Apple Sues Psystar for Copyright Infringement

[JustinTD]

Man that's a LOT of hamburger. Kind of like their argument about Monopolies

 

Who wants to sue Victoria's Secret - because only they make the Miracle Bra?

 

only if as part of our winnings theire models will model for us in the buff LOL

[spacklewoof]

Thats like another argument I read comparing them to a hammer. You're off base here. A car has multiple purposes and many options are available at the time of purchase.

 

And a OS/X does not?

 

yeah, I've heard the EULA argument before, but EULA's arent worth the paper they are printed on. EVERYONE breaks them. If you take more than one backup of your system, you have violated the EULA. Should the software stop working? Should I turn myself in?

 

There are "reasonable use and restrictions" cases that have won in court. Most notably against Microsoft. They wanted their customers to buy a new copy of Windows every time a PC transferred ownership. So, if you ever bought a used computer and didn't buy a new copy of windows prior to that case being resolved (BEEP BEEEEEEEP BZZZZZZZZZ alarm lights going off) EULA violation. Book 'em Danno. Same with Apple. Ever bought a used mac and not buy a new copy of the OS? Licenses are non-transferrable. EULA VIOLATION!!!! Death penalty. Ever copy a page from a book using a photocopier, scanner, etc...? You better not, because I hear the world will come to an end.

 

It may not happen in the next few years, but once we get some tech savvy politicians who really understand that EULA's are unenforceable, or the courts figure out that 1 year worth of backups is technically 364 individual EULA violations and their own computer systems are out of compliance (and should technically be shut off, unless they buy 364 more copies of windows for each server), EULA's and the unrealistic restrictions they place on consumers, as well as the undecipherable language used therin will come under heavy scrutiny.

 

Until then, bend over and take it and realize that Apple CORP is corporate scum, just like micro$oft. They just have better products, go to work in jeans and like to pretend they are progressive. Progressive would be making a distro deal with Psystar. Suing them is nothing but old-school corporate scum style activity. Shoot first, ask questions later. Just like the Rockefeller's coal mine.

 

</end soap box>

 

-w00f

[Andy Machead]

Ok I am not totally knowledgeable in this area of what was being sold but was OS X already installed on the boxes when they shipped?

 

If NOT, then there is no violation of copyright. Psystar was selling "OS X capable" boxes with licensed copies of boxed OS X Leopard and driver discs. Nothing to go after, it would be like ordering a driver CD from a website who sells PC's also and a boxed copy of OS X and maybe Vista while your at it also.

 

...?

[nigelbb]

Apple doesn't need to prove any contentious copyright or EULA violations as the other commercial issues are far more straightforward & indefensible.

e.g.

2. PsyStar claims their system works just like a Mac when in fact it's missing some software and has many qualities which reflect poorly on Apple, and as such is damaging their reputation since Leopard is associated with Apple directly.

3. PsyStar is using Apple copyrighyted items (such as Leopard, OSX 10.5, etc... ) to sell their product without authorization from Apple.

6. PsyStar is violating Apple's registered trademarks for use in selling their systems.

7. PsyStar is violating Apple's interstate common-law trademarks as above in (6).

8. PsyStar is causing confusion and damage to Apple's reputation by using their "Trade Dress" (the way OSX looks and operates) to sell their products.

9. PsyStar is 'dilluting' Apple's trademarks and reputation (see (2) above.)

[JustinTD]

EULA's arent worth the paper they are printed on. EVERYONE breaks them

Just because people break them doesn't make them less enforceable (or more for that matter). By your logic if people went around shooting eachother (all be it an extreme comparison) then murder would be less enforceable. Let's look at some case law (since everyone is so concerned with whether EULA's are legal or not.) While there has been definative ruling one way or the other, there is plenty of cases where EULA's have been upheld in court; and in some cases where they were not rules have been laid out for what is acceptable.

 

a) Brower v Gateway in Kanasa, the EULA was shot down in court not because of the terms, but because the terms presented to the plantiff were ammended AFTER the purchase had already been made. The court ruled that you agree to the terms of the EULA when the transaction is complete, not after. Therefore, EULA's are legal but the ammendment of one is questionable.

 

Klocek v Gateway in New York. A similar EULA as example (a) was upheld becuase the Plantiff failed to return the provided system within the EULA alotted time when he did not agree to the terms.

 

c) I have already cited the Blizzard v BnetD case.

