Apple Sues Psystar for Copyright Infringement

I never said EFi itself was Apple property. EFI is just a development platform. Apple's EFI implementation, or firmware if you prefer that term, is code that belongs to Apple. You say that Apple's EFI code was not used in the Psystar computer. How do you know this? It's appearantly close enough that Apple's OS thinks it is Apple's code.

 

The infringement claims revolve around modifying OSX and redistributing it. EFI has nothing to do with any of this. It isn't even mentioned in the court filings. EFI is an open standard. It's like a code library embedded in the hardware that anyone can use. Any implementation is going to follow that standard, so Apple's particular implementation isn't special or even necessary. It is not the basis for any of Apple's complaint's against psystar.

 

I can't understand why so many people want Apple to win this thing. Some of the claims in the lawsuit against psystar are for the exact same things jas, leo4all, iatkos, etc. are doing. Why do you all think this site forbids the mention of sites where they can be downloaded? It's the exact same thing.

because they sell os higher, sir 155 usd instead of 129 usd, it's uncorrect and it is the first time in my life that someone sells a copyright protected product in the same box higher, without paying.

it's enough or not, do you really think that is correct that apple lets you pay the rights it pays and someone else sells the same in the same box higher without paying.

We are all stupid?

I don't really know what to say...Apple just needs to allow OS X on PC anyway, they would get a lot more sales.

Apple is originally an hardware company and it will never accept to join pc with this bios, i think.

You say that Apple's EFI code was not used in the Psystar computer. How do you know this? It's appearantly close enough that Apple's OS thinks it is Apple's code.

 

The xnu kernel doesn't require much to accept it's loading. If they had uses any EFI code, they woudn't need to use netkas' PC-"EFI".

 

Anyway I am quiet sure Apple will not open up OSX, unless they provide a lot more in the kernel that provided for, allow and fix all the buggy and mangeled BIOS implementations that mb makers have put into their works, or the bios and mb makers fix all such issues.

The infringement claims revolve around modifying OSX and redistributing it.

 

On one hand, I'd love to see Psystar go down for this. If you want to sell Apple computers, become an Apple dealer. All the modified kexts aside, if you make a business of essentially circumventing a protected process, you can expect to get some heat for it. In experimental aviation, here in the US, we have what's called the 51% rule. This rule states that 51% of your homebuilt aircraft must be built by amateurs. Not you, necessarily, but amateurs. People who don't build planes for a living. Right now, there are shops whose business is "builder assistance," which means you stand around and watch a bunch of pros build your plane. The FAA, to nobody's surprise, has begun to crack down on this mercilessly, as they should. I'd like to see something similar happen with Apple and the Hackintosh community. They don't come after you if it's just a hobby and you're not making a career of equipping everyone with faux Macs. It can also be argued, a bit beyond the mp3 downloader's "free publicity" mantra, that the OSx86 scene benefits Apple. For one thing, the amount of real-world hardware testing that goes on in this community is something Apple gets for free that they wouldn't shell out the cash for under most circumstances.

 

On the other hand, the free market works best when it's free. If a mac user buys a Psystar clone, thinking he's going to get the same level of support and reliability he gets from Apple (Who has just cut Psystar off from tech support and updates), he's delusional. In a similar vein, if you build a hack and use it professionally, you don't get to cry when it goes {censored}-up and wipes out this quarter's profits by taking you out past your deadline. Again, market forces at work. Apple doesn't need to make life difficult for people in these situations, and could save themselves some bucks in court by giving the pikers enough rope to hang themselves, then selling them real Macs at retail price.

 

I know there are a few people on here who use their hacks professionally, and I'm not dissing you, since based on your posts, you appear to know what you're doing and have provided much valuable info. But since word of this scene has spread, I keep hearing from fellow graphics/music pros who are willing to chuck it all, build Hacks, and go to town. Once I find out how ready they are to actually build, tweak, and maintain a Hack, then explain the details to them, the interest fades rather quickly. Quicker still when I tell them i won't do it for them.

The infringement claims revolve around modifying OSX and redistributing it.

