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

[pdjudd]

So a contract, just to be clear, is nothing to do with defining what the parties are entitled to?

Not entirely. The way I understand things is that copyrights and other laws already cover certain rights that consumers and Copyright holders posses. However licenses cover other terms of distributing content and can and do limit your rights. Copyright already precludes me from buying a Beatles CD and burning copies for me to give away or sell. I can’t do that because I am not authorized by the rights holders.

Now to use a software comparison, Microsoft Licenses Windows under several different scenarios (as part of their business practice). By its nature, A Windows 7 disc contains the same code regardless of it being a Home Premium, Upgrade, Full, OEM, or any of the other variations (that are priced differently). If the disc was not labeled to indicate what you are buying, you couldn’t tell the difference. The amount you pay determines what license you have to agree to (the OEM license differs from the Upgrade License) even though the Discs are physically identical.

Obviously, MS using Licensing to tell you what you get buy agreeing to it’s license. They are going to differ greatly since regular copyright laws don’t have differentiation on what constitutes an upgrade or not - no way for the law to cover all business scenarios. Thats why MS uses licenses - so that they can say in their OEM licenses that this entails no MS support whereas a consumer upgrade or full purchase would entail support.

In short, the Likening in most scenarios, is designed to lay out additional terms that the normal laws would not cover as long as it does not violate laws. AN EULA cannot contain or enforce a term that would involve slavery since that is not legal. However a term that Apple uses - tying does have legality.

 

[pdjudd]

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.

Yep.

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.

They might... But they would have to pursue it first. They haven’t attacked individuals. Just the business.

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.

Sorry to disagree. Any sort of file transfer involves copying. thats how it technically works. And they do have the rights to make software to rip CD’s, there is legal precedent for that thanks to the home recording act and the fact that they are not decrypting anything - CD’s are not a protected medium.

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.)

Of course the intent of paying for the disc is to install the content on it. Nobody is arguing that. The purpose of the fee though is to cover the rights that you get by agreeing to the license. Until you agree to the license, all you have is a disc - thats why Apple’s SLA contains clauses that allow you to return the product to get your money back if you don’t want to engage in this license. Even the retail boxes clearly say that usage of the product is subject to terms of the license. It works out either one of sever scenarios:

1) You don’t buy the box.
2) You buy the box, refuse the agreement and return it.
3) You buy the box, refuse the agreement and refuse to return it. You no longer get to use the product as it is intended, and you are left with a DVD that is for the most part, useless.
4) You buy the box and agree to the terms contained in it along with a now useful DVD.

Every part of the purchasing of the box and discs is subject to the terms of the license. You do not legitimately get to buy the box, refuse the license and still use the product. Yes, it is technically possible, but thats not what this case is about. Using the product outside of it’s terms (including unauthorized copying via installation is a copyright violation and is subject to civil litigation.

 

[KnightWRX]

So a contract, just to be clear, is nothing to do with defining what the parties are entitled to?

Not in the way you're trying to alude to. Sense of entitlement has nothing to do with it.

 

[pdjudd]

Not in the way you're trying to alude to. Sense of entitlement has nothing to do with it.

As I like to think: The only one that should have entitlement, should be the person/entity that in fact is entitled to the product.

Apple owns OSX. Therefore the only entitlement should be from them until their rights change.

 

[oban14]

I could care less. However that doesn’t 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 Apple’s 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 couldn’t use this approach as a business entity either.

I'm buying a G3. It's an Apple branded computer, right? If I swap out the motherboard/CPU, it's still an Apple branded computer. So I swap those out, and install Snow Leopard, and I'm following the license.

 

[TSE]

Psystar must really hate Apple.

 

[pdjudd]

I'm buying a G3. It's an Apple branded computer, right? If I swap out the motherboard/CPU, it's still an Apple branded computer. So I swap those out, and install Snow Leopard, and I'm following the license.

Not really. You cannot call a Toyota that you stripped out all the internal components except for the badge a “Toyota” even if you replace it with components of another car. Not legally. You don’t get to call it anything Apple related. At best, you can call it an "intel computer in a Apple G3 case”. Ou cannot call it a “Macintosh” or an "Apple Mac” or an “Apple Branded Computer” because you do not have the rights to brand anything with the Apple logo. Only Apple can do that.

