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

Psystar Working on Mac OS X Netbook?

Wow. People here seem to think that EULA's (i.e. contracts) are law.

So let's say Apple makes a EULA that says, "by buying this computer, you become a slave to us for life." So if you buy a computer, (without reading the EULA beforehand), and you refuse to be a slave, are you breaking the law? No, of course not, because companies can't legislate. A EULA must be upheld in court to be law.
 
gnasher729 said:
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.
Click to expand...

He doesn't seem to understand that OS X, as property, is not the same as physical property.


Beric said:
Wow. People here seem to think that EULA's (i.e. contracts) are law.

So let's say Apple makes a EULA that says, "by buying this computer, you become a slave to us for life." So if you buy a computer, (without reading the EULA beforehand), and you refuse to be a slave, are you breaking the law? No, of course not, because companies can't legislate. A EULA must be upheld in court to be law.
Click to expand...

it isn't about the EULA.

It's about a company stealing Apple's intellectual property, modifying it, and reselling it at a profit.
 
*LTD* said:
it isn't about the EULA.

It's about a company stealing Apple's intellectual property, modifying it, and reselling it at a profit.
Click to expand...

Psystar pays for every copy of OS X. Paying for something is not stealing it, by definition.
 
Beric said:
Psystar pays for every copy of OS X. Paying for something is not stealing it, by definition.
Click to expand...

They pay for it *allegedly.* That hasn't been proven yet. But assuming they do pay for it, fine. THEN what do they do with it? That's the issue.

Psystar is in violation of Apple's Intellectual Property rights.

The intellectual property laws in the United States provide the owners of intellectual property with discretion to license the right to use that property or to make or sell products that embody the intellectual property.

There are limitations and restrictions on that to a certain degree, but what is essentially being argued by some of the Pro-Psystar people here is that Apple shouldn't have any intellectual property rights with respect to OS X to begin with once a sale is made, which is a fallacious argument.
 
Beric said:
Psystar pays for every copy of OS X. Paying for something is not stealing it, by definition.
Click to expand...

No, they are not stealing the disc, they are stealing the intellectual property by modifying and illegally distributing it without the owners consent and running a business behind it. Simply because money changed hands at some point does not make it legal. The sale of OSX is based on the contingency that you either sell it directly (not resell, but a first sale doctrine) or that you agree to the licensee contained (something that Psystar has a greater obligation to since they are a company). You can't just get out a traffic citation by paying the cost of the ticket to the cop and expect him to say that we are all cool. One of the simple rules that Apple asks that you follows is that you do not modify their source code. Psystar did that. They stole the intellectual control that Apple is legally entitled to.

ETA: This assumes that psystar bought these discs. They simply assert that. We have no proof of that and they are not providing the necessary proof to clear them of that. That doesn't even begin to address the fact that they are not resellers anyway. If psystar cannot prove they bought anything than the court will not be happy and psystar will have difficulty defending themselves. If psystar does not comply with discovery proceeding, they can be held in contempt of court. Apple can amend their charges or demand they be investigated for piracy - without proof of sale, they will have a hard time establishing that they are not thieves.

Just so we are clear on all this, this case is about copywrite and Apples intellectual property. Not an EULA. Psystars defense involves Apples' EULA, but that is besides the point.
 
pdjudd said:
No, they are not stealing the disc, they are stealing the intellectual property by modifying and illegally distributing it without the owners consent and running a business behind it.

Just so we are clear on all this, this case is about copywrite and Apples intellectual property. Not an EULA. Psystars defense involves Apples' EULA, but that is besides the point.
Click to expand...

This is exactly it.

I'm sure some of the posters here would change their tune if it was their own Intellectual Property being compromised. One problem (among several) is that they would be out a ton of money.
 
*LTD* said:
This is exactly it.

I'm sure some of the poster's here would change their tune if it was their own Intellectual Property being compromised. One problem (among several) is that they would be out a ton of money.
Click to expand...

The difficulty with all this is that intellectual property is viewed as an intangible and thusly it becomes very hard to draw analogues to it in real life and define how one can steal it. Especially if it is distributed on a physical medium that can be bought and paid for. It is very difficult to explain this kind of stuff and gets really complicated really fast.

The other things is that many people simply do not make a living on intellectual property or have had their creations ripped off. Its hard to conceptualize how business run when you deal with what amounts to bits.
 
*LTD* said:
This is exactly it.

I'm sure some of the posters here would change their tune if it was their own Intellectual Property being compromised. One problem (among several) is that they would be out a ton of money.
Click to expand...

Why would I care? If I got money for each copy, and it wasn't illegally distributed, I wouldn't lose a buck. And exactly that's what Psystar is doing, as far as we know.
 
I don't think Pystar or the hackintosh segment will ever present a serious threat to Apple as most Mac people want the Mac, not just OSX, but I have to say I think the hackintosh stuff will eventually take a good bit of revenue away from Apple..

I used to think it would be limited to weekend hacker enthusiasts who mostly wouldn't have purchased a Mac anyways, but wow has it come a long way. Just for kicks, I tried it with my older Dell e1705and it was incredibly simple. I mean I literally burned an ISO file to a DVD, and after a regular installation I only had to run a post-install "Dell utilities" app and then every single component was working on my laptop. This is far from the experience installing OSX86 was a year ago...
 
Beric said:
Why would I care? If I got money for each copy, and it wasn't illegally distributed, I wouldn't lose a buck. And exactly that's what Psystar is doing, as far as we know.
Click to expand...

