Psystar Releases 'Rebel EFI' Software to Enable Installation of Snow Leopard on PCs

[couto27]

in the end apple will win this battle...

let them sell the efi copies , until some mllions of w users decide to try it.

when the w users realize how good mac osx is, soon they will be buying a new mac osx machine.


if ballmer saying it has 300 millions users, let does 300 millions try the psystar software and mac osx.

im sure at least 50 millions(in the first week) would buy a macosx machine in the apple store.

 

[Tudeski]

as much as i initially thought it would be nice to run mac osx on the voluminous pc hardware i have lying around, i realized that part of the beauty of mac osx is that it just works - and a vital key to that is using apple hardware.

thus, personally, i don't mind paying a premium for apple hardware...

"Just works"

Do you mean it just works with office 08 and Word being terribly slow, or that they just released an osx fix where lots of users were having stalling issues with safari? Or how about the fact that the MBP runs scorching hot when running bootcamp?

It just works is a marketing ploy. Apple still has their share of problems.

 

[Imhotep397]

You know...all of this could have been avoided had Apple just released a sub $800 expandable midtower 2 years ago. It probably would have been far cheaper than this litigation and the long term calamity this is going to create. Hell, it would have made more sense to buy Psystar out and have them manufacture midtowers as an Apple imprint. Certainly it would have meant that Apple would have had to buy more Software IP, particularly game companies/game development tools companies, to expand the pie for hardware sales so that mid tower sales wouldn't erode away Mac Pro sales...but they should have been doing that anyway. Once this software is "out there" there's really nothing Apple can do and it's going to eat a bit away at their Pro hardware sales as the Hackintosh movement have anyway, but probably on double the scale. I like the bold performance standards being set by the new iMac with powerful desktop processors vs. just the mobile ones...but the ability to expand one's hardware with standard, off the shelf, video cards at least is crucial for a couple of different market segments that would embrace switching to Mac OS X.

 

[KnightWRX]

That's exactly the point where our opinions differ. I believe that OS X is the reason Apple hardware has been selling so much better lately.

And the software business isn't very profitable compared to high margin hardware sales. Apple uses OS X to sell its hardware. OS X is so good because Apple controls the hardware platform.

They sell a vertically integrated solution. Top to bottom. Hardware, Operating System, Software.

If Apple were to try to compete with Microsoft as a software shop, they wouldn't have the revenues or profits they have now, because those are derived from hardware sales. Thus less money spent on OS X, but more on support. In the end, Apple would drop back to their worst years of the 90s and die this time, Microsoft not needing to help them survive due to pending anti-trust litigations.

 

[mac jones]

It seems to me that it's just a matter of licensing. If you sign an agreement to use the product only under specific restrictions or otherwise don't buy it, then you are bound legally like any contract.

In other words it can be a permanent 'rental' not ownership.

Of course I haven't read (any) contract so I don't know what's in it but this seems logical.

 

[Beric]

No... that would be a Trademark violation.

Will all of you would-be attorneys please stop typing?

Sit back and eat some popcorn while the real lawyers sort out the mess.

Agreed. If this case were as cut in stone as some would-be lawyers on here would have us believe, the case wouldn't have already lasted more than a year. Everything here is on iffy ground. Apple's EULA has not yet been tested in court, and no one can truthfully say that there are clear, obvious things Psystar has done wrong.

 

[realgenius]

For those that don't remember 1995-1997, here's some material to catch up:
http://lowendmac.com/orchard/07/0220.html

I actually liked those old Power Computing machines. We had a few at work. They were fast, but kinda crappy "feeling". Like you'd expect a generic beige box to be.

But they were cranking them out so fast and efficiently that Apple the hardware people couldn't catch up. No one wanted an Apple Mac, except the diehards. I mean, why wouldn't you want a faster machine? Probably because Power Computing was just a hardware company and didn't care about making a better OS. (Question for readers: is Psystar interested in making a better OS? Is anyone besides Apple interested in a better OS X? Maybe a more widely-compatible, but that's arguable not better.)

But key to the history is that it all ended, in a series of events that returned Steve Jobs back to Apple and brought us what would eventually become OS X.

http://lowendmac.com/orchard/05/next-acquisition.html

Maybe Apple is more than Macs, but they are always a hardware company. (Here's 2006 that says hardware is 80% of the sales: http://www.macgeekery.com/column/eloquent_apathy/should_apple_sell_mac_os_x_for_beige_boxes). Now this is probably a different landscape now, with iPods, iPhones, etc, but Apple is still first and foremost a hardware company. They make software to increase the popularity of their software.

Do you want Snow Leopard for $30 of $300? That is the difference between Microsoft (selling software) and Apple (selling hardware).

