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

[lifeinhd]

You know, I really miss the days of the PowerPC. I miss the innovation that used to take place (iMac G3? Revolutionary!) and I miss having a real reason to shell out the extra cash for a Mac (anyone remember Steve and Phil comparing the "fastest Pentium money can buy" to a computer with their latest PowerPC chip?) Now Apple's telling me to shell out the extra cash for hardware I can get much cheaper elsewhere. Why should I cave to Apple's demands when I have all these x86-based options now? People don't like it. And guess what people do when they disagree with authority? They protest it. That's what Pystar's doing. That's what anyone who buys a Pystar machine is doing. And that's why we're doing it: Protest.

 

[pdjudd]

then they are selling $1000 software suite and no one can claim they are violating free trade or monopoly or whatever their argument is.

People are still going to complain. Why should Apple do this when it would destroy their competitive advantage? Especially when they don't have to. The law is on their side as of now.

Who cares what people say when they are wrong?

 

[Mmarzex]

I usually don't join in the fanboyishness arguments like this but I find that something needs to be said. All of you people who have such a dislike for Psystar first get the hell over yourselves they don't affect you in anyway let them do what they want. Let them produce horrible clones. I have a hackintosh and you know it works just as good if not better then my actually macs. I love osx I just hate not having the ability to customize the hardware. You think apple doesn't like hackintoshes they love them. If they didn't want them to be possible they would of made something that would have rendered them useless and impossible to do. It's marketing people see how bad osx runs on pc and wants to buy a mac.

 

[DavidSan]

Maybe it is a bad example, but I at least hope you understand what I'm getting at. What I want is an explanation or argument for how installing a bought copy of OSX on non-Apple computers is piracy. I don't doubt that it's violating an EULA. I'm simply not convinced that it's piracy.

Ok! I agree about the piracy issue.

However, piracy is not the only punishable act in the software industry.

 

[Buzz Bumble]

I can't believe this stupidity is still going on. It simply further proves that the so-called justice / legal system is nothing more than a pathetic joke for greedy over-paid scum lawyers (at least in western countries). Paystar should have been forced to shut down within months, if not days, of starting up and the idiots in charge heavily fined and/or jailed, and never allowed to run a business ever again. 😡

 

[pdjudd]

I usually don't join in the fanboyishness arguments like this but I find that something needs to be said.

Oh boy here we go....

All of you people who have such a dislike for Psystar first get the hell over yourselves they don't affect you in anyway let them do what they want.

Oh great! Lets ignore everybody who breaks the laws so flagrantly! Great idea! I mean it doesn't afect us if laws are broken right?

Let them produce horrible clones.

THey can make them all they want - They just can't sell them.

I have a hackintosh and you know it works just as good if not better then my actually macs.

So? That's not what is at issue here.

I love osx I just hate not having the ability to customize the hardware.

Yea, I like a pony, but I don't like the extra mess and expense involved. Guess what, thats too bad.

You think apple doesn't like hackintoshes they love them.

Actually they care very much when people try to make a business out of it, which is why they are engaging in legal activity. They are obligated to protect their intellectual property rights.

If they didn't want them to be possible they would of made something that would have rendered them useless and impossible to do. It's marketing people see how bad osx runs on pc and wants to buy a mac.

I don't think it can quite work that way. If something can be built by a person, someone else can unmake it.

 

[pdjudd]

I can't believe this stupidity is still going on. It simply further proves that the so-called justice / legal system is nothing more than a pathetic joke for greedy over-paid scum lawyers (at least in western countries). Paystar should have been forced to shut down within months, if not days, of starting up and the idiots in charge heavily fined and/or jailed, and never allowed to run a business ever again. 😡

The court date has not approached yet (date is set for January), short of injunctions, Psystar can do whatever they want. Most people involved in litigation actually behave before they go to court, but not all do. There is nothing we can do to stop it.

That is the nature of Civil Cases versus Criminal ones. This case is not a criminal one - no arrests have been done.

 

[sneezymarble]

This is the worst example I have seen about it. Itself, it only proves that ignorance can lead to criminal actions.

Imagine two people. Person A and Person B. Both are in a dark room A and B respectively. Both have guns. You tell both of them to fire their guns. Person A and Person B cannot see anything, they fire and in room A, there is someone else and person A killed someone. Person B did not kill anyone.

Person A is a murdered and person B is not.

What does it prove? Even as an involuntary murdering, person A might go to prison. It is not getting 50 years, but it is getting time. And even if person A does not go to prison because the jury says "it is not guilty", the fact is person A killed someone.

