Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 28th Aug 2009 22:05 UTC
Legal The week isn't even over yet, and we already have another instalment in the Apple-Psystar soap opera. Psystar has filed a new lawsuit in the Florida Southern District Court in Miami, asking for an injunction and damages because of Apple's "anticompetitive attempts to tie Mac OS X Snow Leopard to its Macintosh line of computers".
Order by: Score:
I'm confused...
by JayDee on Fri 28th Aug 2009 22:37 UTC
JayDee
Member since:
2009-06-02

Apple is suing Psystar for installing OSX on non apple labelled computers and now Psystar is suing Apple for preventing them from installing the newest version of OSX on non apple labelled computers? This makes no sense to me but it is the US justice system we're talking about here... Nothing seems to ever make sense. Why can't they just settle their issued already. I would love to have the option of installing OSX on any computer I wish. If a mac user can install Windows, why can't a PC user install OSX?

Reply Score: 2

RE: I'm confused...
by merlin747 on Fri 28th Aug 2009 22:53 UTC in reply to "I'm confused..."
merlin747 Member since:
2006-11-09

hehe... that's the US for you... maybe they should improve the software patent system. :-P

That would be really funny to see...

Reply Score: 2

RE: I'm confused...
by looncraz on Sat 29th Aug 2009 02:51 UTC in reply to "I'm confused..."
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

It is like hedging your bets... if Psystar wins this new suit, which is actually rather likely, then they can almost afford to lose the previous so long as no damages are awarded.

The new lawsuit likely focuses on Snow Leopard and any product thereby derived. As such when/if Psystar wins the lawsuit they will be able to continue business as usual indefinitely with Apple forbidden to interfere.

Now, let us assume Psystar loses the current case:

They are found guilty of copyright/patent violation and told to stop distributing MacOS X... except MacOS X isn't a single product - it is a product line. Therefore, the court orders on each case of infringement individually, but a court has already settled the newest round of products ( Snow Leopard+ ), so those become legal - with everything that Psystar has done no longer meaning anything at all.

This really only holds completely true so long as Apple doesn't re-decide to seek damages ( though they probably can't prove any damages ).

The best result, naturally, is that Psystar clearly wins both cases. A good result is that Psystar wins the second case, regardless of the first.

The bad case is that Psystar loses both. Then we are full fscked.

--The loon

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: I'm confused...
by Tuishimi on Sat 29th Aug 2009 06:44 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm confused..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

It is like hedging your bets... if Psystar wins this new suit, which is actually rather likely, then they can almost afford to lose the previous so long as no damages are awarded.


You think? Shall we place a wager?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I'm confused...
by jragosta on Sat 29th Aug 2009 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm confused..."
jragosta Member since:
2009-08-29

"if Psystar wins this new suit, which is actually rather likely"

Sure - as likely as hell freezing over.

The judge already rules on this issue wrt Leopard. His ruling was that Apple was not abusing its copyrights in refusing to license its OS to all comers.

Snow Leopard is even stronger for Apple - because the Snow Leopard advertising specifically states that it's an upgrade. The courts have consistently ruled that upgrade licenses are enforceable - that is, Microsoft can sell you an upgrade license for less money than a full license and you can't install it on a clean system.

Psystar has even less chance of winning this one than the one they ALREADY lost. Dell's not getting much of a return for all the money they spent supporting Psystar.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I'm confused...
by Morgan on Sat 29th Aug 2009 12:26 UTC in reply to "I'm confused..."
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

If a mac user can install Windows, why can't a PC user install OSX?


You've hit on the one point that truly stands out to me. EULAs aside, it is just as trivial to install OS X on a PC as it is to install Windows or Linux on a Mac; either way it's a small freely available bit of software that enables booting the "foreign" OS. As far as I'm concerned, Apple is being quite hypocritical about it. They would have a valid argument in my eyes if they completely disallowed other OSes on their hardware, but in fact they promote the ability to run Windows as a benefit to buying a Mac. This makes them seem petty and childish with their lawsuits against "clone" makers.

I love OS X, and I love the simplicity and overall design of Macs. But I can't stand Apple's business practices sometimes.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: I'm confused...
by wirespot on Mon 31st Aug 2009 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm confused..."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

You can't say "EULAs aside" because that's exactly the point of the matter: Psystar broke Apple's EULA and is trying to justify it in very creative ways.

The EULA is a set of terms set by the creator of the software. Apple made some hardware, and made some software, and said "here's the package, take it or leave it." If you don't like the EULA terms fine, don't buy, or return what you bought and you'll be reimbursed. Because the EULA is the only thing giving you a license to do anything with Mac OS X, and if you don't agree to it you have no rights over it, period.

This is basic copyright law and it affects everything, including Windows, GPL etc. If in some absurd way Psystar managed to win this it would throw ALL software on its head.

You're probably confusing things with the old EULA troubles, which were about software companies who tried to sneak the EULA past the buyer and make them agree to it automatically, without even knowing what was in it. That's no longer the case. Nowadays, responsible companies (Apple included) make it very clear what the EULA is BEFORE you buy. The terms are on their website and on the box of their products.

It's every company's right to set whatever terms they want (within the law) for stuff they've created themselves. It's Apple's right and no, Psystar CAN NOT come and say "hey, let's ignore what the creator licensed us to do and set up a business to compete directly with the creator, using their own stuff." That's not allowable, nor sane.

Comparison with Windows is null, because it's apples and oranges. Microsoft have a licensing model which allows a hardware-maker to pair Windows with their own hardware, in fact it's their main bread winner. As far as the Windows terms of use are concerned, Apple is just another OEM, and perfectly within its rights to offer people methods of installing Windows on its hardware.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I'm confused...
by tupp on Mon 31st Aug 2009 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I'm confused..."
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Psystar broke Apple's EULA...

Not really. Pystar is clearly not the "end user" of the "End User License Agreement." They are merely installing OSX at the behest of the end user. Perfectly acceptable.


Apple made some hardware, and made some software, and said "here's the package, take it or leave it."

Not really. Apple sells stand-alone, retail versions of OSX.


If you don't like the EULA terms fine, don't buy, or return what you bought and you'll be reimbursed

No company (including Apple) can dictate new terms to the purchaser of their product, after the product is purchased. Apple cannot reasonably nor validly demand that a user return OSX, if the user sees the EULA only after the purchase. Any special terms probably have to be agreed upon at the point of sale, prior to the deal.


Because the EULA is the only thing giving you a license to do anything with Mac OS X, and if you don't agree to it you have no rights over it, period.

Not really. EULA provisions are not automatically valid, just because the manufacturer makes a declaration. Some EULAs and many individual terms of EULAs have been deemed invalid by the courts. Some EULA provisions have been deemed valid.

Also, post-sale restrictions on non-software items are generally not allowed. Why should a software get special treatment? Should a software CD be treated differently than a music CD?


Because the EULA is the only thing giving you a license to do anything with Mac OS X, and if you don't agree to it you have no rights over it, period. This is basic copyright law

No.

The one-button-mousers on this forum consistently have trouble distinguishing between:
- copyright law;
- trademark law;
- patent law;
- consumer protection law;
- private contract clauses;
- restrictive manufacturer declarations (EULAs);
- and grants of extra permissions (most open-source licenses).

An EULA has nothing to do with copyright law, except for the fact that most EULAs contain provisions that unnecessarily reiterate basic copyright rules. The EULA terms that are usually in question in this forum, are the ones that try to impose post-sale restrictions on use.


Nowadays, responsible companies (Apple included) make it very clear what the EULA is BEFORE you buy. The terms are on their website and on the box of their products.

For such an agreement to valid at all, it really has to be presented on or before the sale and at the point of sale.

Not sure if the OSX EULA appears on the outside of the box, but any valid agreement should really be signed and witnessed.

Manufacturers cannot reasonably demand that users go to a web site before a sale.

Furthermore, if one is buying OSX so that one can get on the Internet, one has no way of seeing the EULA web page until after one installs OSX.


It's every company's right to set whatever terms they want (within the law) for stuff they've created themselves.

One of the heated questions discussed on this forum is whether or not the OSX EULA post-sale restrictions are "within the law."


It's Apple's right and no, Psystar CAN NOT come and say "hey, let's ignore what the creator licensed us to do and set up a business to compete directly with the creator, using their own stuff."

Again, Psystar is not the "end user," so, the OSX EULA doesn't necessarily cover them.