Ever bought a used mac and not buy a new copy of the OS? Licenses are non-transferrable. EULA VIOLATION!!!!

Have you ever read the EULA for Leopard?

You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software. Subject to the restrictions set forth below, you may, however, make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party, provided that: (a) the transfer must include all of the Apple Software, including all its component parts (excluding Apple Boot ROM code and firmware), original media, printed materials and this License; ( you do not retain any copies of the Apple Software, full or partial, including copies stored on a computer or other storage device; and © the party receiving the Apple Software reads and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this License.

 

So it is not a violation to sell a Mac.

 

1 year worth of backups is technically 364 individual EULA violations and their own computer systems are out of compliance

Uhmm, you are allowed to make a backup of the original install media for archival purposes in almost all EULA's ... and what you're talking about here is backup post install, which is neither forbidden or allowed by EULA's. It's a whole different argument. We're dealing with a retail purchased copy of an OS being installed in a manner in which the EULA expressly forbids.

 

People, you may not like the terms of an EULA ... but no one is forcing you to use the software. Your hands are not tied, stop acting like they are. You buy the software, the paperworks says by opening the package and installing the software you agree to be bound by the terms of the EULA. The only difference between shrink-wrap EULA's and click-wrap EULA's is in the case of a click-wrap you have to click "agree" to continue which is not always the case with shrink-wrap. In Apple's case, you have to agree to the EULA when installing the software. So you have no defense. You were aware of the terms, they were presented to you, and in 2 different steps you took action which agreed to be bound by the terms of the EULA. While the terms may be one sided, you still agree to them. If you take a job at minimum wage and later decide that you should have a raise, and you raise is turned down, you can't go and sue your boss saying you dont agree to the terms of your employment anymore. (maybe a bad example, but you get my point.)

 

Ok I am not totally knowledgeable in this area of what was being sold but was OS X already installed on the boxes when they shipped?

 

If NOT, then there is no violation of copyright. Psystar was selling "OS X capable" boxes with licensed copies of boxed OS X Leopard and driver discs. Nothing to go after, it would be like ordering a driver CD from a website who sells PC's also and a boxed copy of OS X and maybe Vista while your at it also.

 

PsyStar was installing OSX on these machines. In addition, certain aspects of the OS were crippled (iLife for instance, Bluetooth, and other features were are inherent with Mac systems.) Additionally, they were providing modified updates which would allow the user to update to the latest software without fear of the OS 'breaking'. Apple is alleging that this is a violation of copyright law. I don't know if it is or isn't. What I can say is PsyStar was modifying specific files in the OS which would normally prevent it from working on non-Apple hardware. By doing this, they were in violation of the DMCA as these were encryption keys that dealt with file protection. Furthermore, by doing this they allowed a bypass of the copyright protection system within OSX which further violated the DMCA as well as the Apple EULA for Leopard.

 

To address some previous statements; technically JaS, Netkass, Aitkos, Leo4All and the others are also committing software piracy, violating the DMCA and EULA. HOWEVER, they are not profiting off of this, nor are they trying to. PsyStar is. Don't forget, it's not just about what you're doing, but your motives also (hence why motive is key in criminal cases, and why Apple is using it in their suite.) It would not be a reasonable use of resources for Apple to sue these people becuase a) They would not recoup their financial loss's, They are not directly losing sales from this (well this point can be argued for or against I suppose) becuase this software is PC based and not Apple based, c) it would require signifigant resources to track down the afore mentioned people and likely involve international authorities and laws as well.

 

Does this mean Apple will turn a blind eye? Perhaps not. But I think that a letter of cease and desist is more likely than a suite ... "Stop what you are doing NOW or we WILL sue you."

[Andy Machead]

EFI is not owned by Apple nor is it apart of Mac OS X, its owned by Intel I believe. Also the basis for the loader that boots Mac OS X is Darwin which is open-source for actual PC's and Mac's.

 

Also, how in the world can Apple demand the recall of all these machines? If I were a customer I would be livid with Apple if I purchased one of these.

 

also, doesn't the DMCA come into play here on the argument of Psystar. Unenforceable laws such as copying of CD's to your hard drive is technically illegal and if there was a way to encrypt them without Sony getting busted for root kits, it would be done.