A G3 Mac is a specific product that is trademarked by Apple. Just like a Dell Presario is a specific product. You cannot modify it to hell and still expect the company to acknowledge that its an original. As soon as you start removing certain components outside of Apple’s repair policies, you no longer have a Mac.

Apple’s branding is very specific, it doesn’t just refer to the case.

 

[rhpenguin]

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?

LOL.. I did that with my first Hacintosh. It overheated terribly.

 

[rhpenguin]

Ooops. double post.

 

[Zaap]

Yes, it is technically possible, but thats not what this case is about. Using the product outside of it’s terms (including unauthorized copying via installation is a copyright violation and is subject to civil litigation.

Here we go again. Installing OSX on hardware other than Apple's is NOT a copyright violation. Not in any way shape or form.

As for 'breaking a contract' that's fine- the point is, there's no actual PENALTY, based on any actual LAW for breaking the contract.

Apple's only recourse, is that they have no obligation to service or support hardware other than their own. If someone managed to delete their data or screw up thier hardware installing Apple's OS on it, Apple wouldn't be liable for that either. But that's it. (Which is of course understood and accepted by anyone with a Hackintosh.)

You can keep insisting otherwise, but you've yet to point to an actual law that backs this up, because there isn't one. Installing an OS isn't illegal.

 

[Zaap]

They might... But they would have to pursue it first. They haven’t attacked individuals. Just the business.

They won't. Because as I said before, they'd be laughed out of any courtroom.

Their argument would be along the lines of: "We're taking a consumer to court for purchacing our product that we make available for purchace to consumers... but they used it in a way we don't like."

It's laughable. There's no actual law being broken. Any court would throw it out.

And please don't bothering respond with any crap about Psystar, because I'm talking only about individual consumers buying a consumer product, as I've said a million times.

And they do have the rights to make software to rip CD’s, there is legal precedent for that thanks to the home recording act and the fact that they are not decrypting anything - CD’s are not a protected medium.

Nothing is being decrypted in using an OS installer for exactly what it was marketed, sold and intended to do.

I'd wager that music companies don't really like that people can use the products they sell in ways they don't like- such as making digital copies of it- but as you say, tough. The consumer DOES have the right to make a copy against the wishes of the record companies.

By the same token, I can install OSX against Apple's wishes to dictate what hardware I install it on. I've done nothing that violates any copyright they hold, I'm not claiming to own the OS (those are all silly strawman arguments anyway, by the way) and I'm not really entering into any legally binding (and certainly not enforceable) 'contract' with Apple for merely buying something from them and using it in a way their corporate edict may disapprove of. As I've pointed out and sourced before, companies can sneak things into their EULA's that aren't actually covered by copyright, such as trying to dictate I buy their hardware, but that's all it is, attempting to assert something that's not really governed by any law. No company can legally demand I buy anything from them. None of you have yet proven me wrong on this, and cited any specific law that backs you up.

 

[pdjudd]

Here we go again. Installing OSX on hardware other than Apple's is NOT a copyright violation. Not in any way shape or form.

Technically, yes there is. Installation by definition involves copying files - thats why the installation starts AFTER the licensing agreement. The license grants you limited copying rights. Otherwise you could not copy it period. That is covered by copyright law.

 

[Zaap]

Technically, yes there is. Installation by definition involves copying files - thats why the installation starts AFTER the licensing agreement. The license grants you limited copying rights. Otherwise you could not copy it period. That is covered by copyright law.

No one would use your definition of copying with reguard to an OS in a court of law, because it would be laughable. The product is marketed and SOLD based on its ability to be installed. That's what the product DOES. That's why anyone would give Apple their hard earned money for it.

If your defintion of 'copying' in this case were actually true, then installing OSX on an iMac would be a copyright violation as well- what Apple says about the act of installing an OS doesn't change the legality of the act, and it doesn't change copyright law, since Apple isn't a legislative body.

But of course, no one actually uses such a definition of 'copying'.

OSX is sold as a consumer product. The consumer USES the product by installing it. Making a copy would be actually copying the OSX installer disk and then making DVD copies of that.