The "creator?" Are we likening Apple to a deity?


That's not allowable, nor sane.

Why? If one buys a product (including a copy of a copyrighted item), one owns that product and should be able to use it in a way he/she sees fit.

What is not sane about that basic fair trade principle?


Comparison with Windows is null, because it's apples and oranges. Microsoft have a licensing model which allows a hardware-maker to pair Windows with their own hardware, in fact it's their main bread winner. As far as the Windows terms of use are concerned, Apple is just another OEM, and perfectly within its rights to offer people methods of installing Windows on its hardware.

What is fair and correct should be so, regardless of what "licensing model" Apple or Microsoft declare.

Just because Apple declares that they want to restrict post-sale use of OSX, doesn't make it fair and correct.

Apple could declare in a EULA that all OSNews users named wirespot can only use OSX on Tuesday mornings, standing on one leg. Is such a restriction fair and correct just because it is Apple's "licensing model?"

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: I'm confused...
by umccullough on Mon 31st Aug 2009 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I'm confused..."
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

"That's not allowable, nor sane.


Why? If one buys a product (including a copy of a copyrighted item), one owns that product and should be able to use it in a way he/she sees fit.

What is not sane about that basic fair trade principle?
"

It's kinda like telling someone they can't read a book they bought at night because it looks best in daylight - or you can't listen to a CD you bought with a cheap player, because it might distort the music. In this case, the problem is that Psystar wants to sell a cheaper player along with the music so that the consumer can get both as a single package.

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding because there has been a lot of FUD and bullshit fed down our throats for the last decade or two about "intellectual property" and "rights"... The mashing of copyright law, trademark law, patent law, contract law, etc. into a single "intellectual property law" category is a disaster for everyone except the lawyers.

It really is time to clean up the mess and stop feeding shit to the consumers.

Yes, it will hurt some companies and industries who have been taking advantage of the confusion, helping to feed the bullshit, while lobbying to pass more laws to restrict rights and protect their profits... but what they have done to the free market and consumer rights in general is absolutely pitiful.

Anyhow, I'm sure my opinions, and pro-consumer attitude will be picked apart as ridiculous and pathetic ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: I'm confused...
by wirespot on Tue 1st Sep 2009 07:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I'm confused..."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

You make some valid points, as far as logic is concerned, and I agree with some of them. Unfortunately, the US legal system doesn't agree with us. Here's a breakdown:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009081716312060

Basically, what you say about Psystar installing OSX on behalf of its customers *should* hold water. But according to the US courts it is regarded as breaking the first sale doctrine and breaching DMCA. The Psystar case in California is therefore (was) pretty much open and shut. DMCA is a tricky bastard and it will do that to you.

No company (including Apple) can dictate new terms to the purchaser of their product, after the product is purchased.

Yes, they can. That's exactly what software licenses are.

Why? Because that's how copyright works. By default, once someone (human or company or green alien) has written a program, they're the only ones with ANY rights to it. The ONLY way anybody else can do ANYTHING with that software is if the creator (and please stop picking on individual terms such as this) EXPLICITLY allows it. And yes, the creator can make up any terms they want, provided they're legal.

The license nowadays, for commercial programs, may well come in the form of an EULA. You keep likening EULAs to contract law, which they were at some point, but vendors got smarter since a few years ago. Today an EULA contains a copyright license. You don't agree to it, you AUTOMATICALLY lose all rights to do ANYTHING with that software.

Apple says in their license that they forbid resale and several other things Psystar has done. Blamo, the moment Psystar doesn't agree they can't touch OS X anymore.

Also, post-sale restrictions on non-software items are generally not allowed. Why should a software get special treatment? Should a software CD be treated differently than a music CD?

Again, you're confusing copyright with sales. ANY intellectual creation is subject to copyright. Music is intellectual creation. There's a license to the music on the CD printed on the CD case. You can read it in the store. But it's only a matter of convenience. Even if you couldn't, the creator's licensing terms still apply. You don't agree with them, you don't get to do anything with that creation (be it music, software etc.)

Of course, there's the matter of the fact you already payed for something which you can't use. This was the the source of some trouble, because some vendors would like to not have to return your money in such a case. But there are ways of solving this amicably. Like I said, there are clear terms printed on the shrinkwrap boxes.

Apple could declare in a EULA that all OSNews users named wirespot can only use OSX on Tuesday mornings, standing on one leg. Is such a restriction fair and correct just because it is Apple's "licensing model?"

Yes. They made the software. They can dictate any terms they want. They can offer preferential terms to some users (ie. anybody but wirespot) if they want. The same applies to any software maker. Take it or leave it. As long as they don't force you to take it, it's their right.

Trust me, you don't want it to be any other way. The moment copyright falls a lot of the world as we know it would go to pieces.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: I'm confused...
by rising_hope on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 00:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I'm confused..."
rising_hope Member since:
2006-12-22

So, basically, what you're saying is, Psystar is going to get their @$s handed to them in court.

It seems to me, there's another (admittedly more expensive) way they could actually be a legitimate operation. If they came up with a software or hardware solution, similar to EFI-X, that would allow there end users to install OSX without modification, and made computers which advertised this to be possible, even if it didn't actually contain an OS at all, that might actually be legal. They'd merely have to also have a disclaimer saying that this claim was not endorsed or authorized by Apple or Psystar and indemnify themselves that route. They could even go so far as becoming an authorized Apple re-seller, and sell Apple systems with OS pre-bundled, and have a legitimate reason to carry and sell OS X licenses. That would take the legal abuse out of the hands of Psystar and place them solely in the hands of the end users. It'd be stretching the law, but probably not breaking it. After all, manufacturers of drugs like Cortislim get away with it all the time stating "These claims have not been evaluated or endorsed by the FDA."

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: I'm confused...
by Morgan on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 16:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I'm confused..."
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

You can't say "EULAs aside" because that's exactly the point of the matter: Psystar broke Apple's EULA and is trying to justify it in very creative ways.


Yes I can. I can say anything I damn well please. Or am I suddenly not allowed (by whom??) to be able to discuss the hardware aspects of this case, or the marketing aspects?

The EULA is a set of terms set by the creator of the software. Apple made some hardware, and made some software, and said "here's the package, take it or leave it."


But, as others here have said, it's not quite that simple. Apple sells OS X in a retail box as well as bundling it with the hardware they sell; it's not just a package deal. Given that, it is no more logical for them to restrict me from installing it on my generic box I bought from Psystar or whomever, than it is for Microsoft to tell me I can't install Windows on my toaster. Fact is, Microsoft has never said you can only install Windows on a certain brand or even type of computer; if they did that they wouldn't exist, or at least wouldn't be an OS developer for long.


If you don't like the EULA terms fine, don't buy, or return what you bought and you'll be reimbursed. Because the EULA is the only thing giving you a license to do anything with Mac OS X, and if you don't agree to it you have no rights over it, period.


That's another huge debate in itself, which is why I said "EULAs aside"; I wasn't focusing on EULA validity. That has been hashed and rehashed here and elsewhere for years. My point was and still is that Apple is being mighty hypocritical about it. To avoid looking the fool, they should either allow OS X to be installed on any compatible hardware (with no expectation of support if it's not an Apple machine) or they should not sell it as a retail OS.


Comparison with Windows is null, because it's apples and oranges. Microsoft have a licensing model which allows a hardware-maker to pair Windows with their own hardware, in fact it's their main bread winner. As far as the Windows terms of use are concerned, Apple is just another OEM, and perfectly within its rights to offer people methods of installing Windows on its hardware.


A computer is a computer is a computer. Apple is indeed just another OEM, which is why it is so hypocritical for them to try to restrict OS X to only one brand of computer.

Don't get me wrong; I know exactly why Apple won't open up licensing for their OS. For one thing, they would stand to lose a lot of money as they have double digit profit margins on their computers. Apart from the Mac mini, their hardware is quite expensive compared to even high-end generic kit. Also, support calls for non-Apple hardware would go through the roof and quickly overwhelm their support base, never mind that they don't even have to offer support in the first place if they don't want to. The calls will come regardless.

I'm sorry you missed my point entirely and chose to rant about EULAs. While license agreements are a big part in this debate, it's not what I was talking about at all. Perhaps I've clarified enough so you can understand what I'm talking about.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I'm confused...
by viton on Tue 1st Sep 2009 11:41 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm confused..."
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

This makes them seem petty and childish with their lawsuits against "clone" makers.


