Linked by David Adams on Mon 3rd Oct 2011 17:33 UTC, submitted by Adurbe
Legal Apple has the right to continue restricting its operating systems to its own hardware thanks to a decision handed down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday. Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder wrote in her opinion that Apple's Mac OS X licensing agreement was indeed enforceable against Psystar, which had sold non-Mac computers with Mac OS X installed.
Thread beginning with comment 491709
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
BlueofRainbow
Member since:
2009-01-06

This is a fine line.

A hacker/hobbyist can build his/her own Hackintosh with off-the self components and a purchased copy of OS X. This is not quite abiding to the full EULA but it would be difficult for Apple to enforce the EULA other than by barring the Hackintosh systems from updates/upgrades via hardware checks during their install.

However, what Psystar did was - take such off-the self components, install OS X, and sale the completed package to end-users in the hope of profits. Two key-concepts - a complete package and in the hope of profits - makes it difficult not to side with Apple.

Had Psystar sold hardware which could easily be transformed into a Hackintosh, then they possibly would not (could not) have been stopped from doing so even if a list of OS X versions which could be installed on them (compatibility) was provided as part of a Welcome Manual, along with similar notes for Linux and Windows.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

BlueofRainbow,

"Had Psystar sold hardware which could easily be transformed into a Hackintosh, then they possibly would not (could not) have been stopped from doing so..."


At the end, if I recall, this is what psystar was doing. The system was MacOS install-ready, but not pre-installed - that was the user's responsibility. They were still forced to cease distribution of their MacOS compatibility EFI.


http://news.softpedia.com/news/Psystar-Shifts-Mac-OS-X-Installation...

Reply Parent Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Two key-concepts - a complete package and in the hope of profits - makes it difficult not to side with Apple.


Has the software been properly bought (instead of copied, stolen, etc.)? If yes, then Apple just lost all its rights to anything happening with that copy.

Copyright only covers the right to copy - not the right to the copy. This is a very important distinction few people seem to understand.

Reply Parent Score: 3

rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

"Two key-concepts - a complete package and in the hope of profits - makes it difficult not to side with Apple.


Has the software been properly bought (instead of copied, stolen, etc.)? If yes, then Apple just lost all its rights to anything happening with that copy.

Copyright only covers the right to copy - not the right to the copy. This is a very important distinction few people seem to understand.
"

In the United States, at least, your statement is absolutely wrong. Apple sells a license to their software, not a copy of the software. If anything, you'd think this court case would have convinced you of that since the ruling flat out states that.

Reply Parent Score: 2