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

[hitekalex]

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.

Actually, that's where your argument falls apart. So what is it that's actually stopping you from installing a copy of Snow Leopard on multiple machines? If you buy a family pack, what's stopping you from installing it on 6th machine? Apple certainly hasn't installed any serial or activation mechanism to control the number of machines you install their software on. It is an honor system enforced by nothing other than Apple's license.

But you're basically saying you want to cherry pick what parts of the EULA you want to choose to abide or not abide by. If it's "installing OS on 5 machines" - you will honor that.. But if it's "installing OS on Apple branded hardware" - you choose to ignore that because you don't like it.

Apple has no more or less legal rights to dictate the type of hardware on which to install their software than they do to dictate how many machines their license entitles you to install the OS.

 

[BaldiMac]

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?

Ignoring the archival use because it isn't relevant, I don't think you are reading that right. An adaptation seems to refer to the result of installing the software. In other words, the installed copy of OS X. It appears to be differentiated from a copy, because it is not a copy of what is on the DVD and may be customized per various user setups and options.

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.

The SLA is irrelevant to the point that I was trying to make. Apple is granted exclusive rights to OS X including reproduction, distribution and creation of derivative works. The only limitations on these exclusive rights specific to computer programs are listed in section 117 (linked in my previous post). A few other sections (such as the one on fair use) detail other limitations, but they are not really relevant. Derivative works are not mentioned in the limitations, so Apple retains exclusive rights to their creation.

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).

Like I said above, an standard installation is most likely the "adaptation" mentioned in section 117, not a derivative work. If a copyrighted portion of the installation is modified in order for OS X to run on a non-Mac, it could possibly be argued that a derivative work was created. I do not know if this happens in all hackintosh installs.

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.

I don't think this paragraph makes any sense. Copyright always applies to all copies. I think that the point that you are missing is that even if no license existed with the OS X DVD, you would have the right to install the software as long as that installation is required in order to utilize the software. Apple cannot take this right away from you in a license.

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.

The phrase "in conjunction with a machine" was not part of any license. It was quoted from section 117 of the copyright laws that I linked to. And as I said earlier Psystar is ignoring the fact that the sale of an "adaption" aka installed copy of OS X is specifically prohibited.

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.

I think this is really a minor point. They are including retail boxes of OS X. If someone is claiming that they are stolen, that would really be a different trial. Of course, I'm sure it does undermine their credibility in the eyes of the court.

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

Tough makes it more interesting than debating whether poster X can run Apple better than its current management.

 

[BaldiMac]

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."

Apple "asks" through a clause in their license agreement that the consumer agrees to. It is binding unless that clause is found to be illegal. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that it is illegal to tie software to a particular brand of hardware?

Yes, it is.


The code isn't modified by either

Do you have any evidence to support your claim? As I stated, I don't know either way. But I'm guessing that you don't either.

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.

No one has claimed it is a criminal offense. Why would the cops care? It would be up to Apple to sue.

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.


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!

You are making up an argument, which is why it makes no sense. You claimed that installations are not copies. You are wrong. They are copies governed by copyright law. They are allowed through licensing and limitations to the exclusive rights of the copyright owner.

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.

WINE does not include any copyrighted code owned by Microsoft.

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.

You seem to repeat this a lot. No one is claiming that corporations make law. What rights are you surrendering by limiting installation of OS X to Macs? I don't mean rights that you feel you have. I mean rights that are codified in law.

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

Actually, it is exactly what this is about. Microsoft sells upgrades at a lower cost than full versions. If your claim has merit, than there would be no point in buying the full version, because you would be able to install the upgrade regardless of the licensing terms.

Apple is operating exactly the same way except full versions are only sold bundled with Mac hardware. All of the retail boxes are upgrade versions.

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?

Wow. They are just acknowledging that laws are different in different jurisdictions, and some provisions of the license may be found illegal. The part that is flying over your head, is that you haven't actually provided a reason as to why tying hardware to software is illegal.

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).

You seem to have this idea backwards. Apple has entered into a contract (license) with the consumer. It would be up to the consumer to prove that the provision in question is illegal if they don't expect to be bound by it.

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.

I have. Copyright law and Contract law.

You and I can enter into a contract stating that I have to stand on my head every day at three o'clock for the next two weeks in exchange for a copy of your new book. If I don't adhere to my part of the contract, I don't get to keep the book.