Microsoft doesn't sell PC hardware, so they can't dictate which HW you can use. Apple does.
Imagine what Microsoft will do if you create XBALL360 and rip their software.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I'm confused...
by Morgan on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 16:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I'm confused..."
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Microsoft also doesn't offer the Xbox dashboard and firmware as a retail package. Not only that, the Xbox is a one-off game console; there are no generic ones with Windows or Linux or any other OS out there, and you can't go into Fry's or MicroCenter and buy the parts to cobble one together. It's not anywhere near the same market as PCs and it really has nothing to do with the Psystar case.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I'm confused...
by rockwell on Mon 31st Aug 2009 13:55 UTC in reply to "I'm confused..."
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

If a mac user can install Windows, why can't a PC user install OSX?


Um, because Steve Jobs is a douchebag? Here's the thing that Mac fanbois can't get through their skulls: Windows will always outsell OS X, because it's cheaper and, for 99% of computer users, it's "good enough."

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I'm confused...
by Morgan on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 16:55 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm confused..."
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Your inflammatory language notwithstanding, you are correct: Windows is "good enough" for the masses, especially now that Windows 7 is out. It's not really cheaper though, unless you are talking about the total cost of the computer (hardware and software), and even there one could argue perceived value. As I've said before, it all comes down to money. Apple firmly believes they will lose more on hardware sales than they will gain in OS sales, especially when you figure in losses due to rising support costs.

After reading the exhausting but quite comprehensive review of Snow Leopard at Ars Technica, I'm inclined to believe that Apple is also quite proud of their achievements and are wary of seeing their baby on unsupported hardware. After all, most of the improvements in SL are geared towards developers whose projects are tied to the popularity of the Mac ecosystem. If OS X becomes just another OS then why not jump ship to Windows or even Linux?

I think that's another big issue; the Mac has always been and always will be a niche product. Apple likes it that way. They are a brand, a fashion statement, a social club where the price of admittance is the iMac on your desk or the MacBook in your lap.

I'm a poor man by most standards; I struggle to pay my mortgage and car payment and I work for the local government. Yet I have owned several Macs in my life and when the time comes I'll own another one (I no longer count the Performa 460 up in the attic). The thing is, I don't like Apple as much for the glamour as I do for the technical aspects of their OS. I'd love to be able to run OS X without a hitch on this machine, but it's an AMD box with very little OS X-friendly hardware. In the past it's been worth the extra money to buy a refurb Mac to get OS X; now that SL is only $30 perhaps even I can afford to build a "clone" of my own and for once have the best of both worlds.

Edited 2009-09-02 17:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

merlin747
Member since:
2006-11-09

I don't know why this is considered to be news anymore... Apple runs on its own hardware. People who don't like it are free to run what they'd like (I'd suggest Ubuntu or Fedora 11 myself, though Windows 7 feels like the best Windows in years).

Stop crying about it, Psystar... try doing something original and useful...

Kelly

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Why is it blood-sucking? I re-sold countless copies of Apple software... Does that make me blood-sucking?

Just wondering, because vampires are kinda cool. Rawr!

Reply Score: 1

merlin747 Member since:
2006-11-09

They remind me of patent trolls here in the states... they just suck off what other companies have done. What "value" has Psystar added to their customers?

The US needs all kinds of reforms in its legal systems: music distribution monopolies, software patents, etc.

Reply Score: 0

Calipso Member since:
2007-03-13

wait...so you're saying that unless you're the company that wrote the software/engineered the product, you shouldn't be allowed to sell it? So companies that sell products that they had nothing to do with creating are in your eyes 'blood sucking' ??

Reply Score: 5

tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

wait...so you're saying that unless you're the company that wrote the software/engineered the product, you shouldn't be allowed to sell it? So companies that sell products that they had nothing to do with creating are in your eyes 'blood sucking' ??


Don't confuse a license to sell another companies products to a company not licensed to sell another companies products and now sues that company for not extending a license to sell that company's goods.

Edited 2009-08-29 18:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Don't confuse a license to sell another companies products to a company not licensed to sell another companies products and now sues that company for not extending a license to sell that company's goods.

You don't need a licence to sell software, period.

The most Apple can do is have retail partners (ie resellers they endorse and recommend). What they can't do is dictate who can and can't sell their software.

Reply Score: 2

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

What "value" has Psystar added to their customers?


Psystar sells their systems with features not available on Apple systems, and at a very competitive price.

RAID, BluRay, 10,000 rpm drives are available built-to-order, as well as lower-cost Core2Duo desktops.

Reply Score: 6

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Does that give Hyundai the right to buy Mercedes Benz logos from a junkyard and put them on their cars? Of course not.


No, but if Hyundai buys engines from Mercedes (and Mercedes is willing to sell them) and puts them in their cars, they are completely free to do so. They can also buy Merceds cars, yank out the engines, and then put those in Hyundais, and sell them. Mercedes wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Similarly, Apple should not have a leg to stand on either. As long as Psystar does not violate copyright (other than to circumvent Apple's protection measures), they should be able to buy and sell how they want to.

Edited 2009-08-29 14:18 UTC

Reply Score: 9

Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

Nowhere, no how, no way is Psystar advertising or labeling their computers as being "Apples." Quite the opposite, their entire business model is based on selling computers that are obviously NOT Apple products.

If Psystar were placing Apple logos on their computers, or advertising OSX as being their own product, those would be serious copyright infringements and completely illegal.

Edited 2009-08-29 18:51 UTC

Reply Score: 3

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

If Psystar were placing Apple logos on their computers, or advertising OSX as being their own product, those would be serious copyright infringements and completely illegal.


And trademark infringement as well...

Edited 2009-08-29 23:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

What "value" has Psystar added to their customers?


They have added some much-needed competition for computers running OS X and offered low cost OS X capable computers.

Reply Score: 4

Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

What "value" has Psystar added to their customers?


Snapping a few parts together and installing an operating system doesn't add value? Funny, most computer customers think it's a valuable service, and thousands of companies oblige by doing just that.

Ever hear of Dell? Did you think Dell writes their own operating systems?

Reply Score: 2

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Mac OS X is a ( yet to be judged illegal based on false claim of property rights ) BSD , MIT , GPL LGPL , etc derivative.

99.8% of Mac OS X was not created by Apple ... nor do they own the technology or creation behind it.

Apple is now using other generic computer parts to create it's own branded computers.

100% was not created by or for Apple ... nor do they own the technology or creation behind it.

------

Apple is not given the right to close others technology creator technology , that they themself borrowed to do their solution because they are re/branding it.

Psystar is actually doing it right by chalenging something they don't like , in court.

Funny that you mentionned Red Hat ( Fedora ) because they have a couple cases where people argued Red Hat was Free Software so people could do anything they want with Red Hat product.

Red Hat argued , in court , that the code was not the problem , but that their branding was their own , and the court agreed with them.

Apple is the one crying for special measure and treatment here.

Apple are blocking people from servicing needs and wants on Mac OS X that they themself refuse to cover and convey.

That's anti competitive.
That's illegal.
That's blocking innovation and creation.
That's against Free Trade.
That's against social-capitalism.

Apple can't even argue , this time , that Psystar pirated or stole their copy of Apple Mac OS X.

Reply Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

That's anti competitive.
That's illegal.
That's blocking innovation and creation.
That's against Free Trade.
That's against social-capitalism.


That made my day dude

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Mac OS X is a ( yet to be judged illegal based on false claim of property rights ) BSD , MIT , GPL LGPL , etc derivative. 99.8% of Mac OS X was not created by Apple ... nor do they own the technology or creation behind it.


So Aqua is less than 1% of OSX? That's pretty impressive given the size of xorg.

I find it funny how you are the biggest gpl advocate here and yet obviously are not a programmer or even have any idea as to how much work goes into something like OSX.

It only comfirms my previous experiences with gpl advocates which is that the most vocal don't produce anything of value. They just want all programmers to give their work away for free.

Reply Score: 2

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

So Aqua is less than 1% of OSX?


"Aqua is the graphical user interface and primary visual theme of Apple Inc.'s Mac OS X operating system."

That's pretty impressive given the size of xorg.


http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/MacOSX/Concept...

