OSNews

I too have never liked Psystar as a company at all, they just happen to be the ones who started a very important fight. I personally don't have any interest towards Hackintoshes as I don't like OSX at all, but I do however have a lot of interest towards copyright laws and EULAs.

As copyright laws and EULAs and similar ones do touch every single person using computers it's quite obvious that any related news will be reported here.

No it's not, it's about Psystar's right to sell said computer. There are all types of resell restrictions that are not limited to computers. For instance a friend of mine built his own airplane, legal to fly it himself, but he could not resell it.

Can you purchase a gun and then just sell it to whoever you want? Alcohol? Tobacco? Prescription medicine? When I buy a six pack of beer, I can not resell it to a minor. Sounds like a post sale restriction to me, and I didn't even click "Accept"!

The important difference that you fail to mention is that the restrictions you mentioned are governed by law, not by contracts.

Those are horrible comparisons.

The examples you gave there are there to protect the costumer instead the company. The EULA is there to protect the company instead of the costumer. They are tow fundamentally different things.

If Compaq hadn't done the same thing in the 80s to IBM, we wouldn't have the PC ecosystem we have now. Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS, and IBM took them to court. Compaq, and everyone else won.

This case is no different, and even though the motives of Pystar are suspect, if they win, everybody wins.

Your equating software to home built aircraft, firearms and controlled substances. You don't think your maybe reaching a little?

Software is more like the CD of your favorite band. Any old CD reader can play the music off that disk. Now suddenly Virgin Records includes a slip of paper inside the case. You go, you buy the disk. You get home and pull the plastic off only to see:

"Thank you for purchasing our product. By breaking the plastic seal, you agree to only play this music on Sony branded music players and also agree that content on this will not be converted to other formats."

It's an EULA and is restrictive in that it tries to remove writes already granted by copyright and fair use. No one would accept the first clause either. The more likely response is "I baught the music disk and I'll play it on whatever CD reader I want and I'm going to copy the songs over to my mp3 player."

It's a synthetic limitation. The only thing stopping it from running on non-Apple purchased hardware is the EULA. Get an EFI motherboard and your golden. yet, we accept that osX is somehow different from any other copyright content. It's software; it's magical and shit! - no it's not; it's just software and there's no reason a legally purchased copy can't be installed on non-Apple hardware outside of apple asking you not too.

Soooo, a computer is now somehow a dangerous item and a sale between 2 people needs to be regulated as such? Sorry, weak analogy.

I'm really hoping Apple loses this battle. I've never thought this was an "illegal" vs. "legal" battle in the first place. I'm glad Psystar is hammering that point with the court. This case is essentially all about a *contract*, the EULA. Psystar, or any other company installing OS X at a user's request, is not the "end user", thus not breaking any EULA, which is supposed to be a *contract* between Apple and the END USER. If an end user, the customer, breaks an EULA, it's a breach of contract, which as I understand it, is simply a civil dispute between two parties, and not implicitly "illegal".

Apple made the investment into OSX, not Psystar. It's their product and they can sell it a manner that benefits them.

Going against Apple is foolish in the long term. Apple's profit margins depend on selling a complete package which includes the OS and the hardware. There's a dozen ways they could make life difficult for Psystar. It isn't as if selling the OS at retail is a major part of their business model.

I wouldn't be surprised if Psystar was created as a private investment trap. The people at the top have to know how many ways that Apple can legally screw them.

And Psystar can resell it in a manner that befits them. Basic economic principle that's older than god. Why should Apple have a status aparte?



Why should anyone other than Apple and its stockholders care about its profit margins? Why should I? Why should Psystar? Should the law be disregarded to safeguard Apple's profit margins? Would you allow the law to be disregarded to protect Microsoft's profit margins too?



I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is actually acting as a puppet for the RIAA/MPAA here. Those two organisations would benefit massively from having EULAs clearly labelled as okay. Imagine CDs with EULAs in them, which stated no personal copies, no reselling, only allowed to be played in authorised players (i.e., not recorders)... It's the RIAA/MPAA's wet dream. Insane, you say? Well, what other company is Steve Jobs the big boss of?

Bingo.

Of course, the above is complete nonsense - but it's no more nonsensical than those silly claims about Psystar you EULA supporters make.

Edited 2009-11-03 18:57 UTC

Then Apple shouldn't sell the software separately from the hardware. Problem solved.

.. and Apple has chosen to sell osX in a retail box for anyone to purchase. They still get the retail cost of the sold unit set at what they've chosen to sell it at.

