Remember the motions for a summary judgement filed by Apple and Psystar earlier this week? Large parts of them were censored per Apple’s request. These censored parts detailed the protection measures Apple put in place in Leopard to prevent it from being installed on non-Apple labelled computers. Psystar filed a motion a few days ago asking the judge to uncensor the information.
Protective measures
Psystar argues that these protection measures have been detailed extensively on the internet, as well as methods to circumvent them. “The technological methods and other supposed trade secrets described in the sealed portions of Apple’s motion for summary judgment have already been described in documents publicly available on the Internet,” Psystar argues, “As a result, any number of publicly accessible websites describes in detail the Apple technology that is at issue in this case.”
Psystar compiled a list of websites in about “ten minutes” using Google which all detail the information Apple deems a secret. OSNews’ article “Building a Hackintosh Apple Can’t Sue You For” is on the list too. In fact, this is the most popular article on OSNews – ever.
Apple responded to Psystar’s filing, stating that uncensoring the information in question will cause competitive harm to the company. “Revealing [the information] would cause competitive harm to Apple and chill use of the judicial system to stop violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,” Apple claims in its filing.
Apple agrees with Psystar that the proceedings and outcome of this court case are important for the public at large, but argues that the disputed information does not need to be revealed in order to properly inform the public.
Apple believes that it is important that the public be aware of the outcome of the lawsuit. However, it is not necessary to disclose details of Apple’s security mechanism to achieve that. The need for public access can be satisfied here by the same methods used by many other federal courts in DMCA cases – generally describing the technological protection measure in dispute, explaining the legal reasoning and outcome, but not revealing the details of the technological protection measure.
When it comes to Psystar’s argument that the information is available on the internet anyway, Apple rebuts by saying that the procedures to install Mac OS X on a non-Apple labelled computer are very difficult, and that only a programmer can complete these procedures successfully.
There is nothing simple about following the instructions to find the key to decrypt Apple’s encrypted files. Although a computer programmer like Mr. Pedraza [Psystar’s lawyer] who already knows what he is looking for may find information about Apple’s security mechanism on the Internet, that alone is not enough to defeat the protection mechanism. Significant additional programming must be done to achieve that result.
“Significant additional programming”? To complete a guide like this? In any case, it’s hard to choose sides in this little spat, as we cannot be sure what sort of information is currently censored. The information about building a non-Apple labelled computer with Mac OS X installed certainly doesn’t have to be censored, but more sensitive information could be included as well.
Apple’s argument that the information does not aid in the public’s understanding of the case is a strong one. As such, I think it’s safe to say that Apple is in the right here. As a final note, bear in mind that this only concerns Leopard – and not Snow Leopard.
Psystar ceases selling Leopard
On a related note, Psystar has stated that it will “happily” cease selling Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. “Psystar will happily submit to an appropriately tailored injunction […] limited to Psystar’s allegedly illegal activities involving OS X Leopard, since it is only OS X Leopard that this case concerns,” Psystar states, “Since neither Psystar nor Apple sells OS X Leopard any longer, it is no great burden for Psystar to agree to such an injunction.”
This makes sense. Psystar has already switched to shipping Snow Leopard anyway, so this ‘concession’ is one it could easily make.
It seems that they (Psystar) are on the offensive now. I wonder how successful this will be compared to the two recent RIAA trials (I feel these cases are vaguely similar).
I am not a legal expert, but of what significance is the lawsuit about Leopard (not Snow Leopard)?
Even if Psystar wins this lawsuit, nothing really changes, since they will only have the right to sell machines with Leopard, which is not sold anymore. Same thing if Apple wins. Psystar will lose the right to sell Leopard, not Snow Leopard. And since Apple doesn’t ask for Psystar to pay for potential loss of revenue anymore, this lawsuit seems completely pointless.
Am I missing something here?
It would set of precedent either for or against, if Psystar wins the leopard case then the snow leopard case becomes much easier, since they can just point to earlier ruling, and if Apple previals its vice-versa
so I guess Apple is saying everyone who has ever installed OSX on a computer that wasn’t made by apple is now a programmer?
The only people who can be considered programmers here are the truly talented people who figured out how to make the necessary modifications to the existing code.