If you think that the tying clause is illegal, it is up to you to prove it.

Exactly. In the case of an OS, I have the right to install it on one machine per copy purchased.

According to what law?

Unfortunately for Apple (and its hallmonitor wannabes) they have no legal right to dictate the BRAND of that hardware.

According to what law?

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.

Intended for by whom? Apple intended it for use on Macs.

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.

The contract isn't one way. Apple's SLA specifically grants rights to the consumer.

What's with the name calling?

 

[pdjudd]

Ignoring the archival use because it isn't relevant, I don't think you are reading that right. An adaptation seems to refer to the result of installing the software. In other words, the installed copy of OS X. It appears to be differentiated from a copy, because it is not a copy of what is on the DVD and may be customized per various user setups and options.

Right. My understanding is those adaptations (which is legally different from a derivative) would be covered by copyright just the same being that the installer itself was written by Apple. I know what you are saying and I think it is very similar to what my intent was.

The SLA is irrelevant to the point that I was trying to make. Apple is granted exclusive rights to OS X including reproduction, distribution and creation of derivative works. The only limitations on these exclusive rights specific to computer programs are listed in section 117 (linked in my previous post). A few other sections (such as the one on fair use) detail other limitations, but they are not really relevant. Derivative works are not mentioned in the limitations, so Apple retains exclusive rights to their creation.

Right. Thats what I thought. The EULA is just an afterthought to normal copyright. I think the problem was the usage of the word “derivative” to mean something that it doesn’t mean. For the record I agree with your assertion that Apple has exclusive rights to OSX - thats been the thrust of all my arguments. I think I misunderstood what you were talking about.

I think that we overall agree on the case matter at hand.

Like I said above, an standard installation is most likely the "adaptation" mentioned in section 117, not a derivative work. If a copyrighted portion of the installation is modified in order for OS X to run on a non-Mac, it could possibly be argued that a derivative work was created. I do not know if this happens in all hackintosh installs.

Well as you said above, Apple controls all derivatives as well. But anyway, the understanding that hackintoshing involves either modifying the installer directly so that it installs on foreign hardware as if it were a Mac or they use a boot-loader that tricks the installer of a normal disc to think that it is installing on Apple hardware. The second method doesn’t involve hacking Apple code, but I doubt that any company can legitimately sell it as a product that could be used to violate a software license. Nobody in their right mind in the US would market that. Well except Psystar of course.

I don't think this paragraph makes any sense. Copyright always applies to all copies. I think that the point that you are missing is that even if no license existed with the OS X DVD, you would have the right to install the software as long as that installation is required in order to utilize the software. Apple cannot take this right away from you in a license.

I agree with that to a degree. My confusion stems with what constitutes an install. If installing involves copying, and as you said, the copyright holder controls all copies, how does your statement work and still jive as a business model? My take is - thats why a license exists - as a barrier - you reject the license the installer stops. Otherwise in my mind, copyright is useless since you are inherently say that the copyright holder can’t control their copyright!. Of course you might be proposing a worse case scenario (since you say that no license exists). In a worse case scenario, if Apple’s SLA is voided (and I emphasize that the likelihood of that happening is really low), they would recall all copies on the market and change it’s distribution to make sure that their current business model could continue.

The phrase "in conjunction with a machine" was not part of any license. It was quoted from section 117 of the copyright laws that I linked to. And as I said earlier Psystar is ignoring the fact that the sale of an "adaption" aka installed copy of OS X is specifically prohibited.

Right. Another area where I think Psystar is in trouble.

I think this is really a minor point. They are including retail boxes of OS X. If someone is claiming that they are stolen, that would really be a different trial. Of course, I'm sure it does undermine their credibility in the eyes of the court.

They claim that is the case... Psystar can’t provide a bill of sale as they were asked during discovery. Of course I don’t think that Apple is alleging theft, but they strengthen their argument that there is no licensing agreement between Apple and Psystar.

Tough makes it more interesting than debating whether poster X can run Apple better than its current management.

Right. Thats why I am asking for clarification - so that I can nail people harder when they make ridiculous statements that defy the intentions of the law. You are doing a darn good job defending my and other points and I appreciate it.

