Wow really, better performance? Because of all the sites that I am part of I have hardly ever heard of people that dont have problems with OSX on unsupported hardware.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Psystar to Challenge Mac OS X EULA?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
englishman I am not questioning your integrity but have you ever run OSX on unsupported equipment or just read about it? Since the first versions of tiger came out that allowed installation on a beige box I have installed an updated 7 computers with various versions. Never once was it straight forward or easy. I am no expert, but I have a pretty decent grasp on computers, most of the updates/installs were well above the average users experience levels.
In the end it's like I said earlier. Apple has and will turn a blind eye to the average user hacking OSX to run on non Apple hardware, but it is unlawfull in any context to steal Apple's OS, hack it, and re-sell it. It really makes no difference if you BELIEVE that it should be open source, Apple has made its OS for a specific useage.
In the end it's like I said earlier. Apple has and will turn a blind eye to the average user hacking OSX to run on non Apple hardware, but it is unlawfull in any context to steal Apple's OS, hack it, and re-sell it. It really makes no difference if you BELIEVE that it should be open source, Apple has made its OS for a specific useage.
Have you looked at the Apple forums for the problems people have with Apple hardware?!!! each day there are 000s of posts with problems
No-one is advocating stealing - the opposite - Apple is being asked to sell their OS for non-Apple HW.
Installation is alot easier these days - on a typical Dell PC there may be one or 2 tweaks but that's it. Yes, either you need very good step-by-step instructions or a non-beginner level of computer knowledge - but there is alot of help out there - some from Apple.
Filter out the 1000s of posts that are related to newbies having no clue how to plug in a router and you are left with only a handful of cases.
I've heard nothing but trouble with hackintoshes. Sure they work for some people, but most people that even get them to boot up have nothing but driver issues, not eve mentioning updates and installing those.
The second Apple does that, is the second I stop buying Apple, because #1 prices will go through the roof for software, #2 support services will go down the drain, and #3 support costs will go through the roof. Why should I, an Apple paying customer, pay more for support for people w/o Apple hardware? No thanks.
The thing I am saying is Apple cannot sell OSX for use on all hardware because they would have to support too wide of a range of hardware. The OS is so stable because they only supoport a limited range of hardware. If you try to support to much you turn into Vista.
No - there could be a model that's used by other companies - have 2 products - one supported by Apple - the other not - see Redhat etc do that.
In the end it would benefit people like you as others would create drivers.
I think that’s a tough sell. Linux distros are open source by nature. Mac and windows develop their own OS. They would have to release the source code to the masses. Try to get Windows to give away a free OS that’s open source. Like I said Mac is not stopping people as long as its for personal use. I have tried Mac on a beige box and its not the same. It may be one day, but for now its a business. They make money selling software. Not everything can be open source and Apple deserves to get paid for their hard work. I'm sorry I just cant see anything good out of Apple opening their OS to any want to be hacker. Leave the pro work to the pros that do it well.
I didn't read through all of the posts (made it through a few pages), but doesn't anyone remember the horror of the Mac clones of the '90s? If I remember, that is why Apple quite licensing their OS... too many issues with low quality hardware, etc., making their OS look bad.
Why would anyone want to buy a box that would/could break upon an OS update? If you read the fine print within Psystar's web site, they dance around the issue of updates... they could be good, or they could ruin the install, requiring a complete fresh install of the OS
. I think the boxes they offer are kind of cool for a hacker to play with... but I think they'd do a disservice to someone of low technical experience... making them thing they're getting a 'Mac' without the high cost. I don't think the reliability will be there unless you have the skills to find the other drivers, etc., needed to run the OS on their hardware.
I don't know. I predict that Psystar will be a greasy spot on the web in a few weeks.
Why would anyone want to buy a box that would/could break upon an OS update? If you read the fine print within Psystar's web site, they dance around the issue of updates... they could be good, or they could ruin the install, requiring a complete fresh install of the OS
. I think the boxes they offer are kind of cool for a hacker to play with... but I think they'd do a disservice to someone of low technical experience... making them thing they're getting a 'Mac' without the high cost. I don't think the reliability will be there unless you have the skills to find the other drivers, etc., needed to run the OS on their hardware.I don't know. I predict that Psystar will be a greasy spot on the web in a few weeks.
I'm not saying that OSX is a monopoly: it ISN'T. It's only somewhat analagous to a monopoly in that it's one unique product, so Apple holds the "entire OS X market"--they're not allowed to leverage that entire market to also capture the entire "OS X hardware market."
