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
But, businesses DO assert authority over their products sold to Apple and used in Apple products. It happens all the time. Usually, Apple *cough* licenses their use.
I believe it's DMCA which comes into play with the installation of OS-X on non-Apple hardware, since it requires circumvention and reverse engineering of certain proprietary code. (Nobody's saying an individual will be prosecuted, either. Personally, if a hobbyist wants to experiment, I don't have a problem with that - but, that's not what this case is about.)
The copyright laws are brought into play if Psystar creates copies of and modifies the OS-X distribution DVDs. And, of course, the question of installing OS-X and not providing the original retail discs. That issue is entirely separate from what, exactly, it's installed on.
I might be mis-quoting parts of the case, but after 20+ pages I'm a bit woozy. I'll have to go find the full text of the case tomorrow and go over it in more detail. I think I have the major points correct, though.
Im confused
Can someone please explain the difference. I own a xenon 8 core Mac Pro a new 15inch MacBook Pro, and an quad core i7 Hp. All three are running snow leopard. The Hp thanks to Psystar . Now all 3 have snow leopard installed to a Seagate barracuda HDD, All 3 use nvidia Graphics cards, All 3 use Intel Processors, All 3 are using ddr2 none of which are apple brand, all 3 have usb and Fire wire, all 3 use safari and fire fox and all 3 from time to time use apple cinema displays, However mainly just the Hp. They all have Itunes, they all have quick time, They all have a licensed copy of Adobe CS4 and now all run Final cut 7. I think the only major difference is that the hp cost 1400, the Mac pro 6000, and the Mac book pro cost about 3000... oh and two are aluminum and one is plastic with an aluminum chassis. It is also worth mentioning that the hp with the i7 is smokin fast and rivals my mac pro. The only thing I had to do to get Psystar's EFI to work was down-grade my Graphics card to an older nvidia 8800gt I was running a 3series but osx didn't recognize it. Oh and the 8800 was from the mac before I upgraded it to the 285. I hope Nvidia does not sue me for putting it in a PC. What pisses me off is that for years I have had to buy 2 copies of the same software just so I could have it in my studio, and at home, even though the license agreement permits me to use it on up to 3 computers per license. It is my understanding that Psystar is just tricking OSX to think all is good, similar in the way that FCP tricks itself into thinking all video is Quicktimes even though that is rarely the case. However it has never stopped my footage .mfx or .r3d from saying .mov. I understand apple is probably pissed, but should I really have to pay 4000+ for a difference of an aluminum case?
Can someone please explain the difference. I own a xenon 8 core Mac Pro a new 15inch MacBook Pro, and an quad core i7 Hp. All three are running snow leopard. The Hp thanks to Psystar . Now all 3 have snow leopard installed to a Seagate barracuda HDD, All 3 use nvidia Graphics cards, All 3 use Intel Processors, All 3 are using ddr2 none of which are apple brand, all 3 have usb and Fire wire, all 3 use safari and fire fox and all 3 from time to time use apple cinema displays, However mainly just the Hp. They all have Itunes, they all have quick time, They all have a licensed copy of Adobe CS4 and now all run Final cut 7. I think the only major difference is that the hp cost 1400, the Mac pro 6000, and the Mac book pro cost about 3000... oh and two are aluminum and one is plastic with an aluminum chassis. It is also worth mentioning that the hp with the i7 is smokin fast and rivals my mac pro. The only thing I had to do to get Psystar's EFI to work was down-grade my Graphics card to an older nvidia 8800gt I was running a 3series but osx didn't recognize it. Oh and the 8800 was from the mac before I upgraded it to the 285. I hope Nvidia does not sue me for putting it in a PC. What pisses me off is that for years I have had to buy 2 copies of the same software just so I could have it in my studio, and at home, even though the license agreement permits me to use it on up to 3 computers per license. It is my understanding that Psystar is just tricking OSX to think all is good, similar in the way that FCP tricks itself into thinking all video is Quicktimes even though that is rarely the case. However it has never stopped my footage .mfx or .r3d from saying .mov. I understand apple is probably pissed, but should I really have to pay 4000+ for a difference of an aluminum case?
Oh no, I don't agree with what Psystar is doing. I think I might have said that earlier or in a different topic. Psystar's going to have problems.
I buy an OS X DVD. I would need to install some sort of EFI emulator because my motherboard uses a BIOS. If that's met, it'll run fine. I'd probably need to modify several kexts, which users can do on their own if they own apple hardware anyway. Though they probably won't need to.