 

[BaldiMac]

Well as you said above, Apple controls all derivatives as well. But anyway, the understanding that hackintoshing involves either modifying the installer directly so that it installs on foreign hardware as if it were a Mac or they use a boot-loader that tricks the installer of a normal disc to think that it is installing on Apple hardware. The second method doesn’t involve hacking Apple code, but I doubt that any company can legitimately sell it as a product that could be used to violate a software license. Nobody in their right mind in the US would market that. Well except Psystar of course.

If none of Apple's code is modified, I think the legality of a personal installation of OS X on a non-Mac is very gray. And therefore selling software or hardware to enable someone to install it on a personal non-Mac is also very gray.

I agree with that to a degree. My confusion stems with what constitutes an install. If installing involves copying, and as you said, the copyright holder controls all copies, how does your statement work and still jive as a business model? My take is - thats why a license exists - as a barrier - you reject the license the installer stops. Otherwise in my mind, copyright is useless since you are inherently say that the copyright holder can’t control their copyright!. Of course you might be proposing a worse case scenario (since you say that no license exists). In a worse case scenario, if Apple’s SLA is voided (and I emphasize that the likelihood of that happening is really low), they would recall all copies on the market and change it’s distribution to make sure that their current business model could continue.

A copyright holder does not control all copies. Copyright law provides specific limitations to the copyright owner's exclusive rights. For example, the owner of a copy of OS X (such as a retail OS X installation DVD) is allowed by copyright law (section 117) to install the software on a computer in order to utilize it. Apple cannot take away this right through licensing. In the obvious case, if you buy a retail version of OS X, you would be able to install OS X on a Mac regardless of whether or not you are licensed to do so. Apple could not enforce a provision of the license that prevented you from installing OS X at all.

Depending on how this section is interpreted in a court of law, it may or may not prevent Apple from limiting the hardware that OS X may be installed on. Psystar is arguing that the phrase "in conjunction with a machine" refers to "any" machine. Apple will likely argue that it only refers to machines on which it was intended to be utilized. Both arguments have merits.

 

[pdjudd]

If none of Apple's code is modified, I think the legality of a personal installation of OS X on a non-Mac is very gray. And therefore selling software or hardware to enable someone to install it on a personal non-Mac is also very gray.

Well Apple’s install code is not being run under the intentions that it was designed to.I don’t know what if being modified since that all happens during the OS install. What isn’t happening is that the disc containing the software has been effected - it remains intact. I assume that Apple will assert that the installation process is being altered and Psystar cannot market a product that can do that to code it doesn’t own. But as an alternative is that Apple is going to say their licensing provisions to prevent anyone from marketing this as a hackintoshing or demand that OSX legally be prevented from being loaded like Parallels or VMware will not virtualize OSX Desktop but will virtualize OSX Server on Apple hardware.

I don’t know enough of the technicalities of this to comment much on that. I strongly think that Psystar, if they can weasel out of this, isn’t going to be legally allowed to make a whisper of this product with the name Apple or even be able to sell the disc since that could be seen as enabling copyright infringement if that is the sole purpose of this product.

The way I see this Psystar is marketing this specifically to incite people to violate a license - Specifically Apple’s. EFI boot-loaders already exist, but I am not aware of any of them that endorse violating Apple’s licensing.

I don’t know enough of this product to say for sure what it does, but I am sure that it is telling the system “this is a mac”. Of course I don’t know anybody who has gotten this to work.

Depending on how this section is interpreted in a court of law, it may or may not prevent Apple from limiting the hardware that OS X may be installed on. Psystar is arguing that the phrase "in conjunction with a machine" refers to "any" machine. Apple will likely argue that it only refers to machines on which it was intended to be utilized. Both arguments have merits.

I suppose thats where Apple’s SLA has to stand. I think Apple’s merits though have higher priority being that they are the copyright holder. That and Allsup has already said that Apple’s demands of tying hardware and software are reasonable.

 

[pdjudd]

I excised this as a separate post since this constitutes the bulk of my confusion on Copyright and I want to make my posts where I agree in essence With BaldiMac more readable and prevent them from blowing up

A copyright holder does not control all copies. Copyright law provides specific limitations to the copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Right. I agree, fair use, archive, etc...

For example, the owner of a copy of OS X (such as a retail OS X installation DVD) is allowed by copyright law (section 117) to install the software on a computer in order to utilize it.

I presume you are saying licensed copy here right? Because thats the only way Apple distributes OSX, via a license...

