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

[j26]

No. Have you heard the saying "it is better if nine guilty people go free than one innocent person being convicted"? That clearly means a person is innocent when they didn't commit a crime or guilty when committed it; what is proven or not doesn't make a difference to their guilt or innocence.

What "innocent until proven guilty" actually means: If you are member of a jury, you mustn't let the fact that someone is in court accused of a crime make you believe that the person is guilty of the crime. You have to wait until evidence is presented, and make your decision based on the evidence.

It is quite apparent that Psystar has done quite a few illegal things so far; the US court system is just a bit slow which means there has been no court decision yet. "I have not been convicted" and "I have not done anything wrong" are two very, very different things.

Rubbish. Innocent until proven guilty in the crinimal context means just that - you are innocent until the prosecution PROVES you are guilty. If at any stage the prosecution fails to come to proof (i.e. failing to present evidence on an essential proof) then the case is simply taken away from the jury. In a rape case, for example, if the prosecution fails to get the victim to say that it was done without consent, then there is no case for the defence to answer. The entire burden of proof lies on the prosecution.

It may appear that Psystar may have done illegal acts, but that is for the courts to decide, not you.


As an aside, I don't know why people would pay for this when Chameleon (and a few wee utilities) will do the same.

 

[overklox]

You really don't understand what Apple is all about.

Who cares what Apple is about.

 

[gnasher729]

I've always found the actual controlling law clause in the Leopard EULA to be quite interesting, IE:

12. Controlling Law and Severability. This License will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, as applied to agreements entered into and to be performed entirely within California between California residents. This License shall not be governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the application of which is expressly excluded. If for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction finds any provision, or portion thereof, to be unenforceable, the remainder of this License shall continue in full force and effect.

Any of the "great legal minds" here care to comment? Apple doesn't cite International law, or US Federal Laws, or copyright laws, but specifically California state law, and even narrows that down to agreements between residents of the state. I'm no lawyer, but that reads to me like Apple isn't even trying to pretend they can cite actual national and international copyright laws backing up their EULA.

Your interpretation is wrong. Apple is offering a contract, and part of the contract is agreeing on which laws should apply, which might otherwise something to argue about, if you lived for example in New York. That gives Apple the slight advantage that they don't have to check the laws of 50 different states in the USA. You will find similar clauses in most contracts.

Apple isn't trying to pretend anything, because they don't need to. Especially in a license agreement, why would anyone quote laws in a license agreement?

 

[gnasher729]

couldnt APPLE make a solid, basic version of 10 for PCs that would be twice as good as Windows and then REALLY start eating into MS marketshare;
IF they were worried that it would eat into HW sales-I think not-it might even drive them;
Still, the money to be made to selling to people who are sick of Windows but are required to use it would see an instant 10% gain marketshare gain overnight-getting APPLE to 20% and thats being conservative
and would easily offset any revenue declines

I don't think you know what is actually going on. Eight years ago Apple's Steve Jobs said they don't need to beat Microsoft; and that was the point in time when he started his plan to beat them. Not by directly battling Microsoft, but by building up strengths. That plan has worked beautifully over the last eight years. Jobs doesn't care if it takes another 8 years to gain 20% market share (and check what Apple's share in revenue and profits is, I think Apple must pay the pundits to keep that out of view). Why would they switch from a proven working strategy for some short-term gain?

 

[Zaap]

Your interpretation is wrong. Apple is offering a contract, and part of the contract is agreeing on which laws should apply, which might otherwise something to argue about, if you lived for example in New York. That gives Apple the slight advantage that they don't have to check the laws of 50 different states in the USA. You will find similar clauses in most contracts.

Apple isn't trying to pretend anything, because they don't need to. Especially in a license agreement, why would anyone quote laws in a license agreement?

You've already made some pretty bad "legal arguments" in here, by stating as fact things that clearly aren't. IE:

"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."