Edited 2009-10-17 00:12 UTC
So if Pystar continues to hold trials long enough until a new OS comes out, all it needs to do then is start using that one and let apple start a new trial?
Of course we will most likely have this sorted out in less than 3 years. Right?
Same basic point keeps coming to mind. How on earth can a company sell, all over the world in retail stores and online, without any questions asked about prior purchases, a product which installs on a wide range of hardware from a variety of companies.
And then tell people who buy it that they are obliged to only buy their hardware from one of these suppliers: it itself?
The more you think about this, the weirder it gets. I can understand they would restrict their sales of OSX, by all means, ask for serial number or proof of purchase. FM at one time asked you to send in a copy of your manual cover to qualify for upgrade pricing. Something. I can understand that they would only sell it with their hardware. I can even understand if they only sold online, and insisted you use a Mac to do the ordering and downloading, and put in checks.
But to sell it freely all over the place to anyone who feels like having a copy, and then to try to tell them what to install it on? Or rather, and importantly, not what they install it on, but where they have bought what they install it on? The identical components in a case, bought from Apple, OK, bought from ebuyer or microdirect, bad?
Weird.
When Apple implements their new serial number-call to activate- chip on the mother board scheme to prevent people from installing OSX on any machine, this site will be filled with articles about how much Apple sucks for doing such a thing. The way I see it, Pystar is going to take down the Hackintosh community by making it harder to install OSX on any computer. You all will be crying for the old days when Apple really didn’t care if you made a Hackintosh for your personal use. Pystar is the enemy not the liberator that you think they are.
Yes, it could be that Apple will do this. They did it with the old ROM chips in the past. The war with osx86 will continue.
I would be fine with this. I don’t want the software industry to have the right to stipulate what hardware I install retail copies of their products on. Or, more generally, what environment I install a given product into. In exchange for this, I am prepared to have Apple go to chip and activation based systems to force people to buy their hardware from Apple.
I think that the practice of selling retail copies and then dictating where you buy the hardware you need to run them is deeply anti social, and can only be guaranteed by handing over powers that everyone but Apple seems to manage without using so far, and which would be very damaging to society.
Apple people can only see with a sort of horror that their company may have to change some of its sacred working practices, and as far as they are concerned, this means that its going to be a catastrophe. No it won’t be. It may have disadvantages for Apple and its customers if Apple does not have these powers, but they will be far outweighed by the benefits to society if no-one has them.
I’ve heard this idea suggested a number of times, i.e. a separate protection chip on the motherboard that can be used to verify a real Mac, but there’s one glaring flaw with this idea. Apple, upon implementing this, would essentially shoot most Mac owners, as well as themselves, in the foot. You see, none of the current Macs have this protection chip, so what would happen to my legitimate Mac when Apple implements this? Nobody seems to think of that when they go into these paranoid delusions. What’s more likely to happen, and would work, is to have the activation based on the Mac’s serial number which would easily tell them whether the machine is a valid Mac or not. Of course, once they do this, how long until PC EFI or another boot loader simply spoofs a valid Macintosh serial? For that matter, how long until they’d spoof this theoretical protection chip? It’s a losing battle, pure and simple. No matter what protection you implement, someone else will break it. Just ask Microsoft how well product activation is working for them.
It wouldn’t matter anyway. Apple would die a quick death the moment cloning Macs on large scale becomes legal and widespread. So I’m guessing they’d do anything at that point.
So if Apple customers had a choice, most would not buy Apple-branded hardware? Wow, you must think that Apple hardware really sucks.
Edited 2009-10-18 16:15 UTC
Won’t that pretty much kill the ability to run OSX in a virtual machine? Is that really the route Apple wants to take?
Edited 2009-10-19 12:40 UTC
What’s Weird about this? Apple never foresaw that a bunch of thieving assholes would come along and try to legally *STEAL* their OS in a court.
Nobody really did.
Edited 2009-10-17 15:50 UTC
You’re calling me a thieving asshole?
Edited 2009-10-17 16:02 UTC
Why, did you also try to legally steal Apple’s OS?
If there is any stealing going on in this scenario, it is the exorbitant retail price that Apple legally charges Psystar for boxed copies of OSX.
Who stole what now?