 

I don't see anything in violation of the End USER License agreement for actually selling a retail boxed version of Mac OS X and a driver disc, I mean, whenever I buy a piece of hardware it usually ships with a driver disc also, that may or may not change system files to make the device work. Upgrading files, non-apple drivers such as printer drivers could be seen by some as changing files, but in reality your just replacing files.

 

Was Prystar supplying reburnt copies of OS X? It was my understanding that he was shipping retail boxed copies pre-installed and a driver dvd incase the person needed to reinstall, swap method. yes or no?

[JustinTD]

EFI is not owned by Apple nor is it apart of Mac OS X, its owned by Intel I believe. Also the basis for the loader that boots Mac OS X is Darwin which is open-source for actual PC's and Mac's.

 

Also, how in the world can Apple demand the recall of all these machines? If I were a customer I would be livid with Apple if I purchased one of these.

 

Its not EFI thats the problem, its the Boot code Apple has put into their systems which is designed to work solely on Apple hardware as a measure of anti-piracy techniques. By bypassing this and allowing it to run on a PC, you have essentially bypassed a copyright protection system which is a violation of the DMCA.

 

As for the recall, well if the product was sold illegally, Apple has that right. If you buy a stolen stereo from a guy on the street, the cops can come and take it. Even if you legally purchased it, its still stolen property. Under Apple's assertion, the EULA was violated, the licensed revoked, which makes it a stolen copy of OSX; and as such should be returned. That's for the OS, as far as the computer goes, well I think that should be up to the end user not Apple. The end user should be required to return the copy of OSX and remove it from their computer, but if they want to keep the Open Computer and run Windows or *nix, that's their choice not Apple's ... PsyStar didn't steal hardware from Apple. Conversely, if the buyer wanted to return the system on the grounds they bought it for using OSX and now can't, well then they are entitled to a refund.

[Andy Machead]

but if the boxed version of Mac OS X just boots on the PC hardware Psystar sold, how is Psystar responsible for a violation?

 

Example, swap method. If They sold a PC with a retail copy of OS X unmodified and a disc. You put the disc in, prompts you to switch and you unwrap OS X retail box and it installs and boots perfectly, then you put the Psystar disc back in after install and go through their installer which is basic drivers and such, reboot and you have a machine.

 

How is that a violation of any agreement? OS X boxed copy installs, Apples fault, if anything its the end user who went through that EULA agreement just then when installing that violated it, not the company that sold it to them.

 

OR

 

Lets say a company sold boxes, and you chose OS X compatible. They shipped you the PC and a sealed copy of OS X retail, directed you to download the disc of drivers. you do that and burn it. Then follow the procedure. YOUR breaking the EULA, not the company that sold it to you.

 

In else words, if Psystar never shipping the machines with OS X installed and gave directions on how to install it using retail disc included, he would be in the clear?

 

[JustinTD]

but if the boxed version of Mac OS X just boots on the PC hardware Psystar sold, how is Psystar responsible for a violation?

 

Example, swap method. If They sold a PC with a retail copy of OS X unmodified and a disc. You put the disc in, prompts you to switch and you unwrap OS X retail box and it installs and boots perfectly, then you put the Psystar disc back in after install and go through their installer which is basic drivers and such, reboot and you have a machine.

 

How is that a violation of any agreement? OS X boxed copy installs, Apples fault, if anything its the end user who went through that EULA agreement just then when installing that violated it, not the company that sold it to them.

 

OR

 

Lets say a company sold boxes, and you chose OS X compatible. They shipped you the PC and a sealed copy of OS X retail, directed you to download the disc of drivers. you do that and burn it. Then follow the procedure. YOUR breaking the EULA, not the company that sold it to you.

 

In else words, if Psystar never shipping the machines with OS X installed and gave directions on how to install it using retail disc included, he would be in the clear?

 

1. It does not boot off the OSX install disc, EFI emulation is needed first.

2. Installing OSX period (whether its native or with EFI emulation) is against the EULA and revokes the license. By installing OSX on machines without a valid license, its committing software piracy and enabling others to do the same since they are now running unlicensed copies of the OS.

3. In order for OSX to work on a PC, you have to remove certain copy protection features which would normally prevent OSX from running on a PC. This violates copyright law, DMCA, and EULA.

4. Modifying Apple's updates to work in a manner no consistent with the EULA is a violation of copyright law, and since some of the updates would 'break' the install by reinstating the some of the copy protection systems and must therefore be bypassed, its a violation of the DMCA.