 

On one hand, I'd love to see Psystar go down for this. If you want to sell Apple computers, become an Apple dealer. All the modified kexts aside, if you make a business of essentially circumventing a protected process, you can expect to get some heat for it. In experimental aviation, here in the US, we have what's called the 51% rule. This rule states that 51% of your homebuilt aircraft must be built by amateurs. Not you, necessarily, but amateurs. People who don't build planes for a living. Right now, there are shops whose business is "builder assistance," which means you stand around and watch a bunch of pros build your plane. The FAA, to nobody's surprise, has begun to crack down on this mercilessly, as they should. I'd like to see something similar happen with Apple and the Hackintosh community. They don't come after you if it's just a hobby and you're not making a career of equipping everyone with faux Macs. It can also be argued, a bit beyond the mp3 downloader's "free publicity" mantra, that the OSx86 scene benefits Apple. For one thing, the amount of real-world hardware testing that goes on in this community is something Apple gets for free that they wouldn't shell out the cash for under most circumstances.

 

On the other hand, the free market works best when it's free. If a mac user buys a Psystar clone, thinking he's going to get the same level of support and reliability he gets from Apple (Who has just cut Psystar off from tech support and updates), he's delusional. In a similar vein, if you build a hack and use it professionally, you don't get to cry when it goes {censored}-up and wipes out this quarter's profits by taking you out past your deadline. Again, market forces at work. Apple doesn't need to make life difficult for people in these situations, and could save themselves some bucks in court by giving the pikers enough rope to hang themselves, then selling them real Macs at retail price.

 

I know there are a few people on here who use their hacks professionally, and I'm not dissing you, since based on your posts, you appear to know what you're doing and have provided much valuable info. But since word of this scene has spread, I keep hearing from fellow graphics/music pros who are willing to chuck it all, build Hacks, and go to town. Once I find out how ready they are to actually build, tweak, and maintain a Hack, then explain the details to them, the interest fades rather quickly. Quicker still when I tell them i won't do it for them.

 

Thats spot on my friend. I had a mac loving co-worker (lets keep in mind i do own real mac too) wanted a mac pro but has no $$$, i was telling him about the C2Q system I made, he asked me to make him one, and i quickly told him you may find yourself in 2-3 months not being able to use the system if apple decided to crack, you're bvetter off saving your pennies, he agreed. i use a hackintosh for 90% of what I do. If my finances weren;t shot right now and i had the credit i would buy a mac pro. just can afford it now, so this is my bandaid. I did buty a LEGIT copy of OSX to clear my consience though

This would be so much better if Apple made a Mac Pro that wasn't Pro, an iMac that was more than the i. Like the MacBook, but bigger than the book.

My Hack is a testbed of all things Apple. I've already got a Mini, and will replace my laptop with a MacBook Pro eventually. The Mac Pro is beyond my means as well, especially since I just built my current Rackintosh as a XP gamer/DAW a year ago and can't see spending the money (which I don't have). But I'll tell you, if Apple goes all heavy-handed on the hobbyist community and spends significant amounts of resources on enforcement that could be better suited to improving their products, it will be a cold day in hell before I give them what amounts to a used car for the top end of their hardware.

My Hack is a testbed of all things Apple. I've already got a Mini, and will replace my laptop with a MacBook Pro eventually. The Mac Pro is beyond my means as well, especially since I just built my current Rackintosh as a XP gamer/DAW a year ago and can't see spending the money (which I don't have). But I'll tell you, if Apple goes all heavy-handed on the hobbyist community and spends significant amounts of resources on enforcement that could be better suited to improving their products, it will be a cold day in hell before I give them what amounts to a used car for the top end of their hardware.

 

I think it is unlikely. Again, we don't offer a signifigant threat to them. Besides, its like XP/Vista with activation ... apple knowns people hack OS's and they cant stop it, and shutting down this site or community would do nothing for them

Now you add the reverse engineering aspect. in order for updates to work, you have to remove apple kexts and add your own in; and in order to make your own you have to take apart theres, now you are reverse engineering software, which is illegal.

 

No, it's not. It might be illegal to reverse-engineer a patented software algorithm (although the legality of software patents is being challenged in many countries). But it is not illegal to simply reverse-engineer some software. It's not even a violation of copyright (which protects the right of the copyright holder to distribution of the work). That's why it's never been illegal to reverse-engineer the format of a Microsoft Word document. And it's not illegal to reverse-engineer a driver for some hardware.

