Psystar says its Mac OS X copies are legal by nature

[AppleInsider]

Mac clone seller Psystar now claims the legally purchased nature of its Mac OS X copies clears it to load the software on its unofficial Open Computer and OpenPro systems.

Florida-based Psystar makes its argument in a 17-page response to Apple filed in a San Francisco court last week,*again accusing*Apple of violating copyright law by requiring Mac OS X run only on Apple hardware. *This is Psystar's second line of defense after its claims regarding*anti-trust violations*were thrown out of court for reportedly being self-defeating.

Instead, Psystar now claims it buys legitimate copies of the Mac OS from retailers and even directly from Apple itself, and under the*doctrine of first sale*doesn't need Apple's permission to resell them. By taking action against Psystar, Apple is effectively trying to override accepted sales practices.

"Apple attempts to usurp [the Copyright Act] by telling Psystar and its customers that Apple--and Apple alone--will say whether, how or by whom its software is...distributed or used," Psystar's attorneys write. "Once a copyright owner consents to the sale of particular copies of a work, the owner may not thereafter exercise distribution rights with respect to those copies."

Psystar still maintains that Apple's code within Mac OS X to verify the presence of Apple hardware, which forces a kernel panic or infinite loop if the test fails, "does not constitute a technological copyright protection measure" or "effectively control access to a copyrighted work."* Apple has accused Psystar of patching a part of the Mac OS X code to enable it to run on third-party hardware.

Apple, for its part, stands by its original claim that the Mac OS X licensing agreement clearly forbids installation on any non-Apple hardware.

Psystar has responded and continues to respond in turn by asserting that Apple is guilty of "unfair conduct" that "threatens or harms competition."* It wants Apple's copyrights to be declared unenforceable.

Apple*sued*Psystar in July, and the clone builder*countersued*a month later.* The latest, amended complaint was filed after Judge William Alsup allowed Psystar to*modify its argument*following its initial anti-trust allegations.

The full case is expected to go to trial in April.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Virgil-TB2]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Mac clone seller Psystar now claims the legally purchased nature of its Mac OS X copies clears it to load the software on its unofficial Open Computer and OpenPro systems.

Florida-based Psystar makes its argument in a 17-page response to Apple filed in a San Francisco court last week,*again accusing*Apple of violating copyright law by requiring Mac OS X run only on Apple hardware. *This is Psystar's second line of defense after its claims regarding*anti-trust violations*were thrown out of court for reportedly being self-defeating.

Instead, Psystar now claims it buys legitimate copies of the Mac OS from retailers and even directly from Apple itself, and under the*doctrine of first sale*doesn't need Apple's permission to resell them. By taking action against Psystar, Apple is effectively trying to override accepted sales practices.

"Apple attempts to usurp [the Copyright Act] by telling Psystar and its customers that Apple--and Apple alone--will say whether, how or by whom its software is...distributed or used," Psystar's attorneys write. "Once a copyright owner consents to the sale of particular copies of a work, the owner may not thereafter exercise distribution rights with respect to those copies."

Psystar still maintains that Apple's code within Mac OS X to verify the presence of Apple hardware, which forces a kernel panic or infinite loop if the test fails, "does not constitute a technological copyright protection measure" or "effectively control access to a copyrighted work."* Apple has accused Psystar of patching a part of the Mac OS X code to enable it to run on third-party hardware.

Apple, for its part, stands by its original claim that the Mac OS X licensing agreement clearly forbids installation on any non-Apple hardware.

Psystar has responded and continues to respond in turn by asserting that Apple is guilty of "unfair conduct" that "threatens or harms competition."* It wants Apple's copyrights to be declared unenforceable.

Apple*sued*Psystar in July, and the clone builder*countersued*a month later.* The latest, amended complaint was filed after Judge William Alsup allowed Psystar to*modify its argument*following its initial anti-trust allegations.

The full case is expected to go to trial in April.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

What is it with this flurry of necroposting on this site lately? There's nothing in this article we didn't know last month.