How can you consider what Pystar is doing as stealing? Considering Apple is making money on every copy of OSX that is sold on Pystar machines? If Apple wasn’t making money on the OS sales THEN you could call it stealing.
Which position would you rather be in: one where you are at the mercy of others each time something goes wrong with your system, or one who, with manly determination, is resolved to work through such issues on his own with thorough research and study, while building up confidence and pride of accomplishment in return?
Quote from the OSX86 site. digital-dreamer is the author of it. We should all have this posted prominently on our walls, where we can see it every time we look up. It could almost be a motto for OSNews.
He probably would allow ‘womanly determination’ too!
Edited 2009-10-17 15:44 UTC
1. Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. They build and sell hardware that comes with software. Every retail box of OS X is an upgrade to the software that already comes pre-installed on a Mac. The software is a full-installable version as a courtesy to the Mac owner, in case a full reinstall of the software is necessary.
2. Allowing or even tolerating it’s proprietary software to run on non-Apple hardware has the effect of: a) Diluting the Apple brand, b) causing confusion in the marketplace c) blame being placed on Apple when unauthorized use causes instability or data loss d) a negative perception of Apple when end-users have an unsatisfactory experience
If a hobbyist wants to experiment and tinker around with OS X86, they have the understanding that should something go wrong, that’s par for the course. It’s a different story when a consumer purchases a computer with an expectation that the software will work as expected.
When your Dell experiences some kind of software problem with Windows, you assume that the problem is with Windows, not with the Dell hardware. Logically, it is then safe to assume that when Mac OS starts acting up on a Pystar computer, the end-user will assume that the problem is with Mac OS X, and not with the Pystar computer.
That is why Apple must vigorously defend its intellectual property. Apple has worked tirelessly for many years to deliver a particular user experience to its customers – a user experience that its customers have come to expect. Allowing the dilution of that user experience allows for the potential negative perception of Apple itself.
While one of Windows’ strengths is the fact that it works on thousands of different hardware configurations, that very fact is also one of Windows’ biggest weaknesses. Cheap hardware and poorly written drivers have plagued the Windows experience since it’s very inception.
Apple’s tightly controlled hardware and software integration has allowed them to maintain sales growth for every single quarter except one since Mac OS X was first released. They will not, and should not give that up.
So, we should just give up the rights given to us by copyright law, to protect Apple’s public image?
That’s… Scary. Does the same apply to Microsoft? Shell? Banks? The government…?
What rights? Did “we” do anything to merit copyright protection? Did we create anything? No, we didn’t.
Apple did, and spent tens of millions of dollars doing it. Pystar is taking Apple’s hard work and trying to make a buck off of it without doing any work themselves and without giving Apple any of the profit.
The right to use our legally purchased products the way we deem fit. The right to resell products. The right to circumvent any possible protections if it is for the sake of getting software to work.
Those are just a number of rights – defined by law – Apple wants to take away, all to protects its public image. Now tell me, why should we give up those rights?
And related to that – would you give those rights up for Microsoft? For Shell? For your large bank who screwed you over leading to the banking crisis? Would you give up those rights for your government? What makes Apple so special that everyone should give up their law-given rights whenever they ask us to?
It is not my job to protect Apple, nor do I have any obligation whatsoever to Apple, Microsoft, Red Hat, or whatever other software company.
Edited 2009-10-17 19:54 UTC
Thom, by your own admission, your track record on interpreting law is pretty sketchy, and seems to be based solely on “sticking it to the man”.
The copyright laws, that you seem to think are there for your benefit… are not. Copyright is put in place primarily to protect the rights of …. surprise, surprise… the copyright holder.
I see there’s a copyright notice at the bottom of this page. Is that there for the benefit of your readers… or to protect the interests of OSNews?
Apple is not suing you, or OSNews readers, or individual Hackintoshers. Apple is suing a company that is profiting from Apple’s copyrighted intellectual property.
You and other individuals do indeed have rights. Psystar is not an individual.
You appear to be a little naive when it comes to business. No one is asking you to “protect” any particular company, but you seem to want to take away the ability for a company to protect itself. Why is that Thom? Is it because Apple is a large multinational corporation… like Microsoft or Shell?
What if Apple were just a tiny little company? Or what if it was the “Thom Holwerds Company”? Would you protect it then? If someone else turned up and put you out of business by using your own IP to compete against you… I suspect your views on business and the law would be vastly different from the ones you display her, now.