 

Now add in that you are selling an appl ebranded product (IE leopard) without the proper hardware set. This is breaking their copyright (which could be considered as tied into the EULA since copyright deals with your ability to use a particular software pacakge or item, and EULA deals with your rights under this copyright once the software is purchased).

 

Almost. Copyright deals with the right of the owner of the copyrighted work to copy and distribute the work, and makes it illegal for you to copy and distribute it yourself. The EULA is a license, created by the copyright holder, which specifies how you can use the work which is being distributed to you. Most EULA terms which have been challenged in court have been struck down because it is a one-sided "contract" without the necessary offer, acceptance, and consideration by both parties.

 

The question is this: Is it illegal to purchase a retail copy of Leopard and then re-sell it? It might be in violation of the EULA to do so, but it's not a violation of copyright law. It would be a copyright violation if you made a copy and then sold (or gave away) that copy.

 

Another question: Is it a violation of Apple's trademark to say that the computer you're selling will run OS X? If you answer "yes", how then can Apple legally say that a Mac can run Windows? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Now, if you stick an Apple logo on the box, you are violating Apple's trademark. But simply making a claim about your product? No.

 

But here's the tricky question: Are any of Apple's rights (copyright, patent, and trademark) being infringed if you take a legal piece of hardware that you purchased and built, a legal piece of software that your purchased at retail, install that software on that hardware, and THEN re-sell it (along with the retail disk of the software)?

 

Since it's not illegal to reverse-engineer a hardware driver, and it's not illegal to re-sell a software disk, and it's not illegal to say that your hardware will run another company's software, I don't think Apple can claim any of their rights are being infringed by putting it all together.

 

BTW, I am a lawyer.

I think you're missing the big picture. It's really not in Apple's best interest to shut this site down. Be assured that they are monitoring us for any fiscal activity, but they won't shut us down as long as we are playing by the unspoken rules. Think about it, we are buying retail OSX DVD's and installing them on our hardware. Apple still makes the sale...

 

Actually, according to the lawsuit this site could be shut down as well. Those in the community (like myself) are running illegal upgrades according to this lawsuit. We would first have to purchase the full version of Tiger/Leopard but that can only be purchased on a new Apple branded computer. Apple claims that they do not sell the full version as a retail product and that the full version only comes as part of the original hardware. The retail OS product they sell is considered to them as an "upgrade" to the original OS.

 

If they win this lawsuit then they are technically saying that any retail copy needs to be part of the original hardware and can only run on the system it was licensed to originally. If that is so then we can all be slapped with some sort of violation... which is anything they pull out of their a$$ at this point. Given recent times, i would not be surprised if they tried to stretch it and say we were all committing piracy on the part of not having a full version to the upgrade.

obijohn,

 

on reverse engineering. While the process might be legal, typically you need several "intermediate copies" of reverse engineered software in order to reach a final product. These copies are (of course) not licensed, and therefor illegal under the DMCA as well as the fact that in most EULA's you are agreeing NOT to reverse engineer the software. Look at Blizzard v BnetD. BnetD was found guilty on the basis that it had agreed not to reverse engineer the software when purchasing the Blizzard programs, and it also (whether intentional or not) created an environment which by-passed the copy protection of their games (IE, you could play an illegal copy of Diablo II on these alternate servers because the servers did not have a CD-Key verification system such as Blizzards actual servers do.) The same argument could be made here. OSX is designed with protections in place (such as the Don't Steal Mac OSX.kext*&*** file which contains copyright and EULA information**) to prevent if from being installed on non-apple systems (and in some cases even apple systems****) or having all of its functions on non-Apple systems (see *** below, Apple protected applications such as Finder and Dock are designed not to function on non-Apple hardware via the afore mentioned kernel extension.) This has both aspects of the Blizzard v BnetD descision. The modifications to the software are enabling piracy by disabling protection, and the software is being reverse engineered despite the EULA; in addition to the DMCA violation for unlicensed copies due to "intermediate copies". As far as your statement about MS Office files, that reverse engineering falls into the "necessary for interoperability" clause and not so much as what is happening to OSX. Interoperability would not apply here since you are not attempting to bridge a gap between two software types, but rather two operating platforms where there is no necessity; and you are in fact directly violating the EULA for a purpose (at least in PsyStar's case) of profiting.

