Psystar counter-sues Apple for anti-competitive business practices

[slacker25]

As Maxintosh Pointed out your train of thought will lead to apple literally selling nothingg but the license and then you have to download everything with heavy DRM. and then have that much longer before you can have upto date hackintosh or one at all.

 

See no miss types there if you cant read that i call denial.

[Maxintosh]

That's one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read on the internet. In fact, they are no such thing. You should read up some time on the elements that go into making what the law considers to be a contract.

Since you're such a self proclaimed genius, maybe you could explain to the rest of us here - why - if EULA's aren't considered to be contracts that a recent COURT said this:

 

"The court upheld the EULA and TOU as enforceable contracts, rejecting various arguments by defendant that a contract was not formed through the click-thru process."

 

It's people like you, posting misinformation on the net, that causes the very confusion that everyone else sees on this topic. Seriously, instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to something you might want to actually try to do a bit of research on it before you make a public fool of yourself.

 

Since you are apparently to lazy to do even a rudimentary search for the definition of what a EULA is, some links have been provided for you below:

 

EULA; short for End-User License Agreement, the type of license used for most software. An EULA is a legal contract between the manufacturer and/or the author and the end user of an application. The EULA details how the software can and cannot be used and any restrictions that the manufacturer imposes. link

 

A Software License Agreement is a contract between the software developer or vendor and the purchaser of a computer software license that specifies how the software may be used. link

 

An end user license agreement (EULA) is a legal contract between a software developer or vendor and the user of the software. It specifies in detail the rights and restrictions that apply to the software. link

 

I'm sure everyone here will be waiting for you to explain why - if a EULA is not a contract as you so flippantly suggest - that the COURTS have upheld them precisely as LEGAL CONTRACTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I repeat....

[mrdeeno]

Since you're such a self proclaimed genius, maybe you could explain to the rest of us here - why - if EULA's aren't considered to be contracts that a recent COURT said this:

 

"The court upheld the EULA and TOU as enforceable contracts, rejecting various arguments by defendant that a contract was not formed through the click-thru process."

 

It's people like you, posting misinformation on the net, that causes the very confusion that everyone else sees on this topic. Seriously, instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to something you might want to actually try to do a bit of research on it before you make a public fool of yourself.

 

Since you are apparently to lazy to do even a rudimentary search for the definition of what a EULA is, some links have been provided for you below:

 

EULA; short for End-User License Agreement, the type of license used for most software. An EULA is a legal contract between the manufacturer and/or the author and the end user of an application. The EULA details how the software can and cannot be used and any restrictions that the manufacturer imposes. link

 

A Software License Agreement is a contract between the software developer or vendor and the purchaser of a computer software license that specifies how the software may be used. link

 

An end user license agreement (EULA) is a legal contract between a software developer or vendor and the user of the software. It specifies in detail the rights and restrictions that apply to the software. link

 

I'm sure everyone here will be waiting for you to explain why - if a EULA is not a contract as you so flippantly suggest - that the COURTS have upheld them precisely as LEGAL CONTRACTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I repeat....

 

so if someone under 18 (or 21 in some states) goes out and purchases OS X and installs it into his hackintosh, he's in the clear considering he's under the legal age to enter into a binding contract?

 

Last time I looked, you didn't need a parent to be with you to go and purchase and then install most software.

[jaez]

Whether I have the time to find one or not does not mean that one does not exist.

 

But, you had the time to find all those unrelated cases? Why so hard to find the OS on different machine example?

 

 

You sound like one of those narrow-minded people who told Christopher Columbus that the world MUST be flat - since he couldn't find anyone to agree with him.

 

and, of course, anyone who doesn't believe what you believe is narrow-minded.

 

Like I said, you show me the case, I'll change my mind. That's as open minded as you can get.

 

 

The scientist over at NASA have a saying "Just because something hasn't yet been found, doesn't mean it doesn't exist".

