Psystar counter-sues Apple for anti-competitive business practices

While I have to admit the guy has a pair if he's (probably unwisely) taking on a massive corporation, I do think that his intentions may bring undue attention to the OSx86 project.

Some confusion on what copywrite law is.

 

I buy a book written by Steve Jobs. It's copywrited by Jobs.

 

But, I can tear the pages out of that book, re-order the pages, put the last chapter in front of the book,

remove the index from the back and put it in front, place the table of contents at the back instead, etc..

then I staple that book back together, with the modifications I've made, and put that book on my bookshelf.

 

No copywrite law is broken.

Try this, sernerio!

The book that written by Steve Jobs could only be read by a specail glasses which cost a fortune. Two products are tie together to sell most of the time. On top of that, the parts for putting the glasses together are available in the market and are not exclusive to Steve Jobs either. Therefore, I use one third of the price they offer on the glasses and buy a custom-made glasses that could read his book as well. And then I buy the book.

LOL...

Some confusion on what copywrite law is.

 

I buy a book written by Steve Jobs. It's copywrited by Jobs.

 

But, I can tear the pages out of that book, re-order the pages, put the last chapter in front of the book,

remove the index from the back and put it in front, place the table of contents at the back instead, etc..

then I staple that book back together, with the modifications I've made, and put that book on my bookshelf.

 

No copywrite law is broken.

 

Yet, I've modified the product.

 

Copywrite only comes in when I try to make profit from selling other peoples works, not when I'm modifying

that work for my own use, after I've paid for that work. Copywrite ensures the creater gets compensated

for his efforts. The creater, Steve Jobs, loses nothing when I modify the book I bought from him. He's got

his cash already. And what does he care what I do with the book afterwords, as long as I'm not making copies

to sell without his permission. See? That's copywrite.

Look, you can't buy OS X. Software is intellectual property, which in this case means that if you don't have its source code it is not yours.

Like it or not, it only runs (legally)if you agree to its license, which clearly specifies that it shouldn't be run on non-apple computers.

And there are things like fake Mac OS X copycats, try gOS.

Bottom of the bill, you can't modify your software unless the EULA states it, but that's not in Apple's case.

It is illegal to modify OS X, and if those s at Psystar won't get the hell out of the picture, I fear Apple is going to enforce its protection.

Like it or not, it only runs (legally)if you agree to its license, which clearly specifies that it shouldn't be run on non-apple computers.

Question of legality is only decided by a juge, not by Apple, not by EULAs. Consumers have rights, and EULAs can be abusives or illegals.

This question will be fixed during legal proceedings brought by Psystar. So, wait and see.

And please, stop to compare computers with cars: this is totaly arbitrary to postulate that Mac are ferrari and the wide range of others PC are Lada or whatever. Analogies are not demonstrative or descriptive. So, please, try to resonate with real facts.

Some confusion on what copywrite law is.

 

I buy a book written by Steve Jobs. It's copywrited by Jobs.

 

But, I can tear the pages out of that book, re-order the pages, put the last chapter in front of the book,

remove the index from the back and put it in front, place the table of contents at the back instead, etc..

then I staple that book back together, with the modifications I've made, and put that book on my bookshelf.

 

No copywrite law is broken.

This is an illustration of bad analogy: we're talking about software, that mean you only paid for the right to use it: this is a licence, and it's immaterial.

If you buy a book, you paid for intellectual property and the support (the book itself). You can do anything with your Leopard box or manual, but not with some parts of the OS.

But you can do what ever you want with the 4th that is open source.

Like I managed to install core linux commands into the open source unix of macintosh. Now i can run both linux and mac programs side by side without virtualization

This is an illustration of bad analogy: we're talking about software, that mean you only paid for the right to use it: this is a licence, and it's immaterial.

Copywrite law doesn't change when you move from book to software. It's the same law.

