Psystar to Challenge Mac OS X EULA?

[dskoziol]

Its still a horrible point. Maybe you've never installed any software before. Because if you have you would remember the words "Do you accept the terms and conditions". That's when that prompt box comes up and you can click yes or no. That's where the EULA is. So once again your trash can hypothetical is pointless.


You can't compare the rights you have with printed media and software. They are two entirely different products and as such, should have different rights. Software is licensed to customers. Regardless of what Apple or M$ wants to call it, its a license. The OS is still and will always be the intellectual property of those companies. You are NOT free to do whatever you want with them. Don't like it, buy Linux or something else. But wait, they have EULA's too which dictate the ways their products can be used also. This is nothing new people. And yes there are grey areas in there, but the part on what system OSX can be installed on is black and white.

I'm sorry if my point wasn't clear; but I thought I stated that while Apple does issue a license for its software, it's the validity of this license that is in question. I'm not sure why you're drawing the conclusion that to own something is to have the rights to copy and distribute and sell it. That's not how it works in the music industry (you can own a CD, but that doesn't give you rights to copy and redistribute it. It's not being leased to you. They can't revoke it.), that's not how it works in the television industry, and that's not how it works in the book example that someone else gave. You can own a book, but you can't redistribute it for money. As was said, the book publisher doesn't have the right to say you can only read the book at a specific time of day, and a CD vendor can't tell you that it can only be played in certain CD players.

I don't understand why one "can't compare the rights of printed media with software," but using a bold typeface doesn't make what you say any more correct. If you need to highlight your point, redistribute that effort into better punctuation, better grammar, or more phlegmatic diction. If you read someone's post and it sounds like he or she is shouting, then it really makes his/her argument a lot less convincing.

But again, I don't have the legal background to judge whether or not software licenses are legal in their most prevalent implementation, and I would love someone to explain the answer to me with logical reasons rather than "it is so." I agree with someone else who posted (as their brother said after passing the bar exam), "A contract isn't a contract until a judge says it's a contract." Or something like that. It would be far too difficult to go back through all the replies on this thread to find it.

 

[Vulpinemac]

As an historical side-note, it's worth mentioning VTech and their Laser 128 series - which was priced competitively, superior in features, of excellent build quality, and totally legal due to clever reverse-engineering. It was successful, so successful that Apple was compelled to respond with the Apple //c Plus, which wasn't much of a response at all.

Successful, maybe. But not successful enough. That VTech computer vanished without making any splash at all in the desktop computer market. If it had been as successful as claimed, wouldn't they still be making Apple clones?

Maybe legal, but a practical failure as far as I can tell.

 

[vaguely]

mm Not really.. i dont think Apple have any way of stopping people selling "non-mac Mac's"..

The EU has very strong brand protection laws. Relying on EULA ambiguity or copyright peashooters won't help if Apple turns up with its brand protection Panzers.

And that Pystar has already had to take Mac off its name suggests that Apple is very aware of its brand image (put in file marked "duh").

I don't know what it is called in the US, but the usual term in the UK is "passing off".

I think Pystar would be on very shaky ground if it wanted to break the EULA on the one hand, and then rely on something similar to warn buyers of the danger of using their kit.

 

[MacHiavelli]

Dead or ... perhaps... still alive:

http://www.psystar.com/shop/openmac.html

 

[Vulpinemac]

I dont think Apple has any right to force me to a specific hardware setup.

I can assume, then, that you don't buy cars, TVs or other everyday devices. For instance: you go to the dealership and tell them you want to buy a car. You want one with only specific components and you don't want anything more or less on the car. In particular, you decide you don't want airbags or daylight running lamps, things that are standard equipment on that model of car. Guess what. You have no choice. You cannot remove those items because they won't build it that way. You are forced into a specific hardware setup.

Why should Apple be any different?

 

[mccldwll]

Sort of like unlocking the iPhone?

(runs for cover....)

Nah. That's like buying a bicycle and only being able to ride it on certain bike paths (kidding, kidding).

If people really want to discuss this ad nauseum, suggest treating as givens that copyright/EULA support Apple, and that doesn't matter that users here want to run OSX on whatever. If Psystar is on a suicide mission, why? Who are they really? What is Psystar really trying to accomplish? Get the legal issues/laymen opinion completely out of it, and discuss something worthwhile.

 

[Shasterball]

Get the legal issues/laymen opinion completely out of it, and discuss something worthwhile.

YES, YES, YES!!!!

 

[farmboy]

Oh, sure...

Hardly. Trademark issues and contract law have nothing to do with one another. I hope Psytar succeeds, personally. I feel that EULA are out if control and someone needs to smack some sense into all companies that think they are "licensing" you software when they sell you something.