Apple cannot take away this right through licensing. In the obvious case, if you buy a retail version of OS X, you would be able to install OS X on a Mac regardless of whether or not you are licensed to do so. Apple could not enforce a provision of the license that prevented you from installing OS X at all.

But what about other hardware? I mean if you can install it license agreement or not, what’s the purpose? Shouldn’t the default be no installing without permission? Seems rather silly. Besides. Every program that I have installed (via an installer) requires me to click “agree” to a license in order for the installer to proceed. If I click no, the installer exits.

Using that scenario, are you telling me that a software company cannot do that, license or not? That doesn’t make sense. Now if you mean to say that you can start the install than that makes sense, but otherwise that seems to strip a major area of control away from a copyright holder.

The only way that it make sense in my mind, is that the installer is irrelevant, but it’s the end product that matters and thats where the copyright violation occurs (say at the last reboot when you click “finish” on the installer). That makes sense since the install is just a means to an end and the end is what matters license or not.

Hopefully this confusion can be cleared up. Bear with me here!

 

[harlinator]

You have people that buy fake rolexes and fake oakleys and so your going to have the poor cheap assed people that think they have a real Mac by putting OS X on a PC... oh well, just cheap is all it is and screwing Apple out of what they deserve (they did conceptualize OS X that you want to run on your PC) so your just biting the hands that feed you... just plain old cheap and weak people is all...
But they saved $1000... well if you can't spare that you don't even need a computer IMO!!! Just run Winblows!

It's called in one word... A THIEF!

 

[Zaap]

Actually, that's where your argument falls apart. So what is it that's actually stopping you from installing a copy of Snow Leopard on multiple machines? If you buy a family pack, what's stopping you from installing it on 6th machine? Apple certainly hasn't installed any serial or activation mechanism to control the number of machines you install their software on. It is an honor system enforced by nothing other than Apple's license.

Exactly, it's an honor system in Apple's case. So what? That's a side point to the brand of hardware I'm installing on.

It's the same violation to install OSX on multiple Macs made by Apple, as it is Hackintoshes.

 

[pdjudd]

It's the same violation to install OSX on multiple Macs made by Apple, as it is Hackintoshes.

It is a violation - it’s an act that we vocally condemn as well. And I think the legal minds would argue installing a single licensed product on multiple computers, if if there was no product key or other enforcement would be piracy since you are not purchasing the requisite license. Piracy does not require physical copies to be made as bit torrent and the record companies will be very willing to establish. I bet the RIAA will even cite their civil cases where they made cases for piracy and got lots of fines issued.

 

[Zaap]

Apple "asks" through a clause in their license agreement that the consumer agrees to. It is binding unless that clause is found to be illegal. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that it is illegal to tie software to a particular brand of hardware?

I didn't say it's illegal, I said it's not based on law. Apple has no right to dictate the brand of hardware when they sell the retail version of OSX. I've asked you to produce a law that says "An OS sold by company A must be used on hardware made by company A" and you've failed to, because only the existence of such a law would make it a legally binding request.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim? As I stated, I don't know either way. But I'm guessing that you don't either.

Actually I do know- the OSX code isn't modified in any way when it's run on a Hackintosh with a retail install.

No one has claimed it is a criminal offense. Why would the cops care? It would be up to Apple to sue.

People have tried to say "it's illegal" without even knowing what that actually means. Of course cops and courts wouldn't care, no laws are being broken.

You are making up an argument, which is why it makes no sense. You claimed that installations are not copies. You are wrong. They are copies governed by copyright law. They are allowed through licensing and limitations to the exclusive rights of the copyright owner.

I can only conclude you're being purposefully dense to try and mask the fact that you have no argument.

Your nonsense about installing an OS being a 'copy' in the illegal sense, or in the sense that it violates a copyright, is just that, nonsense. The whole nature of software is that it replicates itself in order to be installed. The issue of illegally copying software relates to making an actual COPY of the software illegally. When one buys software at a retail store or online, they are buying it in order to INSTALL it. Since one has purchaced their copy of it (and of course in this case we're talking about a retail copy of OSX bought by a consumer) then installing it is not making an illegal 'copy'. You of course know that, but you're just being dense for the sake of "argument". The argument itself is silly, because according to the 'logic' of it, even people who have an Apple-branded Mac that go buy Snow Leopard and install it, are "making a copy" and therefore violating the copyright.

WINE does not include any copyrighted code owned by Microsoft.