All I can say is, thank goodness the actual business world doesn't work the way some of you wish it does, you'd unknowingly hand over ALL of your rights to corporations, which is silly. I'm not anti-corporation, but I just realize that's a goofy principal to want society to function under, that'd be rife with potential abuse.

By the logic I see expressed here, one could never buy one product, and then use aftermarket or third party parts and services with it. The manufacturer would retain all sorts of ridiculous power over the consumer long after the point of sale. If Ford wanted to sue you for using an aftermarket part or service, they could. If Epson wanted to sue you for using a printer cartridge other than one they made, they could. Gillette could dictate that you only use their brand of razor blades, Sony could dictate that you only use their hardware with their software and media products, etc. etc. etc.

Thankfully, the real world doesn't work that way. People DO have rights based on actual LAWS, not just corporate edicts.

 

[BaldiMac]

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.

You are just arguing semantics. The judge said that Apple was entitled to ask its customers to purchase OS X only for use on Macs as part of his legal rational for dismissing Psystar's counterclaims. He wasn't saying that Apple was allowed to say "Pretty please", he was saying that Apple has a legal right to do so.

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.

As I said, the question is whether it is possible to install OS X on non-Macs without creating a derivative work. Whether the code is modified by the bootloader or manually by the customer is irrelevant. Unless you have the legal and technical knowledge to verify that no relevant code is modified, you can't make a definitive claim about the legality of a personal hackintosh.

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.

You are making a copy by installing it. You are also making copies by loading the programs into RAM. Again, the question is whether these copies are covered by limitations to Apple's exclusive rights as described in Copyright laws.

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.

Making exact copies, adaptations, and derivative works are all subject to different rules. Audio recordings and computer software also have different rules.

(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.)

Microsoft has different pricing for upgrades and full installs. Are you claiming that they should not be able to offer upgrade pricing?

Here we go again. Installing OSX on hardware other than Apple's is NOT a copyright violation. Not in any way shape or form.

Again, that is in no way clear.

As for 'breaking a contract' that's fine- the point is, there's no actual PENALTY, based on any actual LAW for breaking the contract.

Of course there is a penalty for breaking a contract. Contract law is extensive. Are you actually claiming that contracts are completely uneforceable?

Apple's only recourse, is that they have no obligation to service or support hardware other than their own. If someone managed to delete their data or screw up thier hardware installing Apple's OS on it, Apple wouldn't be liable for that either. But that's it. (Which is of course understood and accepted by anyone with a Hackintosh.)

Ironically, you are basing this claim on the license that you claim has no basis in law.

You can keep insisting otherwise, but you've yet to point to an actual law that backs this up, because there isn't one. Installing an OS isn't illegal.

It depends on the situation. I've already cited an applicable law several times, but you seem to ignore all the pieces of the law that contradict you.

Technically, yes there is. Installation by definition involves copying files - thats why the installation starts AFTER the licensing agreement. The license grants you limited copying rights. Otherwise you could not copy it period. That is covered by copyright law.

That's not true. You do have rights to create copies based on the specific limitations to the copyright owner's exclusive right as described in copyright law. Fair use, etc. Including specifically the right to install a computer program.

 

[michael.lauden]

Psystar must really hate Apple.

if they hated Apple, they wouldn't make their OS available.

let me rephrase that:

Psystar must really love money

 

[BaldiMac]

No one would use your definition of copying with reguard to an OS in a court of law, because it would be laughable. The product is marketed and SOLD based on its ability to be installed. That's what the product DOES. That's why anyone would give Apple their hard earned money for it.

If your defintion of 'copying' in this case were actually true, then installing OSX on an iMac would be a copyright violation as well- what Apple says about the act of installing an OS doesn't change the legality of the act, and it doesn't change copyright law, since Apple isn't a legislative body.

But of course, no one actually uses such a definition of 'copying'.

OSX is sold as a consumer product. The consumer USES the product by installing it. Making a copy would be actually copying the OSX installer disk and then making DVD copies of that.

Your logic is fantastic. It just has no legal basis. If you are claiming that installing an OS is not creating a copy, than what would prevent you from installing it on every computer in the world?

