Psystar wins legal round against Apple

[Braddman]

Pystar is a company that legaly sells computer after purchasing the actual leopard OSX and then somehow installing it onto their own "hackintoshes" the only thing that is illegal about their current opperation is that Apple's OSX EULA does not let OSX be installed onto "non-apple" computers.. Just to make it clear... it's not like Pystar is using current deviations of leopard OSX such as iATKOS or iDeneb or even iPC. They are actually using a licenced version of the Leopard OSX

 

Actually just because Apple says it's against their licensing agreement doesn't make it illegal. It's actually completely and utterly stupid to say once I buy something I can't install it on anything I want. The only thing that they should be able to say is illegal is copying the software and selling it.

 

I say I DARE someone to tell me what I can and can't do with a piece of software once it's inside my house as long as I'm not duplicating and reselling it.

[Memorial]

I say I DARE someone to tell me what I can and can't do with a piece of software once it's inside my house as long as I'm not duplicating and reselling it.

 

You "can't" use BitTorrent to share child porn on the internet...

 

On the Psystar issue. Once they are crushed by Apple (and they will be, or they will just fade away), the bright side is that InsanelyMac will not run their ads anymore.

[fLaMePr0oF]

I think Psystar is pushing it's luck.

It is obvious that they are violating copyright as they install OSX on the equipment they sell without buying it. If they would have payed for the OSX they have installed for each PC thats an other story....

 

I can sympathise (a little) with accusations from the OSX86 community that Psystar is profiting from it's open source technologies, however, this claim that they are 'stealing' OSX is rediculous. OF COURSE Psystar pay for OSX, the dispute between them and apple is not about copyright theft but simply breaching the EULA condition binding OSX to 'Apple braned hardware'.

 

I personally think a tide is turning against apple in the US, they are under federal scrutiny because of questionable links with Google's board and even more questionable actions aganst apps such as Google Voice in the App Store. There is a very good chance IMO that this current case with Psystar will be viewed by the federal government and US courts as an opportunity to crack open Apples protectionist licensing and force them to change the way they attempt to tie up their hardware / software so tightly in highly questionable IP licensing.

 

As has already been suggested in this thread, it's then only a short step to them getting similarly hammered in Brussels who are far less tollerant of 'anti-competative' business practices.

 

There's no smoke without fire, and over the last few years Apple have lit a bloody great furnace beneath themselves with their dispicable licensing and business practices.

 

As for comparing Apple and MS, oh how the tide has turned! Whereas MS used to inspire such loathing and the most outspoken rallied around 'tiny little Apple', now a cursory comparison of MS and Apples businesses reveals MS as the often victimised but generally straight business, while Apple are seen to be the TRUE EVIL company, even claiming that millions of iPhone owners are criminals rather than customers, and using manufacturing plants in China / Tiwan who intimidate, beat and even murder their staff!

 

Although Bill Gates is no longer at the MS healm, it's still interesting and valid to compare him and Steve Jobs in terms of how the companies respective fortunes are being spent... While the philanthropic activities of Bill and Melinda Gates (and indeed the current MS corporation) are astronomical, with literally billions of dollars going to some of the most worthy causes, Steve Jobs is more renouned for TURNING DOWN requests from similar good causes and generally being a TIGHT ARSED {censored}!

 

'nuf said

 

fLaMePr0oF <><

[jaez]

Yah, it's illegal to require a consumer to buy a specific hardware to use a specific software.

 

It's illegal to require a consumer who buys a car to use specific gas from a particular gas station.

 

It's illegal to require a consumer who buys a printer to use specific ink from a particular supplier.

 

It's illegal for a manufacturer of a computer to require the consumer to buy specific RAM, HARD DRIVE, CD ROM, DVD ROM, etc.. to upgrade his hardware.

 

It's illegal to require a person who buys a house to buy specific furniture to put inside that house.

 

It's illegal to require someone who buys a pants to buy a specific shirt and tie to go along with it.

