Update: Hackintosh Legality

[V Plamondon]

As many of you know, Apple's amended complaint names several "John Does" stating;

 

"On information and belief, the John Doe Defendants are various individuals and/or corporations who have infringed Apple's intellectual property rights, breached or induced the breach of Apple's license agreements and violated state and common law unfair competition laws. Apple will seek leave to amend this complaint to show the unknown John Doe Defendants' true names and capacities when they are ascertained."

 

Accordingly, I have informed Apple Inc. of the following (excerpt from my correspondence, word for word);

 

"I have at least a few times, personally discussed with Rudy, and regularly, with other members of the OSX86 community, the legal issues involving Apple's Software License Agreement and it's non applicability in many cases.

 

I have personally run Mac OS X on non-apple hardware, installed Mac OS X on non apple hardware for other users, and regularly dispense and share information on how to render Apple's Software License Agreement unenforceable such that users can freely install Mac OS X on non apple hardware without fear of repercussions.

 

I have freely engaged in discussions on the legal points of law which allow anyone to install Mac OS X on non Apple hardware, as well as pointing out how to modify Mac OS X to run on non apple hardware in such a way to render Apple's Software License Agreement unenforceable.

 

I have repeatedly offered to install Mac OS X on non apple hardware and have accordingly done so.

 

I have freely shared my opinions on what portions of Apple's Software License Agreement are unenforceable, and when the entirety of the agreement becomes unenforceable.

 

In respect to these activities, and my other related activities, Apple Inc. is fully aware of my actions, as I have occasionally informed them of my activities."

 

As of this time, Apple Inc. has yet to amend their complaint to reveal myself as one of the "John Does" even though my activities clearly fall under the category of breaching or inducing the breach of Apple's license agreements.

 

As many of you may know, I have been involved in such activities for some time now, sharing my opinions and knowledge of software license agreements, including sharing opinions and methods of rendering them inapplicable or unenforceable.

 

I have also, from time to time, informed Apple Inc. of my activities, and documented my activities.

 

It will be interesting to note, whether or not Apple Inc. adds me as one of the "John Doe" defendants, as there will be interesting ramifications.

 

As a consequence, if someone has agreed to Apple's Software License Agreement, yet still installs Mac OS X onto a non-apple computer, Apple Inc. may experience serious difficulty in attaching liability for breach of that contract on that basis.

 

As Apple Inc. has been fully informed and has full knowledge of the OSX86's communities activities, and have chosen, by their inaction, not to enforce that portion of the license agreement. Accordingly, any person Apple Inc. chooses to sue over breach of the aforementioned license agreement, have a valid, affirmative defense, that Apple Inc. may not hold one liable for installing a legitimately acquired copy of Mac OS X on a non-apple computer, because by their inaction when fully informed of this activity, they have permitted it.

 

Also, note, in this topic, I am inducing others to breach the Apple Software License Agreement, so before acting on the opinions and knowledge I am imparting, please educate yourself on the risks and liabilities you may occur, or consult competent legal professionals before acting.

[krrr]

that blew my mind. no idea what to make of this. Working here, can anyone summarize this?

[V Plamondon]

Essentially, if someone allows a particular activity, either by expressly permitting it, or simply by not taking any action even when having full knowledge of the aforementioned activity, then the aforementioned individual or corporation is barred for pursuing a cause of action for an activity it has permitted.

 

For an example, let's say you asked your supervisor if you could have something being thrown out, and he replied that he was not authorized to give you permission, but that management did not object to such activity, but for the sake of liability reasons could not expressly permit such.

 

Taking the item would still amount to theft, as permission was never granted, however, if your employer brought a civil action against you for such, you would have an affirmative defense that your employer, though never actually gave consent, had full knowledge of your actions, and by their inaction, they had implied consent, and should be barred from bringing such a cause of action against you for that reason.

 

Because of the maturity of the OSX86 community, and it's activities of enabling Mac OS X to work on non-apple hardware, and because Apple Inc. knew of this activity, and have chosen by inaction not to interfere with the OSX86 community, it can be implied that the OSX86 community consent from Apple Inc. to continue to do so, and Apple Inc. is barred from bringing a cause of action against the OSX86 community because Apple Inc. has allowed the activity for so long, and Apple Inc. is fully aware of the activity.