If you buy a book, you paid for intellectual property and the support (the book itself). You can do anything with your Leopard box or manual, but not with some parts of the OS.

What part of the OS is restricted?

If I install Leopard, and it doesn't run properly, and I examine the files and find a few bugs, am I allowed to fix those bugs to get the software I paid for up and running properly?

Or, must I tell Apple about the bugs, and wait and hope they'll get around to fixing them for me in less than five or six months from now, so that I can get on with my work on my machine?

My money, I paid, I find, I fix.

What judge will stop me from this action?

What law will prevent me from making the software work on my machine using "my own intellectual property" to solve the problems that turn up on my watch?

@jaez..... nope your the one confused... i can deface and destroy public property if i decide to does not make itr legal

just because something is in the realm of waht physically possible does not make it legal

@sonotone ... the judge will decide on the law being the copywrite law and this means pystar will be crushed

@jaez .. all of the OS is restricked ... if you was not moddifying a thing to make it run on your pc then you might have a better case but oh wait it would take apple allowing it for that to happen..... sorry youu fail again

@jaez..... nope your the one confused... i can deface and destroy public property if i decide to does not make itr legal

just because something is in the realm of waht physically possible does not make it legal

This is not public property.

It's private property. I own my computer.

@sonotone ... the judge will decide on the law being the copywrite law and this means pystar will be crushed

If Pystar gets crushed, then out of the ashes will arise a new challenger, using a different tactic to accomplish the same goal.

@jaez .. all of the OS is restricked ... if you was not moddifying a thing to make it run on your pc then you might have a better case but oh wait it would take apple allowing it for that to happen..... sorry youu fail again

I just said, my Hackint0sh works just fine on my PC. Where is the failure? I personally didn't modify a thing. Oh, about all I did was update the login scripts to setup the Display to resolution of my monitor, fix the RealTek Audio, etc..about the same kinds of elementary edits I use to optimise Windows for my machine. Install the right drivers, remove the buggy ones, etc..That's it.

Surely, that's allowed?

Otherwise we couldn't use the computer at all.

Every application we install modifies the Operating System in some way.

If it were really true that all of the OS is off limits, it would be illegal to install any third party application on Computers. Period !

@sonotone ... the judge will decide on the law being the copywrite law and this means pystar will be crushed

Concerning this part of the EULA (not Psystar's buisness), it's not clearly about copyright, but volontary restriction of use from Apple, cause the OS is able to boot on others hardware.

Whitout this EULA restriction, maybe it will be possible to run OSX on your PC legally whitout modifyng the system, recents evolutions are proving it (Boot 132, maybe E-fix...).

But real copyright problems comes with "don't steal mac osx" decrypter. As far as i know, nobody find a way to disable it legally cause DMCA violation, something like "circumventing encryption for the purposes of infringing copyright".

@sonotone ... yes you volontaraily agreed to the eula when you installed OSX ... meaning you volontarily made your self legally responsible to follow it

@Jaez meant that as it is restrictive in terms of apples restriction which they have a right to and Pystar is not a competitor they are thieves ... this is out right outlawed in the states weather you want to believe that or not .... the apple software tied to apple product is not anti competitive or Microsuckers would be hurt by it ... windows is a competitor in the OS bis making it competition that has to be won by apple so now because apple is getting bigger that makes them anti competitive???

New competitors are welcome i dont think apple cares about that just so they not a bunch of punks stealing their work to do so ... im sure they could make their own OS but hey your smarter then apple cause you stole their OS that they worked hard on that what you did only the freaction of the work that they did to make the whole thing but yet you feel some sence of entitlement to something you reallly have no right to.