Moron,*YOU DON'T* have the right to run the OS we want on the hardware *YOU* want unless it's a GPL'd OS like Linux or something similar where you are granted permission to do so.

Where do you base your claims? Do you say EULAs are always valid and can and should be enforceable? If so then it'd be interesting to hear some arguments as to why you think so.

Besides, do you understand the implications of such? If EULAs were indeed found to be legally binding then do expect to start seeing EULAs in DVDs, CDs, electronic books and so on.

You alt 2600 warezing assholes did enough damage by getting involved with the DeCSS trial.

How do you know that they use illegal copies? I've seen several people mentioning that they've actually bought a retail copy of OSX and used that.

Do us all a favor and f--k off now....

And you are somehow better than all others just simply because you can throw out a whole bunch of baseless insults at people and don't back up a single of your claim with any kind of an argument?

Are you for real? If you think the GPL has certain virtues for freedom, then please kindly explain them, but don’t talk to anybody on this site like how you have, especially staff.

Good God, man. What is WRONG with you? This is a discussion. There's no need for name-calling. Given the diverse set of people here on OSNews, you can't expect everyone to agree with you. But at least show a modicum of respect.

... except for the "tiny itsy bitsy" detail that what you claimed is not what Pysstar is going to court for.

People should have the right to run whatever they want in the computers they own, that is probably a no-brainer argument. However, that is not what Pysstar is going to court over. They are simply trying to re-sell other people's product without the authorization of the manufacturer.


Twooo very different issues IMHO. Trying to piggyback Pysstar as a champion of freedom is simply hubris. Especially, when Pysstar is going against the interests of those in the OSX86 community to begin with.

Edited 2009-11-03 20:43 UTC

... except for the "tiny itsy bitsy" fact that is not what Pysstar is going to court to.

I don't quite care what their motivations are, I don't like them anyway. But the point is, EULAs and copyright law do come up very important in the Psystar vs Apple case and either outcome will have very big repercussions regarding consumer rights.

People should have the right to run whatever they want in the computers they own, that is probably a no-brainer argument.

A lot of people disagree with that notion, including Apple.

Trying to piggyback Pysstar as a champion of freedom is simply hubris.

You're assuming things and not reading enough. I am not trying to pose Psystar as any kind of a champion for Free Software or consumer rights. It just happens that this case does touch those subjects very broadly, that's why it is so important.

For all I care Psystar should win this case but have to close their doors for some other unrelated reason.

Except that there are already laws on the books that allow someone to resell a product they purchased, except when it is otherwise controlled (like arms, drugs, and the like). Software sales are not controlled. This is no different than me buying a CD and reselling it to someone else (as far as resale goes), which is perfectly legal for me to do under current law (without getting permission from the place of purchase or the manufacturer).

The real question the case will decide is whether it is legal for Pystar to install OSX prior to resale. In other words, by installing it first are they attempting to sell two copies (original disks and installed copy) while only paying for one (the original disks)?. As others have stated endlessly, violating an EULA or SLA is not a legal issue.

If Pystar loses then the decision could effectively limit (or possibly eliminate) companies that purchase and resell (or even donate) used computers, because they could be forced to remove or re-license any installed software. Unintended consequence? Maybe.

Edited 2009-11-03 20:57 UTC

Can somebody please point out where Apple went after the Hackintosh community before Psystar came into being? Seriously... Why does everybody ignore this? Psystar isn't championing a cause... They've stolen from everybody just to make a quick buck in their own wallets.

The amusing point has been made on Ars something like this. Apple wants the power to sell its software freely and then specify what hardware a buyer may install on. If Apple has that power, so does everyone else.

So there will be nothing to stop anyone selling software which can be installed on Macs, perhaps under Wine, or in a VM, but simply specifying in the EULA that it may be installed in any machine as long as that machine is not a Mac. Or that, if it is server software, it is unlawful to allow Macs to connect to it.

So, is that what you all really want? Do you really want to hand the world and his brother that sort of power over your favorite platform?

Edited 2009-11-04 08:41 UTC

Excelent point of view. If Apple has the right to do it, then everybody has the right to do it.

In that case, I even have the right to implement a web site and to state explicitly in an EULA that is not permited to see that website from Mac Os X operating system.

How will Apple behave if Google, Youtube, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter expressly forbid Mac Os X and Safari users to access those sites? It can be a matter of EULA.