This whole thing has nothing to do with Apple’s “public image”. This is strictly business.
They got their profit when whomever PURCHASED a copy of OSX. [EDIT] Hell Apple should be making more profit on OS sales overall than just about anyone as, likely, the VAST majority of their products are bought directly from them either online or through their retail stores, so no middle retailers for the most part taking a large bite of the profit… [/EDIT]
That said, years ago MacOS development USED to be funded, partially, by hardware sales. I’m not really sure that’s true any longer. In any event, Apple’d likely be better off selling OSX installable directly OOB on any x86 hw, not just their vastly overpriced hw.
Also I’m still peeved that Jobs nixed the final Mac OS 9.X release which one of the system engineers stated that they had a pre-emptive multi-tasking kernel and protected memory ready to ship and maybe they could get it out in the final Mac OS release which never happened… That was at a talk at macHack 2001, forget who the engineer was though…
Edited 2009-10-18 15:39 UTC
It doesn’t matter whether or not Mac fanboys (or Apple) insist that Apple is a “hardware” company, nor does it matter if Apple (or the Mac fanboys) calls boxed copies of OSX an “upgrade.”
The fact is that Apple openly sells retail boxed copies of OSX. If Apple doesn’t want people to install OSX onto non-Mac hardware, then it shouldn’t openly sell retail boxed copies of OSX.
It is irrelevant whether or not any of these claims are valid, and there is no need to change copyright law just because Apple (and/or its fanboys) whines about someone else’s “perception” or about someone else’s “user experience.” If Apple doesn’t want OSX to be installed on non-Mac hardware, then it should not openly sell retail boxed versions of OSX.
In regards to the Mac “experience,” a multitude of problems are continually “experienced” with the precious combination of
Edited 2009-10-17 23:25 UTC
You know, I really need to ask: do you people, who wish for Psystar to win, really consider what it would mean?
I think it’s safe to say that Snow Leopard would remain the first and last version of OS X you’ll ever get to see on Mac clones, one way or another. It might even get to be the last version of OS X ever.
First case scenario: Apple locks down OS X. No more carefree handling of OS X copies and the honor system. You think Apple is being protective about OS X now? Wait until every copy of OS X will be physically tied to an Apple computer and you have to bring the Mac (or iPhone or whatever) into a Mac shop every time you want to reinstall OS X. You think Windows activation is bad? Microsoft never really made it fool-proof, because a certain amount of piracy helps them maintain marketshare.
Apple will have no reason whatsoever to leave any holes in their protection. And Apple has the world-wide stores and can afford to make trips to the store mandatory. Yes, it will be inconvenient, but it will be better than having their business stolen from under their feet.
Second case scenario: Apple are forced to allow any 3rd party to install any version of OS X they produce on any hardware. This would effectively terminate their business model, meaning Apple would dissapear. Which means no more OS X, no more Macs, iPods etc.
Which of these scenarios do you like more? Or do you honestly think there’s a chance for the 3rd case scenario, in which Apple decides to give up all their hardware business and become a software-only business just so they can keep producing OS X for the masses? Somehow I don’t see that happening.
I wonder what kind of person (or company) would wish something like this to happen to Apple. IMHO, it’s not someone who likes Apple.
Boo hoo.
Well, Apple users are already thoroughly acclimated to bringing their Macs into the shop, so, one more time won’t make much difference.
So that’s why Microsoft never made it fool-proof… now it all makes sense!
Here’s the thing, if most would rather go for other hardware than Apple’s while still wishing to use OS X, what’s that say about their hardware offerings versus their software? It seems a good majority of hackintosh owners fit into one of two categories:
1. They want a netbook or other small form factor that Apple refuses to provide such as an htpc or nettop (though personally I think the Mini would be more than adequate for those two categories).
2. They want something midrange, on par with the iMac in power but either without the integrated display or with more expandability than the iMac would offer, yet a MacPro is more than overkill.
My personal prediction is that if Apple offered something midrange at a reasonable price we’d see a good deal of the hackintosh scene dry up. While some are doing it just for the sake of the challenge involved, many more are doing it because they wish to have OS X but none of Apple’s offerings fit what they need.
