Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

KnightWRX said:
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.
Click to expand...

This case has, as far as I understand it, nothing to do with the EULA.

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.
Click to expand...

Will the entire EULA be invalid if it turns out that it is perfectly legal to install a bought copy of OS X on a non-Apple branded computer? Wouldn't it make more sense that you could freely ignore that limitation?

If the entire EULA is declared invalid just because some limitations turns out not to be within Apple's power to impose that would lead to some truly ludicrous results, such as Apple suddenly being able to sue all their customers for copyright infraction.

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 ?
Click to expand...

I don't side with Psystar. I just don't think that the court case against Psystar makes it more clear what you legally can and cannot install OS X on as an individual.
The EULA simply wasn't addressed.
 
macsmurf said:
This case has, as far as I understand it, nothing to do with the EULA.
Click to expand...

Psystar tried to make it about the EULA. It got turned down on the basis of what I posted : IE, EULA or no EULA, what they did was in breach of copyright anyhow. Even if the EULA was "anti-competitive" and "not applicable", having it declared invalid didn't change copyright law.

Hence why the judge didn't rule on the EULA itself. It was basically a non-argument to begin with.

That's the point.

macsmurf said:
Will the entire EULA be invalid if it turns out that it is perfectly legal to install a bought copy of OS X on a non-Apple branded computer? Wouldn't it make more sense that you could freely ignore that limitation?
Click to expand...

And I also want to freely ignore limitations in the highway safety code. Not the way it works out. If anything, if you have the license partly invalidated, what would likely happen is that you'd have to agree to a new license before retaining your copyright license.

Seriously guys, as long as you don't start a business and look to profit, don't fret about it. What you're doing is copyright infringement but no one is coming after you for it (unless they are the RIAA/MPAA).

macsmurf said:
If the entire EULA is declared invalid just because some limitations turns out not to be within Apple's power to impose that would lead to some truly ludicrous results, such as Apple suddenly being able to sue all their customers for copyright infraction.
Click to expand...

What would most likely happen is that Apple would simply submit new terms to license to their customers.

macsmurf said:
I don't side with Psystar. I just don't think that the court case against Psystar makes it more clear what you legally can and cannot install OS X on as an individual.
The EULA simply wasn't addressed.
Click to expand...

So, then the EULA is still valid and applicable. It makes it pretty clear what you legally can and cannot install OS X on as an individual. Either you agree to the EULA, which includes languages limiting installation on a "Apple branded system" or you don't, which leaves you with no rights under copyright law to install or run the software because of the legal precedents I cited.

Is this getting clearer to you yet ?
 
KnightWRX said:
Psystar tried to make it about the EULA. It got turned down on the basis of what I posted : IE, EULA or no EULA, what they did was in breach of copyright anyhow. Even if the EULA was "anti-competitive" and "not applicable", having it declared invalid didn't change copyright law.

Hence why the judge didn't rule on the EULA itself. It was basically a non-argument to begin with.

That's the point.



And I also want to freely ignore limitations in the highway safety code. Not the way it works out. If anything, if you have the license partly invalidated, what would likely happen is that you'd have to agree to a new license before retaining your copyright license.

Seriously guys, as long as you don't start a business and look to profit, don't fret about it. What you're doing is copyright infringement but no one is coming after you for it (unless they are the RIAA/MPAA).



What would most likely happen is that Apple would simply submit new terms to license to their customers.



So, then the EULA is still valid and applicable. It makes it pretty clear what you legally can and cannot install OS X on as an individual. Either you agree to the EULA, which includes languages limiting installation on a "Apple branded system" or you don't, which leaves you with no rights under copyright law to install or run the software because of the legal precedents I cited.

Is this getting clearer to you yet ?
Click to expand...

Not really. If I understand you correctly you're saying that you need the "extra" rights in the EULA to use the software because you would violate copyright without them. You also seem to say that if any limitation turns out to be something Apple cannot really demand then the entire EULA is invalid.

