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

[KnightWRX]

Are you saying Pystar did not provide the original retail disk to their customers? If I don't need to provide the bill of purchase to sell my MBP with the original disk, why should they need to provide their bill of purchase of Mac OS X if they are in fact providing the original disk to their clients?

No, they needed to provide the bill of purchase to comply with a court order during the discovery phase of the lawsuit. Failing this essentially means that they told the court "Look, we didn't pay Apple for the OS X copies, so we can't even begin to argue we had rights to distribute it under first sale doctrine, which is a legal gray area as far as software goes anyway".

If Apple wants to come after me, so be it. But I'm telling Apple, I own my software, I paid for it, and I'll put it on a PC if I so choose. Tough. Don't sell it to me if you don't like that.

That's precisely what they do. They specifically tell you that if you don't agree with the EULA, you must cease use of the product immediately and return it for a full refund.

Ie : if you don't want to play by our rules, we won't sell it to you.

So you can justify breaking the EULA and thus your contractual obligations all you want, but the fact is you're in the wrong until you get this clause of the EULA overturned by a judge.

Seeing how the judge in the psystar case dismissed this argument from Psystar by dismissing their counter-suit, good luck, Apple now has legal precedent.

 

[furi0usbee]

bon voyage, and you are going wayyyyy late.

And I'm sure Apple would be a better company without the likes of customers like you? Is that a fair statement? No.

 

[couto27]

Are you saying Pystar did not provide the original retail disk to their customers? If I don't need to provide the bill of purchase to sell my MBP with the original disk, why should they need to provide their bill of purchase of Mac OS X if they are in fact providing the original disk to their clients?

Again its not clear to me why it should matter if they can provide the bills or not. Unless there is evidence suggesting they have stolen their copies of Mac OS X, shouldn't we presume their innocence? One ground for doubt would be if they didn't provide their customers with the original disks. Do you happen to know that this is how they proceeded?

hackintosh users are scared to talk right now ??? did psystar provide mac osx original disc or what???

 

[JohnDoe98]

OK, enough with the "license" vs "owning." For our purposes, we OWN the software. We own our CDs, we don't license just to listen to them. We physically own the products, and possession is 9/10ths of the law, as we all know.

If Apple wants to come after me, so be it. But I'm telling Apple, I own my software, I paid for it, and I'll put it on a PC if I so choose. Tough. Don't sell it to me if you don't like that. You have your EULA, and I have mine. It says I own this software I paid good money for and I will do as I wish.

It's just a he said/he said. Sosumi....

Well said sir.

 

[couto27]

And I'm sure Apple would be a better company without the likes of customers like you? Is that a fair statement? No.

my friend im sure i have more software ,hardware bought than you.

 

[KnightWRX]

Well said sir.

Only for a very loose definition of well said sir.

 

[Imhotep397]

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.

It's really quite simple...Microsoft owns 90% market share, roughly 95% of desktop PCs sold are MidTowers under $800, and the vast majority of those are used for playing video games and going on line. All of the companies that sell these computers are profitable. It's not rocket science Apple just chooses not to compete in that HUGE market segment for fear that they'll somehow malign their brand...even though the iPod and iPhone are MASS MARKET products and haven't marred the Apple brand one iota. After Apple acquired/developed Pro applications they doubled their hardware sales because professionals felt secure in knowing that the software they relied on would be on the Mac, so it's all about software availability which is why Apple needs to expand that part of it's operation to more effectively compete in areas that they are unfamiliar with.

Yes Apple does pay tons of money to do market research, but they tend to point those market research resources where they want to go and find out whether it will work or not. Apple doesn't want to do expandable Mid-towers, so they have no market research to discover whether or how Apple mid-towers might work. Sure I know that Apple does what they want whether it corresponds with what certain markets want or not, but it doesn't mean they're actually right on a particular issue it just means it's the decision they've come to.

 

[JohnDoe98]

No, they needed to provide the bill of purchase to comply with a court order during the discovery phase of the lawsuit.

That's clear enough.

Failing this essentially means that they told the court "Look, we didn't pay Apple for the OS X copies, so we can't even begin to argue we had rights to distribute it under first sale doctrine, which is a legal gray area as far as software goes anyway".

That's the non-sequiter that Apple's legal team is trying to push. I doubt anyone with any logical skills will buy that inference however. Admitting I lost or don't have a bill is a far stretch from admitting I obtained something illegally. Sure they may be irresponsible for their record keeping, but that's not in any way proof that they didn't pay for their copies of OS X. I'm pretty sure Pystar's legal team would make this retort, whether or not it would stand in a court of law I don't know since I'm no lawyer. I should hope it would though otherwise our court system will be operating on the basis of logical fallacies.