 

on using OSX to sell your product. OSX will NOT run natively on the system. It requires modification to do so. Windows, does not. You can buy a retail version of Windows XP and install it under Bootcamp without modifying the Windows code in any way. Granted Bootcamp emulates PC BIOS, but this has been around for years (ex, Virtual PC, VMWare, etc...) Conversely, in order to install OSX on a PC, you most emulate the Apple Boot ROM (which is questionable whether its legal since Sony v Connectix showed that it was legal to cross convert platform boot code, but the boot ROM here does contain what Apple calls "trade secret" code), have additional kext files and modified Apple kext files to make the software work. Not to mention, to the best of my knowledge, MS has granted Apple the right to use that as an advertisement since Apple states you must purchase a legal copy of Windows XP/Vista for use with Bootcamp and does not provide one for you. PsyStar was not given permission by Apple to say that his systems would run OSX. I think where the problem here lies is the level of use. If he had said "I can make a system which will run OSX" to his co-workers, there would likely not be an issue. However, he is using it as a selling point. I am not sure on the legality here, but my position would be that since the software was not intended for those systems, it would be a violation to use the trademarked name in that way.

 

on the infringement of Apple's rights. PsyStar is giving an appearance that their systems are compatible with an operating system which you cannot run on that system. Apple's EULA clearly defines that and provides for remedies in the event you violate it. Granted EULA's can be thrown out. I think this argument ties into my previous paragraph.

 

f they win this lawsuit then they are technically saying that any retail copy needs to be part of the original hardware and can only run on the system it was licensed to originally. If that is so then we can all be slapped with some sort of violation... which is anything they pull out of their a$$ at this point. Given recent times, i would not be surprised if they tried to stretch it and say we were all committing piracy on the part of not having a full version to the upgrade.

 

I don't think this would be the case. First off, the commonly accepted standard of an 'upgrade' is that you have an original product, and that original product is required to update to the new one. If you can install a copy of Leopard on a clean partition without needing the original full install disk, serial key or other information, I don't think it can be called an upgrade and would be thrown out. Look at Windows XP, while you can clean install it from an upgrade, you need previous version information. Vista upgrades require a previous XP installation.

 

Furthermore, as I have said previously, we aren't making money off of this, we are tinkering. I doubt that Apple would expend the necessary resources to come after EVERY person on here. Netkas and some of the other major developers may see a 'cease and desist' letter, but I think that would be the extent of it.

 

If you want to get really technical, yes, alot of people on here are software pirates. Show of hands, how many people after downloading AITKOS or Leo4All went to the store about bought a legit copy of Leopard? Not many I am sure. I already had one for my Mac Mini, and when I sold that computer, I downgraded it to the original 10.4 and kept my Leo copy for furture use. Even still, in the strictest terms, I am still a pirate since my EULA revokes my license since it is now running on a PC and not a Mac.

 

EDIT #1 - Added function of Don't Steal Mac OSX to section *** of this post; ammended the section above which deals with that file.

EDIT #2 - Grammatical fixes and spelling errors.

EDIT #3 - Further refined comparisons in a few places, and added to my comment regarding the community here paying for PsyStar's arrogance.

 

*

Copyright © 2006 Apple Computer, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

The purpose of this Apple software is to protect Apple copyrighted

materials from unauthorized copying and use. You may not copy, modify,

reverse engineer, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense,

transfer or redistribute this software, in whole or in part. If you have

obtained a copy of this Apple software and do not have a valid license

from Apple Computer to use it, please immediately destroy or delete it

from your computer.

 

**

HEADING

... BY USING THE APPLE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. ...

 

SECTION 1 GENERAL

The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether preinstalled on Apple-labeled hardware, on disk, in

read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the “Apple Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) for use only under the terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you. ...

 

SECTION 2a

... are on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. ...

 

SECTION 2c

... You may make one copy of the Apple Software (excluding the Boot ROM code and other Apple firmware that is embedded or otherwise contained in Apple-labeled

hardware) ..

