Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 10:13 UTC
Legal While the Apple v. Psystar case is currently on hold until the hearing regarding the motions for a summary judgement takes place (November 12) the Psystar v. Apple case (still with me?) is only just beginning. Psystar has amended its original complaint in this second lawsuit, asking the judge to order Apple to cease calling Psystar's business "illegal", claiming it hurts the clone maker financially.
Thread beginning with comment 392500
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Not OSnews, PSnews
by th3rmite on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Not OSnews, PSnews"
th3rmite
Member since:
2006-01-08

This is about our right to run the OS we want on the hardware we want.


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"!

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Not OSnews, PSnews
by Soulbender on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 13:33 in reply to "RE[2]: Not OSnews, PSnews"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

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.

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[4]: Not OSnews, PSnews
by jweinraub on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 16:52 in reply to "RE[3]: Not OSnews, PSnews"
jweinraub Member since:
2009-06-22

It is also the legality of the SLA to begin with. When Psystars engineers install the OS on their hardware, they choose to accept the terms of the SLA. Since they are breaking that contract, they are violating the terms of the said contract.

That being said, it is a civil matter. What someone said about it being illegal to look under the bonnet doesn't understand the concept at hand. This is not a criminal case. Even if the courts find in favour of Apple, it won't create the case law to make it criminal to look at how things work. It will just legitimise EULA/SLA contracts. It does not matter if they bought all the licences that they install, since Apple is making money on it. Apple is a hardware company that happens to make software for their hardware. It is saying you are starting to make your own cell phone because you think the prices of Blackberrys is outrageous. And since you can legally download the firmware off blackberrys website, and you decide to install it onto your own hardware is also in violation of the agreement from RIM's website.

What psystar is doing is sleazy, and I like to know where they are getting the money to finance their legal escapades.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: Not OSnews, PSnews
by robojerk on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 16:50 in reply to "RE[2]: Not OSnews, PSnews"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

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.


Those are horrible comparisons.

Reply Parent Score: 3

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

"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.


Those are horrible comparisons.
"

OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!111

And I thought that Apple's "jailbroken iPhones will crash cell towers" idiocy was the height of sensationalist dishonesty. I see now that I was mistaken.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Not OSnews, PSnews
by righard on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 17:27 in reply to "RE[2]: Not OSnews, PSnews"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

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.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Not OSnews, PSnews
by BluenoseJake on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 18:59 in reply to "RE[2]: Not OSnews, PSnews"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

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.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Not OSnews, PSnews
by Mellin on Thu 5th Nov 2009 02:52 in reply to "RE[3]: Not OSnews, PSnews"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

if they win apple stops selling mac os x on dvds

(or can a court order apple to sell copies of mac os x to psystar?)

Reply Parent Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

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.

Reply Parent Score: 5

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

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.


Agree. If Apple didn't want people to install this software on anything other than Apple hardware, they never should have provided the software separate from the hardware. This is an important case. I don't necessarily agree with everything that Psystar is doing here, but I find it difficult to oppose them, either, just based on the fact that Apple is so obnoxious and dictatorial with the ecosystem.

Reply Parent Score: 3

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Synthetic laws are placed on all kinds of products for all kinds of reasons. We have many laws that support the creator of a product over imitators or resalers.

For example Western socities ban counterfit goods as they dilute the value of another company's brand. It takes little effort to apply a Guess patch to a cheap pair of Wal-mart jeans. It's a synthetic limit that allows Guess to have quality control over their brand.

At the same time Wal-mart always has the option of creating their own brand just as Psystar has the option of creating their own OS. Intellectual property laws not only exist to protect exisiting companies but also to encourage companies entering a market to not take shortcuts.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Not OSnews, PSnews
by Datatracer on Sat 7th Nov 2009 20:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Not OSnews, PSnews"
Datatracer Member since:
2009-09-20

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"!


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".

Reply Parent Score: 1