 

You are partially correct though. If PsyStar had said "This computer can run modified copies of Leopard with a minimal amount of tweaking." and had provided an over the counter copy of Leopard with instructions on how to do it and a disk of updated kexts they MAY have had a chance. Apple could easily argue though that in lieu of actually doing the work, they are providing a media which makes it possible and encites people to do it (in criminal law and example would be enciting a riot or being an accomplice.) PsyStar (under this condition) could make the argument the information is readily available online (which would of course give Apple incentive to come down on us more than currently), however, Apple could make the assertion that PsyStar is providing a centralized source of information which allows users to violate the afore mentioned laws. Its really in the eye of the beholder. Just look at Napster, they did not host the files yet they were found guilty becuase they provided a media where the files could be distributed.

[coolied]

Have you ever read the EULA for Leopard?

 

 

So it is not a violation to sell a Mac.

 

 

Taking the EULA literally, it's not a violation to sell a Mac if you yourself were the original purchaser. However, it would seem that if I bought a Mac from ebay, and then wanted to sell it, I WOULD be in violation since it says the transfer can only be a "one-time permanent transfer".

[JustinTD]

Taking the EULA literally, it's not a violation to sell a Mac if you yourself were the original purchaser. However, it would seem that if I bought a Mac from ebay, and then wanted to sell it, I WOULD be in violation since it says the transfer can only be a "one-time permanent transfer".

 

An interesting contention. A viable defense would be that you, as the transferee, are now entering into a new EULA contract by agreeing to the terms of EULA, and as such are also entitled to a single transfer of the software. I doubt Apple would want to pursue someone for legally selling an Apple system. But, I would agree that that is rather poorly written.

[John the Geek]

An interesting contention. A viable defense would be that you, as the transferee, are now entering into a new EULA contract by agreeing to the terms of EULA, and as such are also entitled to a single transfer of the software. I doubt Apple would want to pursue someone for legally selling an Apple system. But, I would agree that that is rather poorly written.

 

That's exactly what it means. You are only allowed a single transfer of the software license. The buyer then enters into their own EULA granting them that same right.

[JustinTD]

I spent some time today doing additional research on EULA case law ... so here are some examples you should look into if you want to know more about how it works:

1) Blizzard v BnetD (2005); in this instance the EULA was upheld because the defendant had to click an acceptance of the TOS and EULA before installing the software (not so much the paper copy, but the electric copy.) Additionally, this also violated the DMCA in that it created an environment which allowed people to bypass copy protection measures (namely CD-Key verification). Blizzard correctly asserted that BnetD had reversed engineered the protocols in an attempt to emulate their services in direct violation of the TOS and EULA.

 

2) Meridian Project systems v Hardin Construction Co (2006); in this instance the EULA was upheld again in that the client was aware of it, agreed to it, and then later violated it.

 

3) Novell v Network Trade Center (1997); in this instance the EULA was not upheld because the sale of software was definative, and not for the license to use the software.

 

4) Timothy S Verner v Autodesk (2008); in this instance the EULA was no upheld for the same reasons as in ex (3). In both cases the courts stated that EULA's are an attempt to bypass the first sale doctrine.

 

5) Step-Saver Data Systems Inc v Wyse Technology (1991); in this instance the EULA was both upheld and denied. The court agreed that the initial EULA which had been negotiated on the phone at the time or purchase could be upheld as a contract, but the box-top amended EULA could not as the terms had already been negotiated previously.

 

6) Softman v Adobe (2001); in this instance the EULA was not upheld because the purchaser who later sold the software in violation of the EULA had never agreed to it since they never installed the software.

 

7) Novell v CPU Distrib (2000); in this instance the EULA was not upheld because the the court believed you were buying the software not the license to use it.

 

8) Vault Corp. v Quaid Software LTD (1988); in this instance the EULA was not upheld because it was trumped by federal law. The case involved reverse engineering software in violation of the TOS/EULA. The court ruled that the reverse engineering which took place was protected by copyright law. So it wasn't so much the EULA but the circumstances in which it was violated.

 

9) ProCD Inc v Zeidenberg (1996); in this instance the EULA was upheld as the defendant was aware and agreed to the terms in the EULA.

 

10) RPX Indus. v Lab-con Inc (1985); in this instance the EULA not upheld as software is purchased not licensed.

 

11) Applief Info Mgmt v Icart (1997); as above in ex (10).

