Hmm... I live in Europe and as far as I know here it's completely legal to install Snow Leopard bought at Apple Store onto my PC. Which I of course did and it runs fine. I don't care about EULAs, I bought a product (mac os) and I can do with it whatever I feel to, except from duplicating it and passing it on. It seems we have a bit more freedom here ;-)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Psystar Releases 'Rebel EFI' Software to Enable Installation of Snow Leopard on PCs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That would work better, because then you wouldn't buy OS X to install on a PC, as Apple could easily sue you for knowingly breaching the license agreement.
You wouldn't have OS X, so you haven't really done your point any favours.
Did you even read the article ?
This is a district court decision. It's not a real legal precedent. The Judge even acknowledges that other decisions from higher courts contradict his own. He's basically paved the way for an appeal by Autodesk if they choose to pursue.
This is still a very gray legal area that will need defining in the years to come.
Well, apple is welcome to try and send me DMCA related lawsuit to Europe.
In a meanwhile, this is a really good development, I had 2 brand new machines build to hackintosh specs in my office for a while now but no time to screw around with Chameleon, if Rebel EFI works properly, then they got my money.
I am fed up of having to buy Notebooks for workstation workplaces. And no, I will not buy yet another Mac Pro (I have several) for a simple workplace.
Btw, love the Apple Fanboys storm on this forum.
Funny you should put it like that. The kids with the strong sense of entitlement that believe Apple owes it to them to make OS X available for their cheap sub 400$ PC are the first ones to scream ANTI-TRUST! and MONOPOLY!
And I don't think I've ever made an argument about respecting every law on the books either. However, don't be surprised when Apple defends itself based on the law, and don't try to speak about what Apple should do if you don't understand the said law, their rights.
And as for your comment about civil disobediance, you probably don't know this, but if you want to have a law overturned and you decide not the respect, don't then turn around and cry when you get arrested, jailed and put on trial. That's what civil disobediance is about. You break the law on purpose in order to appeal your case to the highest instance of court in the land and get the law deemed unconstitionnal.
Young people these days like to quote Thomas Jefferson without understanding what he truely meant by his quote. He wasn't making a case for anarchy.
I read
Court smacks Autodesk, affirms right to sell used software and found it joke in terms of research.
No mention of Novell v. Network Trade Center 25 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (C.D. Utah 1997), Microsoft Corp v. Zamos (Case: 5:04-cv-02504), or Jazz Photo Corp. v. United States International Trade Commission, 59 USPQ 2d 1907 (Fed Cir August 21 2001). Whoever wrote this didn't take any effort to clarify things. Quanta v. LG Electronics (2008) made after this article was written again reaffirmed the First Sale doctrine.
However (and this is the key difference) Apple has stated it uses DMCA methods in conjunction with EFI to prevent its software from being installed on non-Apple software which has Blizzard v. BnetD and of Baystate v. Bowers to back up that interpretation.
The European Union has the Copyright Directive which is the EU's version of the DMCA. Its Article 6 serves the same function as the DMCA's Section 1201 but unlike Section 1201 as it has no fair use exception clause. In short, Article 6 is even stricter than Section 1201.
I need a clue
Why would anyone ever want to install the Macl OS on a PC? That's like putting lipstick on a pig. It may make your PC look more attractive, but it's still a pig.
Who do you go to when your system doesn't work? I would hope Apple wouldn't try to support operations on hardware thay have absolutely no control over, and Psystar couldn't possibly provide support for an operating system they have limited knowledge of or control over.
This whole situation simply 'does not compute'. Who would ever choose to operate under these conditions, just to save a few bucks? There must be a lot more masochists out there than I think.
Why would anyone ever want to install the Macl OS on a PC? That's like putting lipstick on a pig. It may make your PC look more attractive, but it's still a pig.
Who do you go to when your system doesn't work? I would hope Apple wouldn't try to support operations on hardware thay have absolutely no control over, and Psystar couldn't possibly provide support for an operating system they have limited knowledge of or control over.
This whole situation simply 'does not compute'. Who would ever choose to operate under these conditions, just to save a few bucks? There must be a lot more masochists out there than I think.
In my case it's because I find that I can be more productive when I use Apple's OS. I just think it's a better UI. I already have several computers that are as powerful or are more powerful in terms of raw processing power than computers that Apple sells for thousands of dollars. Installing Leopard and now Snow Leopard was quite easy and was more than worth the retail cost of the discs.
I don't quite see what you're getting at. Obviously, installing Snow Leopard on my PCs doesn't change their physical appearance. However, performance wise, they operate identically or better than similarly configured Macs. So yeah, aesthetically they look like PCs, but my use of them is as of the use of a Mac. I didn't think this was so difficult to grasp.
Myself, or the Hackintosh community. As it turns out, I just haven't had any major problems with my systems.
I simply can not compute what you're unable to compute. It's quite simple in my mind. It's possible that if I didn't already have powerful and well built computers sitting around my house I might buy a Mac or two. But I do have powerful and well built computers in my house. They offer performance identical or better than similarly equipped Macs and getting Snow Leopard working on them wasn't that much more complicated than installing Snow Leopard on a real Mac.
I don't have any grudge against Apple. I think they're a fine company and they make fine products. I have two Macbooks and two iPhones. I'm simply not going to spend thousands of dollars for an experience I can get for the cost of a retail disc at Best Buy. Simple as that.