This just proves you don't even know what's really being discussed.

WINE allows code written for Windows to be run in Linux. Microsoft makes Windows, and makes MS Office. When you go and buy Office for Windows (much like buying OSX from Apple) Microsoft would prefer you to install it only on a system running Windows. They could very well write that into the EULA when you buy it.

So if they did, does running Office for Windows under Wine a violation of copyright law? Is it illegal because Microsoft says so? Is disregarding MS's desire that you use their OS some act they could actually sue you for, or would they once again, be laughed out of a courtroom for attempting it?

You seem to repeat this a lot. No one is claiming that corporations make law.

Actually you are when you claim Apple could sue someone- in a court of LAW- for going against its corporate wish that you buy thier hardware. I've asked you multiple times to produce the law under which they would bring this suit. There either IS one, or you believe Apple can create a law by writing conditions in an EULA.

What rights are you surrendering by limiting installation of OS X to Macs? I don't mean rights that you feel you have. I mean rights that are codified in law.

I'm not claiming to be surrendering any rights. I'm not the one yapping about suing anyone or taking them to court.

You're the one claiming that Apple has some right to dictate to me my hardware choice and actually take me to court simply by being a customer of their for an OS. What right does Apple have to limit me to OSX on Macs? And actually sue me or anyone else over it? I don't mean rights that you feel they have. I mean rights that are codified in law.

So far in answer to that, you've come up nil.

Actually, it is exactly what this is about. Microsoft sells upgrades at a lower cost than full versions.

This is just a really dumb side argument. When you buy an upgrade copy, you get an upgrade. You need proof of having the full OS and a legit serial number. When you buy a full version, you get a full version, and serial number to go with it. This has nothing to do with Microsoft being able to dictate what brand of hardware you must install either on.

In fact, imagine the ridiculousness of it, if MS ever made a pact with say, Dell, that you could only install Windows on Dell machines, then included that in the Windows EULA. Who in their right mind actually thinks that'd be enforceable?

Anyhow, you're just going around in circles. I'll ask you again to produce the law that says a corporation can dictate that I must install their OS on their hardware. That's the only thing in all of this that really matters a whole hill of beans. That Apple cheerleaders don't like that it's possible to install OSX on non-Apple hardware really doesn't matter. That they wish Apple had the power to sue for disobeying their corporate wishes, not actual laws, doesn't matter.

 

[Zaap]

It is a violation - it’s an act that we vocally condemn as well. And I think the legal minds would argue installing a single licensed product on multiple computers, if if there was no product key or other enforcement would be piracy since you are not purchasing the requisite license. Piracy does not require physical copies to be made as bit torrent and the record companies will be very willing to establish. I bet the RIAA will even cite their civil cases where they made cases for piracy and got lots of fines issued.

True, but is anyone actually disputing any of this?

 

[r.j.s]

People have tried to say "it's illegal" without even knowing what that actually means. Of course cops and courts wouldn't care, no laws are being broken.

Stop using illegal in only the criminal sense.

Things that violate civil law are also illegal, the only difference is that you won't be going to jail for breaking a civil law.

Breach of Contract is a violation of civil contract law, and therefore illegal.

Cops and judges won't ever care about someone breaking a civil law, unless the injured party files a complaint, suit, injunction, whatever you want to call it.

 

[Zaap]

Stop using illegal in only the criminal sense.

Things that violate civil law are also illegal, the only difference is that you won't be going to jail for breaking a civil law.

So tell the fanboi base to stop throwing the term 'theft' and piracy around where it's not even remotely applicable.

Even if an EULA is a contract (debatable) that doesn't mean every clause in it is valid and legally-binding, therefore violating it is not 'illegal' in the civil sense, and certainly not criminal. Using hardware of my choice to install an OS I've purchased a copy of is not illegal in any way shape nor form, and there's no 'contract' (certainly not a one-sided one that's probably at best a contract of adhesion) that makes it so.

 

[r.j.s]

So tell the fanboi base to stop throwing the term 'theft' and piracy around where it's not even remotely applicable.

Theft is theft and piracy is piracy. Neither really play any role into Psystar, although there are a few unanswered questions in the case that would make one or both apply to them.

Even if an EULA is a contract (debatable) that doesn't mean every clause in it is valid and legally-binding, therefore violating it is not 'illegal' in the civil sense,

Actually, it is - unless you prove otherwise. The burden of proof rests on the person about to agree to the contract to prove a part of it non-binding.