 

[alandail]

OK, enough with the "license" vs "owning." For our purposes, we OWN the software. We own our CDs, we don't license just to listen to them. We physically own the products, and possession is 9/10ths of the law, as we all know.

If Apple wants to come after me, so be it. But I'm telling Apple, I own my software, I paid for it, and I'll put it on a PC if I so choose. Tough. Don't sell it to me if you don't like that. You have your EULA, and I have mine. It says I own this software I paid good money for and I will do as I wish.

It's just a he said/he said. Sosumi....

to install the software you license, you have to agree to the EULA. When you click on the button to agree to the license, you have made a binding agreement that is enforceable in the court of law.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Only for a very loose definition of well said sir.

All language is loose and dependent upon circumstantial usage,

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple doesn't want to do expandable Mid-towers, so they have no market research to discover whether or how Apple mid-towers might work.

How about the fact that they sold the things for years in the form of the Power Mac G3, Power Mac G4 and Power Mac G5 ?

That's the non-sequiter that Apple's legal team is trying to push. I doubt anyone with any logical skills will buy that inference however. Admitting I lost or don't have a bill is a far stretch from admitting I obtained something illegally. Sure they may be irresponsible for their record keeping, but that's not in any way proof that they didn't pay for their copies of OS X. I'm pretty sure Pystar's legal team would make this retort, whether or not it would stand in a court of law I don't know since I'm no lawyer. I should hope it would though otherwise our court system will be operating on the basis of logical fallacies.

So you're saying that the judge has to base his ruling on the good faith of the parties rather than on the evidence presented to him ?

A court system operating on good faith is better than a court system operating on concrete evidence ?

Seriously...

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Remember the old rule the customer is always right?

The customer isn't always right. They think they're right. The originator of that phrase should be punished!

Why not keep it that way. Give us what we want, let us do what we want with our hardware/software. Stealing is something I don't promote. But paying for something and using it in such a way that suits me is something I'm always going to do. if Apple doesn't let me do it I'll find a company who lets me.

And yet, I really dig what you're saying. Preach it!

 

[furi0usbee]

BTW.. I'm really loving the freedom of speech that is afforded me around here. On the official Apple forums, you can only say so much against the Big Apple.

Don't get me wrong, I love Apple to death. I can barely count on two hands the Macs I've owned since 2005, as I like to upgrade when a new system comes out. They have really good resale value on eBay.

But, I'm not a blind follower that agrees with everything they do or say. Unlike AT&T, I really enjoy competition. As long as Psystar does things legally, and not pirating copies of OS X and redistributing them on machines, live and let live I say.

 

[furi0usbee]

my friend im sure i have more software ,hardware bought than you.

I'm sure in your head, you *know* me, and know what I have. That makes you like a Magi or something.

 

[JohnDoe98]

So you're saying that the judge has to base his ruling on the good faith of the parties rather than on the evidence presented to him ?

A court system operating on good faith is better than a court system operating on concrete evidence ?

Seriously...

No I'm saying the evidence is inconclusive. The court can only operate on the basis of good evidence. As I pointed out, the inference from lost bill to no bill is not a valid one. If Apple could show that no original disks were ever sent, that might be weak evidence suggesting no bill was ever obtained. If however Pystar did send original disks, it would seem quite odd to think they someone magically stole so many copies of the software they later coupled with their sales. I'm saying a Court system should not operate on the basis of inconclusive evidence for that would entail irresponsibility and place the burden upon the defender as opposed to placing the burden on the accuser where it rightfully stands. Faith has no place in a court of law.

 

[furi0usbee]

to install the software you license, you have to agree to the EULA. When you click on the button to agree to the license, you have made a binding agreement that is enforceable in the court of law.

Which is why Psystar should just bundle the retail disc with the system and let the user install it. This would save them the trouble of dealing with distributing already installed. If they provide a sealed factory retail box, there is no EULA agreement to speak of, as they never opened it. The end-user would.

 

[arkmannj]

Is there anywhere showing compatible hardware for this ?

 

[Bubba Satori]

Probably not yet, but it shouldn't be long before someone takes action.

Wouldn't it be wise for them to just sit back and let Apple with all their legal firepower and resources lead the charge against Psystar ? Doesn't Apple have a better case than a GPL license violation ?

 

[gr8tfly]

Are you saying Pystar did not provide the original retail disk to their customers? If I don't need to provide the bill of purchase to sell my MBP with the original disk, why should they need to provide their bill of purchase of Mac OS X if they are in fact providing the original disk to their clients?

