Psystar to Challenge Mac OS X EULA?

[dguisinger]

Another point Apple can go after is still harming their trademark and reputation, why?

Because they have admitted that not all updates (aka system updates) work, and will toast the install. How nice, all of a sudden everyone will say Apple sucks, their software crashes or refuses to boot, etc. Thats an easy one to use as a claim.

Round 1 to Psystar's marketing people.

Good god, did you just miss all the free advertising they got when the news of this hit every tech site out there like a tidal wave? They could remove every mention of Apple from their site right now and people would probably still buy this machine for the intended purpose. There aren't a lot of people out there right now who don't know what this is and overnight this move put Psystar on the map. Did you know who they were two days ago?

And once you see their website you know 1 person operation, 1 week left in operation.

 

[jellomizer]

I see no good coming from this.

Either Psysar will loose to Apple strictly causing legal precedence toward EULA. Which the current lack of a strong legally enforced EULA allows us to do things that we normally are asked not to do. Such as running Vista in VMWare or Parallels.

Or Psyar will win, causing Apple to respond with more DRM based restrictions on there systems, to make sure only Apple Macs can strictly run it. Causing extra problems that DRMs do. (Think Vista Genuine Advantage and every once in a while it decides it is not genuine for a few hours)

 

[flopticalcube]

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.

I'm sorry, did I infer the two issues were connected in any way? From appearances it seems that Apple has at least forced them to drop the use of the term "Mac" thus winning the first legal battle. The next round, licensing, will be a different battle altogether.

If Psystar do win the licensing issue, I suspect Apple will come up with some onerous validation system for OSX ala Vista. It will be a loss for everyone, including those building Hackintoshes.

 

[jcgnu]

I kinda said it some time ago...

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/451209/

I support this company and hope Apple will start allowing other manufacturers to sell their computers with Leopard installed. Apple doesn't have to give full support for drivers and all that, they JUST HAVE TO ALLOW IT.

Good for them! and hope Apple will not become the next Microsoft.

 

[Watabou]

+1 to Psystar will fall.

And I also agree that this will be very intresting. I want to see how the outcome...er...comes out.

 

[SodiumBenzoate]

Honestly, I don't agree with Apple on this one. Microsoft gets in trouble for including various programs and making them work in certain ways, but Apple can be even more restrictive with their software and it's fine? I don't get it.

 

[Sun Baked]

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

And it isn't going to be against an end user -- but a reseller.

And resellers and corporations violating EULAs tend to get smacked with bigger fines and penalties.

MS sued resellers for moving icons on the desktop ... running an OS on an unapproved machine is a big step up from an icon not appearing on the desktop.

 

[dguisinger]

Either Psysar will loose to Apple strictly causing legal precedence toward EULA. Which the current lack of a strong legally enforced EULA allows us to do things that we normally are asked not to do. Such as running Vista in VMWare or Parallels.

Or Psyar will win, causing Apple to respond with more DRM based restrictions on there systems, to make sure only Apple Macs can strictly run it. Causing extra problems that DRMs do. (Think Vista Genuine Advantage and every once in a while it decides it is not genuine for a few hours)

Psyar has no money, a simple look at their site shows they have no real focus and is a 1-2 person shop. Once they get an attorney who knocks them over the head and shows them how much it will cost to fight, they will fold.

 

[cloudnine]

I'm kinda torn on this one. On one hand, I love that Apple is great at making their computers and that those computers and their components are all made by the same company, Apple. It basically guarantees that the computer's going to work the way it should and that I won't have to mess around with those, what are they called again... oh, yeah, drivers

And while I personally don't mind spending more for a computer that looks great and works great, I can appreciate that the majority of people are on budgets and would love to assemble a computer themselves and have the satisfaction of running the best operating system, OSX, on it, as well.

The one thing that worries me about that, though, is that if by some miracle, the company wins against Apple, Apple is going to have a horrendous time in regards to customer service... having to help people who have god-knows-what components that aren't working because they're not supported by OSX, etc.

It'll be interesting to see where it goes... if anywhere.

 

[Syrus28]

"What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"

If Honda designed that car for a specific type of road that they built, why not? You chose to buy it….

Yes, you bought it. Which makes it yours. Just because they designed a product for specific environments, does that prohibit you from taking it elsewhere? I don't think so.

Im definitely not a lawyer, but I think it makes an interesting case.

 

[iPoodOverZune]

in any case, that should send some signal to Apple about the introduction of this mythical mid-range headless mac.

Also this will bring a lot of publicity for this site. They may eventually start selling PC hardware with EFI loaded, GUID partitioned, ready for OS X install by yourself, thus bypassing the legal/eula issues.

 

[chgojcs]

Fools.
This should be interesting to watch.

 

[Darkroom]

[Robert] also said Psystar believes Apple's prohibition against third-party installations might not hold up in court: "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"

wow, that's a weak argument... roads and computers... yup, that'll hold up... stupid people.

 

[clevin]

Apple's EULA also had prohibited windows pc users from running safari, while at the same time it is sneaked on to pc computers by non-other-than apple itself.

How serious of EULA? I bet nobody read it.....Even apple doesn't really care.

Sue? only one can get sued is end-users, is apple gonna do that? go after users? Doubt it.

Sure Psyar is a tiny company, it can fold anytime, but this methid is getting spread, hackintosh will be more inspired by small brand, no-brand makers in low-end market soon.

 

[gandalf18]

Gotta go with Apple on this one. If Psystar isn't paying licensing fees then it's a no-go in my book. Pre-installing Leopard crosses the line.