Guys like Jas netkis and others that did all the work on this site ... they did it all im sure for the simple i just wanna see if i can do it and that who cares and i dont think apple does but i think if i read right Jas is working on Mac PRo these days

Hackintosh was meant as a hobby it will never be legalized

Apple will just move to new OS and kill OSX all together before you get your presious beigh box leglized to run it

thats part of the reason we have OSX... because of the old mac clones that they had to cut

@Jaez meant that as it is restrictive in terms of apples restriction which they have a right to and Pystar is not a competitor they are thieves

So, you are saying that Pystar did not buy Leopard from Apple, but just made copies to sell? Yea, that's definitely illegal. I agree.

... this is out right outlawed in the states weather you want to believe that or not .... the apple software tied to apple product is not anti competitive or Microsuckers would be hurt by it

There are many laws on the books that say such "tying" of two parts of a system is illegal. I just quoted one in a post above for illustration. Microsuckers also felt the impact of this concept when they tried to hook "IE" with "Windows". Consumers are permitted to "REMOVE IE AND REPLACE IT WITH FIREFOX" !!! According to MICROSOFT that program "IE" was PART OF THEIR OPERATING SYSTEM, and removal amounted to "MODIFYING THE OPERATING SYSTEM", so it was to be considered illegal by their "EULA". The judge didn't buy it. The existance of FIREFOX proved that IE was not really essentail to Windows.

The same thing with OSX. The OSx86 community has proven that OSX can run on PCs and don't really need a MAC.

The existance of all the Hackint0shes is all the evidence the judge needs.

OSX is an independent product. In concept, in principle, and in practice. It is even "SOLD INDEPENDENTLY OF THE MAC HARDWARE" !

I can walk into any Apple store and buy OSX. I don't need to bring my MAC in for proof. Nor do I have to show them my MAC serial number to get permission to buy Leopard.

They are HAPPY TO TAKE MY CASH !

And, of course, I'm happy to take their OSX.

See? I love OSX. But, I don't like the MAC. I've built myself a "BETTER MACHINE."

... windows is a competitor in the OS bis making it competition that has to be won by apple so now because apple is getting bigger that makes them anti competitive???

APPLE is a good company, I've always liked Apple, especially over Microsoft. However, Gates is just alot more practical on "some things" than Steve.

Apple will not lose by making OSX available to other computers. They will win in the end, because OSX will be more widely adopted, and so more software and drivers will be built for the OSX platform, which will increase sales of the Apple Hardware too.

Right now, UBUNTU is the most popuar LINUX platform. How did such a young startup grow so fast so quickly? Simple, they put in lots of effort to make it easy to install and run Linux on any hardware platform. So, of course, consumers are going to flock to UBUNTU.

Apple should follow UBUNTU's example with OSX.

Sun Microsystems is a failure today. They had great products, great programmers, great ideas, but they tried to control everything. So, they failed. Let the consumers decide what they want to do with your product and guide you and you will succeed. But, if you create an EULA that tries to restrict what the consumer can do with your product, then the consumer will rebel.

OSx86 is just a rebellion. The rebels say, don't tell me what I can and can't do, I'll show you what I can do, here, OSX runs on my mobile car computer, it runs my maps, it links to GPS, and I can surf the web while driving....etc...

See? Now if only your EULA allows all this, you could actually get paid for this stuff too. But, since you made me do all the work, I pay myself first.

New competitors are welcome i dont think apple cares about that just so they not a bunch of punks stealing their work to do so ... im sure they could make their own OS

Everybody "builds on the work of others". We stand on the shoulders of giants, and reach up just a little further.

Nobody builds anything from scratch.

Apple built OSX on FreeBSD and Mach.

Guys like Jas netkis and others that did all the work on this site ... they did it all im sure for the simple i just wanna see if i can do it and that who cares and i dont think apple does but i think if i read right Jas is working on Mac PRo these days

GIANTS standing on the shoulders of other GIANTS, that's all.

Hackintosh was meant as a hobby it will never be legalized

All my hobbies are legal.

At least, that's what "I Think."

If I really believed something is illegal, I just don't do it.