 

By listing in their claim against Psystar Corporation that several unknown "John Does" are involved in this activity, and they will name them when they know who they are, they are making allegation that they do not permit such activity, and have simply do not know who it is that is engaged in such activity, and accordingly cannot hold those "John Does" accountable.

 

By stepping forward, I am asserting a right already enjoyed by the OSX86 community, and asserting that Apple Inc. is in fact aware of this activity, knows who is involved, and by their inaction, have permitted it.

 

By naming the "John Does", Apple Inc. has exposed itself to the possibility that one of the "John Does" would step forward and make known that Apple Inc. does in fact know who the "John Does" are and have not chosen to hold them liable for their activities, and accordingly giving Psystar Corporation an additional affirmative defense that it's activity, installing Mac OS X on non-apple computers, has already been permitted by Apple Inc. for many years, and Apple Inc. is barred from such a cause of action for that reason.

[krrr]

Ahhhahahha Classic.

 

How long does it take to disbar them from taking any action? I mean how long do they have to stay inactive?

[V Plamondon]

Well, in many common law jurisdictions, the statute of limitations for bringing a claim forth can typically range from two to six years.

 

In the jurisdiction I reside in, the limitation period is two years, and normally I would have a defense that Apple Inc. would be barred from pursuing a cause of action against me.

 

Because of my actions, whereas I have come forth to identify myself as one of the unknown "John Does", it can be implied that I waived my right to avail myself of such defense.

 

Fortunately, the defense that Apple Inc. is barred from claiming a cause of action for an activity it permits, remains available to myself as an affirmative defense, and such defense becomes immediately available to Psystar Corporation as well.

[krrr]

wow, that is nice to read. Good for you.

 

Sidenote: are you lawyer or in similar field or doing work like that?

[CatZilla]

Good!

I'm now totally unafraid of Apple for the next two years.

[shavex]

Well well the War of OSx86 has finally come! And I will help fight! We have Psystar going against Apple at the current moment and if Apple is gonna take the John Doe's (us) on then bring it! Psystar just recently showed that its possible to win this kind of suit (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/02/09/psystar_wins_one_loses_one_in_defense_against_apple.html)

[V Plamondon]

I am not a lawyer, but I have studied law extensively for many years now. Having successfully pursued a few civil claims, I have recently embarked upon a new career path whereas I act on behalf of someone who has a legitimate cause of action, but for various reasons, no lawyer will help them pursue their civil claim.

 

Unfortunately, I incur serious risk and liability in order to do so, and I must carefully consider my actions, as any action that encroaches on the domain of the lawyer, would mean criminal charges against myself.

 

Fortunately, as I am acting on someones behalf, and not representing them as a lawyer would, I have the ability to address and pursue causes of action a lawyer has no interest in pursuing.

 

For the time being I refer to myself as an Agent, Limited Power of Attorney, until I can think of a better title.

[krrr]

alright , just lighten up okay, I cant imagine you going to a girl saying " I have a proposition to initiate a fornication" .

[justvisiting]

When did you first inform apple if your activities? did you address it to their legal department? have you also sent a copy of your original document to the trail judge?

 

interesting times, for you at least

 

the term you are looking for is amicus curiae

[CatZilla]

I have a question.

According to the GPL, any software that uses anything based on the GPL license automatically becomes free and must be released with source code. That's the story of DD-WRT and Linksys releasing the source for their routers.

 

How come OSX is "partially based on free software" and yet is commercial?

[justvisiting]

GPL software is not like a drop of food coloring placed in water - changing the entire color of the water.

 

apple uses GCC, which is under the GPL. any modifications TO gcc are also under the GPL. anything made BY gcc is not under the GPL.

 

its like giving the instructions on making a hammer -- you can share the instructions and modify them and you share the modifications. whatever you do with the hammer that you make, is up to you.

 

a very rough summary:

 

when you start with source code that is licensed under the GPL (like DD-WRT and linksys did), then any modifications to that source code must follow the same license.

 

If you write it yourself from scratch its yours to do with as you please.

 

hope this helps a wee bit.

[inimicus]

alright , just lighten up okay, I cant imagine you going to a girl saying " I have a proposition to initiate a fornication" .

 

HA!  That killed me.

[V Plamondon]

As long as Apple abides by the terms and conditions of the GPL for those particular pieces of software, ie; source code freely available, GPL'ed software can be included with their software.

