If your wish comes true we will be stuck with what we have right now. I'd be damn stupid to try to be clever if I know that my work will get stolen anyways.
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 Exits Bankruptcy, Launches New Xeon-Based Systems Running OS X
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If your wish comes true we will be stuck with what we have right now. I'd be damn stupid to try to be clever if I know that my work will get stolen anyways.
I'd tell future Mac cloners if they ever wanted a true competition for the Mac, build a better system and write a better OS. Linux is there for development, Macs now use PC components what's stopping you?
Oh wait...it's easier to feed on the success of others.
I must be missing something here. What would be the connection between Starbucks, looking good, and a glowing white Apple? Can you explain that?
It seems that Psystar actually had a good legal team (as long as they paid them, that is). Their problem was that if your client has no case, then there isn't much that your legal team can do for you, except stretching out the case to delay the inevitable loss, which just costs you money. So the real message that Apple sends is "Don't do it. It is illegal, and we won't let you".
I'm still looking for the "illegal" part.
What laws have they actually broken?
If Apple can't prove they are using pirated copies, which I doubt they are, what law was broken?
The license agreement has never been settled in a court and it is a civil matter (lawsuit), not a criminal one. Again, no law broken. If Apple wins, fines can be levied, but nobody is going to jail over it.
It's only competition if they are a legitimate business.
It's only business if they offer a product by legal contract.
So they fail on both accounts.
The intellectual property of Apple, OS X, is being modified by either the people at Psystar (as if), or they're using existing modifications from popular Hackintosh copies.
The modification of intellectual property for profit is illegal. Psystar is making a profit.
Actually, Apple is accusing Psystar of a DMCA violation, which makes the whole matter criminal. Circumvention of an effective technical method to prevent access to copyrighted information = DMCA violation. Of course Psystar claims that they are not circumventing an effective technical method to prevent access to copyrighted information, they just work around Apple's dastardly tricks to keep MacOS X from running on Psystar computers, which is somehow, magically, I don't quite know how, a different thing. Or so they say.
If Psystar is actually overwriting Apple code to get past a legitimate prevention technique, yes, that is a DMCA violation.
Otherwise it's as others have stated. Nothing more than loading a proper driver to support the hardware. That isn't illegal.
The driver doesn't have to be supported by Apple to be legal.
One only needs to look at the Windows platform to see how that plays out.
The supplier of the driver is responsible, not the supplier of the OS.
If the OS vendor releases an update/patch that "breaks" the third party driver, it's not the OS vendors responsibility to fix it.
Apple has many avenues to attack any cloner if they chose to.
Pystar did not use the Boot-132 method, they used a hacked up method which not only hacked up software but also they redistributed Apple updates with their own custom modifications. If that isn't a flagrant violation of the law - I don't know what the hell is!
Can someone remind me where OS X came from? What was it built on top of? Who funded that original development?
I've got pretty mixed feelings about the whole deal. At least they haven't been messing with the Hackintosh community so far.
If they moved to a boot-132 like loader or an EFI-X (Similar) that allowed vanilla installs, would the anti-clone establishment have a different view of things?
I've got pretty mixed feelings about the whole deal. At least they haven't been messing with the Hackintosh community so far.
If they moved to a boot-132 like loader or an EFI-X (Similar) that allowed vanilla installs, would the anti-clone establishment have a different view of things?
Advertisements are all lies, how do you not know this? It DOESN'T work with Apple's site.
I know Tallest is just messing, but I imagine if I were trying to pull of what Psystar are, I would make sure everything else about my operation was correct, so Apple couldn't expose something else in the course of a trial.
If they blatantly just lie on the product description they are handing the case to Apple on a plate.
If they blatantly just lie on the product description they are handing the case to Apple on a plate.
Like, for example, keeping and being able to produce upon demand receipts for all the copies of OS X they purchased?
that is partly incorrect. Modification of intellectual property is illegal. profit is no longer required.
as for the DCMA, even if one bought the whole "they just loaded a driver" argument, that driver still had the purpose and end result of circumventing the lock on the tying validated as Apple's right in previous parts of this whole Psystar thing. thus it is still a violation. the law is ANY device or technology.
if Psystar had only copied the open source elements, Apple couldn't do anything. they didn't create those parts thus they have no control over them.
but Psystar also copied Apple's parts of the software. which are not open source.
I doubt what they're saying - I'm looking at the website right now, not a single thing being said about Apple not supporting the hardware sold on the website, not a single thing being said as to support of the hardware or the fact that Pystar, and in turn the customer, is at the mercy of Apple who have no interest in bending over backwards to maintain compatibility with Pystars hardware.
Maybe if customers knew that they would be high and dry with no support from Apple then they would reconsider whether or not it is wise to waste $699 on a computer that is unsupported by the operating system vendor and the dubious legality by the company reselling it with the hardware.
The company might as well be saying, "it fell off the back of a truck....honestly...trust me...have I ever steered you wrong?"
Copyleft is still copyright...
If they copied open source projects and distributed them as commercial work but didn't hold true to the License agreement that project is disturbed under then attempted to make profit without giving back as required they would still be having issues with the "copyleft" holder.
Open source rarely gives you free rain to make profit off their work without giving back.
Oh and those contracts have been tested in court, and the software foundation won.