In other words, what I am saying is that you can't sell one product and require it to be ONLY used with another, different product that is sold separately in a competitive market. As another user stated, XBox doesn't really have this problem because they don't sell their "software" separately. But if Apple sells OS X on a retail disk in their stores, they can't legally "require" use of it along with another product they sell.
Conceivably, if Apple merely sold OS X as an "upgrade" to a self-contained "Apple Computer", they might be able to get away with it. But selling it as a self-standing product ONLY TO BE USED WITH another self-standing product is anti-trust.
There's a big difference between "cannot" and "does not want to" or "could not profitably do so". No one is saying that Apple should have to support all hardware setups, but rather that the user should have the freedom to use that software however they darn well please. (As long as it's not distributing unauthorized copies to other users, other blatant illegalities, etc)
What you're saying is the equivalent to saying that Musicians should be able to make putting CD-distributed music on an MP3 player illegal, simply because that Artist can't provide support for the ripping software or MP3 players.
A) The problem was, MS said "if you want to have Windows" (an operating system itself), you MUST ALSO take IE/WMP with it, and you may not remove them. (it's not possible to remove IE w/o serious trouble!) the anti-trust part comes from your very point B), that IE/WMP are not an OS, and can not be legally required with Windows.
Regarding your car...here in America, it's illegal for a car dealer to reduce or cancel a warranty for using 3rd-party parts. They may not be liable for damages caused by those parts, and certainly are not liable to cover those parts, but they can't refuse to replace a defective A/C unit because I put on an after-market muffler.
Ah but your wrong all apple is doing is selling an update to the OS that comes with the hardware you buy. It is not a separate product. You have to buy the hardware first to be ALLOWED be the EULA to install the software. Also to support my statements here is the headline on Apple.com about leopard.
Grab a front-row seat for a walkthrough of the top attractions in Mac OS X Leopard. See how the biggest system update in Mac history can help you love your Mac even more.
Also your other statement about musicians is wrong how you worded it, but completely right. Musicians CAN decide what format you can legally purchase their music in. If a musician feels that MP3's cannot be supported properly they have the right to say that they are not allowed to sell them in MP3 format. This has and does happen all the time. Unfortunately in our day and age people take it upon themselves to crack DRM and other ways of enforcing these laws. It doesn’t matter how you look at it, it's still breaking the law. As to the ripping, I’m not sure where that came from and its completely off base. Bad Example.
This is just a repost to remind everybody of what a monopoly is before we get into this again. Apple is not in any contexts a monopoly. Pepsi = Coke OSX = Vista
Monopoly
A monopoly is a market condition in which a single seller controls the entire output of a particular good or service. A firm is a monopoly if it is the sole seller of its product and if its product has no close substitutes. Close substitutes are those goods that could closely take the place of a particular good; for example, a Pepsi soft drink would be a close substitute for a Coke drink, but a juice drink would not. The fundamental cause of monopoly is barriers to entry; these are technological or economic conditions of a market that raise the cost for firms wanting to enter the market above the cost for firms already in the market or otherwise make new entry difficult. If the barriers to entry prevent others firms from entering the market, there is no competition and the monopoly remains the only seller in its market. The seller is then able to set the price and output of a particular good or service.
A monopoly, in its pure form, is actually quite rare. The majority of large firms operate in a market structure of oligopoly, which means that a few sellers divide the bulk of the market. People often have the impression that the goals of a monopolist are somehow evil and grasping while those of a competitor are wholesome and altruistic. The truth is that the same motives drive the monopolistic firm and the competitive firm: Both strive to maximize profits. A basic proposition in economics is that monopoly control over a good will result in too little of the good being produced at too high a price. Economists have often advocated antitrust policy, public enterprise, or regulation to control the abuse of monopoly power.
Monopoly
A monopoly is a market condition in which a single seller controls the entire output of a particular good or service. A firm is a monopoly if it is the sole seller of its product and if its product has no close substitutes. Close substitutes are those goods that could closely take the place of a particular good; for example, a Pepsi soft drink would be a close substitute for a Coke drink, but a juice drink would not. The fundamental cause of monopoly is barriers to entry; these are technological or economic conditions of a market that raise the cost for firms wanting to enter the market above the cost for firms already in the market or otherwise make new entry difficult. If the barriers to entry prevent others firms from entering the market, there is no competition and the monopoly remains the only seller in its market. The seller is then able to set the price and output of a particular good or service.