By the logic I see expressed here, one could never buy one product, and then use aftermarket or third party parts and services with it. The manufacturer would retain all sorts of ridiculous power over the consumer long after the point of sale. If Ford wanted to sue you for using an aftermarket part or service, they could. If Epson wanted to sue you for using a printer cartridge other than one they made, they could. Gillette could dictate that you only use their brand of razor blades, Sony could dictate that you only use their hardware with their software and media products, etc. etc. etc.

Copyright laws do not apply to razor blades.

Thankfully, the real world doesn't work that way. People DO have rights based on actual LAWS, not just corporate edicts.

But if you do enter into a legal contract (or agree to a legal license) with a person or a corporation, you are obligated to abide by it or face the possibility of legal action.

 

[Lava Lamp Freak]

Ok. I take back everything I said about Apple and Hackintosh. After looking at the new iMac I changed my mind about my three week old i5 PC build and decided to RMA everything and buy the new i5 iMac next month when it starts shipping.

I still wish Apple had a headless iMac tower that would allow me to upgrade video and hard drive without having to buy a whole new system. However, it isn't all that bad when you consider you can sell an old iMac and put $500 with it and get a new one.

 

[pdjudd]

That's not true. You do have rights to create copies based on the specific limitations to the copyright owner's exclusive right as described in copyright law. Fair use, etc. Including specifically the right to install a computer program.

To be fair I have mentioned fair use as an exception to exclusivity on copying. I should not have used an absolute. However, the licensing claim precludes the actual installation as is the case of OSX and the majority of software on the market. Once the user is copying files - the most important and relevant part of the installation - you would have already agreed to licensing. You cannot install/copy without agreeing to the license.

I do ask, are you using the the words "the right to install a computer program” as a generic terms to initiate an installer? I agree, you do have the rights if that is the case. Or are you arguing that you can agree to the license to do the actual installation without the intention of following through with there terms? I ask that because instalation is a multi-step process and I am curious to get your input on where "the right to install a computer program” would have to be terminated if the user refuses the EULA (which terminates the installer). My assumption is that you are precluding an EULA, but not assuming that they are invalid.

if they hated Apple, they wouldn't make their OS available.

Psystar makes their products available to screw Apple over their hardware profits. They are just not playing fair.

let me rephrase that:

Psystar must really love money

That too.

 

[BaldiMac]

To be fair I have mentioned fair use as an exception to exclusivity on copying. I should not have used an absolute. However, the licensing claim precludes the actual installation as is the case of OSX and the majority of software on the market. Once the user is copying files - the most important and relevant part of the installation - you would have already agreed to licensing. You cannot install/copy without agreeing to the license.

I do ask, are you using the the words "the right to install a computer program” as a generic terms to initiate an installer? I agree, you do have the rights if that is the case. Or are you arguing that you can agree to the license to do the actual installation without the intention of following through with there terms? I ask that because instalation is a multi-step process and I am curious to get your input on where "the right to install a computer program” would have to be terminated if the user refuses the EULA (which terminates the installer). My assumption is that you are precluding an EULA, but not assuming that they are invalid.

I was paraphrasing the following limitation on exclusive rights pertaining to computer programs.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

Paragraph (a) gives the owner of a legal copy (the DVD) the right to create a copy or adaptation that is required to utilize the program or that is used for archival purposes.

As I have pointed out several times, the question is whether an installation on a non-Mac is an adaptation or a derivative work (if copyrighted code is modified as part of the non-Mac installation). Derivative works are not covered by this limitation of Apple's exclusive rights. To make this even foggier, "adaptation" is not defined but would seem to refer to a standard installation of the software.

Also, "in conjuction with a machine" is another phrase that is vague. Psystar is arguing that it means "any machine." Apple would likely argue that it does not specify "any", and so they are within their rights to limit installation to specific machines through licensing.

 

[pdjudd]

Paragraph (a) gives the owner of a legal copy (the DVD) the right to create a copy or adaptation that is required to utilize the program or that is used for archival purposes.

To me and my layman mind, the archival purpose is covered under fair use. Fine, not part of the Pyststar cases since Archives have limited usages and are almost certainly not re-sellable. The installation portion would cover the copying required to physically run the installer. The rest of the installation comes after the EULA/SLA and is somewhat different.

Am I reading that right?