Once again, I do not agree with Psystar. I would never attempt to sell any hackintosh I make for several reasons. I just have no problem with individuals doing it for fun. I didn't mean to sound brutish before. My bad :]
So many just don't get that it's moot whether you think you "should" pay $4000+ more or not. That's all a just a rationalization to break laws and contracts. It's their [Apple's] product; it's their company; it's their rules (some supported by federal laws (copyrights and the DMCA) - others by contract law). What you think the product/rules "should" be is irrelevant. If you think it should be a certain way, then don't buy the product and vote to change the laws. If enough people feel the same way, the company might change the product or pricing - BUT, it's their call (and, in some cases, stockholder's).
btw: the mechanical differences between the HP and the MP are just a bit more than just an aluminum case. Open the cabinet and it'll be obvious.
You are paying also a lot of money and are not allowed to change the hard disk drive -> (disposable) iMac. This is really joke.
I will nether buy a Mac, where I can't change the HDD and have to go for everything to the ASP with my private data.
For that reason I am using a Macbook. But I would like to have a Desktop-Mac. But there are no Desktop-Macs for my requirements. So it is nice to read how easy it is to install OS X on good Hardware (123-Boot). Maybe an option.
I will nether buy a Mac, where I can't change the HDD and have to go for everything to the ASP with my private data.
For that reason I am using a Macbook. But I would like to have a Desktop-Mac. But there are no Desktop-Macs for my requirements. So it is nice to read how easy it is to install OS X on good Hardware (123-Boot). Maybe an option.
If only it were that easy!
Courts can take weeks, months or years to reach a conclusion, and consider the sum total of experience and training of the key participants. Even apparently cut-and-dry crimes, like killing a someone, have get-out clauses like self-defence.
And then you get into the details of something as complex as a contract, or EULA, which, as you say above is a legal grey area of its own.
To give an example of contract complexities, I have actually had my employment contract read by a (yes, a proper, real life, lawyer). The clauses on restricted practice are simply unenforceable but I (under advice) should sign anyway because it is more impractical and more expense that it is worth to get them to change it. It does bother me that they have clearly tried to grab more than they are entitled to and used this to dictate other employees behaviour. This is apparently not uncommon.
Bottom line, though, is that in order to practically get by, on a day-to-day basis, we have to selectively decide which rules we follow.
pdjudd said:
Yes you can. Copyright law protects you from people redistributing your work and allows for normal usage / installation / patching etc.. You don't need an additional licences. To pick up on my earlier gripe, EULAs are simply an example of the same sense of entitlement (claiming additional, unearned rights) that was leveled people who freely download whatever they like. Open source licences are required because the author wishes to automatically extend the ability to copy, a statement that is required by copyright law.
I don't see how this could be bad for apple's bussiness. People who buy this crack are but a small minority and probably cannot afford a real mac anyways.
As for legality, things are a bit complicated. Many people here fail to understand that US law only applies to the US.
As for legality, things are a bit complicated. Many people here fail to understand that US law only applies to the US.
My fear
I enjoy using and am very productive with my Macs. I realize that user experiences will vary, but for my part, any time I've had a problem, it has been solved very quickly so for me it is worth what I spent to have one box that was designed from the ground up to work with the software that runs on it. I have considered building a Hackintosh, though I doubt I will take the time to do it, and I certainly have nothing against those who do. I really don't care if others prefer Windows, buy machines from Psystar, or anything else.
My one fear through all this is that Apple will feel the need to institute something like Genuine Advantage and require online or phone authentication with every install. I can also see Apple deciding that since their SLA states to be installed on an Apple branded computer, to consider that all boxed sales of the OS are upgrades and to price software for new installs to the Hackintosh builders of the world in line with Windows 7 premium.
I enjoy using and am very productive with my Macs. I realize that user experiences will vary, but for my part, any time I've had a problem, it has been solved very quickly so for me it is worth what I spent to have one box that was designed from the ground up to work with the software that runs on it. I have considered building a Hackintosh, though I doubt I will take the time to do it, and I certainly have nothing against those who do. I really don't care if others prefer Windows, buy machines from Psystar, or anything else.
My one fear through all this is that Apple will feel the need to institute something like Genuine Advantage and require online or phone authentication with every install. I can also see Apple deciding that since their SLA states to be installed on an Apple branded computer, to consider that all boxed sales of the OS are upgrades and to price software for new installs to the Hackintosh builders of the world in line with Windows 7 premium.
I get what you're saying but I'll take you back to my first post on this subject. The teenagers and people I'm referring to in this topic are the people that want to apply selectivity in their choice of rules to follow, but then get angered when they are subject to the consequences.
