What Is the Issue in the Psystar Case?
Linked by Nescio on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:05 UTC
Apple Numerous irrelevant issues and feelings about them are ventilated in comments on the case. However, there are only two important issues. One is what the law is, the other is what we think the law should be.
E-mail Print r 12   · Read More · 113 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/ga8
Thread beginning with comment 352281
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
kaelodest
Member since:
2006-02-12

I greatly agree on the scope of this case, but not on the implementation of the logic. Non Free Non OSS SW determines how and where you get to install it. That seems to be the case with anything that has a receipt or serial number. Heck the prime reason that The Mac OS has not required a serial number was because for nearly the first twenty years the OS ran exclusively on Apple Branded HW ( with a brief extension into clones) Apple is the Hardware, and the MacOS is the Software. This is pretty easy. And I think we can all agree on those two points. Last month I saw someone on the train with a Vaio laptop running MacOS hacked, and running xp in VMware. Assuming that he bought his software he is in compliance not by the letter but by the intent of the law. Apple is not looking for him and his type - And I am assuming that he bought the SW. Undoubtably Sony Makes a MacOS compatible device. But that is not what they are trying to do. Sony is just doing the best that it can. Sony is a real company.

Apple is correct in trying to stop Psystar from making unlicensed clones. Because Apple did all of the hard work and all of the engineering and especially all of the marketing and as such they deserve all of the profits on their SW. Now if I decide to buy a Sony or build a Mac compatible unit myself then I deserve to run it but I do not have the right to re sell it as 'My product'. Apple the hardware side is not under any moral obligation to let Psystar ride their engineering. Apple took all of the risk and they deserve all of the profit. Where was Psystar during the PPC days or during the bad old days. If I took the Free Open Source SW quagga and told the world that it was as good as cisco well that could be true. But if I sold Quagga/Zebra software in the cisco router space then I would expect cisco to hire a well paid lawyer to sue me down to a smoking hole in the ground.

There is NOTHING in the MacOS that the F/OSS software movement cannot replicate with some effort. The MacOS is essentially yet another unix. It is not because of the tight integration between HW & SW it is because of the well written abstraction of the HW from the SW. If you are willing to take the steps to make your Debian or Suse or Fedora work as well as a Mac then bring it. Bring it and share it. At that point you might be willing to bundle it as your own distro.

So suppose that you make your very own 'Cortland' distro (a NY State variety of Apple) and it is successful. Some people buy CDs some people download your .ISOs people are writing you checks and grants - on the balance you luckily recoup most of your expenses. Next thing you know someone clones all of your work and calls it 'Empire' (another NY State variety of Apple)

Do you owe them anything because what you built was made from a reference spec? <PERSONALLY> I feel that Psystar should Man Up and make their own distro, Like Shuttleworth/ Ubuntu or write Linux SW that functions like the Mac desktop - iLife apps or whatever. The more that they cloud this with noise about the SW license the dumber it gets. Apple is NOT GNU or F/OSS and neither is Windows or Novell or Lotus or anything that comes shrink wrapped with a EULA

The implications are going to be far reaching

Reply Score: 2

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

All fine and dandy, but what has "There is NOTHING in the MacOS that the F/OSS software movement cannot replicate with some effort." to do with the case at hand?

Psystar isn't an Open Source company. They even use a proprietary license for their "retail hackintoshes". Although the case is about the validity of after sale license conditions, this doesn't mean it automatically is related to FOSS. If a license is deemed void, the software doesn't automagically become Public Domain or Free Software.

The magic of Apple is limited hardware support on preselected components, with a pretty UI on top of their UNIX. This is also already available in the FOSS world. Get supported hardware and install/get-a-preload-with a nice WM/DE on top of a *Nix. Same result.

Reply Parent Score: 2

kaelodest Member since:
2006-02-12

Yup I was a windy there. I agree Psystar is not even remotely OSS, I suspect that they are playing the the whole F/OSS sentiment with a fist in a velvet glove. There is very little case to be made for SW transfer after sale. My view (as a developer) is similar to Wil Shipley - of delicious monster. As a matter of fact I prefer F/OSS in the workplace. I Like not having to reinvent the wheel and having the option to learn from someone else's well written code. That is OUR dog in this fight. We can learn and give back - it is a positive feedback loop. Much SW for the Mac is hella overpriced (like photoshop and most of the music apps) and that is a negative feedback. It adds the price of another base model Mac to the cost of a workstation.

If However I was going to sell a copy of SW then I sort of have to give the disk serial number and box. Why would I sell an App or an OS if I planned on still using it?

I disagree that the the magic of Apple is select HW and SW integration the proof of that lies in the ease that Apple has switching the code base from Motorola 68K (in Many Macs even in 1995) to Motorola PPC 1994-2005 and Intel chips -- That seems like a large investment in well written code. Those are some hard dues to pay. That r&d is why I do not like why psystar is playing at.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

"Because Apple did all of the hard work and all of the engineering and especially all of the marketing and as such they deserve all of the profits on their SW."

Psystar is buying their copies of OSX. Apple is getting profit from their hard SW work.

What is also happening, is Apple is not making a profit from their crappy (many dead ibooks) hardware because of tying SW to HW.

----------------------------------
"It may be reasonable, for example, for a vendor of gas tanks to be able to forbid, by a contract entered into at the time of sale, anyone but an authorized agent from recharging the tank."

I don't like that idea exactly, Ford gas stations? Nope. If there were a open or government standard, that a vendor had to meet then make that a law.
-----------------------------------

Can I install OSX on an Asus motherboard installed in a Mac pro case? How about an apple motherboard (http://www.dvwarehouse.com/Apple-Motherboard-c-245.html) in a HP case? Does it matter who made the hard drive? Does an "Apple labeld computer" mean the logo when it boots up?


Anything Apple can do, Microsoft should be able to do? I await the days of the Microsoft PC which only works on "Microsoft labeld computers." Ask yourself, why limit this to software. Maybe your next dictionary will only be legal to read under Merriam-Webster lights.

Reply Parent Score: 1

kaelodest Member since:
2006-02-12

Well that is odd because I do not seem to be suggesting anything remotely extreme or unreasonable. The Mac OS comes at a deep subsidy without a lot of hassles about what you can install it on. I do not think that it phones home invades my privacy or even requires a serial number. Heck I _could_ install it on every Mac and PC in the house for the same $129. I do not even want to think what Microsoft would give me for the same 129 U.S.Dollars.

Software is vastly different than a book. When I have a book I generally have one copy - I cannot give one away (or sell or transfer it) and then go to the library grab one of the shelf and say 'see-ya' I own this.

I am speaking more to the lines of Apple HW. YOU can install whatever you buy on whatever you want. That if I was a lawyer (my dad is) I know that I would not even send a paralegal or even a legal secretary to think about telling you what to do with a copy that you bought.

HOWEVER when a company starts a business model on the back of the RD that comes from another company, well that is just bad ethics. No Apple does not own the x86 reference instruction set but they do own the OS you buy a license.

This is real simple a company or a copyright holder has the right to protect their copyright or trademark. McD could sell a whopper and BK can sell a big mac, but I cannot open a McG and sell both the Whopper and the Big Mac. Well I could but it is not a sustainable business model. Psystar can do what they want but Apple likely has better paid lawyers and also has the law on their side. What would you do if it was your copyright.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Read more of this thread... >