Your comparing a user interface to a X video server ...

how you are the biggest gpl advocate here


I am not advocating the GPL ... I am against closing of Free software and removal of access to Open Source development. I don't advocate that everyone use it either.

obviously are not a programmer


Obviously not only a programmer ... I am a User , teacher , student , developer , visonary , programmer , dismantler and many other things ...

even have any idea as to how much work goes into something like OSX.


Not that much actually , they use and perfect others work , that took decade and millions more man hours and often close to billions dollas of devlopments to get a result. Not denigrating it's importance here , or quality here , just that it's perfectionist improvments
based on larger body of works of others.

It only comfirms my previous experiences with gpl advocates


You seem to be calling anyone you disagree with as GPL advocates ... Regardless if true or not.

which is that the most vocal don't produce anything of value.


That quote is so funny on this day :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/28/newsid_2...

They just want all programmers to give their work away for free.


Free as in Freedom , sure , Free as in gratis , seing as Free Software is the biggest money maker of all IT time ... I don't know maybe your lying to yourself and to others because your imagining the world in a bubble.

Reply Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Your comparing a user interface to a X video server ...

Oh so you want to get into a semantics debate? Of course I am talking about the windowing system. But whatever, so is everything on top of darwin less than 1% of the system? If Apple only added less than 1% of work to an existing system then Psystar should have no problem doing the same, right?


I am not advocating the GPL ... I am against closing of Free software and removal of access to Open Source development.


Your capitalization of the word free is in itself political in nature. If you describe open source software in gpl political terms instead of technical I will assume you to be a gpl advocate. What Stallman describes as "Free" software is merely gpl compatible software. I can similarly use the word "Free" to describe anything for political reasons. It isn't my gun, it's my Free to Defend device.



Not denigrating it's importance here , or quality here , just that it's perfectionist improvments based on larger body of works of others.

You would call taking a kernel and environment designed for mainframes and turning into into a graphical consumer operating system a perfectionist improvement?

Free as in Freedom , sure , Free as in gratis , seing as Free Software is the biggest money maker of all IT time ... I don't know maybe your lying to yourself and to others because your imagining the world in a bubble.


Here we go with more Stallman-speak. As for selling gpl software the most profitable software companies are proprietary. Companies like Red Hat are the exception to the rule since for most software you can't profit by giving it away.

Reply Score: 0

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

then Psystar should have no problem doing the same, right?


Psystar is doing the same thing , they use Apple Mac OS X , wich they acquired a license for legally and improve on it from there ... Now you seem to object to it based on what Apple whant you to repeat and sone Apple non exisiting ownership you think Apple as... When you ( Apple ) build on someone else property , your not the owner.

Your capitalization of the word free is in itself political in nature.


No , it's to differentiate between Free/freedom and free/gratis. I also have a tendency to capitalize words , without really realizing it.

If you describe open source software in gpl political terms instead of technical I will assume you to be a gpl advocate.


The GPL is a license , nothing political about it ...
Like I said everyone who disagree with you must absolutely be a GPL advocate in your mind.

What Stallman describes as "Free" software is merely gpl compatible software.


That's your usual lies and false understanding of Free Software , but you know some of us where here before the FSF and GPL and Open Source or Stallman had his idea , where around or existed. Your Stallman fixation and hatred is weird too. Some of us lived it decades ago and have a functioning memory and tons of recorded hsitory and court judgement to base there comment on , not you evidently ...

I can similarly use the word "Free" to describe anything for political reasons. It isn't my gun, it's my Free to Defend device.


Gun nuts ... you think I am a GPL advocate , you really don't want me to argue the robotic , mechanized weapon and nuclear device VS gun argument ( nuclear , mechanized and robotic wins btw ).

You would call taking a ... perfectionist improvement?


No , but then I was talking about Mac OS X internals ... You on the other end seems to be talking about something else , politics of lying to win a point you already lost probably.

Here we go with more Stallman-speak


What can I say , your stuck in Stallman only buble world ... Don't look but I think he is behind you ;-)

As for selling gpl software the most profitable software companies are proprietary.


You mean Amazon , Ebay , Google , IBM , etc ...

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2009/full_list/101...

Companies like Red Hat are the exception to the rule


What rule would that be ? The one where the only GPL and Free Software company you know is Red Hat and the only way to profit is by making the most money ?

since for most software you can't profit by giving it away.


DOS.
IE.
Windows.
Silverlight.
Flash.
Etc ...

Funny how Microsoft and Apple relly and profit almost entirely on other people thing that where given away for usage. That they must be allowed special privilege to close them for their exclusive use only after a legal sale , that they say is only a license sale. But they are Open Source too !!

You do know that Microsoft trouble started when it lobbyed to make Free Software illegal and the Government ( US first , Europe second and others ) realised they majoritarely used Free Software.

Apple is playing the same dangerous game by putting a focusing light on their , often illegal ( according to laws ) , activities and are going to wish they never did.

Edited 2009-08-29 07:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

memson Member since:
2006-01-01

Apple is playing the same dangerous game by putting a focusing light on their , often illegal ( according to laws ) , activities and are going to wish they never did.


As much as you *want* Apple having a largely closed source operating system to be illegal - or whatever - because it is based on BSD, you are wrong. Why? Because at some point the BSD source code was owned by *someone* and that *someone* sold the rights to develop a commercial version of that source code to NEXT. Apple now own that distribution - i.e. they bought out NEXT. You can shout about free software till your lungs bleed, but it is not illegal for Mac OS X to be closed source; indeed no more illegal than Windows NT (which was originally borne out of the OS/2 development with, apparently some VMS thrown in - either directly or indirectly, I forget the exact details.)

The user interface - Aqua, Cocoa, and Finder etc, are as significant a part of OS X as Explorer and the Win 32 API are to Windows or the X Windows system is to LINUX.

Free software is a noble cause, but it doesn't put food on my family's table.

Reply Score: 1

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

As much as you want to believe your lie , like SCO did.

Free Software and Open Source created it all , as long as you don't try to claim property or close it to others , most copyight owner don't care that people "use their code". Their is ton of court example recently who proved just that , they also prove that they will come out and defend their ownership when it's claimed by someone else.

Apple don't own BSD or any BSD code , if they believe that , it will be there own END.

it is not illegal for Mac OS X to be closed source


No , it's not illegal for Apple to ship Open Source and Free Software code with their own proprietary addition , that's another lie the incompetent like to claim as a fact , but is not , where it become illegal is when they try and claim ownership of all code and say it is all proprietary , in doing so claiming the majority of Mac OS X code, witch they don't have ownership or copyright over.

no more illegal than Windows NT (which was originally borne out of the OS/2 development with, apparently some VMS thrown in ... )


Proprietary OS wich IBM built with the help of Microsoft from the ground up and sold to Microsoft ...

The user interface - Aqua, Cocoa, and Finder etc, are as significant a part of OS X


No their not , that's why replacement exist for them ... They are identifiable and diferenttiator for MAC OS X , but nothing more.

as Explorer and the Win 32 API are to Windows


Must be why the court "disagreed" on the Explorer part ...

or the X Windows system is to LINUX.


Must be why there are multiple other option that work with and on top of the kernel ...

Free software is a noble cause


It's a billion dollar industry ... witch is framed around a legal model.

but it doesn't put food on my family's table.


It's your competence and employability that gain you work wich you get paid for according to your worth witch you use to pay for food to put on your familly table.

If you work on computer therew is "ZERO" chance you don't make money because of Free and Open Source software ...

Ir would be fun if incompetent like you could have there internet , e-mail , telecomunication ( land line and cell ) , video server , webserver , banking cards , cars systems , etc ... Cut off based on there wanting only to use proprietary solutions ...

I know a couple of people who don't use computers or OS and they have millions in their bank account and plenty of food on there familly table. I guess there more competent then you , at there jobs ...

Reply Score: 3

0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


So Aqua is less than 1% of OSX? That's pretty impressive given the size of xorg.


Beyond Darwin, OS X compromises of a hell of a lot more than just Aqua.


I find it funny how you are the biggest gpl advocate here and yet obviously are not a programmer or even have any idea as to how much work goes into something like OSX.

It only comfirms my previous experiences with gpl advocates which is that the most vocal don't produce anything of value. They just want all programmers to give their work away for free.


Everything he says comes across as crazy gibberish. He's nothing but a loud troll that goes non stop like a broken record.