 

SECTION 2f

Except as and only to the extent permitted by applicable licensing terms governing use of the Open-Sourced Components, or by applicable law, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof. ...

 

SECTION 3

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 ...

 

SECTION 5

5. Termination. This License is effective until terminated. Your rights under this License will terminate automatically without notice from Apple if you fail to comply with any term(s) of this License. Upon the termination of this License, you shall cease all use of the Apple Software and destroy all copies, full or partial, of the Apple Software.

 

***

Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext is a file present in Intel-capable versions of the Mac OS X Operating System requesting that users of Mac OS X not "steal" it. Currently the extension is only included with the version of OS X that runs on the Intel Core processor family and is located at /System/Library/Extensions on the volume containing the operating system.[3] The extension contains a kernel function called page_transform() which performs AES decryption of "apple-protected" programs. A Mac OS X system which is missing this extension, or a system where the extension has determined it's not running on Apple hardware, will be missing this decryption capability, and as a result will not be able to run the Apple-restricted binaries Dock, Finder, loginwindow, SystemUIServer, mds, ATSServer, translate, or translated.[4]

 

****

I attempted to install the version of Leopard which came with my MacBook on a Mac Mini, and was greated with a message saying the version of the software could not be installed on that system. Likewise, when I purchased a copy from CompUSA (prior to their closing), I was unable to install that one on my MacBook and was given the same message.

BTW, if anyone is interested, here is the actual claim list against PsyStar:

Apple Complaint Against PsyStar (PDF) as found on ZDNet

 

Basically, Apple is claiming the following:

1. PsyStar is violating the EULA for Leopard and Leopard Server by:

.......a) can only be installed on Apple systems.

....... can only be used on one system (if they opened the package for each install, they agree each time to the EULA; if they used a single disk, at some point it had to be opened so same argument plus the 'one use' clause.)

.......c) EULA revokes the license in the event the terms are violated.

.......d) may not enable others to install the OS on non-Apple systems.

.......e) upon sale, PsyStar is not requiring people to agree to the EULA which would in fact make them remove Leopard from the system.

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.

4. PsyStar is inducing customers to do the same as claimed in (3) by selling the OS with their computers.

5. PsyStar is causing others to violate the EULA (see 1e above.)

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.)

10. PsyStar is creating unfair competition as outlined in Section 172000 et seq of Calfornia Business and Professions Code.

11. PsyStar is creating unfair common-law competition and unfair business practices (no clear definition given.)

 

 

Thats the 16 page document in a nutshell ...

I always found it amusing, the "copyright violation" that occurred between PCEFI and Psystar. Considering the software that was legally dubious to begin with.....

 

Anyway, In this case, I hope apple looses. Using the car argument, This is tantamount to saying You can buy this car, but you can only drive it on these roads. And you are not allowed to take the engine and put it in any other car. If you do, we will sue.

 

I mean holy {censored}, when is this all going to end. I blame Amazon for starting this. Can you imagine Ford or Chevrolet saying such things in their first thirty years of existence? Pretty brazen, pretty bold.

 

This is a case that Apple needs to loose for the benefit of anyone who uses a computer. Why dont they want people to buy OSX? I thought there was much better margins in software than hardware.

 

Apple, Sell your hardware. People will buy it just for the aesthetics, and to be able to say they have a real mac. Your hardware is beautiful (except for mac pro, IMHO) and the market you sell it to is different than the people like us.

 

PLEASE FOR GODS SAKE dont make us go back to windows. I think I'd rather use CP/M. Except for 8" floppies. I hated those. PLEASE let us buy and use OS/X legally. We want your product. You want to sell it. We are a match made in....somewhere...Purgatory, perhaps?

 

-w00f

Anyway, In this case, I hope apple looses. Using the car argument, This is tantamount to saying You can buy this car, but you can only drive it on these roads. And you are not allowed to take the engine and put it in any other car. If you do, we will sue.

 

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. You AREN'T buying the software, you are buying a license to USE the software; you do however BUY the car, not the license to use it. Once you purchase an item, in it's entirety, you can do with it as you will since you now own it. When you buy an OS, you buy a license to use the OS under the agreement that you will abide by the EULA. Once you stop complying with the EULA, the license cancels usually as a result of the EULA and you can no longer use the software since it's not licensed.