I think Apple could get away with licensing OS X provided they were careful, but they would have to change their hardware business a bit in order to keep up. They should’ve prepared for this the second they switched to bog standard x86 and should have had a plan in place to deal with it.
They have a plan. They count on the law to protect their business model.
Let’s leave aside the argument that if a companies business plan is not sustainable then they should go out of business, you’re making the classic mistake believing that Apple can only ever have the one business plan which it can never deviate from. That’s clearly rubbish. Perhaps it’s simply time for Apple to change their business plan and license OS X to OEMs? That model certainly didn’t do Microsoft any harm.
Second case scenario: Apple are forced to allow any 3rd party to install any version of OS X they produce on any hardware. This would effectively terminate their business model, meaning Apple would dissapear. Which means no more OS X, no more Macs, iPods etc.
Nonsense. What would happen is that Apple would sell just as much as it does now, because it would have the unique advantage of developing both hardware and software, and so offering an unparalleled degree of integration in the user experience. Which people will pay a premium for, but as we know, Macs are no more expensive than PCs with the same performance, so they will not have to pay a premium.
So, they will just buy it all from Apple. Only a few nutters with obsessive desires for Dells will buy the Dell Hackintosh….
And here we are, the core of the matter. By your own admission, as quoted above, you state that there is no benefit whatsoever in the Mac+OS X combination – because as soon as OS X would become available on non-Macs, nobody would buy Macs any more (that’s what you’re saying).
This is usually where the insecurity from Apple fanatics comes from. They know full well that when given a choice, people will most often opt for the cheaper choice. For most people, a computer is a computer, and it doesn’t matter if it’s a box underneath a desk, or a shiny iMac. All they would see is two computers, both powerful, both running OS X, and they would opt for the low-cost one – which, as history suggests, would be the more powerful one, too.
That is the sole reason why Apple will not license OS X. It has nothing to do with the nonsense of integration – it’s all about the fact that Apple knows full well that most people would opt for OS X on a cheaper machine.
Same thing in the ’90s. Clone makers were able to produce better, faster, and cheaper machines than Apple could, and it hurt Apple.
Edited 2009-10-18 13:33 UTC
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies? Rivers and seas boiling? Forty years of darkness? Earthquakes, volcanoes… the dead rising from the grave? Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria?
C’mon, tell us – the suspense is killing me!
…that’s it? So Apple might start doing what they should have in the first place? Oh the, uh, horror?
OMG NOES!!!!oneone
Why, is Apple’s business model really that flimsy? Or are the people running Apple so immature that they’ll close up shop out of spite?
LEAVE BRITNEY… I mean, LEAVE APPLE ALONE!!!
And they will lose many otherwise loyal customers because of this. They won’t lose everyone, but they will lose those not within a reasonable distance of an Apple store. Where I live, that would mean just about everyone (the nearest Apple store is at least an hour drive away).
I don’t believe that Apple will resort to such measures, but I could see them switching up CPU architectures again – not necessarily away from X86, but to an Apple-specific X86 architecture that is internally (logic) and externally (pin-count) incompatible with standard X86. It would require another round of “universal binary” applications, just like the initial transition to X86 took.
It would piss off users, just like the OS 9 to OS X, and the PowerPC to X86 switch did, but in the end, there’d be no more having to deal with “unauthorized” clone makers.
Apple purchases a lot of CPUs from Intel, so I can’t foresee Intel having any issues with it – and if Intel does have issues, Apple has enough money laying around to simply go and purchase AMD outright.
In regards to the Mac “experience,” a multitude of problems are continually “experienced” with the precious combination of Apple hardware and Apple software.
Many examples of problems with Apple precious hardware-software combos have been linked in this forum in the past. Is it necessary to link more examples of these problems now?
In other words, Apple sells full copies of OS X at retail and they try to use the EULA to magically transform them into upgrade copies (because they’re too cheap or lazy to include a mechanism to check for an existing install).
Sorry, but that emperor’s not wearing any clothes.
If it takes so little to dilute their brand, then it must be pretty weak to begin with. And if any of those Chicken Little predictions actually came to pass, the fact that Apple sells OS X at retail would make it their own stupid fault.