 

Generally, GPL software can be included in commercial software or even distributed as commercial software, as long as the terms and conditions of the GPL are met.

 

Most companies will balk at free software licenses for their products because it seems strange to be selling software you and anyone else can, and are, giving away.

 

Fortunately, products such as Ubuntu and Codeweavers Crossover products exist which conform to that commercial strategy, as the developers have commercial versions of the free software licensed software they are based on. They conform to the applicable free software licenses, usually source code availability satisfies the terms and conditions of said free software licenses.

 

Apple Inc., by no means, is not the only one who leverages software available under free software licenses in their commercial products. Apple Inc. is unique however, in that Apple is trying to discourage other manufacturers (not just Psystar) from utilizing the free software licensed portions of their software to run on the aforementioned manufacturers products.

 

I'm fairly certain, that if Dell had smarter lawyers, Dell would already know that it could do what Psystar is doing, and we would have already seen Dell Hackintoshes.

[AndrewNZ]

As many of you know, Apple's amended complaint names several "John Does" stating;

 

 

 

Accordingly, I have informed Apple Inc. of the following (excerpt from my correspondence, word for word);

 

 

 

As of this time, Apple Inc. has yet to amend their complaint to reveal myself as one of the "John Does" even though my activities clearly fall under the category of breaching or inducing the breach of Apple's license agreements.

 

As many of you may know, I have been involved in such activities for some time now, sharing my opinions and knowledge of software license agreements, including sharing opinions and methods of rendering them inapplicable or unenforceable.

 

I have also, from time to time, informed Apple Inc. of my activities, and documented my activities.

 

It will be interesting to note, whether or not Apple Inc. adds me as one of the "John Doe" defendants, as there will be interesting ramifications.

 

As a consequence, if someone has agreed to Apple's Software License Agreement, yet still installs Mac OS X onto a non-apple computer, Apple Inc. may experience serious difficulty in attaching liability for breach of that contract on that basis.

 

As Apple Inc. has been fully informed and has full knowledge of the OSX86's communities activities, and have chosen, by their inaction, not to enforce that portion of the license agreement. Accordingly, any person Apple Inc. chooses to sue over breach of the aforementioned license agreement, have a valid, affirmative defense, that Apple Inc. may not hold one liable for installing a legitimately acquired copy of Mac OS X on a non-apple computer, because by their inaction when fully informed of this activity, they have permitted it.

 

Also, note, in this topic, I am inducing others to breach the Apple Software License Agreement, so before acting on the opinions and knowledge I am imparting, please educate yourself on the risks and liabilities you may occur, or consult competent legal professionals before acting.

 

Interesting, if true.

 

And should, again if true, elicit some 'creative' explanations from Apple as to its lack of action on this issue prior to Psystar's appearance as an 'alternative' to Macs. This community seems to be rather robust, after all, with no obvious threat from Apple thus far.

 

If, naturally, it's true. Of course. :-)

[V Plamondon]

And should, again if true, elicit some 'creative' explanations from Apple as to its lack of action on this issue prior to Psystar's appearance as an 'alternative' to Macs. This community seems to be rather robust, after all, with no obvious threat from Apple thus far.

 

Apple Inc.'s inaction is simply because of the considerable benefit it derives from the Hackintosh community. Essentially, as an example, the Hackintosh is like a "gateway drug" that leads some non apple customers (windows and linux users) to eventually become Apple customers.

 

I imagine that Apple simply did not foresee the possibility that someone like Psystar might decide to utilize the efforts of the Hackintosh community to preinstall Mac OS X on their merchandise.

 

If Apple Inc. does not amend their complaint to add myself as one of the "John Does" or add any other individual or corporate "John Does" that step forward and identify themselves, Apple Inc. is passing up the opportunity to hold any of the aforementioned "John Does" liable, and by their inaction, it can be implied that any of the activities Apple Inc. are trying to hold Psystar Corporation liable for in their claim, are permissible to the aforementioned "John Does".

 

It also occured to me, that any long-standing members of the OSX86 and/or Hackintosh communities can identify themselves as the aforementioned "John Does", and if Apple Inc. adds them as defendants to their claim against Psystar Corporation, they have a legitimate affirmative defense of permissibility, ie; Apple Inc. have known about the activities of the OSX86 and Hackintosh communities and by their inaction, permitted those activities.