 

People need to be able to make this distinction. You buy OSX, you own the disc, but not the contents. You are licensed to use the contents. If your license is yanked, bye bye OSX.

 

To paraphrase your example, you bought a car, you can drive it where ever you want provided you don't break the law. You lose your license, can you still LEGALLY drive? No. Same thing, you own the disc, you don't own the right to the software, can you use it? No.

 

A great example to this argument is the difference between financing and leasing a car. You finance a car, you own (well you and the bank that paid for it.) You can do anything you want to it. If you lease a car, the dealership still owns it (and the bank holds a lien on it), but you can't do anything you like. You are restricted on your mileage, you can't modify the car in anyway, and in alot of cases you have to follow their service agreements. If you fail to comply, when your lease is up you get hit with fees. Same concept here.

You guys are morons, if Pystar loses this case it will because of the modified kexts that people here are so fond of to get their stuff working. This case is to test the waters for the OSx86 witch hunt. What Pystar does is not illegal since EULAs are not that binding, but what the company does to get the OS to work (modded kexts) is. So have fun everyone and either shell out for a Mac or go the way of music downloads.

 

"You guys are morons...." that's the best, educated way you have to open a comment? Nice. Take an english class.

 

Actually, according to the lawsuit this site could be shut down as well. Those in the community (like myself) are running illegal upgrades according to this lawsuit. We would first have to purchase the full version of Tiger/Leopard but that can only be purchased on a new Apple branded computer. Apple claims that they do not sell the full version as a retail product and that the full version only comes as part of the original hardware. The retail OS product they sell is considered to them as an "upgrade" to the original OS.

 

If they win this lawsuit then they are technically saying that any retail copy needs to be part of the original hardware and can only run on the system it was licensed to originally. If that is so then we can all be slapped with some sort of violation... which is anything they pull out of their a$$ at this point. Given recent times, i would not be surprised if they tried to stretch it and say we were all committing piracy on the part of not having a full version to the upgrade.

 

I have to read a little deeper into the actual language of the EULA, but on the surface, I can see your point.

Wow ... ok, Psystar is making money off this, we are not. ASking for donations is one thing; selling a product which you hold no resale license for in bulk is another.

Making money or asking for donations or giving it away for free is irrelevant where Copyright violations are concerned. Not everything in this case is necessarily a violation. The First Sale Doctrine states you may resell a lawfully obtained copyrighted work. No "resale license for in bulk" sounds like something you made up. If they're reselling under the First Sale Doctrine then there's nothing wrong with it. Claiming you're an officially licensed/certified dealer for a brand is something else entirely, but simply reselling an unmodified OS is completely legal and no whining by the original manufacturer will change that.

 

... you modify the OS (by removing software update access, dsmos.kext, the power managment kexts, etc...), well now you have gone a step beyond what is acceptable.

Correct. Notice how this differs from the First Sale Doctrine. If you modify a copyrighted work then you have created a "derivative work", and you have no right to sell that. You don't have any right to distribute such a thing at all even if you are just giving it away. That's what makes iatkos, leo4all, jas, etc. basically illegal. This is one of the strongest complaints they have that is likely to stand up in court. The First Sale Doctrine does not cover a copyrighted work if you modify it.

 

Alot of people don't understand aspects of reputation damage and trademark violations. If you do something, and it intentionally or UNINTENTIONALLY hurts another organization (especially if what you have done is questionable to begin with, let alone illegal), the other corporation has the right to sue you PROVIDED they can prove that their loss was a direct result of your actions.

Circular reasoning at its finest. "let alone illegal" is meaningless since the only "illegal" aspect comes from the copyright violation! That's like saying, "It wouldn't be illegal if it wasn't illegal."

 

The first part is true, and I understand the aspects of reputation and trademarks quite well, thank you. Apple has a strong case on that score.

 

... that is violating the EULA ...

So what? EULAs are on shaky ground to begin with and are flat out against the law in some countries. Just because Apple writes something on a piece of paper doesn't automatically give it the force of law. Now, something affecting their sales is a different matter entirely, and is well established under US law. The EULA doesn't mean squat until a court case decides once and for all. That has not happened yet.