Rereading my post I think you missed the point. I'm not arguing that nothing bad or wrong is being done. I'm questioning the nature of the bad that I implicitly assumed was being done. In other words, there is a fact, that is, the fact that in one case a EULA is being violated. The question is whether there is a further fact–piracy.

You're little example is just a restatement of my case with different variables. Something bad occurs–a person is killed–and there's no doubt about that. What's controversial is whether there is a further fact–that of an occurrence of murder. It seems that intuitions in your case would be that no murder has occurred although somebody has been killed. It could still be true that in your case something illegal has occurred, the illegal thing just wasn't murder.

Analogously, my intuition about my case is that EULA violating has occurred, but piracy hasn't. Just as in your case, some law or other has been broken–contract law–but another sort of law hasn't–criminal law.

 

[DavidSan]

I'm so unclear as to why so many people are against this.

Let's imagine this: Microsoft "declares" that its software can only be used on non-Apple branded computers. no more bootcamp, no Office for the Mac. That would be pretty lame of them wouldn't it? People would be on hear in a heartbeat calling them monopolistic monsters. Apple does this and everyone cheers them on??

What happened to looking out for our best interest......as the consumers? We sit here and complain about this piece of software, or that piece of hardware, that doesn't work on our Mac's, but then defend the closed system that Apple promotes.

Don't get me wrong, I own several Mac's. I just happen to believe that competition is a good thing and non-Apple branded machines that run OS X might, just might, make Apple take a second look at the limited offerings they have for us......as consumers.

I think the issue is you are seeing the "computer business" as Microsoft sees it, and not as "Apple sees it".

To Microsoft, the real deal is software. Hardware is not a good business, at least to them. A computer to them is a Microsoft powered computer. Hardware can be anything.

Apple, sees the computer as whole, hardware and software. To Apple, a Macintosh is not an OS, but a whole product. A hardware+software+support combination. Apple sees the whole "experience" as the product and everything is included in the price tag.

The ads, the Stores, the genius bar, the packaging, the hardware, the software, the booting, the apps, all is what defines a "Macintosh" and that "experience" is what Apple is selling. I repeat: All of this is included in the price tag.

Apple does not sell Operating Systems, as Microsoft does, Apple is trying to sell (or selling) a "whole experience". And it might be closed or open, but it is their product, and they sell it as they think is best for them.

 

[DavidSan]

Violating an EULA is not a criminal act. 😉

It would be a civil matter.

Agree.

I should have said, ignorance can lead to foolish actions (Criminal, legal, moral, etc.).

 

[BaldiMac]

Thank you. This is sort of the point I'm trying to get at, even if I'm doing it badly. It has been claimed here that installing OSX on non-Apple hardware is piracy. Piracy is a criminal act.

Certainly, installing OSX on non-Apple hardware is a violation of the OSX EULA. Nobody can contest that, and in that sense it's illegal as to contract law. But, is violating the EULA the same is committing piracy, and thus illegal as to criminal law? I'm not so sure.

I'm certain that loads of people have performed non-upgrade installations to Snow Leopard on their Macs with the $30 copy of Snow Leopard they bought at the Apple store. Are those people EULA violators, pirates, or both? If what's being said in this thread is right, they're pirates and EULA violators.

Furthermore, with respect to software, if what's being said in this thread is correct, it's difficult for me to understand how anyone can just be a EULA violator (as opposed to a EULA violator and a pirate). It seems that if what's being said in this thread is correct, then every EULA violator is also a pirate/criminal.

I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make.

Piracy is not always a criminal act. According to the dictionary, piracy is "The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material."

Violating Apple's SLA invalidates the license. Therefore any use of the software is unauthorized, provided that the license and its provisions are legal.

I usually don't join in the fanboyishness arguments like this but I find that something needs to be said. All of you people who have such a dislike for Psystar first get the hell over yourselves they don't affect you in anyway let them do what they want.

Since most of the people on this forum purchase Apple products, it does affect us in future pricing, anti-piracy efforts, and revised licensing policies. Not to mention that the public as a whole has an interest in the reasonable enforcement of law.

 

[Eric S.]

Doesn't change the fact that it still against the law.

It may or may not be against the law. That's why it takes a court ruling to clarify it. License agreements have at times been found by the court to contain unenforceable provisions.

 

[Mmarzex]

Since most of the people on this forum purchase Apple products, it does affect us in future pricing, anti-piracy efforts, and revised licensing policies. Not to mention that the public as a whole has an interest in the reasonable enforcement of law.