 

It's illegal to require someone who buys a shoe to buy specific polish to shine that shoe.

 

It's illegal to require someone who buys WINDOWS XP to buy INTERNET EXPLORER and use that browser exclusively on that operating system.

 

It's called "the law of tying".

 

It's a law.

 

And it superceeds any EULA, given that the EULA isn't even a law at all.

 

No government body ever enacted a law of EULA anywhere on the planet.

 

So, all official government laws take precedence over all EULAs.

 

It's illegal for APPLE to require buyers of OSX to buy MAC hardware to use this os.

 

It's the same law.

 

[Synaesthesia]

Psystar cannot modify Apple's OS and resell it. If we can violate the Eula then what's to stop people from pirating software? Or violating the GPL? It would have huge consequences if this were allowed.

[jaez]

Psystar cannot modify Apple's OS and resell it. If we can violate the Eula then what's to stop people from pirating software? Or violating the GPL? It would have huge consequences if this were allowed.

 

Pirating software is illegal !

 

You must buy OSX.

 

This isn't about piracy. It's about the right to use what you purchased the way you want.

 

Please don't link the two. There's no relationship between piracy and using OSX on a PC.

 

Piracy and GPL and all such things are about copyrights, not EULAs.

 

Separate issues should be kept separate.

 

The fact that you link them shows how weak the EULA really is.

 

The part of the EULA that says when you buy this software you must only "use it" in a particular way is what is being challenged.

 

Nobody questions the right of Apple to restrict reselling "copies" of the software that was not purchased in the first place.

 

If you buy OSX you can sell "that copy" of OSX, but you can't make multiple copies of OSX and sell them too.

 

You can also sell any other software tools, that you develop, separately from OSX.

 

So, you can resell an original OSX DVD, and you can sell a CD with utilities to help install and configure any sofware onto a PC. One is created by Apple, the OSX DVD, so is under control of Apple Inc. The other you created, so you can sell multiple copies of the Utility CD, without getting permission from anybody. It's just like Apple sells multiple copies of OSX DVD, without getting permission from the hardware manufacturers of the MAC components like RAM, HDD, CPU etc..to sell their tool "OSX" to enable the hardware to be used by the end user.

 

I don't need permission from HONDA to make and sell a special glass cleaning fluid to clean your car windshield.

 

In the same way, I don't need APPLE permision to make and sell any software tools to help the user make better use of the OSX he bought from Apple.

 

It's about buying and using, not copying without payment.

 

[mikecwest]

Pirating software is illegal !

 

You must buy OSX.

 

This isn't about piracy. It's about the right to use what you purchased the way you want.

 

Please don't link the two. There's no relationship between piracy and using OSX on a PC.

 

Piracy and GPL and all such things are about copyrights, not EULAs.

 

Separate issues should be kept separate.

 

The fact that you link them shows how weak the EULA really is.

 

The part of the EULA that says when you buy this software you must only "use it" in a particular way is what is being challenged.

 

Nobody questions the right of Apple to restrict reselling "copies" of the software that was not purchased in the first place.

 

If you buy OSX you can sell "that copy" of OSX, but you can't make multiple copies of OSX and sell them too.

 

You can also sell any other software tools, that you develop, separately from OSX.

 

So, you can resell an original OSX DVD, and you can sell a CD with utilities to help install and configure any sofware onto a PC. One is created by Apple, the OSX DVD, so is under control of Apple Inc. The other you created, so you can sell multiple copies of the Utility CD, without getting permission from anybody. It's just like Apple sells multiple copies of OSX DVD, without getting permission from the hardware manufacturers of the MAC components like RAM, HDD, CPU etc..to sell their tool "OSX" to enable the hardware to be used by the end user.

 

I don't need permission from HONDA to make and sell a special glass cleaning fluid to clean your car windshield.

 

In the same way, I don't need APPLE permision to make and sell any software tools to help the user make better use of the OSX he bought from Apple.

 

It's about buying and using, not copying without payment.