 

[JohnDoe98]

No, it's a contract and as such covered by contract law.

For a contract to be binding both parties have to agree upon it. You cannot enforce a contract on someone. I can purchase Mac OS X and not agree to any contract. So the law can't say squat. The only way to rectify that is to make sure someone agrees to the contract before the sale is final. But that is not how software is sold. When I buy software on Amazon, before reading any "hidden contracts" all sales are final. That's not a contract so far as I am concerned. Nice try to bully your point across though.

 

[gnasher729]

Erm, copyright infringement means you made a copy of something that isn't yours. That's what it's called COPYright. When you buy OSX you have not made a copy, so you're not infringing copyright law. You're breaking the EULA, your contract to legally USE the service. In this case, the software. That's a different thing. Also interesting is that EULA's have never been tested in court!

1. When you hand over money and receive a box with MacOS X 10.6, you haven't bought anything yet - the sale is subject to your acceptance of the license. You can refuse to accept the license and return the software and get your money back, or accept the license and the purchase of a box is now final, or do nothing and hold a box that you don't own.

2. No copying and therefore no possible copyright infringement happens until you copy the software, for example by installing it. If at that point you haven't accepted the license, then you don't own the box, so _any_ copying is copyright infringement.

3. Assuming that you accepted the license terms, then installing on a non-Apple labeled computer is in breach of the license (so yes, you are right, there has been a breach of the license), but you also committed copyright infringement. And the license that you accepted also states that you lose all rights to use the software if you breach the license, so booting that computer, which copies part of the software into RAM, is also copyright infringement.

Let's take some hypothetical cases to make things more clear: I sell you some software that I have written and the license states "You agree not to wear green jumpers while using the software". Wearing a green jumper is a perfectly legal thing to do, so doing this while using the software would be a breach of the license and nothing else, while copying software in breach of the license is both a breach of the license and copyright infringement.

Another hypothetical. The license states "you may install the software on one computer at a time only; if you install it on two computers you pay me $10,000". In that case you could always claim you never accepted the license, in which case making two copies would be two copyright infringements instead of one copyright infringement, one breach of license, and one payment of $10,000.

And EULAs haven't been tested in court? Google for "ProCD vs. Zeidenberg".

For a contract to be binding both parties have to agree upon it. You cannot enforce a contract on someone. I can purchase Mac OS X and not agree to any contract. So the law can't say squat. The only way to rectify that is to make sure someone agrees to the contract before the sale is final. But that is not how software is sold. When I buy software on Amazon, before reading any "hidden contracts" all sales are final. That's not a contract so far as I am concerned. Nice try to bully your point across though.

The law doesn't really care what misconceptions you have. Your misconception is that by handing over your money you entered a sales contract and then the seller springs some additional terms in you in the form of the EULA. That is not what happens, at least not in the case of MacOS X. Apple offers to sell a copy of MacOS X, but the offer is conditional on your acceptance of the license. Handing over the money is not enough; the sale only has happened after you accept the license. You can refuse to accept the license and ask for your money back. Obviously by handing over your money and getting a box (with no final sale yet) you are not agreeing to and not bound by the license, but until you accept it, the deal isn't done, the box with MacOS X inside is not legally yours, and _any_ copying would be copyright infringement.

BTW. The license is not "hidden". It is very visible when you try to install the software. It doesn't have to be visible to you when you hand over the money, as long as Apple accepts the software back after you find the license.

 

[KnightWRX]

Agreed. If this case were as cut in stone as some would-be lawyers on here would have us believe, the case wouldn't have already lasted more than a year. Everything here is on iffy ground. Apple's EULA has not yet been tested in court, and no one can truthfully say that there are clear, obvious things Psystar has done wrong.

Actually, the Novell vs SCO and IBM vs SCO cases were much more cut in stone than this, and they lasted about 5 years.

Civil cases are always a long and arduous process. Discovery phases take a lot of back of forth and trials are always years away once you file for action.

The length of the case as nothing to do with how complicated or not it is. It only has to do with how complicated the US court system is.

 

[hachre]

Read up on anti-trust laws, you're seriously lacking knowledge to even talk about this issue.

No I don't. If Apple had 40% share now and Microsoft had only 60% there would be two big players to talk about in the OS and thus computer business.

The nice Microsoft that is selling one product for everyone to use and doesn't bundle it to specific hardware on one side and the bad Apple who are selling the competing product bundled to their own hardware.

This would be in violation with other hardware vendors like Dell, Samsung, Acer which are not able to bundle any operating system. In fact they aren't even allowed to give their customers the same OS X "preinstalled" option.

