Psystar Working on Mac OS X Netbook?

[*LTD*]

I don't see how that is analogous to the current situation in any way. In fact, Apple's beleaguered days were marked by there decision to license their OS to third parties.

Horrible decision. Took the whole Apple ship into Windows-like territory. That's what we want to stay away from. Apple losing control or having to relinquish control of their OS isn't good for anyone in the long run.

I remember those days pretty well. I was around 18 or 19 at the time and considered getting a Mac clone, but felt that it just wasn't the "real thing." Plus at the time I couldn't afford a new Mac so I just stuck with my trusty old PowerPC 6100/60. I got plenty of use out of that little wonder. When it was finally time to get rid of it I was sad to see it go.

 

[Eric S.]

Exactly- and it's we long-term pro Mac users who are getting the shaft. We don't buy Macs because they're pretty, we buy them for the OS. They've stopped listening to us completely, as is obvious by their entire line right now.

I couldn't agree more.

Of course they are. As long as they don't sell them with OS X installed.

Nope, still legal, until the justice system decides. We are not yet at the point where companies pass laws.

 

[pdjudd]

Horrible decision. Took the whole Apple ship into Windows-like territory. That's what we want to stay away from. Apple losing control or having to relinquish control of their OS isn't good for anyone in the long run.

Agreed. The only way it would have worked (and I have doubts that it would have worked) would be for Apple to have abandoned their hardware business. Of course if they were to do that now, they would just be crushed since all of the major OEM's cater to Microsoft. No matter how you slice it, competing with the 800 lb gorilla is darn tough.

 

[*LTD*]

Agreed. The only way it would have worked (ans I have doubts that it would have worked) would be for Apple to have abandoned their hardware business. Of course if they were to do that now, they would just be crushed since all of the major OEM's cater to Microsoft. No matter how you slice it, competing with the 800 lb gorilla is darn tough.

It's quite a different story these days, though, which is good news.

 

[BaldiMac]

Nope, still legal, until the justice system decides. We are not yet at the point where companies pass laws.

Once again, no one is claiming Apple can pass laws. They can enter into contracts. Violating a legal contract is illegal.

 

[smiddlehurst]

Horrible decision. Took the whole Apple ship into Windows-like territory. That's what we want to stay away from. Apple losing control or having to relinquish control of their OS isn't good for anyone in the long run.

I remember those days pretty well. I was around 18 or 19 at the time and considered getting a Mac clone, but felt that it just wasn't the "real thing." Plus at the time I couldn't afford a new Mac so I just stuck with my trusty old PowerPC 6100/60. I got plenty of use out of that little wonder. When it was finally time to get rid of it I was sad to see it go.

Okay so let me ask you a question: what would be so bad about Apple opening up their driver library and basically saying 'we have drivers for these graphics cards, wi-fi adaptors, sound cards etc - providing you buy these products (big list of products) OS X will work just as it would on Apple hardware but if it's not an iMac, MBP, MB, Mac mini or MP it's not supported by Apple'?

Think about it, you'd be using the exact same motherboard chipsets, processors, GPU's etc that are currently used in Apple machines. You could put them into a tower that actually has some air-flow or OEM's could build notebooks that DON'T cost a thousand pounds plus for the entry level model. You could introduce choice on the hardware side and expand the OS X market away from Apple's current (and frankly dodgy) hardware while still maintaining control over the OS via a relatively small list of compatible hardware. The last time they tried it parts were pretty much bespoke to Apple which made it very difficult. Nowadays everything they use is pretty much the same as any other PC you care to mention so what's the problem?

 

[pdjudd]

It's quite a different story these days, though, which is good news.

Well MS still has a 90+% market share (or somewhat around that). Apple is gauged to have a 3% worldwide market share. Apple stays around because they offer something distinctive that nobody else has - OSX. But thats not where Apple earns its money just as MS really doesn't make that much on retail sales of Windows. For Apple to loose the distinction of OSX makes it far less valuable and with their marketshare, they cannot afford that loss.

Apple doesn't compete with MS on even fronts becasue they cannot. Jobs even admits that Gates won that battle long ago.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Psystar's open computers are still legal.

Of course they are. As long as they don't sell them with OS X installed.

Until a court rules about the legality of Psystar's computer, the question of legality is moot.

 

[Eric S.]

Once again, no one is claiming Apple can pass laws. They can enter into contracts. Violating a legal contract is illegal.

Not until a court says it is. Courts throw out lots of contracts, or provisions of contracts, for being improper or unenforceable.

