Psystar Case Comes to a Close as U.S. Supreme Court Declines Review

[BaldiMac]

Of course it'd never happen, but...

...if jailbreaking your iPad is now officially legal, then what makes installing OSX on an unsupported platform any different? Both require you to use hacks and cracks to undermine protections set in place by Apple to protect their software, so what makes one more legal than the other?

Jailbreaking is only legal for specific purposes. Generally, exceptions are made to the DMCA for bypassing protections that prevent you from doing something that is legal without the protections.

Specifically, the main exceptions to the DMCA are for unlocking and installing compatible programs (such as programs that are not allowed in the App Store.) My experience is that most jailbreakers modify iOS after jailbreaking through "tweaks" and other software that would disqualify them for the DMCA exceptions.

As long as you legally buy a copy of OSX, I don't see how they could press charges against an individual. I know they'd have a helluva time proving to a judge and jury that ole Mike Blah Ubergeek Extraordinaire going out to the Apple Store, buying Lion on a thumb drive for $70, and installing it on a Hackintosh PC harms the company in any way whatsoever.

Press charges? Copyright infringement on this scale would be a civil crime. Apple would simply sue. No harm needs to be proven other than infringement. Taking away someone's rights is harm in itself.

 

[BaldiMac]

It's an EULA issue, which is a considerably muddier situation.

Not really muddy. Judge Alsup said "Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers. It is certainly entitled to do so."

There is no true legal precedence here.

There have been many court cases to act as precedence since the first shrink wrap licenses were challenged.

It's against the terms of the agreement, yes. But are the terms legally binding?

Yes, according to the judge in the Psystar case.

Is slapping a piece of software you bought and paid for on hardware Apple doesn't support illegal simply because Apple doesn't want you to do it? If cars suddenly come with license agreements, and their EULA states you can't drive the car on dirt backroads, are you bound by law to not do so?

Copyright law doesn't apply to cars. But if you are leasing a car and agree to a contract to not drive it on dirt backroads, you are obviously in violation of the contract if you do.

Basically hackintoshing is you using Apple's software in a way Apple doesn't want you to do.

Nope. Hackintoshing is creating copies and derivative works of Apple's software in violation of their exclusive rights granted by copyright law (subject to specific limitations).

Which is exactly what you do when you jailbreak iOS, regardless of the superficial differences.

Nope. Depends on what you do after you jailbreak.

 

[AppleScruff1]

I bet Psystar wouldn't have gotten rid of Ethernet ports...

ROFLMAO! Best post all day!

 

[Renzatic]

Press charges? Copyright infringement on this scale would be a civil crime. Apple would simply sue. No harm needs to be proven other than infringement. Taking away someone's rights is harm in itself.

I have no idea why I said "press charges". First words that came to mind for some reason...anyway...

As I stated previously, I don't believe it's a copyright infringement issue in this situation, rather one concerning license agreements.

Say I bought an iMac. If I recall correctly (once again someone correct me if I'm wrong), buying a copy of OSX allows you to install it on 3 other Macs? What if I decide to use one of those stated installs on a hackintosh? The license agreement specifically states a Mac, but what is a Mac? These days, they are only slight differences between a Mac and a Dell, a Gateway, an HP. So what Apple is stating here is that you're only allowed to use their software on their specific brand of x86 computer.

That's not a copyright issue. That's Apple saying "by using this software, you agree to be bound by the arbitrary rules set forth by us". Much like EULAs, and really software rights in general, that's a considerably grey area as far as the law is concerned. They can't just take you to court and say "Judge, he didn't do what we told him to do", then instantly win a billion trillion dollars (exaggerating here). They could try to pull the DMCA on you, but you could turn around and say that A. you've already bought the software, and B. you're not necessarily cracking the software directly, so much as using extra software to gain access to it on an unsupported platform. It's almost like an emulator in that regard.

Long story short, hackintoshing for personal reasons isn't nearly as cut and dry as you think.

