Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 22:42 UTC, submitted by anon
Legal The legal back-and-forth between Apple and clone-maker PsyStar continues to develop, with the latest news being a move by Apple - the Cupertino company has invoked something with many already predicted Apple would call upon: the DMCA, or the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. This was done in an amendment to the original suit, filed in July this year.
Thread beginning with comment 338963
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Um, reaching a bit?
by darknexus on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 23:40 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

They're reaching a bit, aren't they?
This is the first I think anyone's heard of Psystar marketing these technologies to third parties. Weren't they basically using projects developed by the OSX86 community in the first place? PC EFI and the like? As far as I'm aware, what Psystar did was build a system that had all OS X compatible hardware in it and install it for you. It was this latter part, I thought, that could be called into question by Apple. I don't believe Psystar was creating the hacks and/or boot loaders that was allowing OS X to be run on their systems. Am I mistaken about this? Do I have it all wrong?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Um, reaching a bit?
by sultanqasim on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 00:03 in reply to "Um, reaching a bit?"
sultanqasim Member since:
2006-10-28

It's true that the OS X used by Psystar is essentially an OSx86 version but it seems to be their own OSx86 distribution (just like linux distro) with their custom updater software etc. The main problem that Apple seems to have with them is that they have the guts to sell a hacked, sort-of pirated and illegal* copy of OS X and claim that it is like a real mac. It may also be concerning Apple in the sense that people are getting bad impressions of OS X from these comps Yes, I admit to having tried using forms of OSx86 and I must admit that they kinda suck and seem uhh... illegal hack-like and buggy.

*Illegal if you count EULAs as law. Some people of the GNU extremist type will dismiss EULAs, contracts, licenses, copyrights, trade secrets, and anything proprietary as invalid.

P.S. If you feel offended about what I said about the GNU type, please don't take this personally and don't start a flamewar. Lets all be geeky friends :-)

Edited 2008-12-03 00:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[2]: Um, reaching a bit?
by tupp on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 06:00 in reply to "RE: Um, reaching a bit?"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

*Illegal if you count EULAs as law. Some people of the GNU extremist type will dismiss EULAs, contracts, licenses, copyrights, trade secrets, and anything proprietary as invalid.

The term "illegal" describes something that violates a law.

An EULA is definitely not a law -- it is a private contract, usually unsigned.

A civil contract is definitely not a law -- it is a private agreement between one or more parties.

A civil license is definitely not a law -- licenses are private contracts that grant permissions. However, a license from the government (like a driver's license) can be controlled by laws.

Copyright statutes are definitely laws.

Trade secrets and proprietary entities are definitley not laws.

Got it?

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Um, reaching a bit?
by Soulbender on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 14:36 in reply to "RE: Um, reaching a bit?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Illegal if you count EULAs as law.


Fortunately an EULA is a contract, not a law. Violating a contract is not a crime.

Some people of the GNU extremist type will dismiss EULAs, contracts, licenses, copyrights, trade secrets, and anything proprietary as invalid.


None of these are "propreitary" and no, GNu extremists arent against licenses. That would be kind of counter-productive considering that the GPL is a license.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Um, reaching a bit?
by Almindor on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 16:58 in reply to "RE: Um, reaching a bit?"
Almindor Member since:
2006-01-16

EULAs are contracts + they are not valid in some countries (depends on civil law specifications of what a "contract" exactly is, and when is it considered valid, e.g: acceptance details for parties etc.).

So somewhere, it might be completely "legal" (as explained above my post, none of what you say is "illegal") to actually do what EULAs forbid (thank God, because I hate being restricted AFTER buying something).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Um, reaching a bit?
by RRepster on Fri 5th Dec 2008 03:17 in reply to "Um, reaching a bit?"
RRepster Member since:
2008-06-18

glad it's going to court. Maybe a sensible judge will be assigned that says "now wait a minute, what gives you the right to tell others what can and can't be done with what they buy?" With Psystar it's kind of shaky since they stand to profit off Apple's OS but the end-user stuff like MSFT claiming end users can't modify their xbox's and other crazy actions under DMCA I think has gone too far.

Reply Parent Score: 1