 

Quite true. There are other truths out there too, like "IF IT DOESN'T EXIST, YOU CAN'T FIND IT." !

 

 

All EULA's fall under the same heading. As long as they don't conflict with any other law, then they are binding contracts! Ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law.

 

Ah! But the OSX EULA "does" conflict with the law. It "ties" OSX to "Apple Hardware." ( According to some people at least )

 

And you of all people shouldn't be telling anyone to read a book. How many times have people in this thread tried to explain to you that you didn't pay for OS X, but what you paid for was a licence that allows you to use it. If you can't even comprehend that basic fact then it's time to wait for the judges verdict - which I'm sure will prove once and forever just how little you understand about this topic.

 

It was a fair exchange. When I handed over "MY MONEY" to APPLE in the transaction, I didn't "restrict" APPLE from using that CASH to do what they wanted with it, did I?

 

[jaez]

@jaez

 

Actually have read a lot of books .... its just easier to fat finger everything some times ... when multi taking at job and other things that hey im sorry if you dont know how to get a job and save up to buy a mac... but thats ok

 

That ok Slacker25, if you got a job you'd then be able to build your own machine that's even better than a Mac. You won't be restricted to Apple's hardware alone. You could then discover the joys of putting OSX on a machine with other operating systems like Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, and easily swapping files between hard disk partitions, rather than trying to hook up networks between computers to transfer your files. Of course, you need a job to understand why you'd want to use the computer in this way in the first place.

[Maxintosh]

so if someone under 18 (or 21 in some states) goes out and purchases OS X and installs it into his hackintosh, he's in the clear considering he's under the legal age to enter into a binding contract?

Those under 18 might not be held accountable, BUT their PARENTS/LEGAL GUARDIANS WOULD be held responsible.

 

 

you had the time to find all those unrelated cases?

Yes. What's your point?

 

Like I said, you show me the case, I'll change my mind.

That remains to be seen. This case (hopefully) shouldn't be out too much longer so time will tell.

 

the OSX EULA "does" conflict with the law. It "ties" OSX to "Apple Hardware."

Well now it's YOUR turn to do some legal hunting. Post a link to the law that says that Apple cannot do this (embed Jeopardy theme music).

 

When I handed over "MY MONEY" to APPLE in the transaction, I didn't "restrict" APPLE from using that CASH to do what they wanted with it, did I?

What does have to do with honoring a binding contact?

[mrdeeno]

Ah! But the OSX EULA "does" conflict with the law. It "ties" OSX to "Apple Hardware." ( According to some people at least )

 

I don't know, I gotta go with Maxintosh on this one that it doesn't direclty comflict with any law.

 

Should Xbox 360 owners also sue Sony because it "ties" PS3 games to "Sony Hardware"? I do see a big difference between a PS3/360 and OSX and non-apple hardware though...there are major software AND hardware differences between a PS3 and an Xbox 360, and the differences are INHERENT in the basic design of each console which is a "natural" barrier from playing PS3 games on a 360. It's more gray with OSX...as most of us here know, a lot of the hardware is very similar and a lot of non-apple hardware is very capable of running OSX. But Apple went out of its way to create an "artificial" barrier to prevent people from installing OSX on non-apple hardware. Do they have justification for this besides making money? Yes, to maintain quality and user experience. Is what they are doing anti-competitive? Definitely-maybe. One can argue that there is a price premium on Apple hardware compared to similar non-apple hardware which would be the "smoking gun", but that can be justified by intrinsic qualities such as design, materials, quality of construction, etc. A maker of a computer with the exact same specs as a Macbook can say, "Look how cheaper we are for the same stuff!" Apple can respond with, "Yeah, but people like our design better and that's what the premium is for and the price premium has nothing to do with being able to run OSX!"

 

 

 

It was a fair exchange. When I handed over "MY MONEY" to APPLE in the transaction, I didn't "restrict" APPLE from using that CASH to do what they wanted with it, did I?