That means that a company can put completely arbitrary limitations in their EULA and it doesn't matter if it is legally enforceable or not. A company would be able to get around any kind of customer protection because even if the customer argues succesfully against the limitation he will just open himself up to copyright infringement charges.
 
Last edited:
macsmurf said:
Not really. If I understand you correctly you're saying that you need the "extra" rights in the EULA to use the software because you would violate copyright without them. You also seem to say that if any limitation turns out to be something Apple cannot really demand then the entire EULA is invalid.
Click to expand...

A license from a vendor is what allows you to run software correct. Without a license, you are infringing their copyright in making copies of the work (which legal precedents agree that simply loading software from hard drive or media to RAM constitute copying protected by copyright).

You don't need extra rights, you need rights to begin with. Copyright law pretty much restricts you to having no rights to copy software.

macsmurf said:
That means that a company can put completely arbitrary limitations in their EULA and it doesn't matter if it is legally enforceable or not. A company would be able to get around any kind of customer protection because even if the customer argues succesfully against the limitation he will just open himself up to copyright infringement charges.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you're making this into a doom scenario for no purpose. If certain provisions are declared invalid in court (and they can be, no one is allowed to push unlawful provisions in a license/contract), the most likely thing that will happen is not you getting sued for copyright infringement, but more likely you'll be presented a new license from the vendor. Disagreeing means you will not be able to run the software again.

However, you'll have to proactively ask for a summary judgement on the provisions you want invalidated, you can't just ignore some provisions because you think they might not apply or be unlawful, or then you're in breach of the license, thus infringing copyright and can be sued for that.

Anyway, again, individuals are not getting sued. Why are you so stressed over this ?
 
shaunp said:
It would be interesting to know how they ran. Personally I find Apple's current desktop lineup a bit limited. I want something between the mini and the Pro, and the iMac just doesn't cut it as I don't want an all in one. If Apple made such a machine I would buy it.
Click to expand...

Apple did make a machine like that, it's called the Mac Mini.

----------
Sensation said:
Why would they waste their time on this? Windows outsells OS X by a lot :confused:
Click to expand...

And look at the "great" OS Windows 8 is now... Windows 8 is going to be the windows vista or the Windows Me for present generations...

----------
InuNacho said:
See, if Apple offered sub $1,000 towers with lower end parts people would buy them.
Click to expand...

again, they did, they are called Mac Mini's.
 
KnightWRX said:
A license from a vendor is what allows you to run software correct. Without a license, you are infringing their copyright in making copies of the work (which legal precedents agree that simply loading software from hard drive or media to RAM constitute copying protected by copyright).

You don't need extra rights, you need rights to begin with. Copyright law pretty much restricts you to having no rights to copy software.



Like I said, you're making this into a doom scenario for no purpose. If certain provisions are declared invalid in court (and they can be, no one is allowed to push unlawful provisions in a license/contract), the most likely thing that will happen is not you getting sued for copyright infringement, but more likely you'll be presented a new license from the vendor. Disagreeing means you will not be able to run the software again.

However, you'll have to proactively ask for a summary judgement on the provisions you want invalidated, you can't just ignore some provisions because you think they might not apply or be unlawful, or then you're in breach of the license, thus infringing copyright and can be sued for that.
Click to expand...

Well, I can't speak for US law but in my country I can ignore, and even agree, to provisions that aren't actually enforceable. For example, I can buy a watch at a sizable discount because I agree to not having any warranty. I can even sign a contract to that effect. Unfortunately (for the seller) I can't sign away my warranty (because it is given to me by law) so if the watch breaks, the seller is still required to fix it. And the sale is still valid.

Maybe US law is different but I'm probably not going to take your word for it :)

Anyway, again, individuals are not getting sued. Why are you so stressed over this ?
Click to expand...

Why would you think I am stressed? I just don't think that it is a reasonable to claim that people building Hackintoshes are breaking the law.
 
macsmurf said:
Well, I can't speak for US law but in my country I can ignore, and even agree, to provisions that aren't actually enforceable. For example, I can buy a watch at a sizable discount because I agree to not having any warranty. I can even sign a contract to that effect. Unfortunately (for the seller) I can't sign away my warranty (because it is given to me by law) so if the watch breaks, the seller is still required to fix it. And the sale is still valid.