 

Now you add the reverse engineering aspect. in order for updates to work, you have to remove apple kexts and add your own in; and in order to make your own you have to take apart theres, now you are reverse engineering software, which is illegal.

This is just an ignorant statement. In the US, unless you're trying to circumvent the DMCA, reverse engineering is not generally illegal. The companies that would like everyone to believe that have done a wonderful job in your case, but that doesn't change the fact that saying "reverse engineering is illegal" is plainly a false statement. As I said before, just because a company writes something on a piece of paper - a EULA - and gives it to you doesn't mean it automatically carries the weight of law or a contract.

 

The creation of a "derivative work" by modifying and substituting kexts, etc., is a copyright violation that has nothing to do with any EULA. Apple would like to make the alleged "EULA violation" a part of their case. They will probably lose that argument. You can't make a contract and then toss in extra restrictions after the sale has been made.

 

Many people have a hard time with buying shrink-wrapped software, paying SALES TAX on it, and then having a company claim they only "license" the software. This is another area that has not been totally hammered out in the courts yet. For me, if I pay SALES tax on something then I BOUGHT it (as in BUY, not licensed) and, within the bounds of Copyright law, I can do whatever I want with it. EULA schmeula. I wish more people would look at these things with a critical eye instead of drinking the Kool Aid fed to them by corporate propaganda machines.

 

Now add in that you are selling an appl ebranded product (IE leopard) without the proper hardware set. This is breaking their copyright (which could be considered as tied into the EULA since copyright deals with your ability to use a particular software pacakge or item, and EULA deals with your rights under this copyright once the software is purchased).

I'm going to stop here because you have no idea what you're talking about. No EULA can change your rights under Copyright law. You should have stopped after "They have no right to distribute derivative works and Apple's reputation in the market is being damaged". Your poor knowledge of copyright law, contract law, the enforceability of EULAs, the legality of reverse engineering, and rights granted and not granted under the law is disturbing.

Somehow whenever I was on the OSX system, I felt like I was driving a computer with training wheels attached.

You complain about OS with training wheels and you're sticking with Vista and XP?? ROFLMAO

Yeah that was kind of funny wasn't it? I officially nominate awake for the The Darwin Awards. LOL

 

 

Going to be great to watch, wonder how it's going to spin out.

Don't plan on finding out any time soon. Seriously.

 

 

This would be so much better if Apple made a Mac Pro that wasn't Pro, an iMac that was more than the i.

This is my biggest beef with Apple. They need to update the Mac Mini and come out with a desktop that is between the Mini and the Pro. They also need to come out with a tablet, but at least I know they are working on that. Apple has no excuse to not have a mid priced desktop that's expandable.

 

Actually, according to the lawsuit this site could be shut down as well.

Yep, and having dealt with Apples legal team I can tell you that they are very inquisitory.

 

Psystar is making money off this, we are not.

How much you wanna bet an Apple attorney could prove otherwise. LOL

A great example to this argument is the difference between financing and leasing a car. You finance a car, you own (well you and the bank that paid for it.) You can do anything you want to it. If you lease a car, the dealership still owns it (and the bank holds a lien on it), but you can't do anything you like. You are restricted on your mileage, you can't modify the car in anyway, and in alot of cases you have to follow their service agreements. If you fail to comply, when your lease is up you get hit with fees. Same concept here.

Actually that's not a great example at all. In fact, it's a very poor one. Copyright law has never applied to durable goods such as automobiles, and a lease for a physical thing is completely different than a legally questionable "license" for a copyright work. You are very confused with your naive analogies. The amount of mis-information you are spreading here is doing nobody any good.

BigPimpin, did you not read my other posts. First of all EULA's have held up alot more then public belief. I quoted on example Blizzard v BnetD. You want another list? Such vendors as MS and Novell have won EULA cases in various courts. Granted, there are also alot that were turned down. It depends on the court in which the case is being heard, is this case, 9th circuit with has in the past held up EULA's. You mentioned other countries, well in some countries women cant show their faces either. But we arent talking about other places we are talking about the US. Both parties reside here so international law is not really all that important.