A monopoly, in its pure form, is actually quite rare. The majority of large firms operate in a market structure of oligopoly, which means that a few sellers divide the bulk of the market. People often have the impression that the goals of a monopolist are somehow evil and grasping while those of a competitor are wholesome and altruistic. The truth is that the same motives drive the monopolistic firm and the competitive firm: Both strive to maximize profits. A basic proposition in economics is that monopoly control over a good will result in too little of the good being produced at too high a price. Economists have often advocated antitrust policy, public enterprise, or regulation to control the abuse of monopoly power.
Ah, but I assume you're no lawyer here. I can buy OS X without owning an Apple computer, and my whole point is that the EULA violates anti-trust laws. If I completely wipe my hard drive on my mac and pop in the OS X Leopard disk, I can install the whole OS without any evidence of prior ownership of Tiger--thus, it's not an upgrade.
You're right that my MP3 example was vague: perhaps it would be more clear if I said,
Imagine that, say, Metallica produced a CD, and at the same time sold a "Metallica CD Player". When you bought the CD in a store and took it home, the first track started playing and you heard:
"hi, this is Metallica! In order to have a better user experience for you, this CD can only be played in Metallica CD Players! by listening to the next track, you are agreeing to only play this CD in official Metallica-labeled CD Players"
"hi, this is Metallica! In order to have a better user experience for you, this CD can only be played in Metallica CD Players! by listening to the next track, you are agreeing to only play this CD in official Metallica-labeled CD Players"
No one would go on about how great the quality of Metallica CD players was, or how compatible their CDs are with their players, or how fabulous the customer support for Metallica CD players was. They would have every right to buy Metallica CD players, but they'd be stupid to say that the "EULA" was in any way legal or enforceable.
Metallica would be liable to anti-trust suits all over the place. And so it should be with Apple.
This has scam written all over it...
Anybody still thinking about how great this is should maybe consider the following story reported from MacWorld magazine...
"Just days after announcing plans to sell a $399 computer capable of running Mac OS X, a Miami company had already temporarily shuttered its online store while changing its physical address multiple times.
The online store for Psystar, which is offering an OS X-compatible product it bills as Open Computer, was down for a good part of Wednesday. A note on the companys Web site cited an inability to process credit card purchases as the reason for the closure.
As this story was posted Wednesday evening, Psystars online store had reopened.
But that was just one twist in the increasing convoluted saga of the company that hopes to sell a Mac clone in apparent challenge to Apples end user license agreement for OS X 10.5. Readers of Gizmodo, a technology Web site, checked on the physical address listed for Psystar on the companys Web sitea challenging task since that address listing has changed three times over the last few days.
The first address for Psystar led readers to a residential neighborhood, while the second was for a packing supply company where representatives of the packing company had never heard of Psystar.
Since Gizmodos initial report, the address listed on Psystars Web site had changed a third time to an address about 10 miles from Miami International Airport."
The link to the story is here:
http://www.macworld.com/article/133036/2008/04/psystar.html?lsrc=top_2
So, anyone out there really ready to hand over your credit card info to these bozo's?
Anybody still thinking about how great this is should maybe consider the following story reported from MacWorld magazine...
"Just days after announcing plans to sell a $399 computer capable of running Mac OS X, a Miami company had already temporarily shuttered its online store while changing its physical address multiple times.
The online store for Psystar, which is offering an OS X-compatible product it bills as Open Computer, was down for a good part of Wednesday. A note on the companys Web site cited an inability to process credit card purchases as the reason for the closure.
As this story was posted Wednesday evening, Psystars online store had reopened.
But that was just one twist in the increasing convoluted saga of the company that hopes to sell a Mac clone in apparent challenge to Apples end user license agreement for OS X 10.5. Readers of Gizmodo, a technology Web site, checked on the physical address listed for Psystar on the companys Web sitea challenging task since that address listing has changed three times over the last few days.
The first address for Psystar led readers to a residential neighborhood, while the second was for a packing supply company where representatives of the packing company had never heard of Psystar.
Since Gizmodos initial report, the address listed on Psystars Web site had changed a third time to an address about 10 miles from Miami International Airport."
The link to the story is here:
http://www.macworld.com/article/133036/2008/04/psystar.html?lsrc=top_2
So, anyone out there really ready to hand over your credit card info to these bozo's?
Just to remind you...SAFD totally missed the point of the quotes on my original use of the world. Quotes indicate a similarity, but not an actual correspondence. I am not claiming Apple or OS X is a monopoly. I am suggesting that their EULA may make them liable for anti-trust suits.