Not to mention that if you read the court decision it says nothing about the illegality of software licensing and installation terms. This is all about the rights to resell software used which Apple already has terms for. In this case, Verner was selling software that he never used and was in the same form that he obtained it in. He was selling the software intact which Auto Desk did not allow but the court said otherwise. All this did was invalidate one specific terms. The judge even admitted that this did not make software licenses in general invalid.
And for the record, Apple has no problem with an end user selling OSX boxes just as long as the software is not installed on the sellers computer. Of course this is not what Psystar has done. Not only can they not prove that they have obtained proper licensing of OSX, they actually use a master image to create their hackintoshes (just like all the legal MS resellers do).
Possibly. I think we can agree that the notion of software licensing is not going away though. I also think that Apples licensing is going to hold up. Tying related items (like hardware and software) no matter how desirable one item is not illegal. It doesnt matter the technical ability, its whatever the copyright holders intent is. I cant go out and republish and re-print a Steven King novel in any other form without Steven King (or his publishers) permission. If you dont possess intellectual property rights, your remaining rights are almost always limited. Thats copyright law. Plain and simple.
The vigilantes ride closer to the fire.
I hope people will honor the license agreement attached to Rebel EFI in the same manner that Psystar honor Apple's license agreement. What's good for the goose........
I hope people will honor the license agreement attached to Rebel EFI in the same manner that Psystar honor Apple's license agreement. What's good for the goose........
What are you crying about? I would have to seriously downgrade my windows PC hardware to get it inline with an configuration offered by Apple. Sure, I could remove the video card and bluray drive to make Rebel-EFI work, but why the hell would I want to shoot myself in the foot like that?
Yeah, dude. Hackintoshing a PC is resistance to immoral or unconstitutional law! Just like Martin Luther King sitting in the Birmingham Jail for insisting on his civil rights under the Constitution. It's really the same thing. Power to the people! {sarcasm intended, in case anyone doesn't get it}
You can't argue with people like that. The sense of entitlement is strong within this one.
He doesn't understand Thomas Jefferson. He thinks "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." means he gets to pick and choose based on his personal whim.
He has no idea what liberties mean, why the people fought for them and the sacrifices they had to make. Calling me a legalist means this is probably some wannabe punk that thinks he's "anarchist", yet probably has never read any of the works by Emma Goldman or Albert Camus on the subject.
His view of the world is "I get to do anything I want, and nothing should happen to me", when in fact Thomas Jefferson in his quote was describing civil disobediance in which you break the law and hope that you suffer every last consequence of it in order to build a case to have the law overturned. Even anarchists have written and realised that if "one lives outside society, he doesn't expect to be afforded the protections provided by society".
Yet this new generation, with their strong sense of entitlement, believe that it is they who should be sole judge of what is right or wrong. Society should not interfere with them, yet it should baby and protect them when in need. Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you (Disclaimer : yes, I realise the quote is reversed and this is done on purpose to illustrate my point).
Three words for ya: Crappy Mac Clones.
I don't know about you, but back in the late 80s and early 90s there were a lot of crappy clones. I don't think anyone wants to see those turds again.
I ain't telling Nokia nothing. The lawsuit has yet to begin. Of course if Apple is guilty they should pay the appropriate licensing fees. Of course we don't know how valid Nokia's claims are yet - it is far too early.
And please do not use personal attacks. I am not a "fanboy" I like Apple's products, but I own very few of them. Ad homimum attacks only make you look less intelligent since it indicates that you are unable to argue on the basis of fact - something I strive to do.
What's the big draw to Psystar anyways? I just priced out a Psystar OpenDuo with the same specs as the lowest end iMac and it's only about $85 cheaper...oh and it doesn't even come with a monitor or speakers!
It may be early in the lawsuit, but with 40 other mobile phone companies entering into licensing agreements with Nokia, it's most likely that Nokia has a valid claim and its just business as usual for Apple when it comes to using someone else's IP.
I'm cheering for Apple to pay the engineers at Nokia for their hard work designing new technology.
No, it doesn't mean that. Just because you get people to agree to something doesn't mean that the agreement was necessary in the first place. Having licensees doesn'timply that the licence is valid in the first place.
That's why there is is litigation going on - Apple's argument could very validly be that Nokia's patent's are not as valid. I don't really know as I am not a member of Apple's legal team. The amount that Nokia demands is really petty anyway.
What I do know of Apple Legal is summed up by Daniel Eran Dilger:
We will see what happens. Of course though, you can't use this as a counterpoint for the psystar case - their legal prowess is really lacking.
If the patent claim is as clear as it seems, then this case is just another part of the negotiating process.
If Nokia is seeking a percentage as reported, you can understand why Apple would protest the license proposal. They probably have the highest average selling price of any company in the market.
Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves here. This case hasn't even started yet. We don't have any case findings at all. Unlike the Psystar case, things we don't have any findings of fact to go on here.
Apple has been attacked on patents before and won when they got invalidated. Namely the Burst.com patents. Apple, like any company, isn't going to abandon money if it doesn't believe they have to. If they loose, they loose. But lets wait until the case progresses down a bit farther (assuming it does) shall we?
ETA: BaldiMac points out quite rightfully that the lawsuit could be just a negotiating ploy (the 200 million is a pittance for Apple really and Nokia knows it). That isn't all that unusual - people use civil courts to put pressure on another party all the time even if the case is baseless.
For the start, the ability to install two graphic cards (Or one with dual ports).
Anyone who needs two or more identical screens on one machine is forced by Apple to buy Mac Pro, which is way overkill for most users.
Of course not like I will buy the machine from them, but Rebel EFI seems to be a really nice tool.