 

[kwikdeth]

If you're hackintoshing, you're not a professional sorry. Not professional who makes money from their systems would accept a hoge-poge of unsupported hardware/software. That's a nightmare waiting to happen for any professional/business.

You're probably more a prosumer.

pardon me, the expert has clearly spoken. very glad you can form judgments like that without knowing anything about me or my background. I guess its only fair that i assume you're an arrogant french canadian prick. fair?

 

[Renzatic]

Not really muddy. Judge Alsup said "Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers. It is certainly entitled to do so."

That applies to Psystar, selling computers with OSX, with Apple wanting OSX retailed on their machines alone. It could possibly be argued in court to apply to your average computer geek wanting to experiment with hackintoshing, but that doesn't necessarily means it applies directly as such at this moment.

It's two entirely different situations. A company wanting to sell OSX machines beyond Apple's umbrella, vs. dude guy buying a thumbdrive and breaking the license agreement.

There have been many court cases to act as precedence since the first shrink wrap licenses were challenged.

Yup, and not all of them have successful for the company doing the suing. I'll mention one specific case now...

Copyright law doesn't apply to cars. But if you are leasing a car and agree to a contract to not drive it on dirt backroads, you are obviously in violation of the contract if you do.

Is Apple leasing OSX? They could attempt arguing such, but without actually entering into a leasing agreement with the end user at the point of sale, it's not considered a lease by terms of law. See Autodesk vs. Guy Who Wanted To Sell Copies of Maya He Found on Ebay to see exactly that.

Nope. Depends on what you do after you jailbreak.

Right, but it can't be made illegal simply because of the potential of what it could be used for.

 

[BaldiMac]

As I stated previously, I don't believe it's a copyright infringement issue in this situation, rather one concerning license agreements.

I don't know how you separate the two issues. The SLA is what gives you the right to make copies.

Say I bought an iMac. If I recall correctly (once again someone correct me if I'm wrong), buying a copy of OSX allows you to install it on 3 other Macs? What if I decide to use one of those stated installs on a hackintosh? The license agreement specifically states a Mac, but what is a Mac? These days, they are only slight differences between a Mac and a Dell, a Gateway, an HP. So what Apple is stating here is that you're only allowed to use their software on their specific brand of x86 computer.

That's not a copyright issue. That's Apple saying "by using this software, you agree to be bound by the arbitrary rules set forth by us". Much like EULAs, and really software rights in general, that's a considerably grey area as far as the law is concerned. They can't just take you to court and say "Judge, he didn't do what we told him to do", then instantly win a billion trillion dollars (exaggerating here). They could try to pull the DMCA on you, but you could turn around and say that A. you've already bought the software, and B. you're not necessarily cracking the software directly, so much as using extra software to gain access to it on an unsupported platform. It's almost like an emulator in that regard.

That's the same arguments that I already addressed. A Mac isn't some arbitrary collection of parts. It's a Mac. An Apple-brand PC. You know what it is, so playing ignorant is silly.

We aren't talking about every arbitrary clause in the SLA. We are talking about the specific clause that ties OS X to Mac hardware. Something that Judge Alsup specifically said Apple was "certainly entitled to do."

Long story short, hackintoshing for personal reasons isn't nearly as cut and dry as you think.

I don't think it's cut and dry. There are certainly arguments to be made around various limitations in copyright law. But you're not making them. Based on my knowledge of copyright law, I believe it is infringement. As does the Judge in the Psystar case and affirmed by the appeals court.

 

[coolspot18]

That's true, but Apple is in the high end computer business.

High-end? Hardly... Apple sell design not hardware.


Apple still places mobile GPUs inside the iMac... that is almost unforgivable.

 

[BaldiMac]

That applies to Psystar, selling computers with OSX, with Apple wanting OSX retailed on their machines alone. It could possibly be argued in court to apply to your average computer geek wanting to experiment with hackintoshing, but that doesn't necessarily means it applies directly as such at this moment.