If your employment contract contains no compete clauses that you know aren't enforceable and you break the contract, you know probably you're going to get sued. Part of living in society is accepting the consequences for your acts.
Now you have people with a strong sense of entitlement that believe they should be able to pick and choose the rules they want to follow, and they firmly believe society should bend over to their will and not punish them for it.
This is what I've been talking about. If you follow the rules, you won't have consequences, but you probably won't be able to do and have everything you want. You'll make compromises. If you bend the rules to obtain what you want, you may end up losing more than its worth. To put it simply : You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Some people do believe that you should be able to though and this new generation is up and coming with this strong sense of entitlement. Society owes them. This is what I was denouncing from the very beginning.
That's why EULAs are under contract law and not copyright law. Copyright already gives you basic usage rights and restricts your distribution rights. The EULA adds additionnal language to restrict usage to something that is acceptable to the company. There is no sense of entitlement, it's still about protection of said IP.
Reverse-engineering (for the purpose of competing), liability issues (bugs that could cause the death or injury of people) and competitive advantages that otherwise would be impossible are all included. You may not agree, but then your choice is not to use the product and return it.
The fact is, software is a very different beast from music or movies. It is more complex, as more complex uses and copyright law (which was written for art mostly, in a day where software wasn't even something people imagine could exist) can not protect it effectively. If EULAs disappear tomorrow, companies will probably have to do big revisions to their software and some might just go out of business all together. Apple needs the "Apple hardware only" provisions to survive. The 90s taught them and us that. They also need the "no liability provisions" so that if an hospital runs a cardiac meter on OS X and a kernel panic causes a patient to die (heart monitor crashed for a few hours), they can't be sued for it because they never intended this use but nothing in the EULA restricts it, as long as it's running on a Apple branded computer.
You bring up copyleft type licenses, open source and free software. Yes, they are mostly based on copyright law and lift some of the restrictions by granting you distribution and modification rights you wouldn't have otherwise. However, even in those licenses, there is contract law language, or if you prefer, some portions that ressemble EULAs. Specifically, the GPL has non-liability clauses, for the same reasons that Apple, Microsoft, Adobe and others have them. To protect the writer of software from liability in case misuse or even proper use causes death or injury to someone.
That's why it's a gray area and no one has to yet invalidate the entire concept. Sure some clauses have been deemed unforceable here and there, lower courts might have invalidated the concept but others upheld it. This matter will be decided on a case by case basis until we get higher court decisions that are cut and dry. And then either the status quo will remain, just now with added legitimacy or the software world will be forever changed.
Psystar is a US company, and so is Apple. This is very much about US law.
Thats a very important point. Nobody is going to invalidate contacts in general - I dont think any court is going to have the gall to make such massive and sweeping changes to business and copyright. Its going to have to be argued on a case by case basis. I just dont see anybody willing to do make such massive changes. I mean we would be taking about thousands of companies, some really massive ones, are going to have to change their business strategy on a very fundamental level. Too many companies depend on licensing to ensure their business strategy can be maintained.
And the way things are looking, Apples licensing strategy is probably going to be upheld. All the court decisions up until now have indicated the courts are not very warm with Psystars activities up until now.
Not to mention that if EULAs can't be enforced as a whole, then we go into full swing DRM mode. People that have dealt with Microsoft on the server side, and their licensing tool (not the license itself) in which you add CALs for servers, CALs for TS, CALs for Exchange and have to make heads or tail of it all probably know Apple's "we trust our users with unprotected material" is a way better approach.
Oh trust me, I am aware of the quagmire that is Windows Server Licensing. My boss has informed me that MS has entire divisions and employees whose sole job is to interpret and explain their own licensing systems. We actually tired to deploy just 1 Windows Server 2008 server and we gave up simply because the licensing was both way too complex, egregious, and most of all expensively and ridiculously redundant.
We went right back to 2003 Server simply because it didnt require us to re-purchase separate CAL licenses across the board. It was ridiculous.
Thats why I went with Apple. Once you get the hardware, the software systems are simple and most importantly only have 2 different licensing systems - Individual or family. The server side was even simpler - one price unlimited users.
In dismissing Psystars counterclaims, the judge said that "Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers. It is certainly entitled to do so."
The part that gives Apple exclusive rights to create and distribute copies and derivative works.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106
The gray area is that section 117 gives the legal owner of a copy of OS X the right to install it on a machine. Section 117 paragraph (b) specifically forbids the sale of the installed copy (adaptation) without the permission of the copyright owner, so Psystar does not have any standing under this section.