 

but when you handed over your money, you KNEW of the 'requirements' on the package that you had to use apple hardware. You're well within your rights to go and buy a game for your machine with requirements that far exceed what your machine is capable of, but that doesn't mean you have a right to play it and then demand the game maker modify their software to run on your machine...and personally modifying the game maker's software to be able to run on your hardware is technically not legal depending on what the license agreement or copyright the maker is claiming.

[slacker25]

@jaez but its not better cause the freakin hack sucks compaired to a uniformed mac

 

and by the way it is possible to take say a macpro and put any old quad xeon you want in it and im sure better vid card in it .... but thats the only difference between that and what you could build

and hardly worth changing

[Maxintosh]

when you handed over your money, you KNEW of the 'requirements' on the package that you had to use apple hardware.

...not only that but if he doesn't agree with the contract for any reason Apple allows him to return the product for a full refund.

 

He hasn't done that.

 

He clearly wants to have his cake and eat it too, which is why he is trying to 'justify' his actions.

[slacker25]

... Having there cake and eat it too sounds like a hippie doesnt want to work but wants everything given to him so he doesnt have to say well im a bum i dont wanna work so i should just do with out

[The Master]

Neither Apple nor Psystar need to hire any lawyers, they just need to sit back and read through this thread.

 

I reckon some of you are lawyers. Or desperately want to be

[dies]

So yes, this is another person who sees OS X as being light-years ahead of windows

 

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, I might even agree with that.

 

As for the rest of your post, it seems you read my post but definitely didn't bother to understand it in it's entirety or more importantly in it's context as a response to a different poster.

 

And you're right "archive and install" isn't a common suggestion on some support forums, wait a second support forums, why would support forums be needed for something that "just works"....

 

 

Maybe there was something to that part of my post which said everyone's experience is unique.

[slacker25]

Hmm maybe if everyone didn't get all offended by oh lordy lord no someone doesnt agree with my final thoughts cause im always right ... then you wouldnt see yourself as being taken outta context

[jaez]

What does have to do with honoring a binding contact?

 

What binding contract? All illegal EULAs are non-binding.

 

Every dollar bill, on the other hand, "is a binding contract." !

 

So....Apple took a binding contract from me, and gave me a non-binding contract in return. Is that fair?

 

I don't know, I gotta go with Maxintosh on this one that it doesn't direclty comflict with any law.

 

Should Xbox 360 owners also sue Sony because it "ties" PS3 games to "Sony Hardware"?

 

Who tried to build hardware that runs PS3 games and got sued by Sony?

[John the Geek]

What binding contract? All illegal EULAs are non-binding.

EULA's have to be proven illegal before you can justify violating them. Otherwise, you get spanked in court.

[dies]

EULA's have to be proven illegal before you can justify violating them. Otherwise, you get spanked in court.

Kind of a catch 22 you got going on there, isn't it?

 

 

In any case, even if Psystar does get spanked, at least they had the balls to take it that far.

[jaez]

EULA's have to be proven illegal before you can justify violating them. Otherwise, you get spanked in court.

 

 

You can't take a EULA to court, only persons, and corporate entities.

 

And each individual or corporation is presumed "legal" until proven "illegal."

 

So, until a court tells me otherwise, my actions are always "legal."

[slacker25]

They wont get proven illegal seeing as how that would kill the ecconomy based on revenue that big coorperations make off of enforcing those EULA's

[mmcnally]

Yes, I obey all copyrights. I don't sell other peoples works without compensating them.

 

But, I also insist on my rights too, I don't allow manufacturer's to decieve me into thinking that an OS must be tied to their hardware.

 

You find me one court case, just one, in the history of the computer, where a manufacturer won verses the "END USER", when that end user violated his EULA and put the operating system on a different machine.

 

I'm not talking about Psystar type "intermediate resellers" here, but the end user in this instance.

