Just the opposite, really. The pirates figure out ways to defeat activation and serial number locks. They enjoy the challenge. Anti-piracy schemes really only annoy the honest.
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 Lawyer Hints at Anti-Trust Defense
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just the opposite, really. The pirates figure out ways to defeat activation and serial number locks. They enjoy the challenge. Anti-piracy schemes really only annoy the honest.
I don't think that is needed. Apple should surely be able to figure out a dozen methods to check whether MacOS X is running on an Apple computer or not. Imagine you have hacked MacOS X to run on a non-Apple computer, and the next time Software Update runs, a screen appears: "It seems that this copy of MacOS X is not installed on an Apple computer. You can either let Software Update remove MacOS X from this computer, or remove MacOS X yourself. Should this message be incorrect, then please bring your Apple computer to any Apple Store where the problem will be fixed free of charge. "
Bummer. Didn't read your post carefully. Still, it should be possible to build a version that runs on Macs without needing a serial number, and a (likely more expensive one) running everywhere.
There's no such thing as "Apple_x86." Apple's hardware is 98% the same "genetic material" as generic x86 hardware. The only differences come from their motherboard layouts, but all mo-board layouts differ from each other slightly.
The idea that Apple is running something different under the hood is a complete fallacy.
-Clive
I don't think that is just a perceived right. If you buy a piece of software, you can install it on whatever you can get it to run on regardless of the EULA. Obviously Apple or whatever other software company could not be held liable for any damages caused by this nor should they be expected to provide customer support. Where you run into legal issues is when someone installs OS X on non-Apple hardware and then tries to make a profit from it.
You meant Apple is innocent until proven guilty?
As someone who uses Apple products to make a living I can understand the frustration you have as it seems the past year or so Apple has been much more focused on it's consumer electronics customers than on the customers that have been Apple's backbone for years, but saying Apple was once a close friend who ditched you is a bit much don't you think? I mean, if you knew Steve and Woz personally back in the day, were one of their first customers, and kept in touch w/them over the years but now they don't return your phone calls that's one thing. But you, like me and IJ and gnasher729, are just one of millions of Apple customers. Anyone of us could get hit by a bus and I doubt anyone at Apple would know.
Maybe I'm not being clear, but all I was doing was pointing out the inaccurate use of the word "upgrade" as it is typically used to describe computer software. Just like I pointed out Clive At Five's inaccurate use of the word "conviction." I feel you are taking my words and running w/them to places I never meant them to go. I never said Apple selling only full versions of OS X means people have free license to do w/them what they may. I'm just saying that using the term "upgrade" to describe the boxed copies of OS X Apple sells is inaccurate.
Lethal
There's no such thing as "Apple_x86." Apple's hardware is 98% the same "genetic material" as generic x86 hardware. The only differences come from their motherboard layouts, but all mo-board layouts differ from each other slightly.
The idea that Apple is running something different under the hood is a complete fallacy.
-Clive
Not really, no. Even if it is a .00001% difference, OSX is STILL designed for Apple_x86. A difference is a difference. You still have to HACK OSX to get it to work on any_x68.
Wrong, if the EULA holds up in court. To re-quote Apple's single-user EULA for OS X:
Let's make this clear. If the EULA holds as legal you MAY NOT:
1. Enable the use of OS X on non-Apple hardware through hacks.
2. Install OS X on any computer that isn't a Mac (in other words, an Apple-branded and manufactured computer.)
This technically makes hackintoshes 100% illegal. Now, I think Apple recognizes the futility of trying to enforce this among hobbyists, and is likely willing to ignore such infractions as long as it stays DIY. What the EULA is designed to do (in part) is to prevent OS X from being used in conjunction with PC hardware to create an unauthorized clone for sale...like the OpenMac.
Even if the EULA doesn't hold up (though I think it will), I believe that the court will rule that Psystar is unlawfully trading on Apple's intellectual property, as IJ Reilly has said.
I believe we're arguing essentially the same thing but coming at it from different directions. As I said, whether the OSX retail box is called an "upgrade" or something else is to dwell on unimportant distinctions, because it doesn't have any bearing on how it can be used lawfully. Clive At Five is arguing otherwise, which I think we both agree is incorrect.
That's just the thing though, these kinds of restrictions(when applied to the actual person who purchased and is using the software) haven't held up well in court. I know what the EULA says, but based on the UCC it is not a legally binding contract, and no EULA is. The UCC has basically defined software as a product. When you buy it you can do what you wish with it as long as you don't violate anyone's intellectual property rights. In this particular case it seams that Psystar is violating Apple IP. I think it will be very difficult and for them to make an anti-trust argument, because I can't figure out what that argument would be.
