided a valid license for distribution.
He was referring to a file that had a name containing the word "steal". I seriously doubt that he was implying hackishness as theft. It doesn't matter about file modification either. There is no logic in suggesting that it is theft to modify a file that contains the word "steal" in it. Its illogical.
EDIT: The Ktext is called "Don't Steal Mac OS X". It could be named anything - it's just a file. He wasn't responsible for that naming though. My guess is that the "stealing" mentioning is the theft of intellectual property rights, but you have to ask Apple what they mean. Cryptic file names though are outside the pervue of this
Actually, the license says that you can't do that. You can find this file in /System/Library/Extensions/Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext/LICENSE:
Many EULAs have been declared invalid in the courts.
Many assume that the last thing that Apple would want to do is to have the courts rule on the validity of their restrictive EULAs. If the courts ruled that the Apple EULAs are invalid, then the Apple computer business collapses.
Many people have been found to be guilty of [pick your crime] in a court of law. Doesn't speak to the rest of us.
A license agreement is a contract. It carries the same requirements as any other contract. If certain provisions are found to be illegal, those provisions or the contract as a whole can be declared invalid by a court.
The court is not going to rule Apple's SLA invalid. That isn't even an issue in this case. Not to mention that such a decision would destroy the software industry. It can't exist without licensing. What the court can do is rule on the specific clause in the SLA that limits the installation of OS X to Macs.
Psystar's argument is that copyright law allows the owner of a copy of a computer program to install that program on a computer in order to use it. Since the owner of the copy has that right under the law, Apple can't limit that right through licensing. The problem is the same section of copyright law that allows this installation, specifically forbids sale of the resulting adaptation without the approval of the copyright owner (Apple).
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117
Nope
Its your opinion, Wine cant even readily use things like recent versions Microsoft Office flawlessly without some kind of user intervention.
Why dont you look more into how they get OSX running in the first place.
I can argue that Mac OSX is a pointless endeavor that could of been perfectly served by linux.
A couple of things about all this Apple vs Pystar business..
"Nokia, the world's biggest mobile phone maker, has said that it is suing its US rival Apple for infringing patents on mobile phone technology for the iPhone.
Nokia said it had not been compensated for its technology, and accused Apple of "trying to get a free ride on the back of Nokia's innovation".
The 10 alleged patent infringements involve wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption.
Apple, which did not comment on the news, saw its shares dip slightly.
The breaches applied to all models of the iPhone since its launch in 2007, Nokia added.
'Basic principle'
Finland's Nokia said that it had agreements with about 40 firms - including most mobile phone handset makers - allowing them to use the firm's technology, but that Apple had not signed an agreement.
"The basic principle in the mobile industry is that those companies who contribute in technology development to establish standards create intellectual property, which others then need to compensate for," said Ilkka Rahnasto, vice-president of legal and intellectual property at Nokia.
"Apple is also expected to follow this principle."
He added that during the last two decades, Nokia had invested approximately 40bn euros (£36.2bn; $60bn) on research and development.
Earlier this month, Nokia posted its first quarterly loss in a decade amid falling sales.
Analysts said that the poor results had come partly as customers turned from Nokia models to the iPhone and RIM's Blackberry.
Meanwhile, Apple reported profits of $1.67bn (£1bn) in the three months to 26 September - partly due to a 7% growth in iPhone sales"
Software is owned not licensed
US legal precedent
By Nick Farrell
Wednesday, 7 October 2009, 09:38
THE BYZANTINE SOFTWARE licensing system in the US was dealt a blow by a federal court that denied Autodesk's bid to prevent the second-hand sale of its software.
According to Out Law, the company tried for years to convince a court that its software is merely licensed and not sold and that a customer therefore had no rights to sell it on.
The target of Autodesk's wrath was Timothy Vernor, who was selling legitimate copies of Autodesk software on Ebay.
Vernor's defence was that since he paid for the software he had the right to sell it on, and now the US District Court for the Western District of Washington has agreed with him.
The decision apparently was difficult as there were two cases that had set precedents and they clashed. The court decided that it was better to follow the earlier precedent, which was a dispute over the ownership of prints of Hollywood films sold to movie stars.
In that case film copies were explicitly only licensed, but in one case the agreement had transferred ownership of the print to the actress Vanessa Redgrave. In that case a court found that the studio did not have the right, as it did in other agreements, to demand the return of the print.
The judge in the Vernor case said that software agreements were similar enough to that film agreement for it to act as a precedent.
The ruling said that the Autodesk License is a hodgepodge of terms that, standing alone, support both a transfer of ownership and a mere licence.
Autodesk retains title to the 'Software and accompanying materials' but it has no right to regain possession of the software or the 'accompanying materials'.
In other words software companies have to be able to demand their software back in order to successfully claim that it is licensed and not purchased.
Autodesk claimed that Vernor's actions were likely to result in the creation and sale of illegal copies of its AutoCAD software.
However the court gave short shrift to Autodesk's attempt to use the threat of 'piracy' as an excuse for its actions.
It said that Autodesk's claim that Vernor was promoting software 'piracy' was unconvincing and his sales of AutoCAD were just as legal as Autodesk's own sales of the same packages.
A software thief would be just as likely to nick illegal copies of Vernor's software as they were likely to steal Autodesk's, the court said.