 

Please note, if anyone were to step forward to identify themselves as a "John Doe" they should ensure that they have purchased a legitimate copy of Mac OS X, as software piracy would preclude a defense of permissibility. This is because the OSX86 and Hackintosh communities do not engage in software piracy, or encourage software piracy, so no defense of permissibility can be successfully engaged in an activity no one permits.

[AndrewNZ]

Apple Inc.'s inaction is simply because of the considerable benefit it derives from the Hackintosh community. Essentially, as an example, the Hackintosh is like a "gateway drug" that leads some non apple customers (windows and linux users) to eventually become Apple customers.

 

I imagine that Apple simply did not foresee the possibility that someone like Psystar might decide to utilize the efforts of the Hackintosh community to preinstall Mac OS X on their merchandise.

 

If Apple Inc. does not amend their complaint to add myself as one of the "John Does" or add any other individual or corporate "John Does" that step forward and identify themselves, Apple Inc. is passing up the opportunity to hold any of the aforementioned "John Does" liable, and by their inaction, it can be implied that any of the activities Apple Inc. are trying to hold Psystar Corporation liable for in their claim, are permissible to the aforementioned "John Does".

 

It also occured to me, that any long-standing members of the OSX86 and/or Hackintosh communities can identify themselves as the aforementioned "John Does", and if Apple Inc. adds them as defendants to their claim against Psystar Corporation, they have a legitimate affirmative defense of permissibility, ie; Apple Inc. have known about the activities of the OSX86 and Hackintosh communities and by their inaction, permitted those activities.

 

Please note, if anyone were to step forward to identify themselves as a "John Doe" they should ensure that they have purchased a legitimate copy of Mac OS X, as software piracy would preclude a defense of permissibility. This is because the OSX86 and Hackintosh communities do not engage in software piracy, or encourage software piracy, so no defense of permissibility can be successfully engaged in an activity no one permits.

 

I'm certain that a substantial proportion are, like my good self, long time owners and users of Apple's hardware and are thus in possession of 'legitimate' copies of the OS. And it seems that there are numerous people belonging to this community who, while not having the hardware, have nevertheless felt they should 'cover their butt' by purchasing a Leopard or Tiger or Panther disk from Apple in the past. So i could speculate that those people might, if motivated, choose to stand up and make their claim to John Doe status. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

For one thing, folks talk heroic but rarely act as such, instead finding highly acceptable rationalisations for choosing not to be particularly brave. And this is a predominantly Mac-biased community so where Apple goes, so, it seems, go the majority. The vocally dominant members at any rate. So I wouldn't anticipate a horde of InsanelyMac members intending to put their necks on the block to support Psystar any time soon.

 

But we will all sit back, comfortable in our rationale, and watch you and others like you stick your necks out, all the while tut-tutting about Psystar's immoral use of Apple's tech as we impatiently frown at the time it's taking to download the latest Kalyway hacked install iso, or hacked kext or two.

 

Good luck, but don't expect to get any support in this neck o' the woods. :-)

[A Nonny Moose]

As Apple Inc. has been fully informed and has full knowledge of the OSX86's communities activities, and have chosen, by their inaction, not to enforce that portion of the license agreement. Accordingly, any person Apple Inc. chooses to sue over breach of the aforementioned license agreement, have a valid, affirmative defense, that Apple Inc. may not hold one liable for installing a legitimately acquired copy of Mac OS X on a non-apple computer, because by their inaction when fully informed of this activity, they have permitted it.

 

*puts on historian hat*

 

Apple DID take action against us. It was very early in the life of this little project and it resulted in new rules such as "no torrents allowed in this forum ever ever ever ever ever ever."

 

Basically, we are free to discuss the matter here, as the discussion itself isn't an actual enabling force to do it. However, in no way can this site actually give a modified OS X or any other materials/software to bypass Apple's protection in order to install it on unsupported hardware. It's being an actual enabling force is what is barred here, not the discussion of it.

[V Plamondon]

Not surprisingly, Apple has a legitimate concern about software piracy.

 

Unfortunately, what allows Mac OS X to run on non-apple hardware are modified kernels and/or EFI emulation, both of which are made available through many OSX86 and Hackintosh Community web sites and forums, including this site.