It's two entirely different situations. A company wanting to sell OSX machines beyond Apple's umbrella, vs. dude guy buying a thumbdrive and breaking the license agreement.

Why? Because you said so? Apple is entitled to tie OS X to Mac hardware according to the judge. Something they do with their SLA.

Yup, and not all of them have successful for the company doing the suing. I'll mention one specific case now...

Is Apple leasing OSX? They could attempt arguing such, but without actually entering into a leasing agreement with the end user at the point of sale, it's not considered a lease by terms of law. See Autodesk vs. Guy Who Wanted To Sell Copies of Maya He Found on Ebay to see exactly that.

Apple doesn't lease OS X. They license it. As per the SLA. Autodesk v Verner dealt with first sale rights and applied to the physical copies on the original CD or DVD.

Right, but it can't be made illegal simply because of the potential of what it could be used for.

It is illegal except when it is done per certain exceptions created to DMCA.

 

[Renzatic]

I don't know how you separate the two issues. The SLA is what gives you the right to make copies.

Because breaking a license agreement doesn't necessarily entail copyright infringement, regardless of the wording therein.

That's the same arguments that I already addressed. A Mac isn't some arbitrary collection of parts. It's a Mac. An Apple-brand PC. You know what it is, so playing ignorant is silly.

Eh. Not quite. Macs are more...specific...machines, but not necessarily different from Dells and HPs by leaps and bounds. They use the same ram, the same processors, the same harddrives. Apple designs their own motherboards to fit their cases, but they're built around standardized technologies widely available in the general PC scene. Design and configuration alone aren't enough to consider it Something Else Entirely.

It is, very simply, an Apple-brand PC.

We aren't talking about every arbitrary clause in the SLA. We are talking about the specific clause that ties OS X to Mac hardware. Something that Judge Alsup specifically said Apple was "certainly entitled to do."

That's the Psystar case, which is an entirely separate issue from your general at-home hackintosher. Psystar sold OSX PCs retail. Apple had a right to step in and deny them the right to do so.

Hackintoshers are using storebought software in a way unintended by the developer. They can say it's against the law for you personally to install said software on unsupported hardware, but can they actually enforce it? For personal use, I don't think they can. There are too many ifs, ands, and buts involved for it to be a clear case of copyright infringement.

----------

Why? Because you said so? Apple is entitled to tie OS X to Mac hardware according to the judge. Something they do with their SLA.

...for direct retail sales of OSX enabled hardware.

Apple doesn't lease OS X. They license it. As per the SLA. Autodesk v Verner dealt with first sale rights and applied to the physical copies on the original CD or DVD.

Autodesk argued their software was termed leased as per their EULA, which didn't end out too well for them. The specifics of the situation aren't exactly pertinent to the discussion at hand, rather I'm arguing it as proof that the EULA in itself isn't a document legally set in store.

It is illegal except when it is done per certain exceptions created to DMCA.

But how do they determine when it is and isn't illegal? It's freely available to all on the assumption that you'll be using it within the boundaries set by the DMCA. The same could and should apply to hackintoshing for personal use.

 

[BaldiMac]

Because breaking a license agreement doesn't necessarily entail copyright infringement, regardless of the wording therein.

Stop speaking in generalities. If the SLA is invalid as a whole, you have no right to install and use OS X at all. If you are claiming a specific clause is illegal, then explain why.

Eh. Not quite. Macs are more...specific...machines, but not necessarily different from Dells and HPs by leaps and bounds. They use the same ram, the same processors, the same harddrives. Apple designs their own motherboards to fit their cases, but they're built around standardized technologies widely available in the general PC scene. Design and configuration alone aren't enough to consider it Something Else Entirely.

It is, very simply, an Apple-brand PC.

I have no idea what you are getting at here. A Mac is a Mac. Even if you build a PC with the exact same parts down to the case, it's still not a Mac.