 

[gnasher729]

Why? Are they planning to arrest them?

One of the things that Apple wants the court to do is to order that all Psystar computers with illegal copies of MacOS X should be returned to Psystar. Depending on how nasty Apple wants to be, they could sue every single Psystar customer for copyright infringement. To do this, they need the names. And if a court decides that these copies of MacOS X are illegal, then it makes a lot of sense that Apple should be given the names of the people having these illegal copies.

On the other hand, if "them" is Psystar, withholding information in discovery while under oath is not a good idea. Apple claims that Psystar tries to play games in discovery, and that could get into criminal territory. Like their DMCA violations.

 

[BaldiMac]

Until a court rules about the legality of Psystar's computer, the question of legality is moot.

I'm not sure what your point is. An action can be legal or illegal without a court ruling. If you are just trying to say that our opinions are only opinions until the case is ruled on by the court... duh? It doesn't make the discussion any less interesting.

 

[BaldiMac]

Not until a court says it is. Courts throw out lots of contracts, or provisions of contracts, for being improper or unenforceable.

A contract isn't guilty until proven innocent. That is just criminal defendants.

A contract that is freely entered into is generally considered legal unless specific provisions are proven to be unconscionable or otherwise illegal.

 

[pdjudd]

A contract that is freely entered into is generally considered legal unless specific provisions are proven to be unconscionable or otherwise illegal.

Especially when the terms are understood before hand. People generally know that Apple's OS is not for use on other platforms and their agreements state that upfront. The fact that a judge already stated that Apple has the right to sell OSX in that fashion should speak to the validity of that agreement.

Of course when I say "generally", I refer to consumers. That still doesn't give Psystar an out since they are expected to understand said agreements and are held to a higher standard than you or I would be.

 

[Eric S.]

An action can be legal or illegal without a court ruling.

But there is no way to know whether an act is legal or illegal without a court ruling. Anything else would be an arbitrary justice procedure.

A contract that is freely entered into is generally considered legal unless specific provisions are proven to be unconscionable or otherwise illegal.

Well, "unless" is the big question. Courts have ruled some EULAs to be invalid because of invalid or unenforceable provisions. Until the Apple/Psystar case is settled in court we won't know whether the EULA is a valid contract in this instance.

 

[*LTD*]

It seems some people (perhaps unknowingly) want to turn OS X into Windows, or some kind of amalgamation thereof.

OS X's interface, stability, reliability, software quality, with Windows' hardware flexibility.

It just doesn't work that way, mostly because it can't. You can't have it both ways.

 

[BaldiMac]

But there is no way to know whether an act is legal or illegal without a court ruling. Anything else would be an arbitrary justice procedure.

Of course you can. If you break into a house and steal a TV, you would know that it was illegal without a court ruling.

 

[smiddlehurst]

It seems some people (perhaps unknowingly) want to turn OS X into Windows.

OS X's interface, stability, reliability, with Windows' hardware flexibility.

It just doesn't work that way, mostly because it can't. You can't have it both ways.

NO, what some of us want is for Apple to let us use the same bloody hardware they use to build our own machines. This is, basically, what the Hackintosh projects do and would be almost trivial for Apple to do if they wished it. The drivers already exist, it would be simple for a dedicated range of 'mac compatible' motherboards to be made that do Windows, OS X and (dare I say) Linux.

Again, no-one's saying 'give us a million and one choices of hardware ala Windows'. But OS X fundamentally is an X86 operating system these days, there's no reason from a technical standpoint why it wouldn't work just as well on a third party system provided the third party used recognised components and official Apple drivers. Heck, it may even be better if it can avoid some of the quality issues that Apple have experienced over the last few years.

 

[Eric S.]

Of course you can. If you break into a house and steal a TV, you would know that it was illegal without a court ruling.

Only theoretically. The law code may indicate that it is a crime, but you would not be actually guilty of anything until a court ruled that you were.

 

[WorldTravel26]

Of course you can. If you break into a house and steal a TV, you would know that it was illegal without a court ruling.

That's because legislatures have passed laws in regards to theft of personal property, and those laws have been upheld in courts of law. A legal precedent has been established.

However, as far as I know, no one has challenged Apple's EULA yet, therefore until a judge rules that Apple hasn't overstepped it's bounds regarding it's EULA, it still kinda a grey area.