As I have pointed out several times, the question is whether an installation on a non-Mac is an adaptation or a derivative work (if copyrighted code is modified as part of the non-Mac installation). Derivative works are not covered by this limitation of Apple's exclusive rights. To make this even foggier, "adaptation" is not defined but would seem to refer to a standard installation of the software.

My understanding of copyrights is that derivatives are handled under different portions of - certainly the SLA/EULA prohibits the kind of derivation. I mean you can’t just manipulate someones copyright without the copyright holders permission - which would be done via a contact.

My argument if I were Apple would be that the intended installation is an authorized derivative since they own the installer (wrote the methods that make the installation work) and that installation gets doubly enforced by their scripts, but also the SLA which dictates how you can install OSX (aside with the system requirements).

The SLA of course requirement of buying a Mac already called reasonable by Judge Allsup. If that wouldn’t work I would argue that installation is just a copy process and not a derivation since it is being transmitted in a compressed delivery format. and therefore copyright still applies.

Also, "in conjuction with a machine" is another phrase that is vague. Psystar is arguing that it means "any machine." Apple would likely argue that it does not specify "any", and so they are within their rights to limit installation to specific machines through licensing.

Given what Judge Allsup has already ruled, my guess is that Psystar’s interpretation might not fly. Since they don’t own the copyright, they cannot reasonably interpret and imply a license that they did not write up. As a business, they should be expected to posses the legal know how to do something simple as asking the copyright holder to explain their terminology. Apple’s marketing, and its software requirements all over their website is pretty clear that a “Mac” is required.

Again, none of this entire posting addresses the big problem that Psystar has with explaining how they can legally distribute OSX at all since they cannot prove that they legally purchased anything. They have that major hurdle to get over. They really cannot argue that what they are doing is legal if they cannot show legal distribution in the first place.

Again, thats just my interpretation. (and as a comment - Copyright is damn tough to understand!)

 

[hitekalex]

Again, none of this entire posting addresses the big problem that Psystar has with explaining how they can legally distribute OSX at all since they cannot prove that they legally purchased anything. They have that major hurdle to get over. They really cannot argue that what they are doing is legal if they cannot show legal distribution in the first place.

Are you talking about Psystar's products in general, or 'Rebel EFI' specifically? Because I actually see them being on a much firmer ground with selling this $50 'Rebel EFI', as opposed to say a Hackintosh pre-loaded with Snow Leopard. Obviously, if all they're doing is selling Rebel EFI - well there is no re-distribution of OSX taking place on their behalf. They may be 'facilitating' an end user to break EULA, but they aren't doing it themselves.

A German company called ASEM has been doing the same thing for years with EFiX (BootROM stick enabling the end user to install OSX on non-Apple hardware). And Apple has not taken any legal action against them.

 

[hachre]

The thing is that the clause about only being allowed to use Mac OS on Apple Computers is most likely going to be ruled as invalid if it is ever going to be tested in Europe.

That is because in oversimplified terms it is not allowed to create end user contracts that legally bind one product to another within them.

 

[MorphingDragon]

The thing is that the clause about only being allowed to use Mac OS on Apple Computers is most likely going to be ruled as invalid if it is ever going to be tested in Europe.

That is because in oversimplified terms it is not allowed to create end user contracts that legally bind one product to another within them.

The EU isn't that stupid. The economics advisors know that it would cause software sales to collapse. If that happens, to buy a computer/software license we'd probably have to go to official tribunals and sign a written contract 30 pages long which is enforceable under local law.

If that happens I would like the "morally high" people to know that I bloody called it!

 

[Zaap]

You are just arguing semantics. The judge said that Apple was entitled to ask its customers to purchase OS X only for use on Macs as part of his legal rational for dismissing Psystar's counterclaims. He wasn't saying that Apple was allowed to say "Pretty please", he was saying that Apple has a legal right to do so.

You're one to talk about logic. A judge said Apple has the right to ASK something of its customers. I have a legal right to ASK you for the time of day. That's not binding. It's not based on any law. Apple can ASK me to buy something from them all day long, and I can in return tell them "No thanks."

As I said, the question is whether it is possible to install OS X on non-Macs without creating a derivative work.

Yes, it is.