No court has ruled on this pertaining to OSX. In fact, the rulings of courts so far have often been against your opinion:

The U.S. District Court of Kansas in Klocek ruled that the contract of sale was complete at the time of the transaction, and the additional shipped terms contained in a document similar to that in Brower did not constitute a contract, because the customer never agreed to them when the contract of sale was completed.

The part that the Apple fanboi wanna-be lawyer crowd never acknowledges is the enforceable part of this, but that Apple itself DOES, by noting that an actual legal authority could find parts of the EULA to be unenforceable.

Basically, their 'contract' can say whatever the hell they want, and if someone 'breaks' it, so what. If it's unenforceable by any law, then it's fairly meaningless.

A company could conceivably put in their EULA that you must wear blue underwear on your head before you can install their software. Now, you'd probably get a certain percentage of fanboy doofuses putting blue underwear on thier heads in order not to be breaking the EULA, but you'd have other people with brains enough to realize that's simply unenforceable. It's a corporate whim, not an enforceable law. If I break it, then perhaps I give up some legal right to demand support from the company or something, but since I'm not asking for that anyway, then fine.

Apple's desire that I only install OSX on 'Apple- branded' hardware is merely their corporate whim. I don't really care. My installing a copy of an OS I purchased on hardware I purchased doesn't break any known law, so my voilating some 'contract' with Apple (which itself is a moot point since courts have already ruled that my contract with them in a true legal sense ended at the point I plunked down money for the copy of the OS) means basically jack-diddly squat.


You also keep insisting that installing OSX on hardware other than Apple's is somehow copyright infringement. You've not proved this, and Apple (to their credit, because it would be obviously false) doesn't even claim it in the EULA.

Just spouting "This and that is illegal because I wish it was!" doesn't make it so.

 

[KnightWRX]

No court has ruled on this pertaining to OSX. In fact, the rulings of courts so far have often been against your opinion

That is a blatant lie. Finding some supporting court decisions doesn't make them all agree with the point you're making. In Klocek vs Gateway, analysis do touch base on the point that the court elected to not consider previous decisions that ruled to the contrary of their conclusion :

http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case209.cfm

The court noted that courts have split on the issue of whether "terms received with a product become part of the parties' agreement." The court then declined to follow that line of cases, such as Hill and ProCD, which upheld the validity of a shrink-wrap license delivered along with a product, and stated that it believed that the courts of Kansas or Missouri would do likewise.

District court decisions are thrown around, and seldom to they create hard precedents. Ninth circuit court, appeals and the SCOTUS are about the only thing that can set good precedents that can be followed.

As it stands, only a few Ninth circuith decisions have been handed down on EULAs, and they are pro-EULA.

The simple fact is Apple won't be going against single users breaking the EULA. It's not profitable, will cost a lot of money and won't bring in good press. They will however go against large commercial entities looking to profit from breaking the EULA like Psystar.

It's important to note that Psystar's countersuit in California against Apple to invalidate the clauses of the EULA that prevents them from installing OS X on non-Apple hardware on basis of their anti-competitive nature was dismissed in November 2008. They have brought a new suit on the same basis in Florida in August 2009, another in the long list of stall tactics in their battle with Apple (like the bankruptcy...).

 

[AlmostThere]

So you're saying it justifies the teenagers that act outside the law while still using the law as protection, thus applying morals selectively to social rules as they fit because companies work within the system, usually at very high costs, to obtain what the law is theirs ?

OK, I am not sure I get your point either. I would say that morals are applied equally regardless of social rules, getting a stamp of legal authority doesn't make something morally right but I don't think you see any difference.

Example: the extensions to copyright enshrined in US and European law are driven by the same distorted sense of entitlement you describe.

(edit)

"companies work within the system, usually at very high costs, to obtain what the law is theirs"
No, companies work within the system at very high cost to change (for the greater value) what is theirs

 

[KnightWRX]

OK, I am not sure I get your point either. I would say that morals are applied equally regardless of social rules, getting a stamp of legal authority doesn't make something morally right but I don't think you see any difference.

Example: the extensions to copyright enshrined in US and European law are driven by the same distorted sense of entitlement you describe.