Oh FFS, when are Maclots going to stop beating up on that poor old strawman? Can you provide any examples – even a SINGLE example – where either c) or d) has actually happened?
Funny you should mention data loss, though – Apple seems to be doing a great job of causing data loss all by themselves. There’s the guest account bug, and the rash of dead Time Capsule devices (not to mention their long history of similar bugs).
Sure… if you’re utterly clueless. And hey, here’s a fun experiment: try calling Microsoft about that “software problem,” guess what response you’ll get? “Call your OEM,” not exactly brain surgery. So why is Apple incapable of doing the same thing?
Except for the fact that it’s a licensing issue, NOT an IP issue. Whoops!
…a “plague” which is easily-avoided if you have the slightest clue what you’re doing and don’t just buy the cheapest, bargain-bin hardware you can find.
In other words, Apple is unwilling AND unable to compete with Windows, Linux, etc on a level playing field – so they try to use their EULA to restrict their customers in ways that no other OS vendor does.
Wrong. Apple makes a fortune selling software (check the Amazon software sales rankings and the Apple financial reports to see for yourself). Apple does not ‘make’ hardware. A few components, cases and motherboards for example, are designed by Apple and custom-made for them. But most of the parts are standard off-the-shelf components that anyone can purchase.
Wrong again. OSX retail copies are stand-alone versions of the operating system, and are not labeled nor advertised as “Upgrades.”
Wrong. Apple does the design and engineering for every one of their computers. The manufacturing of those computers is handed off to a third party, a practice done my most computer companies.
And retail copies don’t have to be labeled as “upgrades,” as there is no other computer that the customer can legally install the software on, except a Mac – which came with the software from the factory.
If people were running out to the Apple store and purchasing OS X with the understanding that the could install it on their HP, then you’d have an argument. But this is not the case.
Every OEM designs and engineers their hardware, only to have it built by contractors in the Far East. Apple is not special.
Wrong again. Even if Apple’s EULA will be upheld in court – a very big “if” – it still would not be illegal. Breaking an EULA would only be breach of contract, which is decidedly not illegal.
It is clear now that you have no idea what you are talking about, and are just regurgitating the drivel you see on MacDailyNews and the likes.
That statement is, if technically correct, misleading. Contract violations are actionable in civil court, and a ruling from civil court is obviously legally binding (and ignoring a civil court ruling can, in fact, be criminal).
You keep trying to argue, in many ways, in many threads, that contracts somehow are not legally binding. That claim is absurd. If we weren’t talking about contracts regarding software, but where talking about other contracts, like people’s leases, then nobody would even entertain the idea that “you can pretty much just ignore contracts, because violating them isn’t criminal.” Think about it: my rental agreement is a contract, and if contracts could be freely ignored, then I woudn’t have to pay my rent (and my landlord wouldn’t be under any obligation not to throw me out of my apartment if I don’t). The same for my electric service, WoW account, cell service, etc.
Exactly what hardware does Apple design and engineer, other than the case and motherboard mods that I mentioned above?
The hard drive? Nope.
Graphics? Nope.
Sound? Nope.
Processor? Memory? Optical drives? Nope. Nope. Nope.
What Apple really designs is software. The operating system, drivers, applications…
Not that has anything to do with the Psystar case one way or the other…
Apple designs their own ASICS, ICs, SOCs, EEPROMs, display interfaces, video cameras, touch pads and logic boards, among other things.
Unlike a company like HP/Compaq, who will take an off-the-shelf motherboard from a Taiwanese manufacturer, put in a custom BIOS, stuff it in a generic case by another Taiwanese manufacturer and call it an HP. I used to do in-home service for HP/Compaq, and I can tell you from personal experience that the motherboard failure rates were obscenely high in their consumer machines.
While the peripheral components are indeed manufactured by third parties, the core of the computer, the logic board, is designed and engineered by Apple.
A lot of the angry comments directed at Apple here seem to be because Apple won’t license their OS to third party PC vendors (anymore).
This begs the question: Do the people doing the complaining really want to run OS X that badly, or do they somehow feel threatened by Apple?
Apple isn’t stopping ANYONE from installing OS X on a Hackintosh. They aren’t suing hobbyists, they don’t make you register OS X or “activate” it. Hell, they don’t even care if you install one copy on every single computer you own. You don’t need a “CD-key” or even a serial number.