Whether the code is modified by the bootloader or manually by the customer is irrelevant.

The code isn't modified by either

Unless you have the legal and technical knowledge to verify that no relevant code is modified, you can't make a definitive claim about the legality of a personal hackintosh.

Neither can you. Meanwhile, I'll gladly take my Hackintosh into any police station or courtroom, and explain to the judge or cops how to make one themselves. Why? Because absolutely NO law has been broken. There's not a legislative body in the world that gives a good crap about it. And no, despite your wishes for it, corporations aren't legislative bodies.

You are making a copy by installing it.

Which is what the OS is designed to do. It's why I gave Apple money. That's not an illegal copy which is what we'd be talking about if any of this were about pirating. It isn't.

You are also making copies by loading the programs into RAM.

So what? Again, all of these things are true of Mac owners as well. Your 'argument' makes no sense. I would love to see it in court though, against a consumer. "You're charged with having an operating system load in RAM which is making a copy!" The laughter would be comedy gold!

Making exact copies, adaptations, and derivative works are all subject to different rules. Audio recordings and computer software also have different rules.

Microsoft doesn't like that people can get WINE for Linux and run copies of Microsoft Office for Windows. They'd prefer everyone had to buy Windows to run Office for Windows. But guess what, they can't do SQUAT about it, because it's NOT ILLEGAL. There's nothing they can put in an EULA that changes that fact either.

Again, I know this is a difficult concept for you-- CORPORATIONS AREN'T LEGISLATIVE BODIES, and just because they say to you "You can't do this because we don't like it" doesn't make it legally binding. That you'd want to surrender your actual rights to the whim of corporations is just your own shortsightedness because you don't like the fact that Apple's OS can be installed on hardware other than Apple. Oh well. Doesn't change actual laws though and what's illegal and what isn't.

Microsoft has different pricing for upgrades and full installs. Are you claiming that they should not be able to offer upgrade pricing?

That doesn't even make sense and of course has nothing to do with anything we're talking about.

Of course there is a penalty for breaking a contract. Contract law is extensive. Are you actually claiming that contracts are completely uneforceable?

Apple doesn't even agree with you here! Fascinating. GO READ THE EULA! Apple clearly acknowledges that ACTUAL legal bodies can find things in the 'contract' unenforceable. Things like, trying to dictate the brand of hardware a consumer buys. As has been stated here a million times, but flies right over your head, is that companies can and often do put language in a EULA that isn't actually covered by copyright, and isn't enforceable. An EULA could state you must stand on your head while using the software. So would you? And the penalty for you not doing so is... what exactly? Being sent to bed without your supper?

Ironically, you are basing this claim on the license that you claim has no basis in law.

I never said that, I said there are parts of it (dictating my hardware brand namely) that have no basis in actual law. You've yet to show me a law that says any company can dictate that I buy another product from them (hardware), simply because I bought another one (an OS).

It depends on the situation. I've already cited an applicable law several times, but you seem to ignore all the pieces of the law that contradict you.

No you haven't. You've yet to cite a law that says Apple can legally dictate the brand of hardware I run their OS on. If so, please show it, cite the actual relevant clause, and then tell me what the penalty is for disobeying it. You haven't. You can't. Because no such law exists.

That's not true. You do have rights to create copies based on the specific limitations to the copyright owner's exclusive right as described in copyright law. Fair use, etc. Including specifically the right to install a computer program.

Exactly. In the case of an OS, I have the right to install it on one machine per copy purchased. Unfortunately for Apple (and its hallmonitor wannabes) they have no legal right to dictate the BRAND of that hardware. I can't legally install multiple copies (unless I get the family version) but I can install one per machine. That's USING the product for what it was intended for.

All of your arguments would make sense if Apple didn't have a retail version of its OS, and one could only get it through buying a Mac. But they do sell a retail version of their OS that they charge REAL money for. Therefore, they don't get to claim all the rights and the consumer none. The consumer has rights too in a transaction, and a real 'contract' isn't only one-way. That's what the hallmonitor brigade is missing.

 

[dejo]

And please don't bothering respond with any crap about Psystar, because I'm talking only about individual consumers buying a consumer product, as I've said a million times.

You probably should stop posting in this thread then, since it specifically is about Psystar.