There doesn't have to be a monopoly to warrant anti trust charges. It's unjust to use one of your own products to drive sales for another one of your own products in a way that competitors can't. That's enough. And all it takes to trigger an anti-trust trial is being noticed. And you are being noticed once you have enough market share.

 

[iGod 2.0]

These guys don't give up!

I hate Psystar and their unoriginality. Ugh! They make me sick. Can't stand them! Apple forever bitches!

 

[hachre]

I had no idea the average American was that well off. If you foresee that many people moving into an income bracket where they have $1000+ to spend on a Mac, you'd better tell the current administration. I'll need to get our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper on the phone as well, to tell him the good news.

You're actually positing that Apple will have nearly half of the market. When will this happen? Because I'll see a unicorn before I'll ever see this.

This will happen if the current sale trends that have gotten nothing but higher almost every year for the last 5 years continue for a few more years.

 

[KnightWRX]

For a contract to be binding both parties have to agree upon it. You cannot enforce a contract on someone. I can purchase Mac OS X and not agree to any contract. So the law can't say squat. The only way to rectify that is to make sure someone agrees to the contract before the sale is final. But that is not how software is sold. When I buy software on Amazon, before reading any "hidden contracts" all sales are final. That's not a contract so far as I am concerned. Nice try to bully your point across though.

No, because the sale is conditional to your acceptance of the license. Otherwise, it wouldn't say "If you don't agree with this license, please return the software for a full refund".

Clicking yes on that EULA means you do accept it and are now bound by the terms of the EULA.

You'd think that IP lawyers would've let a big loophole like "buying and then not accepting the EULA" go through for years ?

Your only recourse is to prove that the EULA is over-bearing. Contracts can't obligate you to break the law, and if they do, those clauses are void. But that will be argued between your lawyer, Apple's and the Judge.

 

[Beric]

1. When you hand over money and receive a box with MacOS X 10.6, you haven't bought anything yet - the sale is subject to your acceptance of the license. You can refuse to accept the license and return the software and get your money back, or accept the license and the purchase of a box is now final, or do nothing and hold a box that you don't own.

2. No copying and therefore no possible copyright infringement happens until you copy the software, for example by installing it. If at that point you haven't accepted the license, then you don't own the box, so _any_ copying is copyright infringement.

3. Assuming that you accepted the license terms, then installing on a non-Apple labeled computer is in breach of the license (so yes, you are right, there has been a breach of the license), but you also committed copyright infringement. And the license that you accepted also states that you lose all rights to use the software if you breach the license, so booting that computer, which copies part of the software into RAM, is also copyright infringement.

Let's take some hypothetical cases to make things more clear: I sell you some software that I have written and the license states "You agree not to wear green jumpers while using the software". Wearing a green jumper is a perfectly legal thing to do, so doing this while using the software would be a breach of the license and nothing else, while copying software in breach of the license is both a breach of the license and copyright infringement.

Another hypothetical. The license states "you may install the software on one computer at a time only; if you install it on two computers you pay me $10,000". In that case you could always claim you never accepted the license, in which case making two copies would be two copyright infringements instead of one copyright infringement, one breach of license, and one payment of $10,000.

And EULAs haven't been tested in court? Google for "ProCD vs. Zeidenberg".

The problem is that if a court rules that a EULA is unreasonable, then it is void and does not have to be followed. For example, if a EULA says "by using this software, you agree to be our slave for life", then it is clearly unreasonable. I would suggest that Apple's EULA is also unreasonable, and therefore should not be enforced.

 

[PygmySurfer]

Last I checked, the "IBM PC" descended platform didn't run off EFI. Hence why you need Bootcamp to install Windows or Linux natively on your Mac.

The "IBM PC" platform uses the BIOS. Or now are you going to say that my HP Integrity boxes are PCs because they use Intel processors (they boot off the same EFI Apple uses).

Actually, there are some PCs with EFI (I have an HP notebook with UEFI). Most of them are configured with BIOS compatibility mode, since Microsoft hasn't done much to further Windows' support of EFI.

Also, Bootcamp doesn't enable the legacy BIOS on Macs either (except for the first Intel-based Macs that were released), it just partitions the drive and provides drivers. You can partition a Mac manually without ever touching Bootcamp.

 

[Tudeski]

This will happen if the current sale trends that have gotten nothing but higher almost every year for the last 5 years continue for a few more years.

I like apple, but two small things:


WINDOWS 7

the current trend will never happen

 

[hachre]

And the software business isn't very profitable compared to high margin hardware sales. Apple uses OS X to sell its hardware. OS X is so good because Apple controls the hardware platform.

They sell a vertically integrated solution. Top to bottom. Hardware, Operating System, Software.