Apple will just move to new OS and kill OSX all together before you get your presious beigh box leglized to run it

Nope. Apple gave up the PPC because of the consumer forces that make the choices determining what sells, rather than the producer choices of what a firm would like the consumer to buy.

Consumers want OSX to run on other PCs.

They proved this. The Hackint0sh exists.

And, it's perfectly legal.

Selling a Hackint0sh is another matter. Let's see what the courts decide.

Question of legality is only decided by a juge, not by Apple, not by EULAs. Consumers have rights, and EULAs can be abusives or illegals.

This question will be fixed during legal proceedings brought by Psystar. So, wait and see.

EULA is called End-User License Agreement, so if you click 'Agree'(and you can't install OS X until you do it) that means that you agree to the contract Apple made. by clicking 'Agree', you signed the contract.

It is that simple. Boo-hoo, the EULA is too abusive, there's a simple thing to do: don't use it. Problem solved.

The fact that OS X works on a Dell doesn't empower you to do anything you want with it and then whine because you don't picture yourself as an 'illegal' type.

And as far as I'm concerned Apple has a legal department, which actually know the law instead of ignorantly tossing around that 'rights' rubbish. Don't you think they do a research about this when conceiving an EULA?

Why the hell install OS X on a pc if the EULA is so abusive, huh? Don't get me wrong here, I am using a patched version of OS X on non-apple hardware, but I face it that it's illegal, and don't whine about it and try to (poorly) convince people of the opposite, just because I woke up one morning and felt guilty about it.

At least, that's what "I Think."

 

If I really believed something is illegal, I just don't do it.

Then you could as well stop this hobby, since it is illegal. And Apple won't give a {censored} about your opinion, so yeah, that's what 'you think', and guess what, that's not going to change anything.

This is not public property.

 

It's private property. I own my computer.

Yes, you own the hardware, but you don't own OS X, no matter how many copies would you purchase.

anyone read this yet:-

"Free updates for life with the purchase of an Apple Computer...."

"People would see this as a way in which Apple is attempting to reduce prices, and that could prove to be a major PR boost..."

http://www.appletell.com/apple/comment/bri...t-to-the-table/

wat do u guys think?

anyone read this yet:-

 

"Free updates for life with the purchase of an Apple Computer...."

"People would see this as a way in which Apple is attempting to reduce prices, and that could prove to be a major PR boost..."

 

http://www.appletell.com/apple/comment/bri...t-to-the-table/

 

wat do u guys think?

The problem that I see here is that Apple pay to their developers, it will be different if OS X was open source like linux. Apple pay to these developers a lot of money, the regular developer make close to $100,000 dollars a year, so is really a lot of money to give away their final product for free. I don't think it will work.

EULA is called End-User License Agreement, so if you click 'Agree'(and you can't install OS X until you do it) that means that you agree to the contract Apple made. by clicking 'Agree', you signed the contract.

It is that simple. Boo-hoo, the EULA is too abusive, there's a simple thing to do: don't use it. Problem solved.

 

The fact that OS X works on a Dell doesn't empower you to do anything you want with it and then whine because you don't picture yourself as an 'illegal' type.

 

And as far as I'm concerned Apple has a legal department, which actually know the law instead of ignorantly tossing around that 'rights' rubbish. Don't you think they do a research about this when conceiving an EULA?

 

Why the hell install OS X on a pc if the EULA is so abusive, huh? Don't get me wrong here, I am using a patched version of OS X on non-apple hardware, but I face it that it's illegal, and don't whine about it and try to (poorly) convince people of the opposite, just because I woke up one morning and felt guilty about it.

Then you could as well stop this hobby, since it is illegal. And Apple won't give a {censored} about your opinion, so yeah, that's what 'you think', and guess what, that's not going to change anything.

 

Yes, you own the hardware, but you don't own OS X, no matter how many copies would you purchase.

I'm not sure you read/understood all arguments here. I'm not saying that actually, running OSX on Dell or whatever you want is legal.