While the ruling will probably be appealed, if it is upheld then it could require changes to current US software licensing practices.
For software companies to claim that they are merely licensing their products they will have to actually demand the return of the software when the licence expires.
This might have a knock on effect on the music and film industries which have also been trying to adopt licensing models for flogging their content online
...and of course there's European law saying the Apple end user licence thingy-me-bob is illegal...and now their is another Mac Cloner operating- "Russian Mac" ..he he.
Bet apple are regretting moving to intel
"Nokia, the world's biggest mobile phone maker, has said that it is suing its US rival Apple for infringing patents on mobile phone technology for the iPhone.
Nokia said it had not been compensated for its technology, and accused Apple of "trying to get a free ride on the back of Nokia's innovation".
The 10 alleged patent infringements involve wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption.
Apple, which did not comment on the news, saw its shares dip slightly.
The breaches applied to all models of the iPhone since its launch in 2007, Nokia added.
'Basic principle'
Finland's Nokia said that it had agreements with about 40 firms - including most mobile phone handset makers - allowing them to use the firm's technology, but that Apple had not signed an agreement.
"The basic principle in the mobile industry is that those companies who contribute in technology development to establish standards create intellectual property, which others then need to compensate for," said Ilkka Rahnasto, vice-president of legal and intellectual property at Nokia.
"Apple is also expected to follow this principle."
He added that during the last two decades, Nokia had invested approximately 40bn euros (£36.2bn; $60bn) on research and development.
Earlier this month, Nokia posted its first quarterly loss in a decade amid falling sales.
Analysts said that the poor results had come partly as customers turned from Nokia models to the iPhone and RIM's Blackberry.
Meanwhile, Apple reported profits of $1.67bn (£1bn) in the three months to 26 September - partly due to a 7% growth in iPhone sales"
Software is owned not licensed
US legal precedent
By Nick Farrell
Wednesday, 7 October 2009, 09:38
THE BYZANTINE SOFTWARE licensing system in the US was dealt a blow by a federal court that denied Autodesk's bid to prevent the second-hand sale of its software.
According to Out Law, the company tried for years to convince a court that its software is merely licensed and not sold and that a customer therefore had no rights to sell it on.
The target of Autodesk's wrath was Timothy Vernor, who was selling legitimate copies of Autodesk software on Ebay.
Vernor's defence was that since he paid for the software he had the right to sell it on, and now the US District Court for the Western District of Washington has agreed with him.
The decision apparently was difficult as there were two cases that had set precedents and they clashed. The court decided that it was better to follow the earlier precedent, which was a dispute over the ownership of prints of Hollywood films sold to movie stars.
In that case film copies were explicitly only licensed, but in one case the agreement had transferred ownership of the print to the actress Vanessa Redgrave. In that case a court found that the studio did not have the right, as it did in other agreements, to demand the return of the print.
The judge in the Vernor case said that software agreements were similar enough to that film agreement for it to act as a precedent.
The ruling said that the Autodesk License is a hodgepodge of terms that, standing alone, support both a transfer of ownership and a mere licence.
Autodesk retains title to the 'Software and accompanying materials' but it has no right to regain possession of the software or the 'accompanying materials'.
In other words software companies have to be able to demand their software back in order to successfully claim that it is licensed and not purchased.
Autodesk claimed that Vernor's actions were likely to result in the creation and sale of illegal copies of its AutoCAD software.
However the court gave short shrift to Autodesk's attempt to use the threat of 'piracy' as an excuse for its actions.
It said that Autodesk's claim that Vernor was promoting software 'piracy' was unconvincing and his sales of AutoCAD were just as legal as Autodesk's own sales of the same packages.
A software thief would be just as likely to nick illegal copies of Vernor's software as they were likely to steal Autodesk's, the court said.
While the ruling will probably be appealed, if it is upheld then it could require changes to current US software licensing practices.
For software companies to claim that they are merely licensing their products they will have to actually demand the return of the software when the licence expires.
This might have a knock on effect on the music and film industries which have also been trying to adopt licensing models for flogging their content online
...and of course there's European law saying the Apple end user licence thingy-me-bob is illegal...and now their is another Mac Cloner operating- "Russian Mac" ..he he.
Bet apple are regretting moving to intel
What's your point?
This ruling has to do with ownership of the copy of the software on the physical disc purchased at retail. It does not speak to the licensing of additional copies.
There is no such European law.
Bet apple are regretting moving to intel
Have you noticed there financials lately?
This is about First Sale Doctrine. And the judge, even while ruling in favor of Vernor, paved the way for an appeal on the grounds that 3 rulings in the Ninth circuit court, a higher court, supported the opposite, that software is indeed licensed.
In other words, Vernor is based on a 1977 precedent about movies (the Wise case), but there exist higher court rulings specifically about software licenses.
This thus proves nothing. Autodesk could've probably appealed. And if Psystar wants to argue First Sale Doctrine for their sale of OS X, they first have to produce financial evidence of even acquiring it in the first place, which they failed to do in discovery. And even if they were to find proof of purchase of OS X, win the First Sale Doctrine point, they then need to fight off the EULA which they broke by installing OS X on non apple hardware.
Guess why they are stalling and dreading the trial in January ? Because it's obvious to them they are losing. Re-filing their dismissed counter-suit in Florida instead of California proves they are desperate.