Maybe I should also remind you again that none of my comments should be taken as legal advice, nor am I a lawyer, lest anyone take it as such.
Heck no! ...but all the same, I'd love to see them win, so other people could get into the Apple-compatible hardware market.
Also notable that so far we haven't heard any evidence of a lawsuit. Presumably, the "shuttering" of their website was simply an overloaded server crashing. Maybe Apple will never take action on this at all. (Though that's not likely)
I don't mean to be rude apull, but I hope you have good intentions because its people like you that are going to ruin OSX among other things. I know about freedom and what it means, I am writting this from Camp Taji Iraq.
I think that argument is wrong. Apple wouldn't have to support _all_ hardware, only very specific one. Here is what they could do: When the OS starts, it tries to identify all hardware. Then it assigns the hardware into three groups: Group 1 is recognised and supported. Group 2 is hardware where the manufacturer claims it works, but Apple has not tested it (like an Ethernet card that claims to be compatible with a supported Ethernet card). Group 3 is all hardware that is either not recognised, or known to be incompatible. Everything in Group 1 is used and works. Everything in Group 3 is ignored; it doesn't work but it also cannot cause problems. For everything in Group 2 the user decides; if there are problems then the user has to disable this hardware.
Apple could then develop a small, free piece of software that runs on Windows and Linux, which looks at the hardware in your computer and gives you a report how well your system will work with MacOS X. And manufacturers would build systems that work well with MacOS X and market them accordingly.
That said, there are other very good reasons for Apple not support anything but Macs.
An anti-trust suite is only possible if...
1. Apple had a monopoly i.e. around 75% or more of the market is the cut-off I recall.
2. They are abusing their position of having a monopoly (you can have a monopoly and not have to worry about anti-trust issues if you are not abusing it).
Apple doesn't have a monopoly in either hardware or software (there are lots of other computers and/or OSs if you want them)
Apple isn't abusing its monopoly - cause it doesn't have one to abuse in this instance.
If Apple were to have a monopoly, they would probably have to stop bundling iLife with their machines (quicktime and iTunes are still OK as these can be downloaded free anyway). There would be no case for making OS X available on non-Apple-manufactured hardware. MicroSoft do hold a monopoly in the OS market - yet they have never been required to provide a Power PC version of Windows (they once supported the Alpha processor so we know multiple CPU support is possible - but it is not a requirement). They can choose what hardware they will (or will not - there were some neat Alpha machines that were cut off at the knees when MicroSoft pulled the plug on supporting Windows on the Alpha) support.
For those of you who still think that it will easy for Apple to enforce their OSX EULA, here's a read that you might find interesting.
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/news/2008/04/apple_psystar
matticus008 wrote:
Quote:
Quote the Florida statute that is being violated if you believe that they are doing something illegal.
It doesn't need to be Florida law, nor does it need to be a statute. Psystar has no right whatsoever to sell systems with OS X installed, whether the copy they're using is a retail copy or not. It's simply not theirs to distribute. It goes far beyond the EULA. There's no such thing as a PC which can install OS X unmodified, and therein lies the problem, independent of licensing restrictions, which Apple is free to enact.
You are very wrong here. PsyStar has every right to buy a product at retail and resell it. When they buy an item, title to the goods becomes theirs. It is theirs to sell, give away, destroy, or whatever they want to do with it. This is done all the time its called grey marketing. Miami is full of stores that sell name brand products that they obtain from secondary sources. If what you say is true then Apple could simply sue PsyStar for selling their product. Apple cant do that in Florida. Maybe in California but not in Florida.
Again, if you think that PsyStar is breaking a law by selling OSX, please quote the Florida or Federal law they are breaking.
Quote:
Simply doing something that is contrary to a document published by Apple doesnt make it illegal. It may be a breach of contract
Breach of contract is illegal. Contracts are law. They wouldn't work if they weren't.
Contracts are enforced by law, true. But my contention has been that Apple will have to prove to a court that PsyStar is a party to the contract (the EULA) and that PsyStar has breached it. Apple will have to prove that PsyStar is the end user. If they dont there is no breach and PsyStar can continue to sell their computers with OSX installed. Apple would then have to take a different course of action to stop PsyStar
Quote:
Apple will have to sue PsyStar in Florida
Based on what? Certainly not the EULA, which has a choice of law clause. Not based on civil procedure generally, which recognizes no such finite forum selection. You don't really seem to understand the concept of personal jurisdiction at all, particularly with regarding to haling out of state defendants.