So you think it's OK to purchase one copy of OS X Leopard and give away or sell as many copies of it as you want to, right? Because you OWN it?, right? It's yours to do with what you wish, right? A few hundred million spent by someone else (Apple) is just their tough luck, right? Anyone else's property that you get a hold of becomes yours, right?

Freetard..or just obtuse.

 

[Vulpinemac]

You guys make me sick at the level of brown nosing that goes on. Apple DOES have a monopoly in a weird sense. There are apps that I simply can not run on a PC simply due to artificial restrictions put in place by a draconian company.

Interesting that you should say that, since the exact same thing is true in the other direction if you discount virtual machines. At least, for now.

 

[MacAodh]

Dear Mr. Jobs,
If you are listening, we have spoken. Resurrect the Cube.

~Users

Finally something i agree with

 

[krunk]

I find it hard to believe that if the 'anti-trust violation' this guys speaks of exists how is it that there are no 'other' clones out on the market, and why big name system manufacturers haven't included "Mac Compatible" system along with their "Linux Compatible" systems yet this small insignificant IT consulting company is going to take on Apple in this case.

Sure flame on with "because nobody wants Macs" yet we as Mac users clearly know and demand lower priced Macs. Dell/HP/IBM could easily fill this void and could have long ago if this persons claim actually held water.

I feel his analogies aren't exactly sound. If Honda made the car AND made the roads then sure they can restrict you to drive on ONLY the roads they drive on. Similar to Cable companies. Just because there's cable going to your house doesn't mean you can go and get any cable company provider, your restricted since Cox or Comcast layed that cable down.

If I understand this guy correctly and I think I do. We can sue ANY software company simply because they restrict us to use a particular OS because they are monopolizing us to a particular OS. We can sue Apple because we can't run iLife in Windows. We can sue Microsoft because we can't use Visual Studio or .Net in OS X.

I know that was far fetched but I was trying to prove a point.

MS Licensed and developed/architected their software/OS to run on almost any platform. Apple does not and their OS is designed to be used with it's hardware, well within their legal right. Same with some system at one time could only run on SPARC processors and not Intel processors. Sun Solaris, Unix, etc. These are OS's with particular requirements.

I think we might see probably one of the first legal battles of a EULA.

Without even stating on which side of the fence I stand, I would like to reward you for the most egregious failing of logic, rationality, and powers of analogy that I've seen in a long time.

 

[job]

Jeeze.....

Fanboys out in FULL force tonight....

I love how some people on here think that Macs contain some special kind of hardware, that when magically put together at the factory in Shanghi they become Macs. Like the hard drives, memory, CPUs, and video cards are methodically sprinkled with some magical fairy dust that make them better than others.

Hardware is hardware, people. The only things separating Macs from PCs are the external casing and the operating system. That's it.

There are essentially two kinds of people bitching about this: the people who don't know how to build a computer & the people who bought a Mac and are pissed that there is an opportunity for someone else to come along and get the Mac experience paying a lot less than they did.

Thank you.

To all the users that made fun of my initial post at the beginning of this thread, realize that the Macs you are using are no different than any other generic PC. The motherboards, CPUs, GPUs, etc are all the same as any you could buy from Dell, HP, et al.

You want to talk about a crappy product? What about the eMac motherboard failures a while back? Or the MBP display issues that still haven't been solved? Or what about the MB case cracks?

My point is that Apple lost the ability to charge so much for their hardware when the switch to Intel occurred. Back when they were still selling PPC-based Macs, they could charge a fair amount because no one could build their own PPC G3/G4/G5 tower (and there weren't really other mainstream companies selling them either.) These days, we compare Macs with other PCs because it's essentially the same hardware at different price points. The Mac Pro - when compared to an evenly spec'ed Wintel tower - is a relative deal, but for the most part, the hardware you get from Apple can be had for a fair amount less than what Apple charges.

And there's been a lot of complaining about the possibility that a Mac OS experience on a non-Apple branded computer would be hell. I'll admit, the user experience on an OSx86 machine leaves a lot to be desired, sure. But the only reason why it's like that today, is because Apple wanted it to be, essentially to force more people to buy Apple hardware.

 

[whatever]

What's funny is that on the first software update Apple could brick the computer or cripple the OS.

 

[Vulpinemac]

if you don't like windows on a pc you can have linux but if you don't like the hardware a mac poseses you can't buy different hardware and run it on that cause apple says so that is monopoly if ever i heard one.

Methinks Headstew needs to study the definition of "Monopoly."