That's the Psystar case, which is an entirely separate issue from your general at-home hackintosher. Psystar sold OSX PCs retail. Apple had a right to step in and deny them the right to do so.

It's not completely different just because you say so. We are talking about the exact same clause in the SLA.

Hackintoshers are using storebought software in a way unintended by the developer. They can say it's against the law for you personally to install said software on unsupported hardware, but can they actually enforce it? For personal use, I don't think they can. There are too many ifs, ands, and buts involved for it to be a clear case of copyright infringement.

And we're back to the same arguments that I already addressed.

 

[Eric S.]

Ubuntu and RHEL are OSes. They are built on top of Linux. Nothing would have prevented Psystar from shipping Psystar OS, building upon what is available and adding what was missing. That's the whole point. But no, they had to take OS X in a bid to get free publicity. Well it backfired and they got bankruptcy instead.

That would have been a legitimate effort, just like Canonical, RedHat, Novell and many others have done.

What I said originally was that Psystar would not have been "better served" to do this. I stick to that, especially as I think they had something less than 20 employees.

Why mention Solaris, a very special server case OS when discussing desktops ? Sun stopped shipping specialized workstations a long time ago,

I mentioned it because of OpenSolaris, Sun's effort to transform it into a Linux-type open source OS. Despite all of the resources behind it, it didn't become a factor in the consumer marketplace.

 

[pdjudd]

I have no idea what you are getting at here. A Mac is a Mac. Even if you build a PC with the exact same parts down to the case, it's still not a Mac.

Indeed. And it’s another red herring since Apple’s license does not say 'Mac’ it says:

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Upgrade license for the Apple Software,
you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time. You
agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple
Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple
computers at the same time.

Emphasis mine. It’s Apple branded. That means that the machine has to be one that Apple made. They specifically exclude other machines.

Part B covers the family pack and covers the same types of machines and Part C covers Leopard upgrading. The license even starts out:

SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MAC OS X
Single Use, Family Pack and Leopard Upgrade Licenses for use on Apple-branded Systems

They cover all the legal uses. None of them allow for installing on anything but APPLE BRANDED COMPUTERS.

The license for Leopard covering installation for single use is pretty much identical.

 

[Renzatic]

Stop speaking in generalities. If the SLA is invalid as a whole, you have no right to install and use OS X at all. If you are claiming a specific clause is illegal, then explain why.

I'm not saying the specific clause is illegal, rather that just because the clause is buried within a license agreement doesn't necessarily make it enforceable.

To use an overly extreme almost strawman-like example here, if I develop a piece of software, and somewhere between the lines of my EULA, down deep within the small text at the very bottom, I state that by agreeing with the terms and conditions, I have the right to take your first-born son and put him to work on Cannery Row.

Just because you click agree doesn't mean I can legally take your first-born son down to the fisheries. In much the same way that Apple can't sue the everliving hell out of me simply because I used their bought and paid for software in a way beyond the scope of their EULA.

I have no idea what you are getting at here. A Mac is a Mac. Even if you build a PC with the exact same parts down to the case, it's still not a Mac.

I'm saying that the whole thing ultimately comes down to semantics.

It's not completely different just because you say so. We are talking about the exact same clause in the SLA.

It's completely different. Psystar put OSX on PCs with the specific intent of selling PCs with OSX on them retail. I'd be installing OSX for my personal use. They're entirely different situations, only superficially similar in the fact that both situations involve OSX being put on a Not-Mac. Apple does have the right to keep other companies from selling clone OSX machines. But, once again, does that mean they have the right to sue me for going out to buy a copy of OSX to put on another machine?

Also, you get the feeling we're arguing just to argue by this point?

 

[pdjudd]

I'm saying that the whole thing ultimately comes down to semantics.

Not in this case. Apple’s SLA says “Apple branded”. Not “Mac”. You cannot argue what “Apple Branded” means in court without getting laughed out. Only Apple can brand their computers. Not you. Unless of course you want to abuse their trademarks - I wouldn’t recommend that you try that either.