I wasn't just referring to copyrights. And if it was only the extensions that posed a problem to people, most of the pirated content wouldn't be new releases. People just find that paying for something they can obtain with minimal risks for free to not be worth it. I don't even think the morality comes into play until they have to justify their actions.

Morality and law may not be directly intertwined, but laws and rules in a society usually evolve from the majority's values and morals. Your choice is either to forfeit all of it, or accept it. You can't just selectively follow the rules as you see fit and hope to be accepted into said society.

 

[Zaap]

The simple fact is Apple won't be going against single users breaking the EULA. It's not profitable, will cost a lot of money and won't bring in good press. They will however go against large commercial entities looking to profit from breaking the EULA like Psystar.

Psystar isn't the END USER- the "single user" -as you say- that they won't be going against is the end user. So basically, you're saying the EULA is unenforceable as it pertains to the END user. Yup! We're in agreement.

(And by the way, I don't give a rat's ass if Apple goes after psystar for any reason, that's between the two companies.)

I notice all you Perry Mason wannabes still haven't answered the pertinent questions of what LAW is actually being broken here that would back up any legal action by Apple. Show me a statute anywhere that says I can't buy one company's commercial product and use it with another company's commercial product. Once again, that's the actual ACT that you people are trying to say violates copyright or some other law. For the last time- CITE THE ACTUAL LAW being violated, tell me what actual penalty there is for voilating it, or shaaadup about it.

From wikipedia's article on EULA:

Some copyright owners use EULAs in an effort to circumvent limitations the applicable copyright law places on their copyrights (such as the limitations in sections 107-122 of the United States Copyright Act), or to expand the scope of control over the work into areas for which copyright protection is denied by law (such as attempting to charge for, regulate or prevent private performances of a work beyond a certain number of performances or beyond a certain period of time). Such EULAs are, in essence, efforts to gain control, by contract, over matters upon which copyright law precludes control.

If Apple's desire to limit what hardware their OS is installed on is actually contained in ACTUAL copyright law (or anywhere else) and not just exactly the above -their attempt to project a corporate whim that isn't actually covered by the law- then CITE IT. And cite the penalty for violation. Step up.



Anyway, on to actual things that matter a whole hill of beans, this RebelEFI actually does work pretty well. I just installed and updated to Snow 10.6.1 on one of my Hacks. It went perfectly smoothly. (I did have the seeming 'fail' at the end of the install, but it did boot perfectly.) Like another poster here, I merely switched out the bootloader and set up the system like I already know how (and no, I'm not going to write a tutorial for anyone on how to do this, the info is all over the web) and everything works perfectly.

This isn't really ground-breaking, it's just a bit like a slightly more polished Boot-132 for SL that tries to rope the unsuspecting into a needless expense for things one can easily do themselves.

To all of Steve Job's wanna-be hallmonitors, enjoy:

 

[rhpenguin]

has anyone actually got this to work?

Sort of, yes. The .iso Pystar offers boots my retail 10.5 and 10.6 disk. I can't speak for their app to autodetect .kexts as I didn't use it. I also used PCEFI instead of their bootloader after installing the OS.

 

[Don.Key]

Being in the ballpark of a $5000 system, it is quite evident that this isn't anywhere close to a generic home consumer $500 machine. Further, its also quite evident that the potential cost difference between a workstation clone and a Mac Pro probably isn't all that large of a percentage...afterall, that $2500-$3000 in monitors won't change a dime. Finally, if this workstation is for use at a business, its all 100% tax-deductible, so the differences in capital costs likey matter even less...particualrly when being used by a skilled knowledge worker where having him come in to work on even but one Saturday can easily cost the company around $500 in overtime costs. Do that for one weekend per month and the annual cost is more than this entire workstation system.

I am in Europe, I can get good 30 Inchers for less then 1k USD on sale (HP units).

And a base Mac Pro costs over 2.5k USD here.
Compare with 1k hackintosh.... Assembled and tested Hackintosh, that is...