 

[HLdan]

If apple is forced to start selling stuff at a lower margin you might get a cheaper computer but in the end all consumers will end up paying for it because when money dries up experimental R&D is the first thing to go...

Agreed, the majority on this forum topic are very closed minded about the big picture. Has anyone forgotten how well Apple stays on top of software updates to improve the Mac OS as well as security updates. Let's not forget as well set up their retail stores are for new and potential Mac users. Where can you pay $99 and get a whole year of instruction on how to use your Mac and OS X?

Let's see what you get when you buy a Microsoft Windows computer or build your own and install a legit copy of Windows:
Vista service pack 1 released 15 months after Vista's release and still not stable, many users are complaining.
No local retail store dedicated to help with Windows. your only options are Best Buy, Fry's and Comp USA. Will they help a new user with Windows? No. Will they answer a couple of questions? Yes, if you are buying something.

I don't want Apple walking down this path by cutting support, reducing software updates and potentially charging more for new versions of Mac OS X as well as requiring an activation scheme to make sure the Mac OS is being installed on Apple hardware. Unlike Microsoft Apple still trust their customers will do the right thing.

Although I am in no way promoting hacking like so many of these unfortunate people on this forum I do at least hope that Apple gets the point and steps up the Mac mini or presents a desktop solution that will satisfy customers in need for this.

 

[whatever]

I am of the opinion (and seem to be in the minority?) that if I buy and pay for something (in this case OS X) I should be able to put it on whatever machine I want to.

However, I don't agree that a third party company (Psystar) should be able to sell their machine for profit with someone else's (Apple's) operating system installed without their permission to do so.

However, when you license something, which is what we all do when we choose to use OS X, you do not have the same rights as if we would if bought it.

 

[dextertangocci]

Idiots. I hope they fail. It's so ugly.


I wouldn't take it even if they gave it to me. (honestly).

 

[tbazani]

i think Psystar are being such a damn opportunistic with the wrong company... a multi billion company.
if they succeed (i hope not!) i'm going to be very disappointed with the game rules...

 

[Vulpinemac]

i didn't buy a license in the first place i bought software. I hate they use the word licensing even microsoft no longer calls it licensing cause that was illegal cause they are selling a product. I own windows that i bought on a disc. So in all reality if microsoft licenses there software to the end user they can run it on what ever hardware they like. And they can't tell someone that you can't buy a system pre loaded. You might just pay more as that company has not signed up to get the huge discounts for being a microsoft reseller. So in all truthfulness get off being a fan boy and look at the reality of the situation apple has become the next microsoft and the next monopoly.

Actually, you're wrong. Microsoft sells a license to the software, not the software itself. They have every right (and go out of their way to enforce it) to tell you that when you change motherboards on your PC, you must buy a new license to run Windows on the new motherboard. Apple thus has every right to say, "OS X on Apple hardware only."

As far as the "next monopoly," nyet! They know how to get the best service and the best user experience with their system. To do otherwise would be to put a "Jeep Wrangler" label on a Ford Mustang.

 

[Azurael]

Even if Open Computers fail under the moronic US legal system, they would likely be able to sell the system in Europe, because reverse engineering to ensure compatibility is legal, and hence any term in the EULA requiring installation on specific hardware would most likely be laughed out of court.

However, nothing stops Apple changing the software security mechanism in future OS X releases, which might make continuing upgrades for the OS on these systems difficult or impossible.

 

[timswim78]

Any companies selling hardware with the Mac OS installed without the express permission of Apple are circumventing measures Apple put into place to protect it's software. And I think we should all be quite aware that these types of circumvention are expressly forbidden by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

The DMCA is the first thing that popped into my mind. Even if the company successfully challenges the EULA, wouldn't they still have to deal with the DMCA since they appear to be circumventing copy protection features?

 

[chewbaccacabra]

The $399 Mac is dead.

Bound to happen. Can't believe people were coming up with various scenarios of clones coming back on the market.

I have been wishing for the looming Apple Store update all morning to switch the focus to something new.

 

[sfbayrealtor]

Competition is good for the consumer. Good luck Psystar, you're gonna need it. You're gonna need all the luck in the ******* world

If they win, I think it will only make apple products better...

 

[mox123]

70% of the reason why i started using Macs is cuz of their stunning hardware designs...

i think this is true for most of the mac buyers....we should be much less sensitive to price differences than, say, the average PC consumers....

do u guys agree?

 

[Azurael]

Nope. I only ever bought Macs for the OS and good hardware designs (e.g. now dead 12" PowerBook.) Sure, they look nice, but that's not going to make me spend twice as much.