Again its not clear to me why it should matter if they can provide the bills or not. Unless there is evidence suggesting they have stolen their copies of Mac OS X, shouldn't we presume their innocence? One ground for doubt would be if they didn't provide their customers with the original disks. Do you happen to know that this is how they proceeded?

I don't believe there's evidence they provided the discs. As for whether they had the proof of purchase or not - they aren't authorized distributors for Apple products. I can't remember, off hand, whether that point is in the suit.

I would suspect it's somehow important to the case, since the judge required them to produce those documents.

 

[KnightWRX]

No I'm saying the evidence is inconclusive. The court can only operate on the basis of good evidence. As I pointed out, the inference from lost bill to no bill is not a valid one. If Apple could show that no original disks were ever sent, that might be weak evidence suggesting no bill was ever obtained. If however Pystar did send original disks, it would seem quite odd to think they someone magically stole so many copies of the software they later coupled with their sales. I'm saying a Court system should not operate on the basis of inconclusive evidence for that would entail irresponsibility and place the burden upon the defender as opposed to placing the burden on the accuser where it rightfully stands. Faith has no place in a court of law.

Lack of evidence is sometimes very good evidence. If they can't produce the paperwork, and they can't produce the disks (if they shipped them out with systems, how can they show them to the court ?), why should it be ruled no contest ?

Remember this is a civil manner and not a criminal one. There doesn't need to be "evidence that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt". Psystar failed themselves when they couldn't show they had legally obtained OS X. Apple now has free reign to claim statutory damages (because proving actual damages would be hard unless Psystar has perfect accounting, which they proved they didn't).

If they did legally obtain OS X, they'd then have to argue first sale doctrine applies to licensed software like it does purchased goods, something that still hasn't even been decided in higher court levels and is in strong contention.

This is like the SCO Group saying that Novell transfered the copyrights to them as far as Unix goes. If Novell didn't produce the APA, which proved that they hadn't, they would have lost the copyrights.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Which is why Psystar should just bundle the retail disc with the system and let the user install it. This would save them the trouble of dealing with distributing already installed. If they provide a sealed factory retail box, there is no EULA agreement to speak of, as they never opened it. The end-user would.

True, but it still seems to me they can defend themselves on the basis of the EULA, which they deem invalid, even if the judge has said they cannot counter sue Apple on the basis of the EULA. The judge has not yet ruled out the relevance of the EULA for the Pystar case but only the legitimacy of Pystar's counter anti-trust using that EULA as its basis. We need to keep that distinction clear.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Lack of evidence is sometimes very good evidence. If they can't produce the paperwork, and they can't produce the disks (if they shipped them out with systems, how can they show them to the court ?), why should it be ruled no contest ?

Remember this is a civil manner and not a criminal one. There doesn't need to be "evidence that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt". Psystar failed themselves when they couldn't show they had legally obtained OS X. Apple now has free reign to claim statutory damages (because proving actual damages would be hard unless Psystar has perfect accounting, which they proved they didn't).

If they did, they'd then have to argue first sale doctrine applies to licensed software like it does purchased goods, something that still hasn't even been decided in higher court levels and is in strong contention.

This is like the SCO Group saying that Novell transfered the copyrights to them as far as Unix goes. If Novell didn't produce the APA, which proved that they hadn't, they would have lost the copyrights.

Well said.

 

[KnightWRX]

True, but it still seems to me they can defend themselves on the basis of the EULA, which they deem invalid, even if the judge has said they cannot counter sue Apple on the basis of the EULA. The judge has not yet ruled out the relevance of the EULA for the Pystar case but only the legitimacy of Pystar's counter anti-trust using that EULA as its basis. We need to keep that distinction clear.

That's the thing though, Apple isn't making claims under contract law and the EULA. They are making copyright claims and claims under the DMCA. The EULA, if invalid, doesn't grant them rights under copyright law at all.

It's kind of like if someone decides to have the GPL invalidated. Guess what, after the software can't be distributed under the terms of the GPL, you still wouldn't be able to distribute it or sub-license it or modify it or whatever, because copyright law is the foundation.

The EULA being valid or not is moot at this point in the case, Apple dodged that bullet.

 

[jetison]

It didn't work for me on none of the 2 desktops or 3 laptops at home... so far no EULA agreement broken...

There's no forum whatsoever where to discuss problems while trying to get SL installed... anyway, it's just the beginning.

i think it's easier to get a proper mac

 

[michael.lauden]

Case in point.

Get a Mac, man.

ummmmmmm....


anyways.

i'll be waiting for this to hit the trackers. not that i can use it now, but it will be worthwhile to have before psystar is wiped from the planet