That's complete crap pricing will not change because of it and the other things haven't happened yet and probably won't happen anytime soon. The public as a whole doesn't care Mac users care but they are making an unreasonable hate towards pystar for no reason.

Oh boy here we go....

Sorry but it is true.

Oh great! Lets ignore everybody who breaks the laws so flagrantly! Great idea! I mean it doesn't afect us if laws are broken right?

It's a law that is rather stupid to begin with and it doesn't affect you in anyway I mean think about is your life changed since pystar exists.

Actually they care very much when people try to make a business out of it, which is why they are engaging in legal activity. They are obligated to protect their intellectual property rights.

I'm not saying they aren't I'm not saying pystar isn't wrong here. I'm saying you all need to stop worrying about it so much it doesn't affect you at all.

The fact still is I can go out buy a pc for 500-700 and get the same specs and install os x on it compared to paying 1500 or even 1000 for their lowest priced apple mac which is highly overpriced for no reason.

 

[sneezymarble]

Ok! I agree about the piracy issue.

However, piracy is not the only punishable act in the software industry.

I'm no lawyer, but punishable acts are criminal acts. The civil system is not intended to hand out punishments (though it may be abused to do so). If you're being legally punished, then you're a criminal. Otherwise, you're just repaying what you owe, or whatever, by civil law; and that's just not suppose to be the same as a punishment.

So, sure, a EULA breaker can be taken to court and a claim can be made against them, and they can be ordered to repay something, or whatever, but they're not being legally punished for their actions. They're just being held accountable for a breach of contract.

I'm not claiming that EULA breaking is not illegal in any sense. I'm suggesting that in this particular case it's not illegal in the criminal sense even if it is, and I think it obviously is, illegal in the breach of contract sense. But, you're not legally punished for breaching contracts unless your act of breaching the contract also happens to correspond to a criminal act. And, even in that case, it wouldn't be your breach of contract that was criminal, it'd be your criminal act that also happened to be part of a EULA.

Of course, there's always the DMCA. My guess is that that's what you're referring to? I really don't understand all that. Maybe there is a violation of the DMCA in all this, but that's not saying much since there are lots of things that would benefit the public that, if my understanding is right, are against the DMCA.

 

[old-wiz]

One interesting aspect that doesn't seem to be explored yet is what will people who buy this stuff do when they have problems with the OS? If you have a Mac and you have problems with whatever areas of OSx, you can call Apple and there can try to help you and your problem might be fixed by an OSx fix. If you buy one of these Psystar machines (or one from yet another 3rd party) and you have a problem with OSx, Apple is not going to help you. No business in their right mind would buy a psystar machine knowing that Apple will not support it nor fix any problems. Businesses expect support for their machines.

Apple can also go the route of the license key like Microsoft does and double or triple the price of OSx at retail. There are still lots of options for Apple aside from the courts. They could add still more code into OSx to thwart the likes of Psystar.

 

[sneezymarble]

Violating Apple's SLA invalidates the license. Therefore any use of the software is unauthorized, provided that the license and its provisions are legal.

Ok, so doesn't this just mean that for any software, if a clause of that software is violated, then using that software is a criminal act. In other words, as most software goes, there could never be a case of EULA violation that wasn't also a case of somebody committing a crime. And, that just means that everyone that performed a non-upgrade installation of Snow Leopard on an actual Mac using the $30 disc that they bought at an Apple store is more than just a EULA violator–they're also criminals.

Also, when are a license and its provisions legal? Are such things timelessly legal, only legal after they've been tested if approved by the court or otherwise not legal, legal before being tested and legal after being tested only if approved by the court otherwise not legal?...

The whole Windows Safari EULA thing comes to mind. The terms were never tested, and they were later removed by Apple. However, there was a period of time for which the EULA said of Safari that Safari could not, per Apple's intentions, be installed on non-Apple branded hardware. During the time before the language was removed, were the people that installed Safari on Windows guilty of a crime or were they just EULA violators? If what's being said here is correct, then it seems that they were criminals; specifically, they were pirates.

 

[old-wiz]

Of course, there's always the DMCA. My guess is that that's what you're referring to? I really don't understand all that. Maybe there is a violation of the DMCA in all this, but that's not saying much since there are lots of things that would benefit the public that, if my understanding is right, are against the DMCA.

It is not a question of benefiting the public. If Psystar is reverse engineering OSx code to make it work on their own hardware it's exactly the same kind of violation as selling a machine that will make copies of protected movie DVDs. Companies that have done so have lost in court every time.

The DMCA says you can't reverse engineer to defeat technical measures used to prevent unlawful use.