Damn Straight. If it were my IP that was being stolen, I would most definitely go after every possible buyer of those known-stolen goods.

It is very do-able, since server logs will have IP addresses and warrants to ISPs will turn up every customer's name & home address...crosswalked to credit card receipts forms a very solid legal case.

The only question is if fighting a theft in this fashion is a good or bad play ... not on the legal side, but on the side of public opinion. That is a different question.

Will not happen. And even if, Apple will fail on this one.

True, but by speaking up (eg, posting anything), your so-called 'reasons' are being invited for critique. If you don't like that, then you had better go cancel your account and never post again.

Heh, dream on.

AFAIC, you have some preferences which appear capricious and arbitrary, and you appear to be personally assigning a huge amount of significance to what others may very well consider to be a relatively minor difference in capital costs, particularly when its amortized over a 3-5 year lifecycle.
-hh

I do not care what "others" think, what counts is what I need. Simple.

But this discussion is closed for now, I am glad for Rebel EFI and got what I need. Nuff said.

 

[pdjudd]

Psystar isn't the END USER- the "single user" -as you say- that they won't be going against is the end user. So basically, you're saying the EULA is unenforceable as it pertains to the END user. Yup! We're in agreement.

Actually they are.. Sort of. Apple doesn’t have an EULA anyway, it’s called a SLA. Anyway, if they are not an end user, than they have to be an OEM, by definition. So where is the OEM licensing agreement? Psystar has none because Apple does not OEM their products to anybody at all. By buying retail copies they are the end user by definition (or acting as an agent of one, legally the same). Either way, the only way that Apple makes its software available is by some license. No matter how you get the software you have to face a license agreement.

It doesn’t matter who Psystar is or who you think they are. They are subject to the same terms. No matter how they get it, they have terms of licensing applied to them. That’s how Apple distributes their software. It’s akin to saying to a judge that I should’t get a speeding ticket because I am not a licensed driver the rules don’t apply to me. You try that you are going to get laughed at.

I do not care what "others" think, what counts is what I need. Simple.

Unfortunately its not that simple because the word does not operate like that. If you do not possess complete ownership of something, you do not get to use it on your terms.

 

[MorphingDragon]

EFI-X borrowed from the open source community.

Why bother when you can put in a little effort and get it for free. Besides, the education you get about OS X is nice to have in the long run.

I've already got a hackintosh working... by scratch.

Your Rebel EFI/Chameleon/PCEFI usually gets broken within a .X update. EFI-X is actual hardware providing the buffer. Not the software. So it doesnt tend to break as much. Just plug into the motherboard and Go! No Fuss.

 

[PCMacUser]

Nice. I'm going to download the demo.

 

[upinflames900]

Psystar is Wrong

1. I hope Apple wins in that legal battle
2. I don't like the idea of Hackintosh in the first place... Apple made the computer if you don't like or how much it costs then don't buy it.
3. If you like the OS so much then you should pay and get a real mac like everyone else
4. For anyone who is going to tell me that it is "legal" to do this, my answer is this: it isn't moral or ethical to try to rip off something from someone else when the make it very clear that they do not want anyone copying their stuff.

Apple has a completely different was of doing things that Microsoft, I think people really need to understand the difference. Apple makes money through the sales of their computers, Microsoft through the sales of their OS. The reason why mac OS X is much cheeper than Windows is because they make their money through the computer.

 

[oban14]

1. I hope Apple wins in that legal battle
2. I don't like the idea of Hackintosh in the first place... Apple made the computer if you don't like or how much it costs then don't buy it.
3. If you like the OS so much then you should pay and get a real mac like everyone else
4. For anyone who is going to tell me that it is "legal" to do this, my answer is this: it isn't moral or ethical to try to rip off something from someone else when the make it very clear that they do not want anyone copying their stuff.