If Apple were to try to compete with Microsoft as a software shop, they wouldn't have the revenues or profits they have now, because those are derived from hardware sales. Thus less money spent on OS X, but more on support. In the end, Apple would drop back to their worst years of the 90s and die this time, Microsoft not needing to help them survive due to pending anti-trust litigations.

For the 5th time I believe in this thread I have to clear this up. I'm not saying drop the hardware business and start competing with Microsoft via OS X for PCs.

I'm saying don't sue people for using OS X on a PC and don't try to technically bind OS X to Apple hardware. Those are two very different things.

 

[Unprocessed1]

No... that would be a Trademark violation.

Will all of you would-be attorneys please stop typing?

Sit back and eat some popcorn while the real lawyers sort out the mess.

Actually buddy, it's both copyright infringement and trademark violation. Apple's lawsuit covers a lot of ground. I was generalizing the lawsuit and things said in the thread, don't take every little word so literally, it's a message board. They're both getting OSX on a PC and then marketing it as OSX, which covers both.

EDIT: Now I understand your specific point, I changed it

 

[KnightWRX]

There doesn't have to be a monopoly to warrant anti trust charges. It's unjust to use one of your own products to drive sales for another one of your own products in a way that competitors can't. That's enough. And all it takes to trigger an anti-trust trial is being noticed. And you are being noticed once you have enough market share.

So McDonald's can't use the bigmac to sell their fries because Burger King can't sell the same Big Mac ?

Anti-trust is about monopoly abuse. You need a monopoly and you need to abuse it in order to be open to anti-trust charges.

Again, you're showing a real lack of knowledge.

 

[dukebound85]

Let's take some hypothetical cases to make things more clear: I sell you some software that I have written and the license states "You agree not to wear green jumpers while using the software". Wearing a green jumper is a perfectly legal thing to do, so doing this while using the software would be a breach of the license and nothing else, while copying software in breach of the license is both a breach of the license and copyright infringement.

Another hypothetical. The license states "you may install the software on one computer at a time only; if you install it on two computers you pay me $10,000". In that case you could always claim you never accepted the license, in which case making two copies would be two copyright infringements instead of one copyright infringement, one breach of license, and one payment of $10,000.

horrible examples

you do know not all contracts are legal right? you cant just write something, have it signed, and expect it to hold up in court 100%

 

[realgenius]

You know...all of this could have been avoided had Apple just released a sub $800 expandable midtower 2 years ago.

And you base this on what market research? Don't you think that Apple spends TONS of money on market research? I think the lack of an expandable midtower means that it wouldn't be profitable for them to release.

$800. Really? Minis go for that much. No midtower is the reason I bought a Mac Pro and probably the reason why Apple doesn't make one: to sell expensive Mac Pros.

I think people can't separate the difference between what they want and what Apple wants to sell that is profitable.

Sure, I want them to produce a midtower, but that doesn't mean they will.

Sure, I want them to allow OS X on any hardware, but that doesn't change the current legal situation with their EULA and binding to Apple-specific hardware.

 

[Peace]

Seems like this topic comes up every month..

When will it end!!

 

[KnightWRX]

The problem is that if a court rules that a EULA is unreasonable, then it is void and does not have to be followed. For example, if a EULA says "by using this software, you agree to be our slave for life", then it is clearly unreasonable. I would suggest that Apple's EULA is also unreasonable, and therefore should not be enforced.

Good thing for Apple you're not a judge then. It doesn't matter what you think is reasonable or not. If you think it's not, get a lawyer and bring it to court and see if you can win against Apple's lawyers.

Seems like this topic comes up every month..

When will it end!!

Hopefully, after the trial in January. Let's hope Psystar doesn't have enough money or stupidity for an appeal.

 

[Lava Lamp Freak]

If Apple were to try to compete with Microsoft as a software shop, they wouldn't have the revenues or profits they have now, because those are derived from hardware sales. Thus less money spent on OS X, but more on support. In the end, Apple would drop back to their worst years of the 90s and die this time, Microsoft not needing to help them survive due to pending anti-trust litigations.

Again, more baseless speculation. Even Apple doesn't claim this. Apple gives credit to their iPods and iPhones for driving increased sales of the computer hardware, and they've stated that the gaming market is HUGE and will be driving even more iPhone and iPod sales over the next few years. On top of that it is MacBooks that are the most sold Apple computers. Not iMacs. Not Mac Pros. There is just absolutely zero data to support your continued cries that Apple will die if the Mac OS is opened up to other hardware.

Do you want Snow Leopard for $30 of $300? That is the difference between Microsoft (selling software) and Apple (selling hardware).

I would gladly pay more for a full open version of Mac OS X. The Windows upgrade is much cheaper than $300, though, and I am personally getting Windows 7 Home Premium for $29, which is the student pricing.