On the contrary I certainly do understand the concept of personal jurisdiction. Apple can sue PsyStar in California. The court will have to find that they have personal jurisdiction over PsyStar. Apple can argue that the California court has jurisdiction over PsyStar based on the forum selection clause in the EULA. The court may find that PsyStar has a business presence in California that gives the court jurisdiction. In any event, the court will determine if it has jurisdiction or not.
Lets assume that the California court finds personal jurisdiction and Apple prevails. Whatever relief Apple gets, it is not directly enforceable on PysStar in Florida. Apple will have to take the California judgment to the Florida court that has jurisdiction over PsyStar to get it enforced. They will have to get a Florida judge to enforce it, in effect suing PsyStar in Florida. Apple may find it easier to go to the Florida courts directly. However they do it, they will end up suing PsyStar in a Florida court.
Quote:
In order to sue, Apple has to have suffered some damages. How has Apple been damaged?
They retain the exclusive right to control distribution of the OS. They have positioned themselves as the sole vendor of hardware, and the trademark issue doesn't wholly vanish just because Psystar changed their name. Psystar is not just a reseller of CDs, nor is the issue payment for the Leopard disc.
Fine. But you still havent answered the question: How has Apple been damaged?
Quote:
Some have argued that Apple sells a complete computer package and the OS is free.
That's a fairly obtuse argument. Apple controls the price of OS upgrades in the retail channel because the original, full license is integrated into the cost of the hardware. Their sales strategy relies on this licensed hardware as a mechanism favorable to consumers and to the company. The price charged is predicated on a preexisting license by virtue of owning Mac hardware.
The fact is Apple has set the price of OSX at $129 and offers to sell it to anyone who wants it and can pay $129. There is no requirement to have or show proof of ownership of an Apple computer to buy it.
Quote:
If I buy a copy of Sony Pictures film Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, can Sonys EULA require me to play the movie ONLY on a Sony DVD player? I dont own the movie; I simply have a license to watch it. Do you think a court would enforce such a EULA?
You're regulating behavior without a rational basis and without a tangible benefit offered to the consumer. Cf. selling a movie through an online stream at a token price (say, $1) substantially cheaper than a DRM-protected persistent download or a physical DVD. If the streaming movie is $1 for the express reason that you are only allowed to view it on a certain platform and/or without retaining any persistent copy, then yes, such a restriction is likely permissible.
Again you fail to answer the question. Would a court enforce an EULA that required purchasers of a Sony Pictures DVD to only watch it on a Sony DVD? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Quote:
Apple will not get their legal fess from PsyStar. They really have no damages so they wont get much in compensation.
Based on?
Based on 7 years of litigation in the Florida courts. Getting legal fees for a breach of contract where there is no stipulation allowing the prevailing party to collect reasonable legal fees it is very difficult in Florida. The EULA has no section that address legal fees.
Quote:
PsyStar will be able to continue to sell their computers and just leave it up to the end-user to load OSX.
The end user would be required to apply hacks. The machines they ship would be enjoined from being pre-hacked to allow installation from the retail DVD (if they really would send a retail DVD with the machine).
Maybe if PsyStar is using a hardware feature to allow the loading of OSX their computers would be enjoined. But if they are using a software solution for loading OSX their machines will continue to ship as is.
At this point the whole EULA argument is academic as no one has seen a PsyStar computer with OSX on it. It's vaporware. When a real live one shows up Apple will have to decide what to do. It really doesn't matter what we think Apple should do. Apple will do what they think is in their best interest.
It's been an interesting subject. Thanks!
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/news/2008/04/apple_psystar
matticus008 wrote:
Quote:
Quote the Florida statute that is being violated if you believe that they are doing something illegal.
It doesn't need to be Florida law, nor does it need to be a statute. Psystar has no right whatsoever to sell systems with OS X installed, whether the copy they're using is a retail copy or not. It's simply not theirs to distribute. It goes far beyond the EULA. There's no such thing as a PC which can install OS X unmodified, and therein lies the problem, independent of licensing restrictions, which Apple is free to enact.
You are very wrong here. PsyStar has every right to buy a product at retail and resell it. When they buy an item, title to the goods becomes theirs. It is theirs to sell, give away, destroy, or whatever they want to do with it. This is done all the time its called grey marketing. Miami is full of stores that sell name brand products that they obtain from secondary sources. If what you say is true then Apple could simply sue PsyStar for selling their product. Apple cant do that in Florida. Maybe in California but not in Florida.