 

12) Arizona Retail Systems v Software Link, Inc (1993); in this instance the EULA was upheld, but the ammendmens to it were not.

 

So, let's look at the big picture. In cases were the first sale doctrine is used to dismiss an EULA, the courts contend that you are buying the software not the license and as such it is a "goods for sale" situation. This is typically backed up by the assertion that in most instances of licensing, you are paying a routine fee at specific intervals for use of a good or service, and that said use is in fact finite; failure to pay a renewal fee results in license revokation.

 

In instances where the EULA was disputed due to amendments, the courts have routinely denied the AMENDED EULA but not the original.

 

In most instances where the buyer is required to click "acceptance" of the EULA to install or use the product, the courts maintain that the buyer is aware of the terms and agrees to abide by them.

 

So, where does this leave Apple? Well, there is a click-through agreement of teh EULA and TOS; amendments are not what is in question, but the original EULA. So, what will decide this question is if the courts holds that the software is purchased and not licensed as stated in the First Sale Doctrine, or if the software is in fact licensed.

 

Kinda makes my head hurt thinking about this LOL ... since they are in the 9th circuit court, which in the past has upheld EULA's, I think they are in good shape.

 

Not to mention, in alot of the cases I have read, the motives for the EULA violation are called into question and have a bearing on the ruling. In PsyStar's case, it was willfull disregard of the EULA/TOS for the purpose of profit. I am gonna follow this case closely as I think this ruling will have a profound effect on the validity of EULA's in general.

 

Just think, if the court rules against the EULA, you can install XP on as many systems as you want since you own it and not license it. And pushing this envelope further, you could claim software activation is illegal as it forces you to buy additional copies of the program when you already own one under the contention you dont own the software but rather a license ... LOL .. extremist views to be sure but still something to think about.

[JustinTD]

And BTW, to those that state "What if MS only allowed you to install on Dells ... " MS does limit your use on hardware (all be it not to the same extent):

 

Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Product on a single computer,

such as a workstation, terminal or other device (“Workstation Computer”). The Product may not be used by

more than two (2) processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer. You may permit a maximum

of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each a “Device”) to connect to the Workstation Computer to

utilize the services of the Product solely for File and Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote

access (including connection sharing and telephony services). The ten connection maximum includes any indirect

connections made through “multiplexing” or other software or hardware which pools or aggregates connections.

Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described

below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other executable software

residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product

or Product’s user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product.

 

by this standard, if you built a quad cpu (not quad core) system, you cant run XP pro on it. In addition, you can't use PC Anywhere on it since you would need an additional XP license to do so. Do you use bittorrent? Better limit your connections! More then 10 and you are in violation of this EULA.

 

XP Home gets even tighter limiting you to ONE CPU, and 5 connections.

 

Additionally, some versions of the software's EULA state you can't transfer the license without selling the hardware set too since the two are bonded.

 

So, before you go attacking Apple, perhaps you should read up.

[steadybootleggin]

And a OS/X does not?

 

yeah, I've heard the EULA argument before, but EULA's arent worth the paper they are printed on. EVERYONE breaks them. If you take more than one backup of your system, you have violated the EULA. Should the software stop working? Should I turn myself in?

 

There are "reasonable use and restrictions" cases that have won in court. Most notably against Microsoft. They wanted their customers to buy a new copy of Windows every time a PC transferred ownership. So, if you ever bought a used computer and didn't buy a new copy of windows prior to that case being resolved (BEEP BEEEEEEEP BZZZZZZZZZ alarm lights going off) EULA violation. Book 'em Danno. Same with Apple. Ever bought a used mac and not buy a new copy of the OS? Licenses are non-transferrable. EULA VIOLATION!!!! Death penalty. Ever copy a page from a book using a photocopier, scanner, etc...? You better not, because I hear the world will come to an end.

 

It may not happen in the next few years, but once we get some tech savvy politicians who really understand that EULA's are unenforceable, or the courts figure out that 1 year worth of backups is technically 364 individual EULA violations and their own computer systems are out of compliance (and should technically be shut off, unless they buy 364 more copies of windows for each server), EULA's and the unrealistic restrictions they place on consumers, as well as the undecipherable language used therin will come under heavy scrutiny.