Reply Score: 5

rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

[q]Mac OS X is a ( yet to be judged illegal based on false claim of property rights ) BSD , MIT , GPL LGPL , etc derivative. 99.8% of Mac OS X was not created by Apple ...[q]

I see your point, but I'd say Apple created way more than .2% of OS X ...

Reply Score: 2

0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

Apple runs on its own hardware.


That is quite debatable. A plastic case of their own does not make it their own hardware.

Reply Score: 3

...
by Hiev on Fri 28th Aug 2009 22:45 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Let alone that, Psystar computers don't run OSX taht well eather, Im all for installing OSX in any computer, but at least get a certification or something.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by macUser on Fri 28th Aug 2009 22:53 UTC in reply to "..."
macUser Member since:
2006-12-15

Let alone that, Psystar computers don't run OSX taht well eather, Im all for installing OSX in any computer, but at least get a certification or something.


You already can install it on any computer... What is continuously left out of the whole Pystar debate is that Apple has not gone after a single "hackintosh" user.

They've only gone after Pystar...

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: ...
by umccullough on Fri 28th Aug 2009 23:32 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

You already can install it on any computer... What is continuously left out of the whole Pystar debate is that Apple has not gone after a single "hackintosh" user.

They've only gone after Pystar...


Which suggests that Apple doesn't consider it illegal if I do it...but they do consider it illegal if Psystar does it.

Wait... double-standard?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: ...
by haus on Fri 28th Aug 2009 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
haus Member since:
2009-08-18

"Which suggests that Apple doesn't consider it illegal if I do it...but they do consider it illegal if Psystar does it.

Wait... double-standard?"


It's not so much a double standard as they are profiting on it. You wouldn't be doing it yourself. Sell it and you're inviting a lawsuit.

Edited 2009-08-28 23:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by umccullough on Fri 28th Aug 2009 23:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

It's not so much a double standard as they are profiting on it. You wouldn't be doing it yourself. Sell it and you're inviting a lawsuit.


I'm pretty certain the EULA doesn't say anything about making a profit by re-selling OS X.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: ...
by haus on Fri 28th Aug 2009 23:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
haus Member since:
2009-08-18

"I'm pretty certain the EULA doesn't say anything about making a profit by re-selling OS X."

Then it has nothing to do with a double standard then. It just has to do with how they want to protect their own resources.

Apple isn't obligated to help their competitors. On that note, they're not obligated to hurt them either. Because they're a business, they're going to go after those that utilized their property to make money. There is little motivation to go after those that utilized their property... just so they can show it off to their dorm room friends.

Edited 2009-08-28 23:53 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: ...
by umccullough on Fri 28th Aug 2009 23:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Apple isn't obligated to help their competitors. But they're not obligated to hurt them either. because they're a business, they're going to go after those that utilized their property to make money.


I suspect it would still be their property if they hadn't sold it retail...

Reminds me of the days when satellite TV providers allowed you to purchase a receiver, and then demanded you weren't allowed to modify the equipment and/or re-sell it. These days, most satellite TV equipment is "leased" (in the U.S.) so they can at least claim it isn't your property now.

Apple has stepped in the same mess.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: ...
by apoclypse on Sat 29th Aug 2009 01:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

So has every other software company o the planet. You don;t actually own the software you run you license it. You can own the media its on though.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: ...
by kaiwai on Sat 29th Aug 2009 06:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

"It's not so much a double standard as they are profiting on it. You wouldn't be doing it yourself. Sell it and you're inviting a lawsuit.


I'm pretty certain the EULA doesn't say anything about making a profit by re-selling OS X.
"

But Pystar weren't selling unmodified versions; they were selling hacked up versions of Mac OS X preinstalled on their computers and redistributing hacked up updates directly downloadable off their websites. Lets not try to make out that Pystar is some sort of modern day Robin Hood.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: ...
by RogerBryce on Sat 29th Aug 2009 11:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
RogerBryce Member since:
2008-07-07

It's debatable whether they were selling a hacked version of OS X. In fact, what Psystar ultimately says is Apple artificially and arbitrarily restricts the use of their OS on common x86 hardware. It remains to be seen if removing some artificial hinderance can be considered a hack. Personally, in the case of OS X, I don't, because it proves what was already known, that is most of the code in OS X was written to be run on x86 hardware. And there's a large amount of code that originally doesn't even come from Apple.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: ...
by kaiwai on Sun 30th Aug 2009 11:53 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

It's debatable whether they were selling a hacked version of OS X. In fact, what Psystar ultimately says is Apple artificially and arbitrarily restricts the use of their OS on common x86 hardware. It remains to be seen if removing some artificial hinderance can be considered a hack. Personally, in the case of OS X, I don't, because it proves what was already known, that is most of the code in OS X was written to be run on x86 hardware. And there's a large amount of code that originally doesn't even come from Apple.


What is there to debate? they modified version of Mac OS X and resold it. They provided a modified version of Mac OS X updates via their website. There is no debate - these things have actually occurred; the only question is whether this amounts to copyright violation, EULA violation or a violation of a reselling agreement if they ever had one in the first place with Apple.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: ...
by umccullough on Sat 29th Aug 2009 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Lets not try to make out that Pystar is some sort of modern day Robin Hood.


You make it sound like they've stole something...

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: ...
by kaiwai on Sun 30th Aug 2009 12:03 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Lets not try to make out that Pystar is some sort of modern day Robin Hood.

You make it sound like they've stole something...


I never made such an accusation given that I don't know the exact legal qualifier would attach to Pystar's actions - the point I was trying to make is the noble nature of Robin Hood actions people are trying to attach to Pystar. Maybe the better comparison would be David and Goliath - that Pystar is taking on 'the evil empire' with cheerleaders on this website jumping around like school girls with pom-poms high on chocolate and energy drinks.

To cheerlead for a particular company is stupid to begin with but to believe that this is some sort of apocalyptic 'good versus evil' armageddon is stupidity at best.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: ...
by Phloptical on Sat 29th Aug 2009 13:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

"It's not so much a double standard as they are profiting on it. You wouldn't be doing it yourself. Sell it and you're inviting a lawsuit.
I'm pretty certain the EULA doesn't say anything about making a profit by re-selling OS X. "

I'm fairly certain it does, actually.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by DrillSgt on Sat 29th Aug 2009 01:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

Which suggests that Apple doesn't consider it illegal if I do it...but they do consider it illegal if Psystar does it.

Wait... double-standard?


Not a double standard at all. Fair Use as far as copyright is concerned deals with the consumer. Which of course means if you do it with your own machines, Apple, although they may not like it, can't do squat.

The definition of consumer as far as copyright and fair use goes, is "An individual who buys products or services for personal use and not for manufacture or resale. A consumer is someone who can make the decision whether or not to purchase an item at the store, and someone who can be influenced by marketing and advertisements. Any time someone goes to a store and purchases a toy, shirt, beverage, or anything else, they are making that decision as a consumer."

Another definition is "End user, and not necessarily a purchaser, in the distribution chain of a good or service. See also customer."

Psystar by definition is not a consumer by either of the above. They purchase OS X with the intent of manufacturing computers and reselling the box. That goes against copyright and DMCA.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by macUser on Sat 29th Aug 2009 04:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
macUser Member since:
2006-12-15

"You already can install it on any computer... What is continuously left out of the whole Pystar debate is that Apple has not gone after a single "hackintosh" user.

They've only gone after Pystar...


Which suggests that Apple doesn't consider it illegal if I do it...but they do consider it illegal if Psystar does it.

Wait... double-standard?
"

You don't have the potential to hurt their bottom line. Pystar and a throng of companies like them do. That's the difference, and it's significant.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by kaiwai on Sat 29th Aug 2009 06:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You already can install it on any computer... What is continuously left out of the whole Pystar debate is that Apple has not gone after a single "hackintosh" user.

They've only gone after Pystar...


Which suggests that Apple doesn't consider it illegal if I do it...but they do consider it illegal if Psystar does it.

Wait... double-standard?


Or they don't think it is worth their while. You could apply the same situation with Microsoft or Adobe turning a blind eye to the many copies of Windows that are copied by students to get through their university courses. Does it make it legal? of course not, it just isn't worth their while going after small fry enthusiast communities that are no threat to their business model.

It is like the police; do they concern themselves with Bob the stoner who has a couple of pot plants, doesn't sell, and keeps to himself or are the resources better focused on targeted the big time growers and sellers? its is call triage honey and it appears everywhere.