I won't pretend to be a scholar on the UCC. Can you provide an example or two of EULAs being tested in court? Also, I seem to remember that one of the issues was EULAs in the past was the fact that one was unable to read it before buying and attempting to install the product - an issue obviated by the fact that Apple (and just about everyone else) makes the EULA available online.
I agree with you, as I've said before, that Apple's IP is being violated by Psystar and that the court will it see it that way. An anti-trust argument seems ridiculous to me, especially in the context of current precedent.
THERE IS ONLY ONE x86! There's no difference between the instruction set Apple uses and the instruction set other PCs use! Your hair-splitting about "differences" is irrelevant because all x86 hardware will work with x86 instructions. If Apple uses A-DATA RAM and I use Corsair, the RAM may technically be built differently but they will both still work exactly the same. If the hardware is built for the x86 instruction set, it is interoperable with all other x86 hardware of the same type.
Nevermind your warped conception of what "x86" is, let's address your misconception of how much "hacking" it takes to install OS X on generic hardware: The process has almost evolved to the point where you can just put the Retail DVD into the drive and click install. With the right selection of hardware, the only "hacking" is done at boot-up, which isn't even OS X. It's Darwin, which is open source, meaning you can do whatever you want to your copy of it. Any other modification comes after the installation... maybe tinkering with a kext to add 7.1 audio or something.
-Clive
THERE IS ONLY ONE x86!
...How does this impact the use of OS X on non-Apple hardware from a legal standpoint?
Now we've both asked, at least once. Do you believe an answer will be forthcoming?
It may not hold up (in general) when applied to an individual and an individually-purchased copy, but if there any legal precedent for how a EULA stands up when a business violates it on behalf of a customer?
Of course, I cannot speak for Clive, but it seems to me he's not trying to make any sort of argument on legal terms at all.
Rather, he appears to be simply objecting to somebody else's assertion that there's somehow a technical distinction between the underlying hardware architecture of an Apple-branded PC versus most current beige-box PCs. Setting aside all the legal voodoo for the moment, that point is categorically false.
I couldn't help but notice you ignored every one of my other responses, Clive.
Pro Tools. You can't get the software unless you buy their hardware. It goes back to my point of: If Apple just decided to inconvenience everyone who needed an upgrade or a reformat, according to you, they'd then be in the right, since they no longer sell it standalone. DigiDesign will not sell you ProTools unless you buy their hardware packages. Apple is providing something they are not required to provide (a boxed version of OS X for convenience), and you are saying they should be punished for it.
Now, what do I win?
By the way, there aren't any fundamental differences between, say, a digidesign audio interface, and an Apogee audio interface that does the same things.
Clive at Five said:
Pro Tools. You can't get the software unless you buy their hardware. It goes back to my point of: If Apple just decided to inconvenience everyone who needed an upgrade or a reformat, according to you, they'd then be in the right, since they no longer sell it standalone. DigiDesign will not sell you ProTools unless you buy their hardware packages. Apple is providing something they are not required to provide (a boxed version of OS X for convenience), and you are saying they should be punished for it.
Now, what do I win?
By the way, there aren't any fundamental differences between, say, a digidesign audio interface, and an Apogee audio interface that does the same things.
The real crux of this is that Apple has now gone to "commodity hardware" that people can perform real-time cost analysis of and many have come to the determination that because it's (often) cheaper when it runs Windows, it is overpriced when it runs OS X.
When Apple used the PowerPC platform, you could not go down to your local computer parts shop and buy a single PowerPC CPU (much less sort though two dozen different models) nor a single PowerPC systemboard (much less sort through scores of models from dozens of manufacturers). It was essentially a closed market. You couldn't compare prices except for some really expensive workstations from IBM and other companies that made PPC Macs look free.
It was much the same with the Motorola 68000 days, when Apple used the ROMs to restrict the ability to run their OS on non-Apple hardware. I had an emulator card for my Amiga 2000 that allowed me to run the Mac OS of the time, but I had to buy the Apple ROMs to install in the card. And soon afterwards, Apple forbid their authorized service centers from selling the ROMs and would only sell them new ROMs if they returned the defective ones so very soon that emulator was useless unless you also bought a complete Mac to scavenge the ROMs. I also expect that the PowerPC versions of the Macintosh OS did not just happily boot-up when installed in an RS/6000...
Personally, I switched to Apple 50% for OS X and 50% for their hardware. Now after a year of use, I'm more 75% OS X and 25% their hardware. But I still like the fact that both OS X and the hardware "just work". I've had Windows PCs that "just worked" and Windows OS' that "just worked" but seldom did I ever have a combination that "just worked" as well as my iMac, MacBook, MacBook Pro and OS X.