And i'm sure legal department of microsoft also "know" the law, but they also loose many cases. Contracts are not beyound laws.

The Psystar lawyer is also not a "noob" about intellectual property.

So, as i said, wait... and see.

EULA is called End-User License Agreement, so if you click 'Agree'(and you can't install OS X until you do it) that means that you agree to the contract Apple made. by clicking 'Agree', you signed the contract.

It is that simple. Boo-hoo, the EULA is too abusive, there's a simple thing to do: don't use it. Problem solved.

I agree. That's why I install it. I agree to follow every legal part of the EULA.

If I see a part that's not legal, or makes no sense to me, I just presume the Apple writers misconstrued the statements through error. Like bugs in the program, I accept there will be some imperfection in the things that I am asked to agree to. The world isn't perfect. Everybody doesn't know the law, or the correct interpretation of the law, etc..I believe I know what my local laws say, and what is enforceable, and if some EULA has imperfect statements, that's ok. I agree with all the parts of the EULA that I can understand, and that makes perfect sense, and that is in consort with my local laws etc...Just because there's a bug in the code, or a bug in the EULA, that doesn't mean I'll toss the whole thing out.

The fact that OS X works on a Dell doesn't empower you to do anything you want with it and then whine because you don't picture yourself as an 'illegal' type.

The mouse and the keyboard empowers me. All else is theoretical rumminating. I am legal. I don't know about Pystar or anyone else. I don't know their local laws, or what particular agreements they signed with Apple Inc. etc..I don't even know if they get the same EULA like me. Do all Leopard DVD's have the same EULA? Does the EULA vary from country to country? I'm not sure. But I understand my EULA. It says I'm legal, according to my understanding. Now, if a judge tells me differently, I'll listen to that judge, but certainly not another individual who is also "interpreting" the EULA and the local laws like me. People's understanding can be different.

There's the law, then there's the interpretation of the law.

That's why the US government is divided into three branches: the Legislator, the Judiciary, and the Executive.

The legislators "make the laws" , but they are not allowed to "interpret the law" that they make.

The "judiciary interprets the law", but they are not allowed to "make the laws they interpret."

That is an important separation of powers.

There is a reason for this.

Those that make laws and rules, must do so in such a way that the ordinary citizens can understand them, inorder that they might comply.

If the law is clear, then the "judiciary will come to the same interpretation" that the legislators meant when they wrote the law.

And that qualifies the law to be of character capable of being understood by the citizens.

If the judges find a different meaning in the law than that intended by the legislators, then how could the citizens be expected to follow that law?

See?

That's why Apple can write anything in an EULA, but they can't be the judge, because they wrote the EULA.

Until the Judge agrees with Apple, the citizen is free to interpret the law according to his own understanding.

Only when the Judge lays down the interpretation, is the understanding final.

Until then, everybody is legal. Everybody is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

That's the system.

That's why I am legal.

And as far as I'm concerned Apple has a legal department, which actually know the law instead of ignorantly tossing around that 'rights' rubbish. Don't you think they do a research about this when conceiving an EULA?

The legal department paid by Apple, is there to promote Apples viewpoint. If they knew the law, then we would not have to take them to court. Psystar would simply sit down with the brilliant Apple legal department people and hash out a deal.

Why the hell install OS X on a pc if the EULA is so abusive, huh? Don't get me wrong here, I am using a patched version of OS X on non-apple hardware, but I face it that it's illegal, and don't whine about it and try to (poorly) convince people of the opposite, just because I woke up one morning and felt guilty about it.

I advise you, that if you think you're doing something illegal, then stop right away!

There's nothing worse than knowing something is wrong, and doing it anyway.

There's a big difference between that, and knowing that some people believe something is wrong, and you just disagree with that view, so you do it, because you believe you are right.

See?

anyone read this yet:-

 

"Free updates for life with the purchase of an Apple Computer...."

"People would see this as a way in which Apple is attempting to reduce prices, and that could prove to be a major PR boost..."

