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 352484
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
GCrain
Member since:
2005-07-11

However, your argument does not distinguish between for personal use vs for profit. In the case of Pystar, they are using Apple's software, installed on their hardware, to sell their product and compete directly against Apple. If Pystar was not using Apple's software in this way, would they still have a legitimate business? Is it right for a company, like Pystar to use Apple's own software to compete and take further business away from Apple? I say no, not without proper license from Apple, which it has not given.


Exactly, but I don't know if it is to use the software to compete against Apple's hardware so much (even though Apple doesn't like it). The fact that Pystar hacks the code, and parts of the OS to work. Is the code Pystar pre-installed IDENTICAL to the code that Apple sells?? No? Then how can Pystar legally reverse engineer, modify it and resell it? Reverse engineering is often not illegal in itself. For an individual, I doubt Apple cares much, but they are basing their business model around it. The EULA isn't the basis of the lawsuit.
This has further implications than just Apple-vs-Pystar. Another car analogy (since I work for an automotive company): A small company reversed engineered the engine controller code, made modifications and was reselling the code as a performance upgrade. It bypassed many safety and emissions related functions. The original manufacturer lawyers went ballistic. It never made it to court.
Should it be legal to resell modified engine controller code that was already 'sold' with the vehicle? The manufacturer did the R&D, testing, safety and emission certification.
Who's responsible when the vehicle is resold to someone unknowing that the air bags and emissions are no longer functional and they get into an accident? They will first go after the original manufacturer, and then the burden would rest on them to prove that the engine controller code was tampered with.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

Another car analogy (since I work for an automotive company): A small company reversed engineered the engine controller code, made modifications and was reselling the code as a performance upgrade. It bypassed many safety and emissions related functions...


If Psystar were bypassing OSX's consumer safety features or EPA regulated specs, you'd have a good point.

LOL.

Reply Parent Score: 2

GCrain Member since:
2005-07-11

"Another car analogy (since I work for an automotive company): A small company reversed engineered the engine controller code, made modifications and was reselling the code as a performance upgrade. It bypassed many safety and emissions related functions...
If Psystar were bypassing OSX's consumer safety features or EPA regulated specs, you'd have a good point. LOL. "

How do you know what Psystar is doing? In essence, they are bypassing processes (safety?) in OSX to redirect updates to their own hacks. They are NOT using OSX unaltered. It would be different if they sent you a empty harddrive and the sealed box and let you install it. Psystar is only in this for the short haul and to make a quick buck off of Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Read more of this thread... >