The issue is that individuals are not reselling the adaptation, so they appear to have the right to install it from this section. Apple would not be able to limit this right through licensing. I would think that the main question would be whether an installation on non-Apple hardware would be considered a derivative work since installation requires modification of Apple's copyrighted code. Derivative works would not be covered by this section.
OK. I'll just go buy a G3, gut it, put in all modern Intel hardware and install OSX on my "Apple branded" machine.
Sound good?
I could care less. However that doesnt make it any more Apple branded than putting an Apple sticker on a beige case. You are not Apple. You cannot use their branding since that involves using Apples trademarks.
Not that I think that you are going to be successful at your endeavor - your going to be very limited to what you can use since the PPC chips that Apple used in their towers were custom for their cases. It seems far more effort than it works.
Not to mention that Pystar probably couldnt use this approach as a business entity either.
So a contract, just to be clear, is nothing to do with defining what the parties are entitled to?
I understand the sentiment, that many US posters on this forum cannot extend their horizons beyond the borders of the US. However, US laws are certainly exportable. To wit: Sarbanes-Oxley affects businesses outside of the US, as do the various embargoes on export of goods to restricted countries. We also have a pending deportation order on a UK citizen who has never been to the US, who broke into NASA's computer system, and so it goes on.
I cannot speak for others here, but I deliberately ignore peoples arguments that boil down to In <insert country outside of the US> this wouldnt apply. because they dont apply. Apple and Pystar are both US based companies. This case is being tried in a US court. The only laws that are relevant here are US laws.
Indeed. While laws internationally may differ significantly, there are US laws that do apply across the pond due to agreements made on a larger level. You point out Sarbanes Oxley, but I am willing to bet that nay company that wants to work internationally and they are dealing with Intellectual property have to know whats acceptable where and adapt necessarily. Certain companies for instance cannot sell their product internationally due to export laws regarding encryption. Companies that want to do business internationally are not going to craft sales that they know do not have some weight behind them.
Just for example, Pro Tools (DigiDesign) has en entire Legal page that talks about differing laws regarding their international business such as:
And:
DigiDesign sells bundled Software and Hardware that is very proprietary. CLearly they have been able to sell this system very successfully for years internationally. If they can do this, Apple should as well.
sarbanes-oxley only affects businesses that are listed in the us. then there foreign subsidiaries and foreing business has to be reported according to sarbanes oxley. companies not active in the us can do what they want.
exports embargoes are usually backed by the UN and enforced by the home countries of the companies.
the reason for the deportation order is that he has not been deported because he has to be either have broken a law in UK or bilateral contracts between UK and US make this US law enforcable in US. There is no bilateral agreement between US and EU on EULA's.
Breaking an EULA may be morally wrong but I'm not too concerned legally yet. This may change however down the road. But then it's more 2 billion chinese and indian citizens who would be concerned.
in any case apple could break this psystar efi with the next update easily if the want to. so everyone (including me) is spending $50 for a short lived toy and we are fully aware of that.
Once again to clarify, I'm not talking about anything to do with Psystar, just individuals. Apple is certainly entitled to ASK its customers to perchance their hardware, there's just no legal basis to demand it, nor any enforcement of it. Any more than as I said, Sony can't demand I buy only Sony hardware to play back a CD or DVD. I'm sure they could be entitled to 'ask' me to, but so what. I respectfully decline.
Exactly.
In Psystar's case, quite possibly. From my understanding, Apple's main case against Psystar is that they've modified code in OSX and then sold it as their own product. I can see where Apple has a case there. It's the same for makers of distro-versions of OSX like iDeneb, iPC, Kalyway, etc (even though they aren't selling them) where they are actually changing the code and making copies of OSX that are derivatives of Apple's legit OSX, and distributing the copies via the Internet.
In the case of an individual buying a retail copy of OSX, not altering the code in any way, not redistributing it, not selling it, Apple really doesn't have much legally to say about it.
The whole 'you're making a copy by installing it' argument is silly (not your argument personally, but attempted by others) If that were true, then it'd be the same thing if you installed on Apple hardware or not. Also, Apple would itself be guilty of copyright-infringement by publishing software like iTunes that allows one to rip copies of a CD.
The reality is, a consumer IS allowed to make a copy of a CD for personal use, and of course, is allowed to make a 'copy' of an OS by installing it. (In the case of the OS, it's actually what the product is sold and intended for- no one pays Apple $130 or $30 for a shiny disk just to stare at it.)