I'm not saying the specific clause is illegal, rather that just because the clause is buried within a license agreement doesn't necessarily make it enforceable.

To use an overly extreme almost strawman-like example here, if I develop a piece of software, and somewhere between the lines of my EULA, down deep within the small text at the very bottom, I state that by agreeing with the terms and conditions, I have the right to take your first-born son and put him to work on Cannery Row.

Nonsense. The terms you place are invalid because they contradict existing law. Unless you can cite legal president that Apple’s terms are legally improper (which nobody has done in the multiple times we have discussed this in the past) the terms are allowed. Take a read of what contract law carries with it.

 

[tido2012]

I feel the same way with regards to a tower with old technology. I wish they had the option of a tower computer with updated tech, especially in the graphics component. The iMac's feel too much like a one size fits all. I know that for the majority of what I do on it, the iMac should be more than enough, but when I'm willing to spend 3k on a system I dont just want "enough"...I want overkill. Oh well, whenever I read about rumors about the desktop it makes me feel a little better to know that I'll be ok with skipping the next update since it has tech that I don't necessarily look at and crave.

I'd like to see Apple just offer a current technology tower. Seems they are riding a wave of iPhone and iPad success and PC makers as well as Microsoft are ambushing them with better desktop equipment and software. While I am an Huge Apple fan, it is obvious that the PC world passed Apple quite awhile ago...

If they are serious about their Mac Product line, they need to invest some of their capital/cash in it...

 

[Renzatic]

Not in this case. Apple’s SLA says “Apple branded”. Not “Mac”. You cannot argue what “Apple Branded” means in court without getting laughed out. Only Apple can brand their computers. Not you. Unless of course you want to abuse their trademarks - I wouldn’t recommend that you try that either.

You're missing the point. I'm not arguing over who does or does not have the right to sell OSX on a computer. I'm arguing whether Apple has the right to sue individuals who install OSX on a non Apple machine.

Nonsense. The terms you place are invalid because they contradict existing law. Unless you can cite legal president that Apple’s terms are legally improper (which nobody has done in the multiple times we have discussed this in the past) the terms are allowed. Take a read of what contract law carries with it.

Yeah, a bit extreme of an example...

Still, at least as far as personal use is concerned, I'd consider it a non-contested grey area. It's against Apple's EULA, sure. But is it flat out against the law? Not quite.

Course now I'm wondering why even got myself involved in this, because truthfully, the chances of Apple suing some guy for installing OSX on a Dell are about slim to none.

...though I will argue he has the right to do so, regardless of what the EULA says. Provided he has a legal copy, of course.

 

[macsmurf]

Nope. Hackintoshing is creating copies and derivative works of Apple's software in violation of their exclusive rights granted by copyright law (subject to specific limitations).

I don't think it is as cut and dried as that. When it comes to end users it is not obvious what is legal and what isn't.

Here's another example: Apple will not enable TRIM on non-Apple labelled SSDs but most SSDs are TRIM-capable. Many OS X users enable TRIM by using a widely distributed tool that patches a kernel extension in OS X. Is that illegal? Who knows?

What we DO know with some degree of certainty is that no end user will ever be sued for doing this. The same is true of hackintoshing.

 

[GermanyChris]

Stop speaking in generalities. If the SLA is invalid as a whole, you have no right to install and use OS X at all. If you are claiming a specific clause is illegal, then explain why.



I have no idea what you are getting at here. A Mac is a Mac. Even if you build a PC with the exact same parts down to the case, it's still not a Mac.


It's not completely different just because you say so. We are talking about the exact same clause in the SLA.



And we're back to the same arguments that I already addressed.

So those of us with franken Mac Pro's no longer have "Mac's. My MP is a collection of parts from the first 3generations of the tower, nothing is left of the original except the case. By your definition it's not longer a Mac therefore no longer able to run OSX legally.

