You need to read the whole EULA is says: "embedded or otherwise contained in Apple-labeled hardware" nothing to do with RAM or HD's.
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 Files for Bankruptcy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You need to read the whole EULA is says: "embedded or otherwise contained in Apple-labeled hardware" nothing to do with RAM or HD's.
So what if "mom and dad" want to buy a Psystar, and run into problems. Who will they blame? Apple and the OS? I think so.
Perhaps. Although I doubt that a factory purchased BMW engine comes with some sort of agreement saying that "you will only place this in a BMW automobile"...
So when will all this happen?
We are happy because their crap products failed.
But you are using their intellectually property without permission.
The iMac I am typing this on, is "Apple-labeled hardware." And parts such as RAM, HD, etc., are "contained" in it.
What part of this do you have trouble comprehending?
Why buy a Psystar when you can buy an EFiX? Apple's real competition (if you want to call it that) is EFiX. A true Mac experience without Mac prices....as long as you know how to build a computer.
It's a little young, but with time this software will mature into the Mid-Tower Mac we've always wanted.
http://www.efi-x.com/
It's a little young, but with time this software will mature into the Mid-Tower Mac we've always wanted.
http://www.efi-x.com/
Hah, plus the warranty and manual typically reference user replacable parts.
I swear, you'd think some of these posters had never made it through high school.....actually, they probably are still in high school....so never mind
Because ram and hard drives are classified as "User Serviceable" on the vast majority of Apple products, which creates an easily inferred allowance for such parts to be swapped with non-Apple branded parts, since Apple does not sell post purchase RAM or hard drives.
So... what part of:
Selling software and only software to consumers is not Apple's business model because it has never been their business model, because selling hardware bundled with software is more profitable, easier to maintain, and works more efficiently than selling software to hundreds of different hardware vendors and attempting to support thousands of configurations of computers, and that the majority of the population doesn't give a flying frig that they have a limited number of configurations so long as their computer works because not every single person on the planet is a master at computer maintenance and design, nor do 90% of people care about upgrading their hardware and searching for parts that are applicable to their lifestyle because they're not all specialists in the field of computing and have absolutely no desire to be (because, come on, this is the same as a fireman telling you that you have to know how to put out house/forest fires when you feel perfectly all right knowing how to deal with candles and stove flare-ups) specialists in the field of computing
... don't you understand?
FYI, Apple's EULA in itself, is illegal in some countries as they go against things already set in constitutional law. Too many details for me to write here and I'm not a lawyer so do a search if you're interested.
Not defending anyone, just wanted to give you a friendly heads up.
RAM and Hard Drives are exceptions since those components are considered user replaceable (on certain models) and upgradeable by Apple (they do not disallow their replacement). They are still contained in the overall package of what a Mac is. Now, if we start talking about parts not considered replaceable (not on a 1:1 basis at least), then we start not calling it a Mac. Apple's branding is what allows them to determine what can be used in a Mac and what a Mac is made up of. It doesn't just consist of "everything and only what is in the case". Its just not that simple.
Try again.
Two unrelated points on this:
1) If Psystar were, as they claimed, not able to produce balance sheets or P&Ls for any of their trading activities, how do they know they're bankrupt? Bankruptcy is a function of the balance sheet.
2) Anyone who thinks Psystar was backed by Gates, Dell, or anyone currently directly involved in the Western computer market is out of their tiny minds.
No-one -- let me spell that out for you in a Perry-Cox-from-Scrubs-stylee -- Nuh-uh oh-ho-oh-ho-oh-one selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principal of the EULA.
Cheers!
Jim
1) If Psystar were, as they claimed, not able to produce balance sheets or P&Ls for any of their trading activities, how do they know they're bankrupt? Bankruptcy is a function of the balance sheet.
2) Anyone who thinks Psystar was backed by Gates, Dell, or anyone currently directly involved in the Western computer market is out of their tiny minds.
No-one -- let me spell that out for you in a Perry-Cox-from-Scrubs-stylee -- Nuh-uh oh-ho-oh-ho-oh-one selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principal of the EULA.
Cheers!
Jim
FYI, Apple's EULA in itself, is illegal in some countries as they go against things already set in constitutional law. Too many details for me to write here and I'm not a lawyer so do a search if you're interested.
Not defending anyone, just wanted to give you a friendly heads up.
But those are also generally countries that don't give two ***** about a creator's rights when it comes to intellectual properties. They make the US comic book industry look generous.
What was stolen? The software wasn't purchased? I was with the understanding every computer they sold had a fully paid for copy of OS X. You don't have to make up fake accusations at this point -- Psystar is already going down. Have a martini and celebrate. The group mentality here could use a rest. Ciao folks.
FYI, Apple's EULA in itself, is illegal in some countries as they go against things already set in constitutional law. Too many details for me to write here and I'm not a lawyer so do a search if you're interested.
Not defending anyone, just wanted to give you a friendly heads up.
F your I, stealing intellectual property, modifying it, and selling it for a profit without paying the company that owns the intellectual property is also illegal...
...I'm going to say in most countries.
But now we won't get to see if it was legal or not. They didn't break a law they broke the EULA which they were contesting in court. The judge ruled that they should be allowed to make a case, indicating that he didn't entirely agree with Apple's EULA.
No, what he was clearly indicating was that according to the justice system, as it is supposed to work, both sides are given a chance to expand upon their arguments.
Edit: This also has the potential to be a precedence setting case, so he was dotting every I and crossing every T.
FYI, Apple's EULA in itself, is illegal in some countries as they go against things already set in constitutional law. Too many details for me to write here and I'm not a lawyer so do a search if you're interested.
Not defending anyone, just wanted to give you a friendly heads up.
You do realize that Apple does employ lawyers, right? As far as I know, Apple's SLA has never been found to be illegal in any country.
Of course, there are some countries where the enforceability of SLAs that are agreed to after purchase is in question.
I do believe that was a point of contention. Psystar claimed that they purchased legal copies of OS X. However, when pressed, they came up with ZERO documentation to show that the copies were, in fact, legal. All the depo revealed were a bunch of "I don't know" "I don't recall" "our records were destroyed in a fire" BS.
They don't have any financial records (according to Psystar) and you don't own the software, you only license it from Apple.
EDIT: Beaten by MacVixen
RAM and user-serviceable parts not included. Adding third-party RAM does not void your warranty, etc.
But he could have thrown out the case entirely, but he didn't, inferring he thought Psystar should be allowed to challenge the EULA. If he thought they should be allowed he mustn't have entirely agreed with it.