 

So before anyone gets on their high horse and preaches that any specific Hackintosh site (such as insanely mac) does not bypass Apple's copy protection, remember that using a non-vanilla kernel or EFI emulation DOES bypass Apple's copy protection.

 

My point is, that Apple Inc. has not taken any action to seriously dissuade or object to the activities of installing legally acquired copies of Mac OS X on non-apple software, which is the activity of which Psystar Corporation is involved in.

 

I believe that partially, the point of Apple Inc. bringing forth the issues of "John Does" is to show to the courts that Psystar Corporation could not do what they have done by themselves, and there is some dark and evil conspirators behind Psystar Corporations actions, helping Psystar gang rape Apple, poor, poor Apple.

 

What enables Psystar to do what it has done, is the OSX86 and Hackintosh communities.

 

Apple Inc.'s lawyers know what OSX86 and Hackintosh communities are involved with enabling Mac OS X to work on non-apple computers, and they know how to get subpoenas to order the websites who host these communities to reveal the known identities of it's communities.

 

Very easily, Apple Inc. can have a significant portion of the OSX86 and Hackintosh communities membership added as defendants to the Apple Inc. versus Psystar Corporation lawsuit if that is what they were looking to achieve, so obviously, Apple Inc. had very different goals in naming the "John Does" or it simply did not want to face the common law doctrine of estoppel by aquiescence.

[Maxintosh]

I am not a lawyer, but I yadda yadda yadda

This is, after all, the Internet. How do we know that you don't work for Apple, or their legal representatives, or are trying to entrap people? BTW - that's a rhetorical question

[V Plamondon]

This is, after all, the Internet. How do we know that you don't work for Apple, or their legal representatives, or are trying to entrap people? BTW - that's a rhetorical question

 

If that's a rhetorical question, what are you actually saying?

[CatZilla]

He's saying we can't know what you are. You could be working for Apple, for all we know.

[V Plamondon]

He's saying we can't know what you are. You could be working for Apple, for all we know.

 

I don't work for Apple, but you are right, unless you investigate the matter, you have no way of knowing that.

 

I guess everyone must evaluate my statements and opinions on the merits of those said statements and opinions, and should not take anything I say at face value without exercising due diligence.

 

In this age of super-information, it is all too easy for anyone to evaluate information based on the merits of the source instead of the merits of the information itself, such that were one to base their knowledge upon the information of one source, one could easily be misled if that source was erroneous or if the source deliberately misrepresented information.

 

Remember, there are plenty enough public, reliable and free legal information available for anyone to research and evaluate the validity of anyone's statements and opinions, and additionally, different individuals may have very different conclusions and opinions derived from the very same facts and information.

 

Also realize, it was once widely believed that the earth was flat, so believing something to be true simply because the general populace accepts it to be true means we, collectively as a population, are without knowledge as to the accuracy and truth of considerable portions of public knowledge.

 

Oftentimes I jump on a pulpit (maybe too often for some) secure in my personal knowledge that I have formed my conclusions and opinions on reliable information and well reasoned understanding and I forget that the audience I am expounding to does not have the underlying information to my statements and opinions, and one who does not want to validate the information can only accept, reject or reserve judgment, based on how it "feels" to them.

 

I have no problem confirming my identity to anyone who contacts me in order to do so, but I do not have any "credentials" to lend my statements, conclusions or opinions "weight" nor am I a recognized "authority" of any kind.

 

The best I can do when confronted with a demand for explanation or a disagreement is to present relevant facts and information in support, discuss as to why I have come to the conclusions I have, or present reasonably detailed conclusions to try to put the matter into perspective.

 

I sincerely apologize to anyone who has felt that I am trying to mislead or entrap anyone. I assure you, that is not my intent, and for further assurance, if that was my actual intent, any victim of such would have valid causes of action of fraud or entrapment to pursue against me.

[eberts]

... behind Psystar Corporations actions, helping Psystar gang rape Apple, poor, poor Apple.

 

Sounds like you consider Apple to be your enemy...

I'm pretty sure those legal actions will force Apple to apply stronger protection mechanisms. In my opinion, they just didn't really care up to now as long as they were selling their hardware. Now they do even more and it will concern the whole community. Thechnically they can do a lot to bind their software to their hardware, it just wasn't worth the effort (money). I think most of us don't really feel comfortable with what Psystar and others are doing right now (cause it has nothing to do with what the community is here for)...

just my 2c