It's gonna be interesting to see the outcome though, as "Mac Clone" companies are popping up all over the world. The latest one is in Germany and they claim they won't face the same troubles as Psystar . . . http://www.tuaw.com/2009/02/06/german-mac-clone-maker-claims-it-wont-face-psystars-legal-trou/

 

[Bubba Satori]

Once again, no one is claiming Apple can pass laws. They can enter into contracts. Violating a legal contract is illegal.

And until a court rules otherwise, Psystar is not doing anything illegal.

 

[Red-red]

And until a court rules otherwise, Psystar is not doing anything illegal.

In theory but it won't stay that way. Psystar are only delaying the inevitable, the know they can't win and they know what they are doing is illegal. It isn't their OS, It's apple's. If Apple wants to sell their own OS only on their hardware, they can.

 

[Winni]

Just so there's no confusion, I've always been against Psystar (they're thieves) and all that they stand for, from the very beginning, and the rest of these fly-by-night clone makers.

They're thieves? Really? And what are they stealing? They re-sell legally purchased OS X retail boxes with their computers. I don't know in what kind of insane legal system you live, but in my part of the world it isn't called stealing when you re-sell something that you have legally purchased. We call that trading. And, I might add, it's perfectly legal.

And to all those who still believe it is "against the law" to install OS X on non-Apple labeled computers: You are NOT breaking ANY law when you do that. Apple's EULA is a LICENSE AGREEMENT. IT IS NOT A LAW. Capice? It has not even been determined yet whether Apple's EULA is a valid and legally binding contract. And even if it is a contract, then it is a contract between Apple and an END user. Guess who's not an end user in the legal meaning of the word. Right: Psystar is NOT an end user. The company's a reseller.

Anyway. It's late, it's been a long day at work and it's going to be an even longer day tomorrow -- all thanks to Linux, by the way.

 

[Stellarola]

Psystar isn't working on a netbook. They're just waiting for a perfectly compatible netbook is out and then they'll use other people's work to put OS X on it. Trust me, this is how the game works. F*** Psystar.

 

[*LTD*]

They're thieves? Really? And what are they stealing? They re-sell legally purchased OS X retail boxes with their computers. I don't know in what kind of insane legal system you live, but in my part of the world it isn't called stealing when you re-sell something that you have legally purchased. We call that trading. And, I might add, it's perfectly legal.

And to all those who still believe it is "against the law" to install OS X on non-Apple labeled computers: You are NOT breaking ANY law when you do that. Apple's EULA is a LICENSE AGREEMENT. IT IS NOT A LAW. Capice? It has not even been determined yet whether Apple's EULA is a valid and legally binding contract. And even if it is a contract, then it is a contract between Apple and an END user. Guess who's not an end user in the legal meaning of the word. Right: Psystar is NOT an end user. The company's a reseller.

Anyway. It's late, it's been a long day at work and it's going to be an even longer day tomorrow -- all thanks to Linux, by the way.

They are not licensed resellers. And worse, they're making modifications to the product. I think you're getting confused with what software licensing (for resale) is and isn't.

Intellectual property is not the same as physical property. In this case, a user's rights with respect to ownership aren't the same either.

 

[gnasher729]

They're thieves? Really? And what are they stealing? They re-sell legally purchased OS X retail boxes with their computers. I don't know in what kind of insane legal system you live, but in my part of the world it isn't called stealing when you re-sell something that you have legally purchased. We call that trading. And, I might add, it's perfectly legal.

Winnie, in your part of the world what Psystar is doing is called "Unlauterer Wettbewerb" and the courts would have stamped it out long, long time ago. In your part of the world contracts between companies are binding, and the license that comes with MacOS X retail packages is a contract that would be absolutely one hundred percent binding for a company like Psystar. You are confusing consumer rights and contract law as it applies to companies.

And your assertion that the license doesn't apply because Psystar is not an end user but a reseller makes as much sense as claiming that the speed limit on the road doesn't apply to you because you have no driver's license. Good luck relying on that argument in court.

It's gonna be interesting to see the outcome though, as "Mac Clone" companies are popping up all over the world. The latest one is in Germany and they claim they won't face the same troubles as Psystar . . .

Well, PearC is a one-man shop selling out of the garage in a semi-detached home in a residential area in Wolfsburg. I suppose Apple Germany hasn't noticed him yet, or they couldn't find a phone number (neither the company nor its Geschäftsführer seem to have one).

And until a court rules otherwise, Psystar is not doing anything illegal.

You seem to confuse things. Psystar started doing illegal things sometime last year. A court ruling will only make it official, but it is illegal right now.