Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Psystar to Change Tactics and Sell Mac OS X-Ready Computers?

YOU FOOLS!

PsyZod will reign supreme! Kal-Apple can't stop us now.

Soon we will take over your puny world, and Psystar will be reborn!

Kneel... before... PsyZod!
 
fifthworld said:
I'm wondering why Apple is settling with Psystar when so close to pocket a total court victory. Any ideas?
Click to expand...

There would still be a very lengthy appeals process, during which Psystar could likely win the opportunity to continue to sell its products. Apple is just cutting off that avenue, knowing full well that attempting a additional suit to get any reimbursement of court costs would be like trying to get blood out of a stone.

Lastly there is the possibility that Psystar would declare bankruptcy and Apple would receive nothing, or that the appeals courts would lesson the victory.

Once the writing is on the wall most lawsuits end with settlements so that things are completely over and done with.
 
twilson said:
What planet have you been living on?

Aiding copyright infringement is also a crime, and there have been numerous cases that point to this fact.
Click to expand...

Buying a legitimate copy of SL and installing it on a computer could NEVER possibly be copyright infringement. Might be EULA infringement, but EULAs have never been really put to the test in court, at least Apple's EULA regarding the fact that OSX can only be installed on Apple computers.
 
Macmel said:
Yes because MS is very interested in expanding the number of MAC users by allowing them to put MacOS on PCs. That makes a lot of sense for a software producer which does not get a single buck if people decide to put OSX instead of Windows on PCs.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is that you can run windows natively on a mac (with Apple Support) but not the other way around. Microsoft is like cha-ching, they are not stupid.
 
lex750 said:
Funny thing is that you can run windows natively on a mac (with Apple Support) but not the other way around. Microsoft is like cha-ching, they are not stupid.
Click to expand...


if you have the right hardware, you can run OS X natively on a "PC". the dell Mini was a big favorite because it took OS X with no hacking
 
musio said:
Wasn't there a lot of undercurrent of psystar being funded my microsoft?

I think so. How can such a small company compete with the legal costs from giants such as apple? It doesn't make sense. RE the MS links - it was a good few articles back.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if Dell were involved with funding either. Although many sources allude to Microsoft funding Psystar, this would ultimately be a foolish move for MS, as it would only hurt them in the long run.

Pystar's position is actually a far bigger threat to MS than to Apple - while Apple can hardwire the OS to the unit without a massive amount of effort, Microsoft cannot do the same with their license programs.

Imagine major companies and corporations concluding: "I don't like the MS license we agreed to, so we're going to consider it void, and just do whatever we want with the software, since Pystar got away with it."
 
twilson said:
What planet have you been living on?

Aiding copyright infringement is also a crime, and there have been numerous cases that point to this fact.
Click to expand...

Sure, but that would not be aiding copyright infringement. Psystar would be free to suggest that you legally purchase a copy of OS X for installation on your new machine. If the user ultimately pirates it and infringes Apple's copyright, that's on the user.

If there's some kind of copyright protection that was circumvented by Rebel EFI, that'd be a DRM circumvention governed by the DMCA, not copyright law. From my limited knowlege of the Hackintosh scene, though, it appears that the OS X installer merely searches for an EFI bootloader and hardware from its supported list. EFI is an open standard, so that's not an issue.

You could argue that they'd be coercing users to break their software licensing agreement with Apple by suggesting they install OS X on a non-Apple machine, but that's not against the law as far as I know. The final action is on the User, and the licensing agreement is a civil contract between Apple and the User, not Apple and Psystar. If the User breaks that agreement, Apple is free to sue the User.

Psystar really screwed up by pre-installing the OS. Apple would have had a much harder time if Psystar simply sold the computer without an OS.
 
When Microsoft bullies vendors into using its OS and browsers, it's a monopoly; when Apple using its monopoly power to artificially raise prices on its hardware, it's the free market. Right guys, right?!?!
 
alent1234 said:
if you have the right hardware, you can run OS X natively on a "PC". the dell Mini was a big favorite because it took OS X with no hacking
Click to expand...

I know. What I'm saying is that Microsoft is making money selling windows for macs with Apple supporting it. Apple is actually helping Microsoft sell more Windows. I think it's so ironic.
 
fifthworld said:
I'm wondering why Apple is settling with Psystar when so close to pocket a total court victory. Any ideas?
Click to expand...

It isn't a press release by Apple, it is a press release by Psystar, and it looks very dubious to me.

Apple has told the court what kind of damages it is looking for, and it is a tiny amount (about $60,000) for copyright infringement, plus a much bigger amount ($2,500 per computer sold with MacOS X installed, plus $2,500 per upgrade disk delivered to customers) for DMCA violation. And the DMCA violation is what kills Rebel EFI; it's only purpose is to make MacOS X run on a non-Macintosh computer by getting around Apple's copy protection.

Given this situation, I think Psystar might have agreed to pay $60,000 for copyright infringement and called it a "partial settlement", trying to ignore the rest of Apple's demands.

Gimzotoy said:
From my limited knowlege of the Hackintosh scene, though, it appears that the OS X installer merely searches for an EFI bootloader and hardware from its supported list. EFI is an open standard, so that's not an issue.
Click to expand...