 

Yeah I was a bit off in my first post, I wasn't getting what I was trying to say across correctly, which is why I made my second post. But let's talk EULA some more. Most people are arguing a) you bought it you can do what you want with it, it creates a monopoly, c) its an unfair busines practice. Lets look at these one by one:

 

a) You bought it you can do what you want with it. Well despite what people want to accept as you mentioned, you are ONLY BUYING THE LICENSE TO USE IT. Ergo, they can state what you can do with it. You get a drivers/fishing/hunting license, you agree to abide by certain rules. You break the rules, they take your license. Not much of a difference here.

 

Monopoly?

"Monopoly" is a term from economics that refers to a situation where only a single company is providing an irreplaceable good or service. Because the firm in question is the only place where the good or service can be found, they have the ability to charge whatever they want, to the detriment of market competition that is the foundation of a healthy economy. Such a company is said to be monopolizing a portion of the market.

Yeah, Apple has the only Mac's, and Ford has the only Crown Vic. What defines the Monopoly portion is when there is no competition of a product or service as a result of the offending company either using price manipulation or other efforts to remove competition. Apple does not have a monopoly. They invented the "Mac" and they have every right not to allow others to produce it. They aren't trying to undercut prices on PC's, PC OS's, or PC software.

 

c) unfair business practice. The only thing Apple has been claimed as doing unfairly is not allowing their OS to be installed on non-Apple systems. Well, so sorry. They own it they can do what they want.

 

You're right, copyright violation is still violation no matter what. My point was a company such as Apple is not as LIKELY to pursue the hobbyist community for playing with OSX on PC;s or even people who ask for donations for their efforts, as they are a company which is openly selling a product THEY KNOW to be in violation of the copyrights on a large scale.

 

The sale in bulk refers to being an Apple reseller. PsyStar is not one, and if Apple wanted to push the limits, they could make the argument that once PsyStar began moving 'thousands' of copies of their OS, they are acting as a defacto reseller. Research your case law. In the event that someone performs the function of a vendor, whether they are one or not, they can be considered a defacto vendor in which case proper licensing applies. Example, in alot of states, if you live in a house for 30 days or more, regardless of your lease status, you are considered a tenant after 30 days and as such must be evicted. Several state and federal laws provide for this kind of 'grey area' to prevent people from making the claim that they were not in fact acting in a certain capacity.

 

Reverse engineering, I already explained that in my post above, read it.

 

If your only going to come on here and bash people instead of offering usefull information, how about you not come here anymore? You wanna correct something I have said? Show me some proof of it. I will be the first to admit it if I am wrong. But there is no need to bash me or anyone else. That just goes to show your maturity level.

 

 

Actually that's not a great example at all. In fact, it's a very poor one. Copyright law has never applied to durable goods such as automobiles, and a lease for a physical thing is completely different than a legally questionable "license" for a copyright work. You are very confused with your naive analogies. The amount of mis-information you are spreading here is doing nobody any good.

I was comparing the car anology to an EULA. Get a hint. I wasnt even dealing with copyright there. The terms of your EULA in comparison to your car sale or lease contract.

Yeah, Apple has the only Mac's, and Ford has the only Crown Vic.

BINGO! We have a winner!

 

Hey let's all sue McDonald's because only they make the Big Mac

 

Seems some of the people here who are whining about Monopolies don't know what one is...

BINGO! We have a winner!

 

Hey let's all sue McDonald's because only they make the Big Mac

 

Seems some of the people here who are whining about Monopolies don't know what one is...

 

ROFLCOPTER!! Can we sue Burger King for the Whopper, Wendies for the Baconater, and Dairy Queen (I think they do this one) for the Fribble? Better yet, here's my massive uber lawsuit list of monopolies (LOL):

 

1. McDonalds, Big Mac

2. Burger King, Whopper / Whopper Jr.

3. Wendy's, Baconater / Classic

4. Starbucks, Frapaccino

5. DQ, Blizzard / Fribble

 

uhmm ... bah, cant think, too tired LOL

1. McDonalds, Big Mac

2. Burger King, Whopper / Whopper Jr.

3. Wendy's, Baconater / Classic

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?

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