 

[gnasher729]

That's the same arguments that I already addressed. A Mac isn't some arbitrary collection of parts. It's a Mac. An Apple-brand PC. You know what it is, so playing ignorant is silly.

Maybe to make this clearer: If you dig out an Apple II computer built in 1977, and you somehow manage to get MacOS X to run on it, that would be perfectly legal, because that computer is an "Apple branded computer". But if Dell and Apple agreed to share their hardware designs, and the same factory produced identical computers and put Dell stickers on half of them and Apple stickers on the other half, then the ones with the Dell stickers would not be "Apple branded" computers and installing MacOS X would be illegal, even though those computers were identical apart from the sticker.

You're missing the point. I'm not arguing over who does or does not have the right to sell OSX on a computer. I'm arguing whether Apple has the right to sue individuals who install OSX on a non Apple machine.

Of course they do. It is copyright infringement and a DMCA violation. There are good reasons for Apple not to do this, but they could, and the would do it and win if you give them enough reason. Again: "Judge Alsup said "Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers. It is certainly entitled to do so."" No distinction between companies and individuals.

I'm not saying the specific clause is illegal, rather that just because the clause is buried within a license agreement doesn't necessarily make it enforceable.

To use an overly extreme almost strawman-like example here, if I develop a piece of software, and somewhere between the lines of my EULA, down deep within the small text at the very bottom, I state that by agreeing with the terms and conditions, I have the right to take your first-born son and put him to work on Cannery Row.

Just because you click agree doesn't mean I can legally take your first-born son down to the fisheries. In much the same way that Apple can't sue the everliving hell out of me simply because I used their bought and paid for software in a way beyond the scope of their EULA.

There could be terms in a EULA that would be unconscionable. If you can point out such terms in Apple's SLA then please do so, otherwise your argument is pointless. And in general, you don't have to agree to the EULA and are therefore not bound by it. In that case, you have no right to use the software _at all_. Even uses that the SLA allowed, like installing it on an Apple-branded computer, would be copyright infringement.

So if you want to install MacOS X on a non-Apple branded computer, you either don't accept the SLA, and it isn't allowed. Or you accept the SLA, and it isn't allowed. That's what all these people arguing "I didn't agree to the SLA bwawawa" forget: No SLA, no rights at all.

 

[KnightWRX]

pardon me, the expert has clearly spoken. very glad you can form judgments like that without knowing anything about me or my background.

It's false to say I know nothing about you, you provide information about yourself.

Again, if you're making money from your systems, the last thing you want is having to spend time fixing those systems rather than be making money. That's why professionals buy from vendors, with support contracts. If something goes wrong, they have other professionals take care of it and get them working again under strict SLA guidelines to minimize downtime.

"Hey, where's the Tyler account ?"
"Just a sec boss, the last update to the computer messed up the kexts on our hackintoshes, Jack is on a web forum, we think he found a solution".
"So we saved 500$ on systems and we're now losing 50,000$ on the Tyler account.... right... you're fired, Jack, go buy Macs".

I guess its only fair that i assume you're an arrogant french canadian prick. fair?

Nope, that's an insult and against forum rules.

----------

What I said originally was that Psystar would not have been "better served" to do this. I stick to that, especially as I think they had something less than 20 employees.

Wait, they wouldn't have been better served ? Might I remind you that right now, they sold 700 systems and were bankrupt and declared guilty of copyright infringment.

Yet you're claiming, they were "better served" by infringing Apple's copyright than going the "build your own" route ?

I just don't get how they could have been served any worse than what they received...

I mentioned it because of OpenSolaris, Sun's effort to transform it into a Linux-type open source OS. Despite all of the resources behind it, it didn't become a factor in the consumer marketplace.

I don't think you understand what OpenSolaris was if you think it was aimed at consumers. It was Sun's effort to get outside eyes and hands to help them move the OS for them and save a few bucks on things like drivers in the kernel and building packages for userspace.