Your limited knowledge is wrong. According to Apple's expert witness (John Kelly, check the details on Groklaw), it is not possible to run MacOS X on any non-Apple labeled computer without working around Apple's DRM, which is exactly what these EFI emulations do, and which makes it a DMCA violation.

Macmel said:
Buying a legitimate copy of SL and installing it on a computer could NEVER possibly be copyright infringement. Might be EULA infringement, but EULAs have never been really put to the test in court, at least Apple's EULA regarding the fact that OSX can only be installed on Apple computers.
Click to expand...

There goes another one. Without a license, you don't have the right to install MacOS X anywhere. Which is exactly what the court decided, that Psystar had no right to install MacOS X on any non-Apple computer and that Psystar committed copyright infringement. Apple's SLA has been tested in court and has been found valid on all counts.
 
alec said:
When Microsoft bullies vendors into using its OS and browsers, it's a monopoly; when Apple using its monopoly power to artificially raise prices on its hardware, it's the free market. Right guys, right?!?!
Click to expand...

Apple, a monopoly power? Not even close.

Microsoft a monopoly? Yes, ask the Department of Justice.
 
alec said:
When Microsoft bullies vendors into using its OS and browsers, it's a monopoly; when Apple using its monopoly power to artificially raise prices on its hardware, it's the free market. Right guys, right?!?!
Click to expand...

Wrong. The court determined your logic is lacking.
 
alec said:
When Microsoft bullies vendors into using its OS and browsers, it's a monopoly; when Apple using its monopoly power to artificially raise prices on its hardware, it's the free market. Right guys, right?!?!
Click to expand...

What does Apple have a monopoly on? PCs? No.
Oh ya, Apple products. That is right! If you want an Apple product, you HAVE to buy it from Apple... how unfair!!! Right dude, right?!?!
 
rebel efi is a re-packaging of programms from the open source hackintosh community

psystar stole it
violated gpl licenses
and now sells it as its own software

and best of all
the net is full of people who bought rebel efi
and it would not work on their machines

supported hardware would not boot into the installer
initially they sold it as "install on any hardware" but after a while they put the "supported hardware" list online.
people who bought the software and then could not install it on their hardware are now stuck with rebel efi that is LOCKED to that unsupported motherboard

i would be VERY VERY careful with that company
 
fifthworld said:
I'm wondering why Apple is settling with Psystar when so close to pocket a total court victory. Any ideas?
Click to expand...

Trials are expensive, annoying, and time consuming. And the appeals process can make it even more so. Something like 90% of all civil cases settle out of court for these reasons.
 
Jeez! These guys just don't give up, do they? They're like the barking little "yipee" dog that won't shut up. Hey Psystar, go away and SHUT UP!!
 
lex750 said:
They sell it.

http://www.amazon.com/Mac-version-10-6-Snow-Leopard/dp/B001AMHWP8

Why can't Psystar?
Click to expand...

Probably because they would have to do it at a loss if they wanted to be competitive. All Amazon is selling is the exact same box that Apple sells in their retail chains except at a small loss. Amazon can afford to do that, but I really doubt that Psystar could - the best they could legally do is sell the same boxes at cost - of course then they have no advantage.

Psystar lacks economy of scale.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Gimzotoy said:
Sure, but that would not be aiding copyright infringement. Psystar would be free to suggest that you legally purchase a copy of OS X for installation on your new machine. If the user ultimately pirates it and infringes Apple's copyright, that's on the user.

If there's some kind of copyright protection that was circumvented by Rebel EFI, that'd be a DRM circumvention governed by the DMCA, not copyright law. From my limited knowlege of the Hackintosh scene, though, it appears that the OS X installer merely searches for an EFI bootloader and hardware from its supported list. EFI is an open standard, so that's not an issue.
Click to expand...

Discounting the balance of your comment for a moment, you just contradicted yourself. After all, the DMCA is Copyright Protection, governed by Copyright Law. The DMCA just assists in enforcing that law.

Also, purchasing OS X for your own use on your own machine is not 'Piracy.' To pirate an OS (or anything else) you are stealing it for resale elsewhere. This invalidates your first paragraph since Apple has, as yet, never commented on any 'Hackintoshes' created by private individuals for their own use.
 
Bs

I don't believe a word of it. All we have is Psystar's word that Apple has agreed to allow them to continue to sell Mac clones or the Rebel device. Given Psystar's history, I don't believe a word they say.

Count on a 'clarification' from Apple within 24 hours stating that the press reports are wrong and Apple never agreed to any such thing.
 
dongmin said:
My theory:

Apple was never concerned about Pystar itself. They were more concerned about setting a clear legal precedent that would discourage bigger PC makers, e.g. Dell or Acer, from trying the same thing.

Given that Apple got a clear and total legal victory here that should discourage potential mac cloners for years to come, Apple can move on to fighting other legal battles.
Click to expand...

Good point.


PeterQVenkman said:
perhaps we'll get our affordable headless mac after all.
Click to expand...

Based on what information?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back