Maybe US law is different but I'm probably not going to take your word for it :)
Click to expand...

A watch is a material item, it is not covered under copyright law. That analogy doesn't even hold.

Seems to me you just don't understand the issues here, moreso now that you've proven it with your very flawed analogy to material goods which are sold to you (you own the watch, you don't own the software, only a license to it).

Maybe you need to read up on copyright law/cases/precedents before we continue this discussion ?
 
kildjean said:
Apple did make a machine like that, it's called the Mac Mini.

----------



And look at the "great" OS Windows 8 is now... Windows 8 is going to be the windows vista or the Windows Me for present generations...

----------



again, they did, they are called Mac Mini's.
Click to expand...

You know mac mini's are not what he needs/wants..jeezzz

there is simply no expandability in a mini beyong an extra HDD and RAM, thats why hackintoshes are so poplular. For example my hackintosh has 6 SATA III ports and 4 SATA II, I can have 10 total drives I have 9.

the xMac will not be built, but doesn't mean there is no demand.
 
kildjean said:
Apple did make a machine like that, it's called the Mac Mini.

----------



And look at the "great" OS Windows 8 is now... Windows 8 is going to be the windows vista or the Windows Me for present generations...

----------



again, they did, they are called Mac Mini's.
Click to expand...


Please drop the Mini argument. The Mini is not expandable, which is what he and others have been asking for. We want a Mac with PCI slots that costs under $2500. As I said in a previous post, a mid tower computer with the same specs as an iMac (but without the screen) at the same price point would be ideal for many of us. What Apple is ignoring is the number of users between "Pro" and grandma.
 
mus0r said:
Please drop the Mini argument. The Mini is not expandable, which is what he and others have been asking for. We want a Mac with PCI slots that costs under $2500. As I said in a previous post, a mid tower computer with the same specs as an iMac (but without the screen) at the same price point would be ideal for many of us. What Apple is ignoring is the number of users between "Pro" and grandma.
Click to expand...

What those users are ignoring is their apparent lack of numbers.
 
macsmurf said:
I just don't think that it is a reasonable to claim that people building Hackintoshes are breaking the law.
Click to expand...
We can cite copyright law that says that you are wrong. If you think there is some other precedent that is based in actual law please tell us. If it's based on opinion, that's fine, but don't bother trying to convince us that it's fact - it's not. Opinions though are not very useful since we all have them and many of them aren't based on fact. They don't have much weight either when we are arguing a matter based on facts.
 
pdjudd said:
We can cite copyright law that says that you are wrong. If you think there is some other precedent that is based in actual law please tell us. If it's based on opinion, that's fine, but don't bother trying to convince us that it's fact - it's not. Opinions though are not very useful since we all have them and many of them aren't based on fact. They don't have much weight either when we are arguing a matter based on facts.
Click to expand...

I don't get why some posters don't want to be infringing copyright yet want to break the EULA. Why do you care about the law so much ? Just do whatever you want to do and stop trying to justify it or claim it's legal or whatever.
 
KnightWRX said:
What those users are ignoring is their apparent lack of numbers.
Click to expand...

And how could you possibly estimate their numbers? Since the product does not exist, they all purchased something else. Either they bit the bullet and bought the Mac Pro, compromised on hardware and bought the Mini or iMac, or they build a Hackintosh.

That does not in any way prove that they would NOT have purchased a mid tower Mac if it were available. In fact, I suspect a large number of Mac Pro owners would have bought that instead if it were available, myself included.
 