Using hardware of my choice to install an OS I've purchased a copy of is not illegal in any way shape nor form, and there's no 'contract' (certainly not a one-sided one that's probably at best a contract of adhesion) that makes it so.

Just because you keep saying there is no contract doesn't make it true. If you click Agree, you are bound by the terms in the contract.

 

[MorphingDragon]

So tell the fanboi base to stop throwing the term 'theft' and piracy around where it's not even remotely applicable.

Even if an EULA is a contract (debatable) that doesn't mean every clause in it is valid and legally-binding, therefore violating it is not 'illegal' in the civil sense, and certainly not criminal. Using hardware of my choice to install an OS I've purchased a copy of is not illegal in any way shape nor form, and there's no 'contract' (certainly not a one-sided one that's probably at best a contract of adhesion) that makes it so.

Its not stealing or Piracy.

Its breaking license terms which may or may not be enforceable under civil law. I dont know, New Zealand is pretty stiff on this stuff. So where I live, I have to follow Apple's EULA.

Hell, Apple's ads would be illegal here as its technically market extortion. (You cant mention your competitions name in advertising)

 

[BaldiMac]

I presume you are saying licensed copy here right? Because thats the only way Apple distributes OSX, via a license...

I did not mean licensed copy. I am talking about ownership of the copy that is burned onto the DVD purchased at retail.

I didn't say it's illegal, I said it's not based on law. Apple has no right to dictate the brand of hardware when they sell the retail version of OSX. I've asked you to produce a law that says "An OS sold by company A must be used on hardware made by company A" and you've failed to, because only the existence of such a law would make it a legally binding request.

As I've stated many times, contract law makes a contract (license) legally binding. If you are claiming that one of the provisions is not binding, you would have to prove that the provision is illegal.

Actually I do know- the OSX code isn't modified in any way when it's run on a Hackintosh with a retail install.

Again, do you have any proof of this claim?

People have tried to say "it's illegal" without even knowing what that actually means. Of course cops and courts wouldn't care, no laws are being broken.

You seem to be the one who does not know what illegal means. Breaking a legal contract is illegal. If you believe part of the contract is illegal, you would have to prove it.

I can only conclude you're being purposefully dense to try and mask the fact that you have no argument.

Your nonsense about installing an OS being a 'copy' in the illegal sense, or in the sense that it violates a copyright, is just that, nonsense.

Again, you are making up this argument. I have never once in this thread claimed that it is a copy in the "illegal sense". If fact, I've stated the exact opposite is likely.

The whole nature of software is that it replicates itself in order to be installed. The issue of illegally copying software relates to making an actual COPY of the software illegally. When one buys software at a retail store or online, they are buying it in order to INSTALL it. Since one has purchaced their copy of it (and of course in this case we're talking about a retail copy of OSX bought by a consumer) then installing it is not making an illegal 'copy'. You of course know that, but you're just being dense for the sake of "argument". The argument itself is silly, because according to the 'logic' of it, even people who have an Apple-branded Mac that go buy Snow Leopard and install it, are "making a copy" and therefore violating the copyright.

Making a copy is not illegal if it is licensed by the copyright owner or covered by the limitations of the copyright owner's exclusive rights. Again, please don't call me names when you are making up claims that I have never made.

This just proves you don't even know what's really being discussed.

WINE allows code written for Windows to be run in Linux. Microsoft makes Windows, and makes MS Office. When you go and buy Office for Windows (much like buying OSX from Apple) Microsoft would prefer you to install it only on a system running Windows. They could very well write that into the EULA when you buy it.

They could (if they were not a monopoly), but they don't.

Actually you are when you claim Apple could sue someone- in a court of LAW- for going against its corporate wish that you buy thier hardware. I've asked you multiple times to produce the law under which they would bring this suit. There either IS one, or you believe Apple can create a law by writing conditions in an EULA.

And I've told you multiple times that they could bring this suit under a violation of contract. It's not a corporate wish. It's a contract. Contracts are legally binding.

I'm not claiming to be surrendering any rights. I'm not the one yapping about suing anyone or taking them to court.

You're the one claiming that Apple has some right to dictate to me my hardware choice and actually take me to court simply by being a customer of their for an OS. What right does Apple have to limit me to OSX on Macs? And actually sue me or anyone else over it? I don't mean rights that you feel they have. I mean rights that are codified in law.