----------

I don't think it is as cut and dried as that. When it comes to end users it is not obvious what is legal and what isn't.

Without a license from Apple, you are in violation of copyright when installing/running their software. There's legal precedent.

Here's another example: Apple will not enable TRIM on non-Apple labelled SSDs but most SSDs are TRIM-capable. Many OS X users enable TRIM by using a widely distributed tool that patches a kernel extension in OS X. Is that illegal? Who knows?

There's nothing in the EULA against Kernel patching.

----------

So those of us with franken Mac Pro's no longer have "Mac's. My MP is a collection of parts from the first 3generations of the tower, nothing is left of the original except the case. By your definition it's not longer a Mac therefore no longer able to run OSX legally.

You don't have the original motherboard/CPUs ? Then it's not an Apple computer anymore.

 

[macsmurf]

Without a license from Apple, you are in violation of copyright when installing/running their software. There's legal precedent.

There's nothing in the EULA against Kernel patching.

I don't know of any legal precedent where an individual has been convicted of running a legally bought piece of software on a platform it wasn't supposed to be running on according to the EULA.

It depends on whether the limitations in the EULA can be enforced. There has been no ruling on that.

What precedent do you mean?

 

[iworldTweet]

More info

I agree with all other replies: I do love to experience and acknowledge more about this "look-alike" mac! i.e. pricing, styles and pro forming abilities?

Honestly, as i have had some hands-on experience from makers who love to copy Apple products, its a total "fail."

I once ordered an iPhone 4 from ebay. which was described to look and do what the real iPhone 4 will do for the price of $99.00 USD. Honestly, I was extremely disappointed the fact they wasted so much effect and money creating such a horrible devices. I didn't really care about the $99 I spend, it was a truly lesson learned. Nevertheless, it doesn't stop me from to continue explore what those "people" are working on Next?

Thanks for reading!

 

[Gamoe]

I love Macs and Mac OS X, but I think it's nonsense that a company can't make a machine capable of booting into Mac OS X. Apple's business model, you say? How is that the rest of the free market's problem? I'm sure there were other details- and surely, the devil is in the details. But on the whole, I don't think its defensible. Overall, I'm not sure whether this was good or bad for the industry.

P.S. What I do have a problem with is this company using Apple's trademark and perhaps offering copies of the OS for users to install. But that is not the same thing.

 

[KnightWRX]

I don't know of any legal precedent where an individual has been convicted of running a legally bought piece of software on a platform it wasn't supposed to be running on according to the EULA.

I never mentionned precedent against individuals as no one goes against individuals for these breaches of EULAs. It's just not worthwhile. It is in the case of Psystar though, since they were trying to profit. Even if they weren't successful (700 or so sales), going after them serves as a deterrent for others that might have similar ideas.

It depends on whether the limitations in the EULA can be enforced. There has been no ruling on that.

Without the end-user license agreement, copyright law applies. Copyright law does not allow you to make copies. Hence, have the EULA declared invalid ? You have no more right to run the software as it requires to be copied from the hard drive to the system RAM to run.

What did you gain ? Nothing. It's simple guys : an invalid EULA means copyright law applies. The license you have from a vendor is the only way to legally run software. Agree to it or not, but don't expect to be able to do whatever you want. You'll be able to do that once you roll your own.

What precedent do you mean?

See previous. Reference :

Ninth Circuit law holds that the copying of software to RAM constitutes "copying" for purposes of section 106 of the Copyright Act. MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 518-19 (9th Cir. 1993)

Goes back quite a bit no ? 1993... This precedent was invoked in MDY vs Blizzard which was used against Psystar. Basically, EULAs aren't anti-competitive because as asserted in MDY vs Blizzard, MDY had no rights to hack World of Warcraft to "compete", they were free to make their own game. Same for Psystar here guys : They were always free to make their own OS. They had no right to use Apple's work.

What is there to argue here ? The court ruled as it has always ruled based on the laws in place. Why would anyone side with Psystar ?