Edited 2009-08-29 06:37 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by Phloptical on Sat 29th Aug 2009 13:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

You're not charging for it. You purchased (right?) the license of OS X and are installing it how you see fit.

If Apple really cared about OS X running on non apple hardware, they wouldn't sell single copies on the shelves.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: ...
by 0brad0 on Sat 29th Aug 2009 14:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


If Apple really cared about OS X running on non apple hardware, they wouldn't sell single copies on the shelves.


This makes zero sense. How are users supposed to upgrade to the next major release if Apple won't sell it to them?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: ...
by Bobthearch on Sat 29th Aug 2009 19:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

They could offer upgrades as downloads only available to registered Mac owners.

They could sell upgrade packages that only include the upgrades, instead of selling complete operating system installs.

They could return to their own propitiatory hardware instead of using generic PC components.

Seems simple enough, if they were motivated.

So why doesn't Apple do that and completely shut down Psystar, other similar commercial operations, and hackintosh hobbiests? The answer, because Apple is making a fortune selling stand-alone copies of their operating systems.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: ...
by nt_jerkface on Sat 29th Aug 2009 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

They could offer upgrades as downloads only available to registered Mac owners. They could sell upgrade packages that only include the upgrades, instead of selling complete operating system installs. They could return to their own propitiatory hardware instead of using generic PC components. Seems simple enough, if they were motivated. So why doesn't Apple do that and completely shut down Psystar, other similar commercial operations, and hackintosh hobbiests? The answer, because Apple is making a fortune selling stand-alone copies of their operating systems.


I think they would rather shutdown Psystar than pick up a few extra sales of their operating system. They really don't want to lose their hardware profit margins.

It's probably more of a p.r. issue than anything. They want Psystar to go away but they also want to keep their underdog image.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: ...
by sbergman27 on Sat 29th Aug 2009 21:39 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

It's probably more of a p.r. issue than anything. They want Psystar to go away but they also want to keep their underdog image.

And directing their formidable on-staff legal department to crush, like bugs, their competitors under their legal heels is a great way to keep up appearances regarding their underdog status.

Well, that and threatening to come after the families of victims of Apple's defective and dangerous products if the victim ever tells anyone what happened.

Microsoft is starting to look like an enclave of saints by comparison.

Edited 2009-08-29 21:42 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: ...
by rockwell on Mon 31st Aug 2009 14:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

They really don't want to lose their hardware profit margins.


Bingo. End of story. That's how Apple makes money -- by overcharging HUGE on hardware. Which is what has been keeping me from buying a Mac for about 15 years. Can't justify the cost!

Edited 2009-08-31 14:03 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by bigozs on Sun 30th Aug 2009 08:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
bigozs Member since:
2005-08-07

I would think they consider it illegal when you profit from it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by Stephen! on Fri 28th Aug 2009 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Stephen! Member since:
2007-11-24

You already can install it on any computer... What is continuously left out of the whole Pystar debate is that Apple has not gone after a single "hackintosh" user.

They've only gone after Pystar...


They probably don't see it as being worth it to go after individual users.

Reply Score: 2

Alternative Course of Action
by Moredhas on Fri 28th Aug 2009 22:56 UTC
Moredhas
Member since:
2008-04-10

If Psystar want do so something of less questionable legality, they could probably try making something OS X compatible. Take Darwin, or an up to date BSD or Linux kernel and create their own userland tools compatible with OS X software - I'm not saying that would be easy, far from it in fact, but if it's not actually OS X, Apple can't really do anything about it can they? Now, I don't like that OS X is tied to Apple hardware, but that's what the license agreement says; until it's determined if that clause is legal or not, we should respect it. I certainly would pay for an original OS compatible with OS X though. I'd actually be interested to see what innovations they could make that would make someone choose their implementation over the official OS X based on software quality alone (price not withstanding).

Edited 2009-08-28 22:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Alternative Course of Action
by Stephen! on Fri 28th Aug 2009 23:33 UTC in reply to "Alternative Course of Action"
Stephen! Member since:
2007-11-24

If Psystar want do so something of less questionable legality, they could probably try making something OS X compatible. Take Darwin, or an up to date BSD or Linux kernel and create their own userland tools compatible with OS X software - I'm not saying that would be easy, far from it in fact, but if it's not actually OS X, Apple can't really do anything about it can they?


Probably not. There's been similar things in the past such as Executor, which had some degree of MacOS compatibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executor_%28software%29

Reply Score: 1

RE: Alternative Course of Action
by kaiwai on Sat 29th Aug 2009 06:32 UTC in reply to "Alternative Course of Action"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

If Psystar want do so something of less questionable legality, they could probably try making something OS X compatible. Take Darwin, or an up to date BSD or Linux kernel and create their own userland tools compatible with OS X software - I'm not saying that would be easy, far from it in fact, but if it's not actually OS X, Apple can't really do anything about it can they? Now, I don't like that OS X is tied to Apple hardware, but that's what the license agreement says; until it's determined if that clause is legal or not, we should respect it. I certainly would pay for an original OS compatible with OS X though. I'd actually be interested to see what innovations they could make that would make someone choose their implementation over the official OS X based on software quality alone (price not withstanding).


Why even do that? why not just make their hardware 100% compatible? what is so hard with talking to a motherboard company, create a customised EFI that happens to be compatible with Mac OS X - and leave it up to the customer to put in the CD themselves to install? they would be selling a machine that just so happened to be compatible with Mac OS X but their primary focus was selling machines with Linux or Windows. It would be the easiest way to address the Hackintosh demand without actually having to directly enter the market.

What would Apple do? they would have no case because it would be all circumstantial - "oh, but they made it compatible with Mac OS X from the ground up" to which they could easily reply and state, "we don't sell or condone the use of Mac OS X on our machines; our machines are designed to work flawlessly with Windows and Linux. What someone does in the privacy of their own home with it is none of our business". Had they done that, we wouldn't be having the conversation. Quite honestly, if their managers aren't getting sued by Apple, someone should sue them for incompetent business management.

Edited 2009-08-29 06:32 UTC

Reply Score: 4

broken_symlink Member since:
2005-07-06

darwin and gnustep! openosx.

Reply Score: 3

tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

darwin and gnustep! openosx.


GNUstep has a long way to go for such comparisons. Etoile is not the answer either.

Reply Score: 2

broken_symlink Member since:
2005-07-06

they could contribute to it.

Reply Score: 3

deep pockets
by Adurbe on Fri 28th Aug 2009 22:56 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

All this will do is extend the court case further and thereby increase the cost.

now, lets consider who has the deeper pockets here..

I feel I have made my thoughts on this issue clear in previous posts so won't repeat them, BUT unless the case is allowed to go to completion and a verdict reached then this issue of EULAs will continue to go in circles without a resolution.

Stop making up new ways to sue each other and let a decision be reached!

Reply Score: 2

RE: deep pockets
by Stephen! on Fri 28th Aug 2009 23:42 UTC in reply to "deep pockets"
Stephen! Member since:
2007-11-24

now, lets consider who has the deeper pockets here..


Probably Apple, but I suppose it depends on who is actually funding Pystar.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: deep pockets
by Mellin on Sun 30th Aug 2009 08:50 UTC in reply to "RE: deep pockets"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

microsoft

Reply Score: 2

RE: deep pockets
by TheChucklesStart on Sat 29th Aug 2009 00:01 UTC in reply to "deep pockets"
TheChucklesStart Member since:
2009-04-17

However, this case has become so convoluted (by both sides) that it no longer will provide a good grounds on whether or not EULA's are legally binding or not.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: deep pockets
by Adurbe on Sun 30th Aug 2009 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE: deep pockets"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

this is my point. It would be cheaper and more helpful for a ruling to be made on this one issue rather than all this finger pointing!

Reply Score: 2

Psystar is right
by shiva on Sat 29th Aug 2009 00:21 UTC
shiva
Member since:
2007-01-24

Psystar is right !

Imagine if Ford sold cars with Ford tires and its EULA prohibits buyers would put tires of other brands. It would be illegal, no ?!

In all engineering fields/industries there are common standards to let people exchange parts from various brands. Why not in computer industry ?

Companies like Apple and Microsoft do active and dirty actions to difficult interoperability, standardization and interchange of parts from different vendors. It is a crime and these companies should be punished !