 

Until then, bend over and take it and realize that Apple CORP is corporate scum, just like micro$oft. They just have better products, go to work in jeans and like to pretend they are progressive. Progressive would be making a distro deal with Psystar. Suing them is nothing but old-school corporate scum style activity. Shoot first, ask questions later. Just like the Rockefeller's coal mine.

 

</end soap box>

 

-w00f

 

i agree ......i love apple products but i could care less about their interest just like they could care less about mine, i mean , have you ever even seen an apple product at a sale price? no...... they dont need to so they wont.....apple says F the consumer, make em pay, the consumer should F them every chance they can... that is why i dont feel bad when 'ing takes place... and if you get caught , well, that's on you.

 

psystar did it in plain sight and now they gotta face the music ...so bye-bye psystar!

[coolied]

by this standard, if you built a quad cpu (not quad core) system, you cant run XP pro on it. In addition, you can't use PC Anywhere on it since you would need an additional XP license to do so. Do you use bittorrent? Better limit your connections! More then 10 and you are in violation of this EULA.

 

I don't believe the ACPI Multiproccesor HAL in XP Pro would physically allow 4 discrete CPUs to run anyways, it would just utilize 2; therefore being in violation of the EULA wouldn't even be possible. I believe that one needs to use a Windows Server Enterprise edition (not standard) or better to use 4 physical CPUs

[dopeyo]

Steve can slap us around all he likes, but I'm not giving up my Hackintoshes. I consider OSX86 to be Computer Science. Educational use and all that: Fair Use. <br>

OTOH, I will <em>never</em> buy a MacClone. I've got a nice little G4 I picked out of a dumpster, fixed it up and it runs perfectly. Like I expect an Apple should. I've used Macs since the Mac 512 days, but it's a different market now. Apple sells the Perfect Digital Experience, and when Joe Sixpack shells out his money for an Apple product, he generally expects and generally gets a trouble-free, integrated piece of the Apple Perfect Digital Experience System. (I mean, honest to God, you've seen the ads, this is the computer Einstein uses. Or am I overlooking something?) <BR>

Now, Apple has created the impression in the consumer's mind that a Mac is an elegant, trouble-free computer. Why would they dilute those years and dollars of effort by letting OSX run on hardware they can't control? Before long, Apple would enjoy the same kind of reputation Microsoft now enjoys. Face it, most people buy Windows because they know it from work. Or it's cheap. Or it just comes with the hardware. Have you ever heard anyone act excited about the new Windows software they're thinking of buying?<br>

Let Steve smash Psystar. We have enough folks out there who will cobble together a mediocre pile of hardware and call it a computer. If you want a really good computer, you shell out the bucks and buy from Cupertino. If you just wanna have a little fun, you build your own. No middle ground these days. Do it for science.

[JustinTD]

I don't believe the ACPI Multiproccesor HAL in XP Pro would physically allow 4 discrete CPUs to run anyways, it would just utilize 2; therefore being in violation of the EULA wouldn't even be possible. I believe that one needs to use a Windows Server Enterprise edition (not standard) or better to use 4 physical CPUs

LOL, likely not. But the EULA doesnt say it needs to run all 4, just states you cant use it on a system with more than 2:)

 

Steve can slap us around all he likes, but I'm not giving up my Hackintoshes. I consider OSX86 to be Computer Science. Educational use and all that: Fair Use. <br>

OTOH, I will <em>never</em> buy a MacClone. I've got a nice little G4 I picked out of a dumpster, fixed it up and it runs perfectly. Like I expect an Apple should. I've used Macs since the Mac 512 days, but it's a different market now. Apple sells the Perfect Digital Experience, and when Joe Sixpack shells out his money for an Apple product, he generally expects and generally gets a trouble-free, integrated piece of the Apple Perfect Digital Experience System. (I mean, honest to God, you've seen the ads, this is the computer Einstein uses. Or am I overlooking something?) <BR>

Now, Apple has created the impression in the consumer's mind that a Mac is an elegant, trouble-free computer. Why would they dilute those years and dollars of effort by letting OSX run on hardware they can't control? Before long, Apple would enjoy the same kind of reputation Microsoft now enjoys. Face it, most people buy Windows because they know it from work. Or it's cheap. Or it just comes with the hardware. Have you ever heard anyone act excited about the new Windows software they're thinking of buying?<br>

Let Steve smash Psystar. We have enough folks out there who will cobble together a mediocre pile of hardware and call it a computer. If you want a really good computer, you shell out the bucks and buy from Cupertino. If you just wanna have a little fun, you build your own. No middle ground these days. Do it for science.