1) They won't.
2) I made the computer and I bought it. I bought all the parts and put it together. Or did you mean the motherboard/CPU/hard drive/graphics card? Apple didn't make any of that, it's just stock PC hardware.
3) I paid for it. It's for sale at amazon.com, Apple stores, all over the place. I buy all the software I use (unless it's free).
4) No one is getting ripped off. Apple sold me an operating system that I'm allowed to install on one computer.

Apple has a completely different was of doing things that Microsoft, I think people really need to understand the difference. Apple makes money through the sales of their computers, Microsoft through the sales of their OS. The reason why mac OS X is much cheeper than Windows is because they make their money through the computer.

So is Apple losing money or breaking even when I spend 129 dollars to buy their OS in a store?

 

[upinflames900]

1) They won't.
2) I made the computer and I bought it. I bought all the parts and put it together. Or did you mean the motherboard/CPU/hard drive/graphics card? Apple didn't make any of that, it's just stock PC hardware.
3) I paid for it. It's for sale at amazon.com, Apple stores, all over the place. I buy all the software I use (unless it's free).
4) No one is getting ripped off. Apple sold me an operating system that I'm allowed to install on one computer.



So is Apple losing money or breaking even when I spend 129 dollars to buy their OS in a store?

How much does Windows cost? How much does Mac OS cost? Take the difference... which is large and that is why it is wrong.

 

[CQd44]

So is Apple losing money or breaking even when I spend 129 dollars to buy their OS in a store?

DVDs are pretty cheap now.

 

[CQd44]

How much does Windows cost? How much does Mac OS cost? Take the difference... which is large and that is why it is wrong.

Windows? Windows 7 home premium is $200. Leopard is $130 according to that other user. People have been getting free Windows 7 upgrades and special deals though.

EDIT: Wait, what? Buying software and using it in the way you want is wrong? Nevermind then. You're silly. I bite my thumb at you.

 

[upinflames900]

Windows? Windows 7 home premium is $200. Leopard is $130 according to that other user. People have been getting free Windows 7 upgrades and special deals though.

EDIT: Wait, what? Buying software and using it in the way you want is wrong? Nevermind then. You're silly. I bite my thumb at you.

I don't see why everyone cannot just accept what Apple is doing. If apple didn't give out DVDs of their OS and it just came preloaded on the computer and to upgrade you had to take it to an Apple Store, would it be ok to try to copy the system files and make a bootable disk? NO!!! Apple wants their OS to be used on their systems. What is so wrong about listening to what a company wants and being a loyal customer? I don't think that is "silly" (thanks for that).

 

[CQd44]

I don't see why everyone cannot just accept what Apple is doing. If apple didn't give out DVDs of their OS and it just came preloaded on the computer and to upgrade you had to take it to an Apple Store, would it be ok to try to copy the system files and make a bootable disk? NO!!! Apple wants their OS to be used on their systems. What is so wrong about listening to what a company wants and being a loyal customer? I don't think that is "silly" (thanks for that).

But as it stands, they do offer it for sale. If they didn't, then I'd feel different. I mean, I buy the DVD. I can use it as a coaster, a frisbee, hang it on my wall... do whatever I want with it. Apple made their money off the sale of the OS. If I or whoever else wants to go through the trouble of making it work with the computer parts they have and acknowledge that they can basically get no official support... I don't know what's wrong with that.

 

[pdjudd]

1) They won’t.

Prove it. So far it looks to me that they are winning. Answer this, If Psystar is going to win, why are they using delay tactic after delay tactic and acting like total idiots in court?

2) I made the computer and I bought it. I bought all the parts and put it together. Or did you mean the motherboard/CPU/hard drive/graphics card? Apple didn't make any of that, it's just stock PC hardware.

I have no idea what you are getting at here...

3) I paid for it. It's for sale at amazon.com, Apple stores, all over the place. I buy all the software I use (unless it's free).

You pay for teh rights to use the software under limited terms. Like any intellectual property, you never actually own it unless you obtain all the components to it. You license software - even if it is free. The only component of OSX that you own are the physical discs. The software content is always owned by its creator. That is a major distinction.

4) No one is getting ripped off. Apple sold me an operating system that I'm allowed to install on one computer.