 

 

You are definitely correct about the difference between violation of EULA and piracy. You could purchase OSX, and not install it on a real mac. You install it on your DELL. That is violation of the EULA, and not really piracy. This does not make it right, it just makes it a violation of a different type of law. Piracy is a criminal offense, while I BELIEVE a violation of EULA would just be a civil offense. (I can not see someone going to jail for using a copy of software improperly, if they paid for it.)

 

 

Wouldn't you agree that MOST hackintosh users WILL pirate the software? (so they can "stick it" to Apple?)

 

As far as the EULA goes, isn't it generally accepted that you are not buying the "software," but you are buying "the right to use it."? If this is the case, then why shouldn't Apple be able to sell you the right "to use the software on apple branded hardware.??"

 

If you rent a Budget-Rent-A-Car, you are buying the right to "use the car," does this mean that you should be able to use it for off-roading and demolition derbys?

[jaez]

Wouldn't you agree that MOST hackintosh users WILL pirate the software? (so they can "stick it" to Apple?)

 

Some will. However, Apple is a good company, many people like Steve Jobs and Apple in general, so for certain a good many will pay for OSX to keep Apple around. Bill Gates and Microsoft have a different reputation, so people love to pirate Bill's stuff to "stick it" to Gates. But, few people see Apple in the same light. If Apple gave them the opportunity to pay, they will pay. OSX is not that expensive. It isn't the money people are complaining about, it's the principle of having the right to use what you purchase the way that is best for you the end user.

 

 

As far as the EULA goes, isn't it generally accepted that you are not buying the "software," but you are buying "the right to use it."? If this is the case, then why shouldn't Apple be able to sell you the right "to use the software on apple branded hardware.??"

 

Perfectly right. It's indeed "the right to use it".

 

But, the law of the land says that if you buy the right to use it, then you can use it however you want, provided the use doesn't violate copyright etc..In other words you can't use it to make copies to sell without Apple's permission, because that particular "use" would violate another law, the law of the copyright. But, as long as "the use" doesn't violate a specific law on the books, then the use is legal and can't be restricted by any EULA. Any EULA attempting to take away the consumer's right to use the good or service he paid for is simply an invalid EULA.

 

 

 

If you rent a Budget-Rent-A-Car, you are buying the right to "use the car," does this mean that you should be able to use it for off-roading and demolition derbys?

 

Yes, you can use the rented car for that. But, remember, you have to bring the car back in good condition, or pay for the damages to the car. That's in the contract. They may not want you to use it in the demolition derby, but I seriously doubt they'll complain when you buy them a new vehicle to replace the old one.

[Casimir99]

If you rent a Budget-Rent-A-Car, you are buying the right to "use the car," does this mean that you should be able to use it for off-roading and demolition derbys?

It's not the same thing, it's rather like you bought a car and the car dealer told you not to use it in a particular state or on certain roads lest your insurance won't cover you. But if Apple authorize people to install MacOs on any PC, people are going to start complaining about missing drivers, impossibility to run certain software, ..., and I can't blame Apple for not wanting to go there.

[LatinMcG]

Some will. However, Apple is a good company, many people like Steve Jobs and Apple in general, so for certain a good many will pay for OSX to keep Apple around. Bill Gates and Microsoft have a different reputation, so people love to pirate Bill's stuff to "stick it" to Gates. But, few people see Apple in the same light. If Apple gave them the opportunity to pay, they will pay. OSX is not that expensive. It isn't the money people are complaining about, it's the principle of having the right to use what you purchase the way that is best for you the end user.

 

 

 

 

Perfectly right. It's indeed "the right to use it".