[TBell]

I actually agree with the First Sale Doctrine argument by Psystar. However, the First Sale doctrine doesn't extent to modifying the software for anything other then personal use.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Mac clone seller Psystar now claims the legally purchased nature of its Mac OS X copies clears it to load the software on its unofficial Open Computer and OpenPro systems.

Florida-based Psystar makes its argument in a 17-page response to Apple filed in a San Francisco court last week,*again accusing*Apple of violating copyright law by requiring Mac OS X run only on Apple hardware. *This is Psystar's second line of defense after its claims regarding*anti-trust violations*were thrown out of court for reportedly being self-defeating.

Instead, Psystar now claims it buys legitimate copies of the Mac OS from retailers and even directly from Apple itself, and under the*doctrine of first sale*doesn't need Apple's permission to resell them. By taking action against Psystar, Apple is effectively trying to override accepted sales practices.

"Apple attempts to usurp [the Copyright Act] by telling Psystar and its customers that Apple--and Apple alone--will say whether, how or by whom its software is...distributed or used," Psystar's attorneys write. "Once a copyright owner consents to the sale of particular copies of a work, the owner may not thereafter exercise distribution rights with respect to those copies."

Psystar still maintains that Apple's code within Mac OS X to verify the presence of Apple hardware, which forces a kernel panic or infinite loop if the test fails, "does not constitute a technological copyright protection measure" or "effectively control access to a copyrighted work."* Apple has accused Psystar of patching a part of the Mac OS X code to enable it to run on third-party hardware.

Apple, for its part, stands by its original claim that the Mac OS X licensing agreement clearly forbids installation on any non-Apple hardware.

Psystar has responded and continues to respond in turn by asserting that Apple is guilty of "unfair conduct" that "threatens or harms competition."* It wants Apple's copyrights to be declared unenforceable.

Apple*sued*Psystar in July, and the clone builder*countersued*a month later.* The latest, amended complaint was filed after Judge William Alsup allowed Psystar to*modify its argument*following its initial anti-trust allegations.

The full case is expected to go to trial in April.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[8CoreWhore]

I still want to know who is paying Psystar's bills. Computer builder's such as Dell want Psystar to win. OS competitors such as MS, don't want Psystar to win... OS X would then be sold on Dells etc, making OS X more ubiquitous.

[scooter72]

Who would buy one of these Mac clones anyway? You are just asking for trouble. You'll never be able to update with patches (well, you can try) and who knows what third party software issues will come up. Stay away, far away...

If you really want one, just build it yourself.


Scooter
http://www.gadgetgrid.com

[archer75]

Originally Posted by scooter72

Who would buy one of these Mac clones anyway? You are just asking for trouble. You'll never be able to update with patches (well, you can try) and who knows what third party software issues will come up. Stay away, far away...

If you really want one, just build it yourself.


Scooter
http://www.gadgetgrid.com

You can update. And there are no 3rd party software issues either. Since apple runs on standard PC parts now you can buy hardware that apple supports natively. You can build 100% fully functionally hackintosh's quite easily.

[SpamSandwich]

It's like Apple is the bartender dealing with a belligerent drunk.

[rain]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

It's like Apple is the bartender dealing with a belligerent drunk.

[technohermit]

Originally Posted by TBell

I actually agree with the First Sale Doctrine argument by Psystar. However, the First Sale doctrine doesn't extent to modifying the software for anything other then personal use.

I guess two wrongs wouldn't make a right, but if Psystar argument is correct, then they shouldn't need to modify the code. This is the reason they are in court then, eh?
The way it reads to me is that if you bought a book, then wanted to sell it to someone when you were done reading it, the copyright owner of the book is telling you that they will sue you for doing so.
Perhaps the pro-Apple stance on this issue is because last time they let the incompetent build cheap sh*t and load OS on it, Apple almost went under. But at the time, Apple was spread thin making junk anyway. I think with their current ability to make money off of phones and media, that today's Apple could do better competing with other operating systems on systems they don't build. Let 'em have OS X, it will spread like wild fire. The more people at this point that have it the better. It is time for Apple to get huge and inconsiderate.