When Apple used the PowerPC platform, you could not go down to your local computer parts shop and buy a single PowerPC CPU (much less sort though two dozen different models) nor a single PowerPC systemboard (much less sort through scores of models from dozens of manufacturers). It was essentially a closed market. You couldn't compare prices except for some really expensive workstations from IBM and other companies that made PPC Macs look free.
It was much the same with the Motorola 68000 days, when Apple used the ROMs to restrict the ability to run their OS on non-Apple hardware. I had an emulator card for my Amiga 2000 that allowed me to run the Mac OS of the time, but I had to buy the Apple ROMs to install in the card. And soon afterwards, Apple forbid their authorized service centers from selling the ROMs and would only sell them new ROMs if they returned the defective ones so very soon that emulator was useless unless you also bought a complete Mac to scavenge the ROMs. I also expect that the PowerPC versions of the Macintosh OS did not just happily boot-up when installed in an RS/6000...
Personally, I switched to Apple 50% for OS X and 50% for their hardware. Now after a year of use, I'm more 75% OS X and 25% their hardware. But I still like the fact that both OS X and the hardware "just work". I've had Windows PCs that "just worked" and Windows OS' that "just worked" but seldom did I ever have a combination that "just worked" as well as my iMac, MacBook, MacBook Pro and OS X.
1. Consumer protection laws don't apply to companies, like Psystar.
2. One argument often used against EULAs is that they couldn't be read before the product was opened. This may or may not be a valid argument if you use _one_ copy of a product. Clearly it cannot apply on the second and further copies.
3. When a company enters into a contract, it is binding.
Psystar doesn't do anything on behalf of a customer unless they have a written demand from a customer to do such a thing. They may have some idea what a customer might want them to do, but it is Psystar doing it all on its own. Even with a written demand, if the customer demands they do something that is illegal, they can't do it.
In reality this is does not appear to be true either. I believe the vast majority of Windows PCs still use BIOS for booting because most versions of Windows don't support EFI. Further, I believe the EFI Apple uses includes proprietary firmware code. This is why an install (and I believe also a boot) hack is required for OSX to run on generic PC hardware.
Now that I think about it I'd add Avid, their parent company, to that list as well. You can buy the Avid Media Composer software stand alone, but if you need capture hardware (which probably at least 95% of Avid users do) you have to buy Avid's hardware even though other companies (AJA, Black Magic, Matrox, etc.,) make similar devices. Other than Avid, like Apple, wanting to control the whole widget (hardware and software), there's no reason I can think of why Avid won't let you use other capture hardware w/their software. Avid selling Media Composer as a stand alone product is a relatively new thing (only happened in the past year or so). Before that if you wanted Avid MC you had to buy the ~$25k worth of Avid hardware it came 'bundled' with.
Gotcha. In my previous responses I wasn't even thinking of what Clive At Five was saying but now I see where you were coming from when you responding to my posts.
Lethal
The real question now, though, is whether Clive at Five is going to accept that we've found two when he "challenged" us to find even one, or if he's going to make up some way in which Apple is different.
Of course they are different, their monopoly position on the x86 PCs a couple decades after finally entering the x86 PC market they've sold millions in a market where a really huge number have already been sold.
And they are doing the same thing with the cellphones, wait 20 years, enter the market sell a few million when hundreds of millions have already been sold -- am bam, get slapped by people shouting monopoly before the first unit is sold.
If they decide to build a car and sell a couple thousand units, I'm quite sure they will have a monopoly there after waiting a hundred years to enter that market.
---
Just consumers being cranky because they cannot buy stuff when and where they want at the price they decide they should pay.
And they are doing the same thing with the cellphones, wait 20 years, enter the market sell a few million when hundreds of millions have already been sold -- am bam, get slapped by people shouting monopoly before the first unit is sold.
If they decide to build a car and sell a couple thousand units, I'm quite sure they will have a monopoly there after waiting a hundred years to enter that market.
---
Just consumers being cranky because they cannot buy stuff when and where they want at the price they decide they should pay.
Back before EULAs became trilogies, I remember Microsoft used to be able to put their's on a sticker sealing the envelope that contained the actual install media so you could read it before you "broke the seal" which constituted acceptance of the EULA.
I also believe all EULAs have a clause that states if you do not agree with the terms, even if you have had to open the package to be able to read the EULA, you are able to return it uninstalled for a full refund.
Apple's EULA for OS X 10.5, for example, does not take effect until you actually begin the installation process, at which point you are deemed to have agreed to the terms of the EULA. It directs you to return it to Apple for a full refund if you choose to not agree to the EULA and therefore choose not to install the OS.
...not to mention the fact that the EULA is available from Apple's website, and I'm sure Apple Corporate will mail you a hard copy if you ask for it.