Again, if you think that PsyStar is breaking a law by selling OSX, please quote the Florida or Federal law they are breaking.
Quote:
Simply doing something that is contrary to a document published by Apple doesnt make it illegal. It may be a breach of contract
Breach of contract is illegal. Contracts are law. They wouldn't work if they weren't.
Contracts are enforced by law, true. But my contention has been that Apple will have to prove to a court that PsyStar is a party to the contract (the EULA) and that PsyStar has breached it. Apple will have to prove that PsyStar is the end user. If they dont there is no breach and PsyStar can continue to sell their computers with OSX installed. Apple would then have to take a different course of action to stop PsyStar
Quote:
Apple will have to sue PsyStar in Florida
Based on what? Certainly not the EULA, which has a choice of law clause. Not based on civil procedure generally, which recognizes no such finite forum selection. You don't really seem to understand the concept of personal jurisdiction at all, particularly with regarding to haling out of state defendants.
On the contrary I certainly do understand the concept of personal jurisdiction. Apple can sue PsyStar in California. The court will have to find that they have personal jurisdiction over PsyStar. Apple can argue that the California court has jurisdiction over PsyStar based on the forum selection clause in the EULA. The court may find that PsyStar has a business presence in California that gives the court jurisdiction. In any event, the court will determine if it has jurisdiction or not.
Lets assume that the California court finds personal jurisdiction and Apple prevails. Whatever relief Apple gets, it is not directly enforceable on PysStar in Florida. Apple will have to take the California judgment to the Florida court that has jurisdiction over PsyStar to get it enforced. They will have to get a Florida judge to enforce it, in effect suing PsyStar in Florida. Apple may find it easier to go to the Florida courts directly. However they do it, they will end up suing PsyStar in a Florida court.
Quote:
In order to sue, Apple has to have suffered some damages. How has Apple been damaged?
They retain the exclusive right to control distribution of the OS. They have positioned themselves as the sole vendor of hardware, and the trademark issue doesn't wholly vanish just because Psystar changed their name. Psystar is not just a reseller of CDs, nor is the issue payment for the Leopard disc.
Fine. But you still havent answered the question: How has Apple been damaged?
Quote:
Some have argued that Apple sells a complete computer package and the OS is free.
That's a fairly obtuse argument. Apple controls the price of OS upgrades in the retail channel because the original, full license is integrated into the cost of the hardware. Their sales strategy relies on this licensed hardware as a mechanism favorable to consumers and to the company. The price charged is predicated on a preexisting license by virtue of owning Mac hardware.
The fact is Apple has set the price of OSX at $129 and offers to sell it to anyone who wants it and can pay $129. There is no requirement to have or show proof of ownership of an Apple computer to buy it.
Quote:
If I buy a copy of Sony Pictures film Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, can Sonys EULA require me to play the movie ONLY on a Sony DVD player? I dont own the movie; I simply have a license to watch it. Do you think a court would enforce such a EULA?
You're regulating behavior without a rational basis and without a tangible benefit offered to the consumer. Cf. selling a movie through an online stream at a token price (say, $1) substantially cheaper than a DRM-protected persistent download or a physical DVD. If the streaming movie is $1 for the express reason that you are only allowed to view it on a certain platform and/or without retaining any persistent copy, then yes, such a restriction is likely permissible.
Again you fail to answer the question. Would a court enforce an EULA that required purchasers of a Sony Pictures DVD to only watch it on a Sony DVD? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Quote:
Apple will not get their legal fess from PsyStar. They really have no damages so they wont get much in compensation.
Based on?
Based on 7 years of litigation in the Florida courts. Getting legal fees for a breach of contract where there is no stipulation allowing the prevailing party to collect reasonable legal fees it is very difficult in Florida. The EULA has no section that address legal fees.
Quote:
PsyStar will be able to continue to sell their computers and just leave it up to the end-user to load OSX.
The end user would be required to apply hacks. The machines they ship would be enjoined from being pre-hacked to allow installation from the retail DVD (if they really would send a retail DVD with the machine).
Maybe if PsyStar is using a hardware feature to allow the loading of OSX their computers would be enjoined. But if they are using a software solution for loading OSX their machines will continue to ship as is.
At this point the whole EULA argument is academic as no one has seen a PsyStar computer with OSX on it. It's vaporware. When a real live one shows up Apple will have to decide what to do. It really doesn't matter what we think Apple should do. Apple will do what they think is in their best interest.
It's been an interesting subject. Thanks!