 

http://www.appletell.com/apple/comment/bri...t-to-the-table/

 

wat do u guys think?

The problem that I see here is that Apple pay to their developers, it will be different if OS X was open source like linux. Apple pay to these developers a lot of money, the regular developer make close to $100,000 dollars a year, so is really a lot of money to give away their final product for free. I don't think it will work.

but the thing is dat Apple don't make their big amounts of revenue off OS anyway, most of their revenue comes from hardware sales, so it will probably work out imo.

@fat{censored}cat ... thanks i think that so,me the words ive been looking for

@Jaez ... it owuld be nice if they could do what was done with ubuntu ... but it simply is not practical in market to make money to make OSX even better ... they did make darwinBSD that is an OSS version with out carban and gui

and ubuntu is more popular cause hey linux is free ,,, and in todays ecconomy everything not just apple is too freakin expinsive

also long time linux/unix user and linux/unix admin here and i must say the ubuntu community is the dumbest group of people ive ever seen

its not always good for linux to be made for the simple person cause its not inheritently simple

So what, if Apple lose they'll just price up OS X and price down the Macs.

@cain ... no its more likly that in the long run OSX would go in the way of os9 and snow leopard would not be released and something new even more locked down would come out

So what, if Apple lose they'll just price up OS X and price down the Macs.

most likely Apple would price OSX for non Mac customers a lot more expensive (say 4x the Mac "bundle" price) and possibly even lower the current OSX price for Mac customers. They've done this in the past (ie. Shake, they bought the software from Nothing Real, EOL-ed (stopped developping) the Windows port and dropped its price 4 times for OSX platform while keeping the old price for the Linux version). They can easily do this and it would be 100% legal since that would be a "marketing promotion" for their Mac customers.

It is _extremely_ unlikely Apple will switch their computer business to another CPU platform any time soon, if ever. This is simply because the price on the x86 processors are going to always be the lowest since they are sold in massive amounts. To drop x86 now apple would have to:

1. provide a very good explanation to their existing customers.

2. probably develop a kick ass emulation software that would run x86 binaries on whatever that next platform would be for their existing customers (same as Rosetta on Intel atm).

3. Lose a _lot_ of money on development of the above along with the money lost on the development of the new software ports for the next great architecture they would choose.

4. Find a way to motivate the 3rd party software authors to port their apps to the new platform.

Out of all of the above I think 4. would be the hardest and longest to do resulting in people not buying Macs since they can't run their apps. In short: it ain't gonna happen. The only way it oculd happen is if all of a sudden a new microprocessor architecture jumps out of the blue and proves to be faster and more efficient then x86 _many_ times. In this case, though, I doubt even Microsoft would stick with x86.

@ulin ... you make good points but i was not suggesting that they would switch platforms but rather OS to stop all this

@ulin ... you make good points but i was not suggesting that they would switch platforms but rather OS to stop all this

Fair enough. However this depends on the outcome of the case: Psystar has not only filed counterclaims but demands that apple not restrict OSX to "apple labeled computers". _If_ the judge rules in favour of Psystar and Apple "switches OS" I don't see how the same ruling would not apply to the next OS.

I hope Psystar wins because then I could put OS X on my dads computer or on my future laptop im getting.java script:add_smilie(%22:lol:%22,%22smid_8%22)

@jaez

I advise you, that if you think you're doing something illegal, then stop right away!

 

There's nothing worse than knowing something is wrong, and doing it anyway.

 

There's a big difference between that, and knowing that some people believe something is wrong, and you just disagree with that view, so you do it, because you believe you are right.

There's no difference, you brake the law either way. No one asks you in court of what you think.

"I misinterpreted the law..." There was a south park episode (partially) based on that, called "Eek, a {censored}!", in which Cartman taught kids to cheat tests, advising that when they are caught, say they "misinterpreted the rules". I urge you to watch that part.