Apple hasn’t sued anybody for posting hacked copies of OS X that will run on just about any PC, and they haven’t sued OS News for posting a guide on how to get OS X running on your PC without hacking anything!
So where is all the vitriol coming from? The people posting here certainly aren’t going to run out and buy a computer from Pystar, and they already have the talent to install OS X on a PC.
You really can’t tell me with a straight face that you’re defending Pystar, like they are the “savior” of all the poor people who can’t afford a Mac.
And this certainly can’t be about “defending the public’s right to install OS X on whatever computer they want since they purchased it.” While a noble idea, Apple’s continued sales growth every single quarter (except one) suggests that the vast majority of people who really want to run OS X will simply go out and purchase a Mac. The remainder of the people, the hobbyists, can already install OS X on a PC without breaking any laws as demonstrated by this very website.
So, everyone who wants to run OS X can already do so, and spend as little or as much as they want.
So, people are mad. . . why?
Because if Apple is allowed to restrict the usage of legally purchased products… Then so can others. That’s what this is about.
You seem to think this is about Apple – it isn’t. It’s about the grand scheme of things. If Apple is allowed to do things like this, then other companies will start doing the same. Can you imagine Microsoft using its EULA to prohibit you from installing other browsers or media players? Far-fetched you say? Well, all those people defending Apple are also in favour of the above example – by extension.
People like me are mad because we see our rights as consumers to do with out legally purchased products as we please (within copyright) being eroded away by companies like Apple. Apple fanatics may be fine with giving up their rights to protect The Great Apple, but people with brains are not.
I happen to believe that my rights are more important than the success of Apple, or any other company.
Edited 2009-10-18 16:46 UTC
What is eroding? This has been Apple’s policy ever since there was an Apple Computer! That policy hasn’t changed in over 30 years. There has been no “precedent” set, there were no lawsuits and nobody’s rights have been infringed upon.
And if you want to get upset about not being able to use your purchased products as you see fit, one only has to look at the RIAA and the movie studios trying to control and monetize EVERY SINGLE viewing or listening experience.
Should the day come that a software company charges the end-user every single time they turn on their computer, then come back and talk to me.
Your argument is basically “what if this happens,” or “what if that happens.” Well, it hasn’t happened. And even if it DOES happen, the free market will punish any company that does.
To be fair, your argument could go both ways. Why are the Apple people so up in arms about what “Pystar might be able to do”?
Even if they (Pystar) only sold their computers along with an unmodified copy of OSX (for the user to install) the Apple folks would still want it to stop. Apple does not want people running OSX on any other hardware, period. Because if people did do that they’d realize that there is nothing special about Apple hardware except the high price.
Most people don’t buy Macs for the hardware, they buy them for the software experience.
Edited 2009-10-19 17:21 UTC
Have any scientific data to back up that claim?
Since it is an observation of opinions and opinions change over time, it is not possible to submit anything that could be considered “scientific data” on this topic. By anyone.
I can say with confidence that everyone I know with a Mac fits under the category I said above. More specifically, none of them would buy a Mac without OSX but all of them would buy another non-Apple computer with Mac OSX on it (if it was cheaper, but not at the same price).
How many people do you know that would pay good money for a Mac without having OSX on it?
Which is just the opposite of the unscientific data that I’ve collected. Every Mac user that I know, including myself, would never consider purchasing a “clone” that could run OS X, no matter how low the price.
My Macs have been the most reliable, most stable, most dependable and most beautiful computers I’ve ever owned, and I’ve owned at least 20 different computers, both Mac and PC.
And I have hand built nearly every PC I’ve ever owned or given away (also 20+). And I feel the same way about my computers. Neither of our cases are scientific.
Looks like Apple just sold 3.05 million Macs last quarter. . . their biggest quarter, ever. . . again!
Looks like when faced with the choice between a clone and a genuine Mac, people have no problem forking out the extra cash for the genuine article.
I haven’t gotten that feeling at all from reading OSNews’ members comments. Apple doesn’t need to offer special licenses for their software if OEMs are willing to pay full retail for it.
The primary reason why the old clones were driven out of business, Apple refused to release hardware specs for their newest computers. That’s no longer critical since Apple has moved to common PC components.