Reply Score: 3

RE: Psystar is right
by ASDFer on Sat 29th Aug 2009 01:01 UTC in reply to "Psystar is right"
ASDFer Member since:
2009-08-29

Wrong analogy and Psystar is wrong.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Psystar is right
by haus on Sat 29th Aug 2009 01:06 UTC in reply to "Psystar is right"
haus Member since:
2009-08-18

Your analogy is flawed in that cars were meant to have certain parts swapped out.

A better analogy is... what if somebody were to manage to copy out the software from an X Box or PS3 to make and then sell their own game console. This company then referenced the X Box or PS3 name to show that they are compatible.

It's not the same you say because neither company sells that software separately while Apple does.

Apple does not.

Their business model is the exact same... except Apple sells upgrades to their software as standalone software packages. You may not recognize it as an upgrade as It also works as a full install... but then this is a computer, not a console which sometimes requires a full install rather than an upgrade to to install on a blank disk Mac.

Make no mistake though, its the same business model.

Knowing the readers on this site though... some of you actually think that Microsoft and Sony don't have any right to tie their software to their hardware either. To you people I would just say you're a lost cause.

I just ask that you not try to project Microsoft's business model on Apple.

Edited 2009-08-29 01:16 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Psystar is right
by FredFlintStone on Sat 29th Aug 2009 01:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Psystar is right"
FredFlintStone Member since:
2009-08-29

Your analogy is also flawed.
Xbox and PS3 dont sell the Operating system separate from the hardware as an upgrade. Snow Leapord is sold as a separate upgrate.
The Xbox and PS3 upgrades are free and directly pushed to the device and not available over the shelf

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Psystar is right
by apoclypse on Sat 29th Aug 2009 02:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Psystar is right"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Its kind of flawed. A more apt analogy would be an OEM install of Windows. You can only install that particular version of Windows on the targeted machine. Some OEM discs even check to see if they are in fact running on the right hardware. Apple does, but they also don't include OEM discs with their machines (well they kind of do) the operating system install disc is the OEM disc. Unlike MS they do not limit the installer to any specific machine and choose to do that via the EULA instead of any DRM measures. Which is commendable, imo, and I don't think that any company that chooses to not hit their customers with drm should be penalized by opportunist who don't contribute a single red cent back to the company they are building their bank on.

At this point I'd rather see Psystar go away. They are leeches on the hackintosh community and are a shining example of why Apple users are Apple users.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Psystar is right
by FredFlintStone on Sat 29th Aug 2009 02:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Psystar is right"
FredFlintStone Member since:
2009-08-29

Again with Microsoft's OEM copies its not restricted to a single OEM and the OEM copies are not available over the shelf for sale. Which is why apple actions might be considered as anti- compete. If apple would have given snow leapord as a free upgrade to Leapord this case would have been thrown out in a minute. But its selling it as a separate product.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Psystar is right
by kaiwai on Sat 29th Aug 2009 06:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Psystar is right"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Your analogy is also flawed.
Xbox and PS3 dont sell the Operating system separate from the hardware as an upgrade. Snow Leapord is sold as a separate upgrate.
The Xbox and PS3 upgrades are free and directly pushed to the device and not available over the shelf


So hang on, using that logic - if Apple included as part of purchasing an Apple computer that end users could get free operating system upgrades through the internet that it would some how be ok? How about this scenario, replace Apple with 'Vendor Y' and' Vendor Y' deciding to sell a firmware upgrade to customers through retail channels on a CD because it contains a whole host of improvements and is too large to 'send down an internet connection'.

You're splitting hairs over distribution - it means nothing in the end; whether it arrives electronically or via a download, free or purchased - something that is 'free' doesn't some how say, "well, you can restrict the user in anyway' but if acquired through a retail chain they can't impose the same restrictions? you're either consistently applying the principle to software upgrades both paid and free or you don't.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Psystar is right
by Vargol on Sat 29th Aug 2009 09:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Psystar is right"
Vargol Member since:
2006-02-28

http://www.us.playstation.com/Support/SystemUpdates/PS3/PC_Update.h...

I'd call that direct of the shelf...

Edited 2009-08-29 09:35 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Psystar is right
by Moulinneuf on Sat 29th Aug 2009 07:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Psystar is right"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Your analogy is flawed in that cars were meant to have certain parts swapped out.


and Computer where also meant to have all their part swaped out ... Otherwise we would all use IBM computer with IBM OS.

some of you actually think that Microsoft and Sony don't have any right to tie their software to their hardware either.


No , The Laws , in most country , say so ...

But then Microsoft legal problem , in this example/case , is not on it's own console and hardware it's on other company computers blocking and breaking intentionally compatibility with the competition.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Psystar is right
by memson on Sat 29th Aug 2009 14:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Psystar is right"
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

and Computer where also meant to have all their part swaped out ... Otherwise we would all use IBM computer with IBM OS


Modular? Yes. Open? No. Openness was forced upon IBM because they didn't do enough to protect their PC IPR back in the day. If IBM had done so, then yes, we'd be using a different computer architecture because the PC would have never made it past the starting blocks. In fact, you might be arguing about IBM having a closed platform and Apple dominating the computer industry - as this was entirely likely to happen if IBM hadn't floundered. Either than or we'd all be using Amiga :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Psystar is right - more like
by jabbotts on Sat 29th Aug 2009 16:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Psystar is right"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Someone baught the retail copy of XBox and PS3 OS off the shelf then sold it with compatible console hardware. There is no copying off of the OS nore is the original OS developer out the cost of the license as it was purchased from and at the developer's asking price.

Reply Score: 2

In Other News...
by gomerComPiler on Sat 29th Aug 2009 02:49 UTC
gomerComPiler
Member since:
2009-08-29

Betty Crocker is sued for tying her frosting to her cakes...

Reply Score: 4

RE: In Other News...
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 29th Aug 2009 16:09 UTC in reply to "In Other News..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Betty Crocker is sued for tying her frosting to her cakes...


Time to start the Free Cake movement - it's the only way to counter the evils of proprietary confections.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: In Other News...
by rockwell on Mon 31st Aug 2009 14:04 UTC in reply to "RE: In Other News..."
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

The cake is a lie ...

Reply Score: 2

Long term prospects are bad for Psystar
by nt_jerkface on Sat 29th Aug 2009 03:30 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

OSX is a product of Apple, not Psystar. Apple has a monopoly on Apple computers just as Coke has a monopoly on Coka-cola. Anti-trust laws do not exist to force a company to sell their product in a manner that benefits another company. They exist to ensure competition in the market that the company competes in, and in the market of personal computers Apple has competition. Note also that having a monopoly isn't illegal. You have to also show that consumers are hurt by it. Monopolies often exist because consumers are satisfied and thus capital is directed elsewhere.

Psystar is free to compete by building their own operating system. The components are there, they could make their own linux distro that is essentially an osx clone. However they have gone the low route which is to hire some lawyers.

Even if they get a judge to side with them Apple can always pull its operating system off store shelves. They could charge a rediculously high price and offer a rebate for apple hardware buyers. It's their product, they have the cards. There are a ton of ways that they could screw psystar.

Reply Score: 9

Calipso Member since:
2007-03-13

Yup, Apple is completely within their right to take OSX off the shelves, or charge ridiculous amounts for off the shelf copies of OSX.

Psystar, should be completely within their right to pay those ridiculous prices and resell it on their own computers for what ever price they see fit.

Reply Score: 1

A matter of logic...
by vasper on Sat 29th Aug 2009 08:50 UTC
vasper
Member since:
2005-07-22

Apple says it doesn't want to have to deal with the multitude of hardware that is out there. It wants to limit the amount of software it has to write to keep the OS stable an running. As a software developer I completely understand their problem. Software has specifications too, and software creator shouldn't be held responsible if a piece of software doesn't run well outside specs...

HOWEVER Psystar produces 100% OS X compatible computers as I understand it. So it does not go outside the specs set down for OS X.

My take on this is that Apple should set specific standards for supporting OS X on clones and put that in the EULA, so it doesn't have problems with its software clients.

Completely restricting running the software you can buy on any machine branded something else than Apple is an unacceptable behavior and negates their original argument about compatibility.

Reply Score: 2

RE: A matter of logic...
by rockwell on Mon 31st Aug 2009 14:09 UTC in reply to "A matter of logic..."
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

That's the thing ... the Psystar PC's are off-the shelf components that work fine with OS X .. just like Macs are made up of off-the-shelf components, with a shiny plastic shell, for which Apple charges crazy money.