 

But, the law of the land says that if you buy the right to use it, then you can use it however you want, provided the use doesn't violate copyright etc..In other words you can't use it to make copies to sell without Apple's permission, because that particular "use" would violate another law, the law of the copyright. But, as long as "the use" doesn't violate a specific law on the books, then the use is legal and can't be restricted by any EULA. Any EULA attempting to take away the consumer's right to use the good or service he paid for is simply an invalid EULA.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, you can use the rented car for that. But, remember, you have to bring the car back in good condition, or pay for the damages to the car. That's in the contract. They may not want you to use it in the demolition derby, but I seriously doubt they'll complain when you buy them a new vehicle to replace the old one.

 

i think i saw a comedian or a movie?/ they did that actually!.. dang i forgot what it was LOL it was funny! and they got away with it too!

 

i say. .if u buy a MAC u get osx with it automatically, so why do they sell full version if it cant be installed in non MAC which comes with the licensing.? (to upgrade your G5 is only reason) hmm

so all the people that bought osx 10.5.4 and their MAC came with 10.5.0 are entitled to a refund ??? since the MAC came with its own proprietary software and it wont let you create a Install DVD like pc's can. strange? yet they give u a different disk than the retail called a Restore disk.. wasn't there a lawsuit of OEM's for not including a CD or a duplication software?

anyways my point is. if they sell a software to upgrade a totally different architecture system (G5) why cant you "upgrade your computer" with same software of competitor?... monopoly

same MAC can use XP with BootCamp (modification to install other os on said proprietary/branded MAC aheemm) but the sign is a one way road. (no osx on PC)?? isn't that a monopoly? the MAC can do both OS or more. the pc CANT ?? use OSX by eula ?

 

i feel Swedish towards psystar (i dont mean talking about their accounts breaking irs pocket lol rather meaning Neutral)

is apple an alien company from the future with special Antitrust rights?

[Guest cavallo]

Psystar cannot modify Apple's OS and resell it.

 

That's the way, in any case psystar it's not so cheap try simulate a double xeon e5462 of standard early 2008 pro?.

Original is cheaper and is software included.

[jaez]

is apple an alien company from the future with special Antitrust rights?

 

Apple is a small co. It's a fact that small co.s get away with lots of illegal activity, simply because they don't have enough customers to {censored} enough of the right people off to get that "class action feedback" big cos like Microsoft get regularily..so it's just a size issue. Apple is growing, so is beginnig to see challenges like Psystar. This is good news for Apple investors. It means Apple's market share is beginning to matter.

 

So, Apple doesn't have any special Antitrust rights. It just doesn't have the number of customers that would force it to obey the law.

 

Someone has to complain, before a law gets enforced.

 

The cops don't go around trying to find law breakers. They respond to citizen complaints. That's why they always arrive on the scene after the fact.

 

Apple has been breaking the law for years. But, nobody important complains, and the number of unimportant people who complain is too small to matter much.

 

Look at Microsoft, who has been breaking many laws in many different countries, for decades. Still, only now and then Microsoft is made to account for it's illegal activity. Then they pay huge fines, for all the illegal activity done over the decades. But, all the time they were doing the illegal things, they were simply getting away with it. Apple is in a similar situation. Maybe 10 years from now, a court will agree that Apple has been breaking the Antitrust laws for decades too, and slap a hefty fine on the co. But, until then, Apple gets a free ride. Why? Because most people like Steve Jobs and Apple in general, so they don't bother taking Apple to court. Jobs always comes out with new and interesting things, and nobody wants to mess with his creative mind.

 

 

[GTR-33]

So people that support Psystar... Do you know that they completely threw the entire OSX community under the bus on Monday in court? Basically said if we go down, so do they...

[GTR-33]

Yah, it's illegal to require a consumer to buy a specific hardware to use a specific software.

No.. It isn't..

It's illegal for a manufacturer of a computer to require the consumer to buy specific RAM, HARD DRIVE, CD ROM, DVD ROM, etc.. to upgrade his hardware.

Define specific. No one will make you upgrade, but you won't be able to use the latest and greatest without. IE: You can't use Windows 7 without having a relatively new setup. So is Microsoft making you upgrade? Most of your examples are irrelevant and ignorant at best. See below.