No, Apple is licensing you their software, not selling you. There are terms for this license of course. If you do not want to agree to them, either do not purchase said discs or do not copy the software under any means. Owning software (like Apple does with OSX) provides them legal protection to control their distribution. Installation is a form of distribution that Apple legally controls.

So is Apple losing money or breaking even when I spend 129 dollars to buy their OS in a store?

Yes, APple is arguably loosing hardware sales that they are entitled to. And just to make it even more pedantic - you LICENSE OSX, you do not buy it. Apple is the owner of OSX, not you and not Psystar. The same thing applies to Windows. Dell, nor any of its legal customers owns Windows. Microsoft owns Windows which it licenses to its customers. The only difference is the terms of the license which are (with really limited exceptions) at the discretion of the owner.. That $129 just gets you a disc. That’s all you “own” unless you buy all the components of OSX from Apple (which I doubt are for sale)

 

[CQd44]

Yes, APple is arguably loosing hardware sales that they are entitled to. And just to make it even more pedantic - you LICENSE OSX, you do not buy it. Apple is the owner of OSX, not you and not Psystar. The same thing applies to Windows. Dell, nor any of its legal customers owns Windows. Microsoft owns Windows which it licenses to its customers. The only difference is the terms of the license which are (with really limited exceptions) at the discretion of the owner.. That $129 just gets you a disc. That’s all you “own” unless you buy all the components of OSX from Apple (which I doubt are for sale)

DVDs themselves are not $129. They invariably make money on software sales.

 

[upinflames900]

Prove it. So far it looks to me that they are winning. Answer this, If Psystar is going to win, why are they using delay tactic after delay tactic and acting like total idiots in court?


I have no idea what you are getting at here...

3) I paid for it. It's for sale at amazon.com, Apple stores, all over the place. I buy all the software I use (unless it's free).

You pay for teh rights to use the software under limited terms. Like any intellectual property, you never actually own it unless you obtain all the components to it. You license software - even if it is free. The only component of OSX that you own are the physical discs. The software content is always owned by its creator. That is a major distinction.



No, Apple is licensing you their software, not selling you. There are terms for this license of course. If you do not want to agree to them, either do not purchase said discs or do not copy the software under any means. Owning software (like Apple does with OSX) provides them legal protection to control their distribution. Installation is a form of distribution that Apple legally controls.


Yes, APple is arguably loosing hardware sales that they are entitled to. And just to make it even more pedantic - you LICENSE OSX, you do not buy it. Apple is the owner of OSX, not you and not Psystar. The same thing applies to Windows. Dell, nor any of its legal customers owns Windows. Microsoft owns Windows which it licenses to its customers. The only difference is the terms of the license which are (with really limited exceptions) at the discretion of the owner.. That $129 just gets you a disc. That’s all you “own” unless you buy all the components of OSX from Apple (which I doubt are for sale)

Thank you I was feeling I was the only one on this side of the argument.

 

[gr8tfly]

But as it stands, they do offer it for sale. If they didn't, then I'd feel different. I mean, I buy the DVD. I can use it as a coaster, a frisbee, hang it on my wall... do whatever I want with it. Apple made their money off the sale of the OS. If I or whoever else wants to go through the trouble of making it work with the computer parts they have and acknowledge that they can basically get no official support... I don't know what's wrong with that.

Because - as has been stated many times in this lengthy, albeit enjoyable thread - you are not buying the software. You are buying a license to use the software. This is not unique to Apple - all software is purchased this way. It's not yours. The only thing you "own" is the original disc and packaging.

The laws involved in this suit are both copyright and DMCA violations. Circumventing Apple's EFI is covered under DMCA, which you do when you load it on non-Apple hardware. This part of the EULA directly ties into DMCA. The parts of the EULA which says it can't be copied (which Psystar seems to have done) have to do with copyright protection.

I'm oversimplifying my comments, as they've been covered in detail many times already in this thread. You can take it or leave it, but it doesn't change the facts or the laws involved.