KnightWRX said:
I don't get why some posters don't want to be infringing copyright yet want to break the EULA. Why do you care about the law so much ? Just do whatever you want to do and stop trying to justify it or claim it's legal or whatever.
Click to expand...
I don't know either. I suppose people want to justify their actions as not being wrong because of some principal. I personally don't care if someone hackintoshes their computer - that's their own business. If they are going to be advertising it though and make claims about how it's legal or whatnot, I am going to call them on it.
 
mus0r said:
And how could you possibly estimate their numbers? Since the product does not exist, they all purchased something else. Either they bit the bullet and bought the Mac Pro, compromised on hardware and bought the Mini or iMac, or they build a Hackintosh.

That does not in any way prove that they would NOT have purchased a mid tower Mac if it were available. In fact, I suspect a large number of Mac Pro owners would have bought that instead if it were available, myself included.
Click to expand...

But, as I walk through the various electronic stores the all-in-ones far out number the box with slots. To add insult to injury they tend to be more expensive to boot. I don't think there is much of a market for prebuilt towers any more.
 
mus0r said:
In fact, I suspect a large number of Mac Pro owners would have bought that instead if it were available, myself included.
Click to expand...
Outside of yourself though, what proof do you have? Show me some meaningful statistics. Your arguing people would buy something that doesn't exist either - I can make the same argument you just did.

If there was a meaningful number of people interested in such a machine, Psystar would have a larger sales base to follow. Heck, the fact that hackintoshing isn't mainstream should tell us something.
 
KnightWRX said:
A watch is a material item, it is not covered under copyright law. That analogy doesn't even hold.
Click to expand...

It's not an analogy. I try not to use analogies. It is an example of the fact that there are certain rights that I, as a customer, cannot sign away.

There is a big difference between agreements between companies and the agreements between a seller and a buyer in the eyes of the law - at least in my country.

My point is that you cannot take a ruling from a suit between companies and directly applicate it on the relationship between the seller and the buyer. There is a real difference between selling a hackintosh and building one as a private person.

Seems to me you just don't understand the issues here, moreso now that you've proven it with your very flawed analogy to material goods which are sold to you (you own the watch, you don't own the software, only a license to it).

Maybe you need to read up on copyright law/cases/precedents before we continue this discussion ?
Click to expand...

I think I would have to be a lawyer with a special interest in IP and US contract law in order to have an informed opinion on the matter. Since that's never going to happen I think the most reasonable opinion is that it is not illegal until a judge says it is.
 
macsmurf said:
It's not an analogy. I try not to use analogies. It is an example of the fact that there are certain rights that I, as a customer, cannot sign away.
Click to expand...
You tried to make a comparison that is invalid. You cannot compare physical goods with non physical goods. Especially when the case is about copyright.
 
KnightWRX said:
I don't get why some posters don't want to be infringing copyright yet want to break the EULA. Why do you care about the law so much ? Just do whatever you want to do and stop trying to justify it or claim it's legal or whatever.
Click to expand...

pdjudd said:
I don't know either. I suppose people want to justify their actions as not being wrong because of some principal. I personally don't care if someone hackintoshes their computer - that's their own business. If they are going to be advertising it though and make claims about how it's legal or whatnot, I am going to call them on it.
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming that it is legal. I'm claiming one cannot directly use the Psystar case to show that it is illegal.
 
pdjudd said:
Outside of yourself though, what proof do you have? Show me some meaningful statistics. Your arguing people would buy something that doesn't exist either - I can make the same argument you just did.

If there was a meaningful number of people interested in such a machine, Psystar would have a larger sales base to follow. Heck, the fact that hackintoshing isn't mainstream should tell us something.
Click to expand...

Hackintoshing is about as mainstream it can be..insert a USB and click yes until it's done..
 
mus0r said:
And how could you possibly estimate their numbers? Since the product does not exist, they all purchased something else. Either they bit the bullet and bought the Mac Pro, compromised on hardware and bought the Mini or iMac, or they build a Hackintosh.
Click to expand...

Or even more often, they looked at the Mac HW offerings and decided to stick with a Windows PC. Which is what I did. I was interested in OSX and would have bought a mid tower Mac.

But I don't want an AIO at all. The mini is essentially a Laptop with no KB/Screen/batteries. The Pro is just silly expensive.

So I just went with another mid tower PC running windows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back