It's illegal to require a person who buys a house to buy specific furniture to put inside that house.

It's illegal to require someone who buys a pants to buy a specific shirt and tie to go along with it.

It's illegal to require someone who buys a shoe to buy specific polish to shine that shoe.

It's illegal to require someone who buys WINDOWS XP to buy INTERNET EXPLORER and use that browser exclusively on that operating system.

Yes it is; however, I fail to understand what this has to do with Apple? Microsoft attacked any company that tried to put another web browser on it's OS and you could neither delete or choose to not install Internet Explorer. This is not the same as Apple. All of this will only force Apple to either entirely not produce a retail disc of it's OS or actually make some real attempt at locking their OS to their hardware.

 

It's called "the law of tying".

Which is not applicable to intellectual property.

 

It's illegal for APPLE to require buyers of OSX to buy MAC hardware to use this os.

No it isn't. Just because you went and bought an OSX disc doesn't mean you have the right to do with it as you please. What will be the outcome of all this? Mac OS will become IMO more expensive than it ever has been. Like Windows retail expensive because people like you don't seem to understand that these hearing WILL NOT change Apple's business model. Some people in this thread are under the impression that is Psystar wins Apple will suddenly be obligated to make and support OSX for any and all hardware. Quite the contrary, Apple will simply not be able to stop HP or whomever from selling computers with OSX on it. They will be under no obligation to support those whom purchase a computer from anyone but themselves. So someone whom purchases a Dell loaded with OSX might be completely SOL when it comes time for updates unless Dell decides to support them which I doubt Dell or any other big box manufacturer will.

 

Apple doesn't sell it's OS; It sells a license to use it. You can do what ever you want with the disc. Apple is under no obligation to support you should you attempt to use it on whatever machine you want. Apple can also take whatever means it deems necessary to prevent you from using their property if you don't agree to the terms of use.

 

A more appropriate example IMO is one that you buy a brand new Corvette and you race it and blow up the engine on the track. Guess what? Neither the car insurance or the warranty cover what just happened because they both have provisions against using the car in competition events. You can scream all you want that it's your car and you can do whatever you want with it, but like everything else there are rules that go with it. The warranty of the car is tied to the intended use of that car, which is street driving.

 

Why should the same not apply to the EULA?

 

Apple is a small co.

Small? In what way? They are a multinational company. That is anything but small.

[jaez]

No.. It isn't..

 

Define specific. No one will make you upgrade, but you won't be able to use the latest and greatest without. IE: You can't use Windows 7 without having a relatively new setup. So is Microsoft making you upgrade? Most of your examples are irrelevant and ignorant at best. See below.

 

Yes, Microsoft is making users upgrade hardware to use their new Windows 7. However, they are not requiring you to buy that hardware from any specific vendor! More importantly, you don't have to buy that new hardware from Microsoft.

 

 

 

 

Yes it is; however, I fail to understand what this has to do with Apple? Microsoft attacked any company that tried to put another web browser on it's OS and you could neither delete or choose to not install Internet Explorer. This is not the same as Apple. All of this will only force Apple to either entirely not produce a retail disc of it's OS or actually make some real attempt at locking their OS to their hardware.

 

Microsoft engaged in some evil practices. Apple, on the other hand, is not evil. They are just behind the times. Apple deliberately made OSX so that it could run on a PC. They wanted people to make Hackintoshes. But, they don't want to support the hackintoses. What they really want, is for people to use hackintoshes, fall in love with OSX, get frustrated with the imperfect implementation of OSX on a PC, and so run to buy a MAC with OSX to overcome that frustration. That's the plan.

 

 

 

Which is not applicable to intellectual property.

 

It's applicable to any rights that can be purchased, licenced or otherwise.

 

 

No it isn't. Just because you went and bought an OSX disc doesn't mean you have the right to do with it as you please.

 

Subject to my previously mentioned limitations, yes, you can pretty much do as you please. It's in your posession. You paid for the right to make use of it to fill your needs, and those needs are entirely up to you, provided you don't simultaneously violate some other "law". All that matters is the LAW, not the EULA.