 

If you can cite me that one case, I'll remove OSX from my PC, and take the self put Apple label off the box.

 

But, I'm not following any other individual's misinterpretation of my legal rights.

 

Cheers.

 

Can you cite a case where a manufacturer took an end user to court over installing the OS to different hardware, irrespective of the result. I don't think that you will as it is only now with Apple running on Intel x86 processors and chipsets that the end user is in a position to do so.

 

Apples response to Psystar counter sue, cites cases where companies have tried to take other computer companies to court to allow them to run an OS on different hardware. The courts ruled that a manufacturer cannot be compelled to license there software to run on other platforms. Apple do not license there software to be installed on any other hardware then Apple hardware, and courts have previously ruled that the manufacturer cannot be compelled to allow this to happen. This means that it is legal for an OS to be tied to specific hardware, and there illegal for anyone else to sell machines running OSX unless Apple license them too.

 

As it has been proven in court that it is legal to restrict an OS to specific manufacturers hardware, why do you believe that it is legal to install an OS onto hardware that the OS developer did not intend it to be installed onto, other then that Apple haven't taken you to court and had a court case against you. A court has already ruled that it is legal for the OS to be tied to hardware. If the definition of an Apple Computer is an Apple Labelled Computer then if you can prove that you have an Apple Labelled computer you are not being illegal as your machine matches the EULA. This may mean that the definition of an Apple Computer is changed by Apple but that is a different argument altogether.

 

At the moment you are going on the basis that the manufacturers haven't taken an End User to court then it must be legal. It is only now with Apple on Intel Processors that you are having a situtation where an End User can do this. With Dec, HP and IBM then the machines were way beyond the realm of the enthusiast buying, so would only be corporates that had the machine. These are the kinds of machines that you simply won't find at an end user. If you are the sort of company that wants Big Tin Operating System machines then it simply isn't worth the effort of trying to find cheaper hardware. Linux and Unix on x86 PC's aren't tied to there machines. Nearest you would get is Sun and Open Solaris from Sun is available to download for free from Sun so Solaris is not tied to Sun Machines.

 

So far EFI-X have not been taken to court, however they are not attempting to sell OSX machines and when people ask about getting a laptop product out they are straight back with that not trying to make a cheap mac, and that the product is not for them. They are selling a device that allows an End User to install an unmodfied Leopard DVD simply by plugging in a USB device. They are advertising the device as a Boot Device that allows you to select from multiple OS which one to Boot. This can be Windows, Linux, Unix or OSX. This is way less effort then what Psystar are making people do to get OSX up and running, but so far not been sued. It is also upto the end user to then actually install the OSX OS.

 

A person kills another person, but the prosecutor cannot prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person who did the killing did actually kill that person. Is the jury going to convinct and decide that the person is a murderer, or is there doubt and they find no-guilty. A judge/jury found OJ Simpson not-guilty of killing his ex-wife, the judge/jury did not believe that the prosecution had proved beyond all reasonable doubt that OJ Simpson was the person that did it. This does not mean however that the act of killing OJ's wife was not illegal, merely that it was not proven satisfactorily that OJ was the person that did the act.

 

Please do not turn this into an OJ Simpson thread, and I do not believe the consequences are of equal significance at all, the killing of another human being is a serious issue, by comaprison OSX on non-Apple machines is trivial, but this was the most shocking way I could think of showing a clearly illegal act, and the difficulty of proving an inidividuals guilt with an actual example that most people will have heard of.

 

Is the act of installation of OSX onto a non-Apple hardware legal, can Apple prove beyond all reasonable doubt the individual that did the installation.

Whilst Apple can prove that OSX was installed on your PC, can they prove that it was YOU as an individual that did the installation.

 

You are unlikely to see Apple sue an individual for installation of OSX onto their PC due to the difficulty. The mere act of using OSX on your PC is not proof that you installed the OSX onto the machine. This is before we even get to the cost of suing you, along with what would be the damages that they could actually recover from you if they were awarded costs. Apple would lose a lot of money even if they won and what would they actually gain.