Not at all. I happen to have a genuine Apple computer running OSX.
They’re suing Psystar – how does that translate into not suing ANYONE?!? Why is Psystar being singled out? And if they win against Psystar, what’s to stop them from suing individual users from doing the same thing?
Generally the vitriol is immediately following posts like your’s.
Yeah, everyone except Psystar. Why is that?
I’m mad about the way that Psystar is being singled out by Apple, an obvious attempt by a large mega-corporation to drive a small company out of business.
Psystar isn’t asking for any favors or help from Apple, like OEM licensing price breaks, hardware specs, or anything else. But yet Psystar has found themselves in the cross hairs of the Apple legal department.
Apple originally sued Pystar because Pystar illegally modified OS X to run on their computers. Even Pystar doesn’t deny this.
And I said anyone specifically – meaning any individual. It is within Apple’s right to sue a company that is out to make a profit at Apple’s expense, just like it would be Apple’s right to sue an individual if that person sold illegally modified copies of OS X.
No precedent has been set here. This isn’t a big corporation vs a small business. It’s a small business violating the law at the expense of a big business. Apple hasn’t sued a single individual.
The only reason that Pystar is being “singled out” is that Pystar is the only company that did it.
The “illegally” is what is at stake here. It is specifically allowed by US law to circumvent protections for the sake of getting software to work. This is what Psystar is betting on.. Judge Alsup will have to make a ruling on this first before you can declare it illegal.
Which law? As far as I know, the trial hasn’t even started yet, so saying they broke the law is very, very premature.
Wrong again. You really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you? Thre is Quo in California, PearC in The Netherlands/Belgium/Luxembourg/France/Germany, and there are cloners in the UK and Russia.
To this case the only one of these that would matter is Quo. Quo however is doing it differently then Psystar, so you have to keep that in mind.
Psystar is shipping computers pre-installed with OS X, and they have an image they use to actually install OS X on the machines with. They already have the copies of OS X on hand to ship to the consumer, and the machines are basically already installed, well before the request from the consumer comes in.
Quo on the other hand, waits for the order and requires the buyer to pre-pay for the system, and then goes and buys the copy of OS X from the Apple store, with the consumers money, and installs it after the fact. By doing that they are acting as an agent of the consumer to install the software, which is totally allowed under copyright law. Different model from the way Psystar is doing it, and one allowed by law, as it is specifically written in the law.
Apple I don’t think would have a leg to stand on, even remotely, had Psystar used the same model that Quo is using.
Except….read Blizzard. It is possible that under Blizzard, to break a EULA deprives you of permission to make any copies, including those necessary to run the system, ie the copies into memory. I am not sure of what exactly Blizzard amounts to, but its possible that it is a counter argument.
Except for Blizzard, the point is valid.
The Blizzard case in no way would stop you from copying the program into memory in order to run it. It will however prevent the use of Bots in WoW. I really do not see how that case can be relevant to this one at all. With lawyers though anything is possible I guess. Copyright law invalidates any clause in a EULA that would indicate that you could not run the program.
People really do need to read Blizzard carefully, every word. What happens is, you break EULA. When you do that, you lose your license. That’s right, the license is terminated. According to the judge, you are anyway not the owner in the sense of S117, so those protections do not apply. Also according to the judge, to use = to read into RAM = to make a copy.
Since the license is what authorizes you to make that copy by reading into RAM, you are now making unauthorized copies. Therefore you are breaking copyright.
It is not breaking the EULA that is breaking copyright. It is continuing to use after license termination because you broke the EULA = reading into RAM = making a copy, which is breaking copyright because unauthorized.
Don’t yell at me, just read it carefully.
Quo did modify any of Apple’s software, and neither did EfiX. PearC is a unique case because of the copyright laws in Germany.
If a company wants to sell computers that have the ability to run OS X, then I don’t believe that Apple has a legal leg to stand on. The issue is when the software is modified.
Pystar can sell all of the OS X compatible computers they want, and Apple probably can’t do a thing about it. But Pystar, Quo and others like them would be no different than any other PC manufacturer, as just about any modern PC can run OS X.
In fact, since Pystar has apparently changed their business model and no longer modifies OS X, any future action from Apple regarding OS X on non-apple computers will probably be a hard battle for them to win.