That's very clever. You didn't have an answer to my question, so you turned it around and asked me in the same way.

Apple has exclusive rights to copies of OS X according to copyright law. They give you rights to make one copy under certain terms listed in the SLA in exchange for your money. If you can prove that any of those terms is illegal or a violation of your legal rights, they can be deemed unenforceable in a court of law. The key here is that you have to offer some reason as to why the clause that limits you to Mac hardware is illegal.

I have said multiple times that whether or not it is violation of your rights depends on how the court interprets section 117. Early indications from Judge Alsup in the Psystar case indicate that it is within Apple's right to tie hardware and software.

So far in answer to that, you've come up nil.

Only if you ignore everything that contradicts your claims.

This is just a really dumb side argument. When you buy an upgrade copy, you get an upgrade. You need proof of having the full OS and a legit serial number. When you buy a full version, you get a full version, and serial number to go with it. This has nothing to do with Microsoft being able to dictate what brand of hardware you must install either on.

How is that different than what Apple is doing? Apple sells only upgrade copies in retail boxes. You need proof of having the full OS and a legit serial number. Since the full version can only be obtained by buying a Mac, it is enforced through hardware checks, rather than software serial numbers.

In fact, imagine the ridiculousness of it, if MS ever made a pact with say, Dell, that you could only install Windows on Dell machines, then included that in the Windows EULA. Who in their right mind actually thinks that'd be enforceable?

Microsoft has been found to have abused their monopoly position in multiple courts of law. They have different rules to follow.

Anyhow, you're just going around in circles. I'll ask you again to produce the law that says a corporation can dictate that I must install their OS on their hardware. That's the only thing in all of this that really matters a whole hill of beans. That Apple cheerleaders don't like that it's possible to install OSX on non-Apple hardware really doesn't matter. That they wish Apple had the power to sue for disobeying their corporate wishes, not actual laws, doesn't matter.

Why do you keep calling them "corporate wishes"? It is a contract that you are required to agree to in order to install OS X.

 

[pdjudd]

I did not mean licensed copy. I am talking about ownership of the copy that is burned onto the DVD purchased at retail.

Before we go around in circles, what are suggesting by "ownership"? My interpretation of Ownership when it concerns IP would constitute the whole shebang. That would be Apple unless they sell their IP for some reason. The way I understand software ownership is that you or I the end user, only posses ownership of the box and the disc (but not the contents of said disc) therein. The only thing that buying the disc gets you is just a physical means to install the software. Usage of the software is a whole nother matter, but buying a disc doesn't transfer any rights to the software on the disc (for example modifying the actual install). I just get to use the disc for it's intended purpose. I don't actually posess any real rights to modify or derive anything from it wothout the owner's (Apple's) consent.

Again, all of this precludes the licensing terms that would be in place. It's just a base set of rights that are implied when purchasing the software. I only say that because people claim that "they buy it and therefore can do whatever they please with it" which is not true.

I feel that we are looking at the same thing and just drawing different paths.

 

[hitekalex]

Exactly, it's an honor system in Apple's case. So what? That's a side point to the brand of hardware I'm installing on.

It's the same violation to install OSX on multiple Macs made by Apple, as it is Hackintoshes.

The point is you can't pick and choose which parts of Apple's license you decide to honor.. and which parts you choose to conveniently ignore. If you make a unilateral decision that the "Apple hardware" requirement of EULA is not worth honoring, you can apply the same logic to buying a single $29 copy of SL and applying it to the computers of your 25 friends.

We can argue the consequences and whether Apple would bother in pursuing individuals such as yourself.. but both violations are governed by the same license and therefore make you equally liable.. UNLESS you prove that tying OS to a hardware type is a violation of a standing law, which you clearly haven't (and not likely to be able to).

 

[BaldiMac]

Before we go around in circles, what are suggesting by "ownership"? My interpretation of Ownership when it concerns IP would constitute the whole shebang. That would be Apple unless they sell their IP for some reason. The way I understand software ownership is that you or I the end user, only posses ownership of the box and the disc (but not the contents of said disc) therein. The only thing that buying the disc gets you is just a physical means to install the software.

Ownership of a copy is different than ownership of the copyright or the software itself.