 

[DTphonehome]

I've got my popcorn. Ready to watch this develop.

Hey, did anyone else notice that "arn" is now Arnold Kim? Of course, he's always been, but this is the first time I've noticed his real name on an article.

 

[EricNau]

If Psystar succeeds, isn't that a win/win for consumers? Apple can still sell high-end, beautifully designed hardware for those who want it and hobbiests and budget-minded individuals can still use Mac OS.

It's a lose/lose for anyone who buys such a system.

Apple's OS is so successful because of the hardware/software integration. Once you lose that, you essentially lose the heart of OS X.

It'll be a sad day when customers start buying PCs running OS X only to find their purchase is less stable than Windows.

 

[inkswamp]

It is not the act of installing Mac OS X on a PC that is the problem. It is the breach of contract that is the problem.

Apple do have legal grounds in that instance. I'm no lawyer but I'm fairly sure Apple will come out on top with this one.

Of course Apple will win a legal challenge to this. But that's beside the point. Psystar just pulled off a brilliant marketing move, whether intended or not. This was viral marketing for real. Who here had even heard of Psystar two days ago? Now everyone on every tech site knows who they are what they sell.

Even if Apple wins and Psystar is left with only the right to sell the box with no mention of Apple or their products, they will still have ingrained themselves in the minds of those seeking such a product and those who are willing to install OS X at home. Apple will win the legal challenge, but Psystar will come away with a boatload of free advertising.

 

[mainstreetmark]

Why is it so unreasonable that Apple wishes to protect their business model.

Leopard isn't $129 because that's what Leopard costs. Leopard costs $129 because it runs on hardware purchased from Apple, and the price takes into effect the hardware profits as well. This is quite well understood, I thought.

Apple is in the business of selling a product, which is "a computer with an operating system", and if someone comes along and undercuts with crappy hardware, it hurts Apple's model, and we'll wind up paying more for upgrades.

If you guys want "cheap" at the same time as "quality", then you haven't been in business for yourself yet. There's a saying: Cheap, Quality, Price. You only get to pick two.

And, in the end, if you don't want it, don't buy it. If Honda made cars and built roads, it's perfectly reasonable for them to not let other people on their roads. Ridiculous analogy.

 

[kkat69]

And it isn't going to be against an end user -- but a reseller.

And resellers and corporations violating EULAs tend to get smacked with bigger fines and penalties.

MS sued resellers for moving icons on the desktop ... running an OS on an unapproved machine is a big step up from an icon not appearing on the desktop.

MS also sued companies for using the term "MSDOS compatible" without paying a royalty fee to MS.

Yes what you said above is what I was more driving at. Users haven't been technically or publicly pursued over EULA's but companies HAVE to abide by them.

 

[jellomizer]

Psyar has no money, a simple look at their site shows they have no real focus and is a 1-2 person shop. Once they get an attorney who knocks them over the head and shows them how much it will cost to fight, they will fold.

I would be wary of just basing it by the quality of the site. A one or two person can come up with a high quality site or a say Small-Midsized (around 100 employees) company can make a crapy site. It really depends on their focus. If these guys focus on hardware they may not have any web developers on site. But still enough money to handle lawers, in a hope to getting onto selling Non Mac Macs.

 

[DTphonehome]

The one thing that worries me about that, though, is that if by some miracle, the company wins against Apple, Apple is going to have a horrendous time in regards to customer service... having to help people who have god-knows-what components that aren't working because they're not supported by OSX, etc.

Which is exactly what Apple seeks to avoid by designing the SW and HW together. I don't see how it's fair for anyone to tell Apple to break the system that's been working so well for them.

 

[Shasterball]

I'm no lawyer but I'm fairly sure Apple will come out on top with this one.

That's right. You're no lawyer and Apple is anything but sure to come on top. No one knows what will happen here...

I don't see how it's fair for anyone to tell Apple to break the system that's been working so well for them.

It's not about being fair -- it's about whether a contract will hold up...

 

[bug67]

+1 for me

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.

Now, if Psystar wants to sell me a system that has the ability to run OS X, I'm OK with that as long as I'm the one who is paying for and installing the operating system.

I gave this a positive vote simply because I think Apple has become greedy and is demanding way too much a premium for what you actually get. Where's my Blue Ray? Why is Apple RAM so expensive? Maybe a few more of these "Cloners" could perhaps force Apple to take a look at what they're doing. I doubt it but, maybe.

 

[Krizoitz]

I'd much rather be able to install OSX onto a computer that I could build for hundreds less and still get the same great experience of using a Macintosh operating system.

If Psystar succeeds, isn't that a win/win for consumers? Apple can still sell high-end, beautifully designed hardware for those who want it and hobbiests and budget-minded individuals can still use Mac OS.

The first statement is a complete oxymoron. The reason there IS a great experience with the OS is not only the OS itself but the solid hardware base on which its built. Apple could sell cheap crappy computers like Dell and thats what you'd get, a cheap crappy computer.

As for it being a Win/Win, when Apple has to start dealing with the negative feedback of people using MacOS on computer that clearly aren't designed to work well with it, who do you think is going to get blamed? Mostly Apple, just like Microsoft gets most of the blame even when its problems with other hardware and drivers (NVidia comes to mind).

Apple doesn't sell an OS and a computer, its sells a complete system OS+Computer together. Every boxed copy of the OS isn't like some other OS, its basically an upgrade to what you allready have on your Mac.

Apple has a completely different offering from PC vendors who are seperated from the OS creators. To treat the two as equivalent is just plain wrong.