 

Court case rulings have shown that tying an OS to specific hardware is legal. Check Apples response to Psystar Counter Sue. This is where other companies tried to sue to be allowed to install the OS to other hardware. The court ruled that they could not force the manufacturer to license the OS to other parties to install on other hardware. It was accepted by the people bringing the case that they couldn't currently but they wanted too.

Court case rulings quoted in this thread have also shown that EULA are enforceable contracts

 

With this I can show that Apple are perfectly legal to restrict OSX to Apple PC's and that courts have ruled that Apple are not compelled to license OSX to non-Apple Hardware. It is therefore illegal to install OSX onto non-Apple PC's whoever you are. A court has ruled that a computer company can tie there own OS to there own hardware. You cannot ignore this ruling. This is not me saying that it is illegal to install an OS onto other hardware, a court has ruled that this is illegal.

 

Apple can to legal definitions prove Psystar are installing OSX onto non-Apple PC's as they are advertising that they do this, part of the argument is that they want to be able to do this. Psystar have admitted that they are installing OSX on non-Apple PCs.

 

Apple however are unlikely to be able to prove to a legal definition that YOU as an individual made a specific installation of OSX onto a non-Apple PC. Apple are therefore very unlikely to take an End User to court as unlikely to be able to prove (if you are smart) that it was you that installed the OSX onto the non-Apple PC thus breaking the EULA. If they can prove this to a level necessary to convict then they are still very unlikely to recoup the costs involved. They would need to get yout to admit is court that you did the installation, otherwise you can introduce reasonable doubt and you as an individual are found not guilty of the offence. This is not however the same as saying that it is legal to install OSX onto non-Apple Hardware. It is merely that they cannot prove you did the act of installation.

 

Whilst Apple cannot prove that YOU are guilty of installing OSX they can prove with previous court rulings that the act of installation of OSX on non-Apple Hardware is illegal, just not who did the act.

 

As such trying to find a court case where a computer company took an End User to court for illegally installing OS onto other hardware irrespectibe of result is NOT going to happen, as it is all but impossible to prove to a court that the individual did this, unless they stand up in court and say I did it. This does not however mean that the act of installation of OSX onto a non-Apple PC is legal.

 

Can you find a court rulling where an End User has taken a Computer company to court for the legal right to install an OS onto other hardware and Won, (or Lost). You won't find them as it is not possible for the Computer company to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that an individual did the instalation. You can however find court rulings where companies have taken other computer companies to court for the right to install an OS on other hardware and LOST. I am not aware of anyone challenging the EULA yet. Please show me if I am wrong with an actual case, not just someone saying that the EULA is illegal.

 

Perhaps you would like to challenge Apple on there EULA in court, maybe Psystar can sponsor you as they are doing this to champion the cause of making OSX more accessible to end users.

 

I am not having a go at anyone, nor hopefully have I offended anyone I am merely pointing to facts, that can show that Apple can legally restrict OSX to Apple Machines, and therefore the installation of OSX onto non-Apple Hardware is not legal. People do not have a legal right to install OSX onto non-Apple PC's merely that it is however almost impossible to show an individual that did the installation, unless you are stupid, and so you are not going to see Apple taking End Users to court over this. At best they could get the OSX installation removed, but not get a conviction in a court of law.

[stryd4]

interesting convo.