 

[DavidSan]

Rereading my post I think you missed the point. I'm not arguing that nothing bad or wrong is being done. I'm questioning the nature of the bad that I implicitly assumed was being done. In other words, there is a fact, that is, the fact that in one case a EULA is being violated. The question is whether there is a further fact–piracy.

You're little example is just a restatement of my case with different variables. Something bad occurs–a person is killed–and there's no doubt about that. What's controversial is whether there is a further fact–that of an occurrence of murder. It seems that intuitions in your case would be that no murder has occurred although somebody has been killed. It could still be true that in your case something illegal has occurred, the illegal thing just wasn't murder.

Analogously, my intuition about my case is that EULA violating has occurred, but piracy hasn't. Just as in your case, some law or other has been broken–contract law–but another sort of law hasn't–criminal law.

I agree!

However, Pystar case is not based completely on Mac OS X Piracy. Pystar is not claiming they make OS X, so piracy does not apply in that regard.

However, as "Apple sees it" Pystar is "pirating the Macintosh". Apple sees "Pystar" as an "Apple impersonator" who tries to fake Macintoshes.

Since Apple considers "Mac" as a whole product (hardware+software+support=brand), just like iPods, Pystar is trying to sell Macs "wanna be". And that is considered piracy. In fact, if Pystar would have not pre-installed de Mac OS this whole thing might have been easier for them.

This is like if I try to sell copies of sport shoes, with similar designs, cheaper materials, no stores, and try to sell them as the real deal. Something like "Nike clones". That's piracy.

 

[oldwatery]

Smart move for Psystar. To be honest, I'm cheering for them.

Why in hell would you do that 😕

 

[Fastshutter]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5H11a Safari/525.20)

It's a brilliant idea, but what would be even more brilliant is if they would sell their bootloader to ordinary consumers. I'd take two.

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).

 

[DavidSan]

I'm no lawyer, but punishable acts are criminal acts. The civil system is not intended to hand out punishments (though it may be abused to do so). If you're being legally punished, then you're a criminal. Otherwise, you're just repaying what you owe, or whatever, by civil law; and that's just not suppose to be the same as a punishment.

So, sure, a EULA breaker can be taken to court and a claim can be made against them, and they can be ordered to repay something, or whatever, but they're not being legally punished for their actions. They're just being held accountable for a breach of contract.

I'm not claiming that EULA breaking is not illegal in any sense. I'm suggesting that in this particular case it's not illegal in the criminal sense even if it is, and I think it obviously is, illegal in the breach of contract sense. But, you're not legally punished for breaching contracts unless your act of breaching the contract also happens to correspond to a criminal act. And, even in that case, it wouldn't be your breach of contract that was criminal, it'd be your criminal act that also happened to be part of a EULA.

Of course, there's always the DMCA. My guess is that that's what you're referring to? I really don't understand all that. Maybe there is a violation of the DMCA in all this, but that's not saying much since there are lots of things that would benefit the public that, if my understanding is right, are against the DMCA.

I believe, nevertheless, that Apple does not want to put Pystar in jail (Criminal punishment) Apple just want Pystar to stop making "Macintosh clones" (Civil punishment) and pay the fees.

 

[Eric5h5]

Let's imagine this: Microsoft "declares" that its software can only be used on non-Apple branded computers. no more bootcamp, no Office for the Mac. That would be pretty lame of them wouldn't it? People would be on hear in a heartbeat calling them monopolistic monsters. Apple does this and everyone cheers them on??

I don't understand why it isn't completely obvious to everybody:

Microsoft is a software company--they don't care what computer their software runs on. A sale is a sale. In fact, they make more money selling to Mac owners because you're buying retail (probably), instead of getting OEM pricing.

Apple, on the other hand, is a hardware company. They sure aren't making any money selling Snow Leopard for $30. Every sale of OS X without a corresponding Mac sale is losing money for them.

This is dead simple, isn't it?

--Eric

 

[flopticalcube]

I wonder at what point Apple will just say "F*ck it!" and start an OS activation mechanism based on hardware serial #s? While competition is a good thing, this could simply push things a little too far in the wrong direction.

 

[pdjudd]

I believe, nevertheless, that Apple does not want to put Pystar in jail (Criminal punishment) Apple just want Pystar to stop making "Macintosh clones" (Civil punishment) and pay the fees.

Apple cannot put anybody in Jail. Only a government can do that. Apple can sue Psystar and put them out of business as a result.

 

[dejo]

The fact still is I can go out buy a pc for 500-700 and get the same specs...

Not the same specs. Just similar specs. Any specs that differ you will have chosen to ignore or downplay.