 

Agreed.

[A Nonny Moose]

As for the lawsuit, Psystar will die. The main problem was they were stupid enough to sell the system with the Mac OS on it, instead of selling a box with the means to allow operation. The latter option is a larger grey area than the former one.

 

Psystar's response is that "Apple is a monopoly" which is just plain wrong.

 

7. Apple is a monopoly

 

Boy it does look that way, doesn't it? I mean, the only way to use the Mac OS is to buy a computer from Apple. Well, wait, Apple isn't the only computer company you can buy from. You can buy from Dell, HP, etc. The only issue with that is you have to use Windows. Or Linux. But you can use Linux on a Mac too. Fact is there are lots of choices for your computing usage, and Apple represents just one of many many choices. It also represents one OS out of many many choices. And all of those choices are pretty viable choices.

 

Apple isn't preventing you from exercising your right to choice when it comes to what brand of computer you're using. You have a right to choose to use whatever brand of computer you want. You also have the right to choose whatever OS you want to use, even if those choices are limited by certain factors. Apple isn't forcing you to use their OS or buy their computers.

[Detosx]

I am writing this on my second Mac Mini. People who have been around here a while know first hand that this site is a massive revenue generator for Apple in the sale of Apple hardware. The curious, who peer over the shoulders of 'hackintosh' users, or those with little money who try it... then become ex students and, in huge numbers, move into disposeable income territory and buy that Mac they dreamed of. This site has so far been one of the better Gurilla marketing campaigns in computer retail history.

 

Perhaps some fabulous legal wording will mean they find themselves having to take action and wincing mightily in the process. It would make a great movie. From good will to bad will. Remember how badly Sony's image was dented by that root kit fiasco? They had no idea what hit them.

 

Just hedging here, but if things go pear shaped for the community... anyone know of a good screenplay writing application for Linux Ubuntu 8.04? You know, that massively easy to use and pretty operating system that costs nothing and comes with all the software you're likely to, need preinstalled? Yeah, I know, Apple is all things cooler - for now.

[A Nonny Moose]

I am writing this on my second Mac Mini. People who have been around here a while know first hand that this site is a massive revenue generator for Apple in the sale of Apple hardware. The curious, who peer over the shoulders of 'hackintosh' users, or those with little money who try it... then become ex students and, in huge numbers, move into disposeable income territory and buy that Mac they dreamed of. This site has so far been one of the better Gurilla marketing campaigns in computer retail history.

 

Perhaps some fabulous legal wording will mean they find themselves having to take action and wincing mightily in the process. It would make a great movie. From good will to bad will. Remember how badly Sony's image was dented by that root kit fiasco? They had no idea what hit them.

 

Just hedging here, but if things go pear shaped for the community... anyone know of a good screenplay writing application for Linux Ubuntu 8.04? You know, that massively easy to use and pretty operating system that costs nothing and comes with all the software you're likely to, need preinstalled? Yeah, I know, Apple is all things cooler - for now.

 

We were hit by the Apple Legal Machine. The result is what you see here. We can't post torrents to OS X, and neither can we host the OS for downloading. We can discuss how to do it to an extent, but we can't give the means to really do so.

[Maxintosh]

EULA's arent worth the paper they are printed on. EVERYONE breaks them.

No spacklewoof, not everyone

 

Everyone you know maybe...

[coolied]

LOL, likely not. But the EULA doesnt say it needs to run all 4, just states you cant use it on a system with more than 2:)

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

The Product may not be used by

more than two (2) processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer

 

It just says it can't be used by more than 2 processors at one time. If 2 of the 4 processors aren't even detected, they're definitely not being used by "The Product" *LOL*

 

No spacklewoof, not everyone

 

Everyone you know maybe...

 

I'd be willing to bet that EVERYONE has broken a EULA at some point without even being aware of it.

[Maxintosh]

I'd be willing to bet that EVERYONE has broken a EULA at some point without even being aware of it.

I hope you keep that fry-pan clean, seeing all that red herring your frying

[JustinTD]

The Product may not be used by

more than two (2) processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer

 

It just says it can't be used by more than 2 processors at one time. If 2 of the 4 processors aren't even detected, they're definitely not being used by "The Product" *LOL*

 

Game, set, match. Point taken.