I do think apple charges rediculous prices for some of their gear(and it pisses me off on a daily bases)

However its the same as anything in this world isnt it.

take versace for example.

amazing clothing ,yes

but 1000 bux for a simple leather belt is a bit much .

why is it so expensive? simple ur paying 950 for the logo

your paying 950 bux more than something else so you can walk around like a smug little {censored}.

also to that post that said that hes a thief,what exactly did he steal..

although this seems blatantly obviouse some of the posts are....... well lacking in any significant knowledge or opinion so i thought id chuck my view out there.

cheers

mc

[slacker25]

@jaez ...ummm contracts go to court all the time that what contracts are for .. the EULA is no different then any other contract say the one that you use when signing for an apartment

[jaez]

Apples response to Psystar counter sue, cites cases where companies have tried to take other computer companies to court to allow them to run an OS on different hardware. The courts ruled that a manufacturer cannot be compelled to license there software to run on other platforms. Apple do not license there software to be installed on any other hardware then Apple hardware, and courts have previously ruled that the manufacturer cannot be compelled to allow this to happen. This means that it is legal for an OS to be tied to specific hardware, and there illegal for anyone else to sell machines running OSX unless Apple license them too.

 

No, it is not legal for an OS to be tied to specific hardware.

 

You are confusing two separate things.

 

A company that wants to compete with Apple will not get Apple's support. And Apple can't be forced to support that company. That's the ruling.

 

It does not follow, therefore, that it must mean that OSX can be tied to the MAC.

 

All it means, is that Apple is not required to support anything else other than OSX on a MAC.

 

And since Apple hasn't licensed OSX for any other use, the clients of a competiting firm like Psystar can't get any support from Apple.

 

So, why would they buy from Psystar?

 

Therefore Psystar should have very small sales, or go out of business, being unable to provide support for an OSX they have no control over.

 

That still doesn't affect the END USER, and his rights.

 

The end user isn't in "competition" with Apple.

 

For example, I have no intention of buying a MAC. Apple is not losing any business because I put OSX on my PC. I'm not selling that PC, so no competition there. In fact, I paid for OSX, so Apple has made some money already from me. They may not have made as much as they would have liked, but the alternative would be zero revenue from me. Apple can not require me to buy a MAC. Apple cannot encourage me to buy a MAC. I already have a computer. It's a PC. So, there's no loss of revenue from my actions. Apple cannot take me to court to show that my actions have a material negative impact on their profits, because they have actually earned money from me, and have been properly compensated for OSX which they sell independently of their machines. My installing OSX on my PC "does no harm" to Apple. So, unless Apple was just in the mood to be mean spirited, there's no financial reason to deny me the right to put OSX on my PC as an end user. My local laws also say that such "tying" is illegal. A manufacturer cannot sell two products A and B, however manner they are sold, licensed or otherwise, and require the purchaser or A to also buy B in order to use A and B together. Note, this is A VERY DIFFERENT THING, from "requiring the manufacturer of A to support a competing company producing an alternative B product". So, there should be no confusion there. The end user has the right, by law, to buy an alternative B to use with A. Calling the purchase "a license" and putting clauses in the EULA etc.. does not get around that law. There's "no loophole" in the law here for Apple. The end user has the right.

 

 

It is this right that make my actions legal.

[dies]

No, it is not legal for an OS to be tied to specific hardware.

 

A lot of people seem to think it is.

 

Hopefully the courts see it differently. If not, I know something that would change their minds in a hurry...

 

"Microsoft announced today that future versions of the Windows operating system will only be available through Dell, thanks to a new form of DRM, future versions of the OS will only be able to operate properly on systems produced by Dell. Microsoft says that not only will this help cut down on piracy, but it will also allow them to provide a better customer experience...."

[Sugz]

Erm, do you have a link to a credible source for this story?

or is it fake? if so, the PC market will be screwed and a huge number of Manufacturers will be made redundant due to providing Hardware without an OS, only Linux will provide end users with a Operating system free of any EULA and Hardware restrictions

[Maxintosh]

Erm, do you have a link to a credible source for this story?

My guess is that if it's in a post from 'dies' then it's not true. Microsoft recently announced that they are coming out with a new version of windows that operates from a central 'cloud'. Because of people like jaez, Apple might well do the same thing (they've given us hints with MobileMe) and if they do, then you can give your thanks to people like him for ruining communities like this one This article give more details.