Reply Score: 2

on point
by bfr99 on Sat 29th Aug 2009 13:03 UTC
bfr99
Member since:
2007-03-15

For those of you who are interested in the law rather than meaningless random opinions you should read an interesting case that seems directly on point:
DATA GENERAL CORP. v. DIGIDYNE CORP. , 473 U.S. 908 (1985) 473 U.S. 908
DATA GENERAL CORPORATION
v.
DIGIDYNE CORPORATION, et al No. 84-761
Supreme Court of the United States

Reply Score: 5

No common sense, or screwed up laws
by cmost on Sat 29th Aug 2009 14:15 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

Forgive my ignorance as I'm not a lawyer. It seems to me that Psystar hasn't a leg to stand on for either of these ongoing lawsuits. Apple produces a computer and the OS to operate it. Similarly, Nokia produces phones and bought an OS (Symbian) to run on it. Likewise for myriad other devices, appliances, etc., that contain operating code created or purchased by their respective manufacturers. Motorola cannot sue Nokia because Nokia's software doesn't run on Motorola's phones. While some individuals may somehow shoehorn Nokia's software onto a Motorola phone, Nokia doesn't have to sanction or support those devices (or even know about them.) But, Joe Blow shouldn't be able to sell Motorola phone's pre-hacked with Nokia's software out of his basement for profit. I realize this is a convoluted analogy but I'm trying to wrap my mind around how Psystar thinks it has a chance in hell of winning on either account. Most likely, the end result will be that Apple simply yanks its shrink-wrapped copies of OS-X from retail shelves and only registered owners of Macs will be able to purchase upgrades from that point on. Of course hackers will always be able to obtain copies for their "Hackintoshes" but Psystar will be once and for all out of the game.

Reply Score: 1

It's not what it seems here
by twm_bucket on Sat 29th Aug 2009 14:28 UTC
twm_bucket
Member since:
2008-10-09

First, this has nothing with "freeing" OS X from Apple branded hardware. Nor does it have anything to do with antitrust issues.

Psytar already lost their antitrust argument in California. They will lose again in Florida. Courts don't like litigating trying to game the system.

This is all about the doctrine of first sale, more importantly, the premise that terms and conditions of sale don't apply.

You may not like EULA's but it is a license, Just like the GPL. What Pystar is arguing is "We don't like the EULA and we want to ignore it." Imagine now how this would work if someone could ignore the terms of the GPL because they didn't like it.

I am willing to bet that the funding behind Psystar are anti-GPL entities.

Reply Score: 1

RE: It's not what it seems here
by alcibiades on Mon 31st Aug 2009 08:35 UTC in reply to "It's not what it seems here"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

No, its not a license just like the GPL. The EULA is an agreement, with a variety of different clauses in it, all of which may be binding and enforceable or not independently. To run the software you have to agree to it. When you agree to it, you enter into a civil contract with the supplier of the software. If you then violate the agreement, you may be sued in civil court.

The GPL is quite different. You do not enter into a contract with anyone. If you simply want to run the software, it does not affect you one way or the other. When it affects you is if you want to make copies or derivative works. In this case, the GPL gives you permission to do that under certain conditions, in particular making the source code available. It is needed because normally you would not have the right to do that. It would be a criminal offense under the law of copyright in all Berne Convention jurisdictions.

Consequently, even if all clauses in all EULAs were to be declared unenforceable, the GPL would still remain valid. Copyright law would not be affected in any way, and that is what the GPL is based on.

There are people who argue that the power to set terms and conditions of use of retail copies of software derive from copyright law. They typically argue that retail copies of software are not sold but licensed. They are wrong. But even if they are right, that has no bearing on the GPL, which gives the power to make copies, and does not make any restrictions on use.

Reply Score: 3

Eh
by Xaero_Vincent on Sat 29th Aug 2009 16:06 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

If you go to insanelymac.com, you'll find instructions how to install Snow Leopard on Hackintoshes.

Its still possible for Psystar to buy the full SL but its bundled with some apps.

http://store.apple.com/us/product/MACBOX-101801?mco=MzA3MDkwNQ

I don't see how this is really any different than 10.5 Leopard.

If Apple really wanted to prevent x86 PC users from natively running OS X they should of never migrated away from the POWER architecture.

Edited 2009-08-29 16:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

EULAs vs the GPL
by TechGeek on Sat 29th Aug 2009 16:51 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

First off, why do some of you think that Psystar is being bank rolled by someone? They are obviously not as both Psystar and Apple had to turn in financial records to the court. Apple didn't want theirs given to Psystar, so they aren't able to seek damages. But it would be pretty obvious if someone were helping Psystar.

As for EULA and the GPL, there is an important distinction. The GPL gives more freedoms than copyright allows. The EULA normally takes away some freedoms that normal copyright would allow. Such as what hardware you can install OS X on. Take away the GPL and you still have more rights than you get under the EULA. The real issue is whether a EULA can negate your rights guaranteed under law? Also, does a EULA count as a legal contract?

Reply Score: 4

Apple - Psystar overview request
by Eddyspeeder on Sun 30th Aug 2009 13:11 UTC
Eddyspeeder
Member since:
2006-05-10

Here's a sort of "ask OSNews" request:

I'm sort of getting confused, no longer able to see the forest through the trees with all the Apple vs. Psystar and Psystar vs. Apple cases that are accumulating.

Thom, could you perhaps provide us with a sort of "overview" article (with/without timeline) on all the lawsuits, cases etc. that are currently playing between Apple <-> Psystar, when a verdict is expected, and which other (past) lawsuits between these parties are still of interest for the current cases? Also, what is your take/expectancy on the future developments? For example, will Psystar manage to get Apple to do things Apple did not intend or will Apple be able to retain its retail philosophy?

Reply Score: 3

rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

Better yet, you could do the research yourself, and post it here to OS News. You seem to have a decent take on it so far ...

Edited 2009-08-31 14:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by graigsmith
by graigsmith on Sun 30th Aug 2009 19:02 UTC
graigsmith
Member since:
2006-04-05

apple tying their os to a specific hardware, is like microsoft tying internet explorer to windows. it's only a matter of time before some court tells them to stop..

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by graigsmith
by tyrione on Sun 30th Aug 2009 20:22 UTC in reply to "Comment by graigsmith"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

apple tying their os to a specific hardware, is like microsoft tying internet explorer to windows. it's only a matter of time before some court tells them to stop..


Please don't tell me your a professor of applied logic or an attorney.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by graigsmith
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sun 30th Aug 2009 20:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by graigsmith"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

"apple tying their os to a specific hardware, is like microsoft tying internet explorer to windows. it's only a matter of time before some court tells them to stop..


Please don't tell me your a professor of applied logic or an attorney.
"

Huh? His professor of applied logic or an attorney? That makes no sense.

...unless you just don't know the difference between "your," an adjective indicating possession, and "you're," a contraction of "you" and "are. In which case:

Please don't tell me that you're a high school graduate.

Reply Score: 2

Objectivity
by BrendaEM on Mon 31st Aug 2009 17:08 UTC
BrendaEM
Member since:
2005-11-23

Who here can speak on this with objectivity?
The people who own Apple stock?
The MS people who hate Apple?
The open source people who were shortchanged by Apple?
The Apple elite fanboys, or their detractors?

Yes, Pystar broke a EULA, which should never have been allowed in the first place. Next we will sue you for prying open a paint can--with a screwdriver!

Edited 2009-08-31 17:09 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by clei
by clei on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 02:40 UTC
clei
Member since:
2008-10-04

From where Psystar is standing, this isn't that a weird thing to ask from the courts. Psystar has based its business model on installing and re-selling Mac OS X, so any attempts by Apple to prevent this can be seen as an antitrust violation (from Psystar's perspective, of course).

For us, it's just another case to follow.
>
>
Leeches and parasites like Thom *REALLY* need to get a clue.

I'm a *LINUX* user and I damn well know that Mac OS X is not a OS like Windows,Linux and the BSD's. It's intended for only one set of users, and one of users only....people who have bought Apple Hardware.


In this sense, Mac OS X is like the custom OS's that came with the Commodore Amiga and Atari ST computers.

It's utterly an Apple Copyrighted Product and Thom and his theiving playmated has no rights to it all all.

Reply Score: 1