But you are not Apple nor can you speak or on behalf of them. Apple sells OSX at the price and under the license that they do so that they scan sell their hardware in an integrated system - something that is very legal. Apple sells OSX in the fashion that they do because they want you to own a Mac.

Not to mention that psystar is redistributing OSX without consent of Apple after modifying it. It doesn't matter if money is changing hands or not. Psystar is violating Apple's trademarks and copywrites by modifying Apples copywritten intellectual property and Apple doesn't allow for that. That is their prerogative as the owners of it.

You purchasing a disc with code on it does not entail you any ownership privileges whatsoever. That right is maintained by Apple.
 
winterspan said:
I don't think Pystar or the hackintosh segment will ever present a serious threat to Apple as most Mac people want the Mac, not just OSX, but I have to say I think the hackintosh stuff will eventually take a good bit of revenue away from Apple..
Click to expand...

I don't think it will at all. Simply because it just gives users choices. Before the hackintosh was possible users just picked up a Windows or Linux PC. Now, it will be the same save for the Hackintosh.

Given the option, I am sure many will still choose the full blown Mac for their needs, but those that have "special" "niche" needs, like gamers and such that really want the software but want better hardware will choose the Hackintosh.

I am still going for the Mac Pro, but I'd get a hackintosh netbook for $400 any day.
 
Digital Skunk said:
Given the option, I am sure many will still choose the full blown Mac for their needs, but those that have "special" "niche" needs, like gamers and such that really want the software but want better hardware will choose the Hackintosh.
Click to expand...

Apple isn't all that concerned about individuals making hackintosh netbooks or whatnot (sol long as piracy is not involved). Its just too damn time consuming to do much about it. Apple cannot read the minds of people buying Leopard in store or online to see what their intentions are. Apple knows darn well that the vast majority of people will just buy a Mac

What Apple does care about are businesses doing this and ultimately business will screw this while things up because it dilutes Apples trademarks and copywrites and actually poses a threat to them and their business (which is legal). So long as it remains in the minority and there is no business or organization around it (for example people distributing pirated iso's or re-distributing Apple's copywriten code), Apple will just let it go.

Apple just has to protect their own code and make sure that people are not ripping them off and profiting of of that.
 
pdjudd said:
What Apple does care about are businesses doing this and ultimately business will screw this while things up because it dilutes Apples trademarks and copywrites and actually poses a threat to them and their business (which is legal).
Click to expand...

. . . which threatens the integrity of the product, which will affect the average user, you and me.

Quite frankly, I'd only trust Apple with OS X.
 
*LTD* said:
. . . which threatens the integrity of the product, which will affect the average user, you and me.
Click to expand...
Exactly. While that might take a long time, I agree that will happen.

Quite frankly, I'd only trust Apple with OS X.
Click to expand...
Apple and people who are authorized to work with them - their partners for example would be ok.
 
Beric said:
Wow. People here seem to think that EULA's (i.e. contracts) are law.

So let's say Apple makes a EULA that says, "by buying this computer, you become a slave to us for life." So if you buy a computer, (without reading the EULA beforehand), and you refuse to be a slave, are you breaking the law? No, of course not, because companies can't legislate. A EULA must be upheld in court to be law.
Click to expand...

Since Apple doesn't make a EULA that says "by buying this computer, you become a slave to us for life.", it seems that you are building up a straw man and nothing else. Maybe you can point us to something in Apple's license for Leopard that you think would be rejected by a court.

Beric said:
Why would I care? If I got money for each copy, and it wasn't illegally distributed, I wouldn't lose a buck. And exactly that's what Psystar is doing, as far as we know.
Click to expand...

Now we are switching from straw man to factually incorrect. "If I got money for each copy" looks quite dubious at the moment, at least Psystar seems not to have any receipts for the MacOS X retail boxes they claim they are buying. "If it wasn't illegally" distributed: That exactly is what the whole court case is about. Since Apple doesn't license MacOS X for installation on Psystar computers, it _is_ illegally distributed. And at last "I wouldn't lose a buck" is of course wrong, since Psystar's illegal distribution of Apple's software makes Apple lose computer sales.
 
NoSmokingBandit said:
Illegally tying two separate products seems pretty obvious...
Click to expand...

They are not tying, tying involves two separate products, one of which the consumer would not buy normally. They have to buy one unwanted AND unrelated product to get the product they really want. e.g. I want to buy a toaster, but the store only sells the toaster I want with a vacuum I don't want. That is tying.

An OS and the hardware needed to run it are quite related.
 
NoSmokingBandit said:
Illegally tying two separate products seems pretty obvious...
Click to expand...

You are getting boring. Judge Alsup (the one who handles the case between Apple and Psystar) has already decided months ago that Apple is not involved in any illegal tying of separate products. That's decided, game over, don't mention it again.
 
r.j.s said:
They are not tying, tying involves two separate products, one of which the consumer would not buy normally. They have to buy one unwanted AND unrelated product to get the product they really want. e.g. I want to buy a toaster, but the store only sells the toaster I want with a vacuum I don't want. That is tying.

An OS and the hardware needed to run it are quite related.
Click to expand...

I want to buy Leopard, but i dont want to buy a mac.
They dont have to be unrelated, just 2 separate products. Fender cant force me to buy one of their guitars if i want to use their brand strings.
 
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