 

 

 

What will be the outcome of all this? Mac OS will become IMO more expensive than it ever has been.

 

Why would it become more expensive? Just because you say so? The more people using OSX the cheaper it will become. That's the law of all products and services, once there's no restriction on the supply of resources that go into the manufacture of that product or service--i.e.oil for e.g.

 

 

Like Windows retail expensive because people like you don't seem to understand that these hearing WILL NOT change Apple's business model.

 

Apple's business model will change. We will make them change. We will show Apple the light. It is better for Apple, and for us, to have OSX run on any PC.

 

Some people in this thread are under the impression that is Psystar wins Apple will suddenly be obligated to make and support OSX for any and all hardware.

 

That could happen. The judge could make a ruling requiring Apple to see to it that OSX can easily be installed on any PC, and further to support OSX on those platforms.

 

Quite the contrary, Apple will simply not be able to stop HP or whomever from selling computers with OSX on it. They will be under no obligation to support those whom purchase a computer from anyone but themselves. So someone whom purchases a Dell loaded with OSX might be completely SOL when it comes time for updates unless Dell decides to support them which I doubt Dell or any other big box manufacturer will.

 

That's the current situation now. Apple doesn't have to support OSX on a DELL, for example. That's where their EULA really wins. Because the EULA didn't specifically grant the user the right to install on a DELL, Apple can rightly claim that they don't have to support it on a DELL. But, that could change if Apple keeps pushing this case into the courts.

 

 

Apple doesn't sell it's OS; It sells a license to use it. You can do what ever you want with the disc.

 

Many people have mentioned this before, the fact that once you open the software no retail store will take back that software. Yet, the EULA is only available on installing the product, so by the time the user finds out about the EULA it's too late to take back OSX. This contradicts the statements in the EULA that says you can return the software to the retail store if you disagree with the EULA.

 

Even the retail store doesn't care about what the EULA says. They only care about your money.

 

 

 

Apple is under no obligation to support you should you attempt to use it on whatever machine you want.

 

Personally, I have no problem with this. I agree that Apple shouldn't have to support OSX on my PC. However, not everybody feels this way. Some think Apple should be made to support OSX on any PC.

 

 

Apple can also take whatever means it deems necessary to prevent you from using their property if you don't agree to the terms of use.

 

No they cannot.

 

That's like saying I can take whatever means I deem necessary to prevent apple for using the money I paid them for anything other than particular purposes.

 

They are free to use the money for anything they want, and I am free to use OSX similarly.

 

It's an "EXCHANGE" of goods.

 

 

A more appropriate example IMO is one that you buy a brand new Corvette and you race it and blow up the engine on the track. Guess what? Neither the car insurance or the warranty cover what just happened because they both have provisions against using the car in competition events. You can scream all you want that it's your car and you can do whatever you want with it, but like everything else there are rules that go with it. The warranty of the car is tied to the intended use of that car, which is street driving.

 

We agree here. You can do what you want. And I agree with you, that you can't expect the other party to be obligated to fix anything that occurs because of your misuse of product. But,

 

YOU CAN MISUSE THE PRODUCT JUST FINE.

 

Why should the same not apply to the EULA?

 

It does. We can install OSX on a PC right now, that's a form of misuse. And we don't have the right to ask Apple to support OSX on a PC. That's the way things stand today.

 

Small? In what way? They are a multinational company. That is anything but small.

 

Small in terms of market share for desktop computers, servers, and operating system software.

[danielmramos]

Does anybody know why psystar posts in the "Reader News & Review" section are deleted by the management?

[cparm]

Does anybody know why psystar posts in the "Reader News & Review" section are deleted by the management?

 

because talk, do advertising for psystar technologies or link to their website is strictly forbidden here,

 

same for EFI-X or any other commercialised osx86 spinoff

 

this thread is still open only because it talks about legal issues between psystar and apple