Usage of the software is a whole nother matter, but buying a disc doesn't transfer any rights to the software on the disc (for example modifying the actual install). I just get to use the disc for it's intended purpose. I don't actually posess any real rights to modify or derive anything from it wothout the owner's (Apple's) consent.

Again, all of this precludes the licensing terms that would be in place. It's just a base set of rights that are implied when purchasing the software. I only say that because people claim that "they buy it and therefore can do whatever they please with it" which is not true.

Here is the link to the applicable limitation of exclusive rights as applies to computer programs.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

Please read paragraph (a) and sub paragraph (1).

Owning the copy of a computer program on a disc appears to give you the right to install it. Whether or not Apple has a right to limit the circumstances of the installation is open to interpretation in a court of law. Judge Alsup's comments support Apple's rights, and any blanket denial of Apple's rights to limit installation would destroy software licensing. But something in the middle is still possible.

 

[smartalic34]

I feel like Apple could eliminate all of its Psystar headaches by only "selling" its OS through Software Update.

let's think about this for a second- the ONLY reason Apple sells OS X through retail is for CURRENT mac owners to upgrade. releasing it as an update through something like software update would solve this issue.

Remember, OS X is simply the brains of Apple's computers. Apple has no intention of putting OS X on any other computers, because it is for theirs only, in the same way that the iPhone's OS X is only for the iPhone, or Apple TV's OS is only for itself, or your DVD player's software is only for that specific device.

If Apple could upgrade operating systems without selling a physical copy, it would probably do so.

For those arguing against the EULA, what power would you then have to stop Apple? The only reason this is an issue in the first place is because Apple sells its OS at retail (but only for current Mac owners, which people don't seem to understand).

 

[pdjudd]

Ownership of a copy is different than ownership of the copyright or the software itself.

OK, thats what I figured. At that point I suppose the million dollar question is what rights does owning a copy grant you (again outside of licenses presumed to be valid)?

Here is the link to the applicable limitation of exclusive rights as applies to computer programs.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

Please read paragraph (a) and sub paragraph (1).

Owning the copy of a computer program on a disc appears to give you the right to install it. Whether or not Apple has a right to limit the circumstances of the installation is open to interpretation in a court of law. Judge Alsup's comments support Apple's rights, and any blanket denial of Apple's rights to limit installation would destroy software licensing. But something in the middle is still possible.

OK this pretty much jives with one of my opinions, no matter what, you can run the installer since it is argued that it is an essential step. That's fine - installation is a means to an end. The end is the big point since that is a "copy" and seems to the the point of contention of weather or not infringement happens - based on what I can tell.

Obviously Allsup and an assumption that the license that Apple provides as being valid supports the notion that you can't do what Psystar did in the first place - modify code becasue the end result is a copyright derivative that is still owned by Apple IP wise. At this point, we just have to ponder what that middle point may be simply because I don't see any of Psystar's activities looked at very fondly.

If the judge concludes that they released one product whose sole intention was to violate Apple's copyright knowingly (since Psystar has admitted to breaking the license), that their entire product line serves to do so as well. That might not stop EFI boot-loaders, but it might make the more legit ones make sure that their products are not directly going to infringe on a copyright (again like how VMware and Parallels cripple their software to prevent the client OSX from being virtualized even on Apple Hardware).

I do strongly believe that If Apple wins, they are going to do their darnedest to use this as a precedent to go after any other company who is even imagining the word "hackintosh".

 

[pdjudd]

I feel like Apple could eliminate all of its Psystar headaches by only "selling" its OS through Software Update.

The may have to do that. The problem is that may not be very practical for a while considering the size of the OS discs are several Gigabytes. Yes, I know MS offers downloads of that size, but the fact that they still distribute their OS on disc to consumers indicates that its just not that easy. Not everyone has access to a fast connection and some do not have access at all.

 

[Dae]

Great news. I really hope it'll significantly increase the number of Hackintosh users in poorer countries to make Apple eventually reconsider it's mad price policy (and support issues) there.

The new lowest end Mac Pro costs $4000 here.

 

[pdjudd]

Great news. I really hope it'll significantly increase the number of Hackintosh users in poorer countries to make Apple eventually reconsider it's mad price policy (and support issues) there.

The new lowest end Mac Pro costs $4000 here.

Apple has the right to price their products however they wants based on what the market will bear. Are you going to argue that its alright to rip off people from money that they earned because you do not believe they should be so greedy?

Nobody has a right to a Mac.