[JeffDM]

I don't recall Apple suing because of the original installation, they were suing because they distributed modified update binaries.

[Wiggin]

Originally Posted by technohermit

I guess two wrongs wouldn't make a right, but if Psystar argument is correct, then they shouldn't need to modify the code. This is the reason they are in court then, eh?
The way it reads to me is that if you bought a book, then wanted to sell it to someone when you were done reading it, the copyright owner of the book is telling you that they will sue you for doing so.
Perhaps the pro-Apple stance on this issue is because last time they let the incompetent build cheap sh*t and load OS on it, Apple almost went under. But at the time, Apple was spread thin making junk anyway. I think with their current ability to make money off of phones and media, that today's Apple could do better competing with other operating systems on systems they don't build. Let 'em have OS X, it will spread like wild fire. The more people at this point that have it the better. It is time for Apple to get huge and inconsiderate.

Under normal circumstances (such as the book example) you'd be able to resell it. However, I seem to recall that there is previous case law regarding EULAs where the reseller can be held liable if they are knowingly enabling end users to violate the agreement. If Psystar only sold the hardware and then told you to go by an OS yourself someplace else, they probably couldn't be held liable for this part (but still liable for modifying, etc). The person who installs the OS on the hardware is the one violating the EULA, but if Psystar sold you the boxed copy of OSX with their hardware they might be accountable as an accomplice (or whatever).

It's like with the original Napster. They weren't the ones making copyrighted songs available for download, but they were sued into oblivion because they were knowingly enabling others to do so. And there was another file sharing service (I forget the name) who lost a court case because their customer support was providing instructions to people on how to use the software to share music files with other people.

[zorinlynx]

My worry is if Psystar wins, Apple will do EVERYTHING they can to lock down OS X. Obfusciate it, encrypt it, make running it on anything other than Macs completely impossible without hours of difficult hacking.

Right now, Apple looks the other way when it comes to the hobbyist hackintosh community. But if Psystar succeeds they may not be able to look the other way much longer. And for those of us who like to play with Hackintoshes (right alongside our real, genuine Macs in many cases!), it will be a sad day.

-Z

[pdiddy]

What on earth does that have to do with the case? Sure, you can buy OS X and then resell it. Fine. You can't alter the OS X code, and you can't install it on non Apple hardware. That's the issue. Nice red herring, but it's going to get thrown out just as quickly as the last one.

Which they know, yet they still continue with this garbage anyway. There has to be something else going on behind the scenes. Nobody is this stupid.

[silverpraxis]

Originally Posted by technohermit

The way it reads to me is that if you bought a book, then wanted to sell it to someone when you were done reading it, the copyright owner of the book is telling you that they will sue you for doing so.

Your analogy only works if you bought OSX off the shelf, used it until you were finished with it, formatted your HDD, then sold OSX to someone else to install as they wish. That is perfectly legal.

A book analogy synonymous with what Psystar is doing is almost impossible to create since there are different laws that focus on different works. I guess I'll try:

You buy a book, you rip out some of the pages, glue in new ones, then resell the "new story" under the original author's name, without their consent, for a profit. That's illegal.

It's a victimless crime if you do it in your own home and keep it for personal use, it's another thing if you create a production line and start selling copies of an altered OS on overpriced, underpowered hardware that mimics Apple products.

On a sidenote, if Psystar or "their mysterious conspirator" have all this money, why don't they invest in R&D and create their own superior openPsyOS and sell it to run on any hardware?

[gumbygo]

Originally Posted by TBell

I actually agree with the First Sale Doctrine argument by Psystar. However, the First Sale doctrine doesn't extent to modifying the software for anything other then personal use.

Doesn't the First Sale Doctrine only apply to the DVD copy of Mac OSX you purchase? You can sell that copy or use it as a coaster or whatever, but you can't make a copy of it unless you are authorized to do so by the copyright owner (Apple). The EULA is a license that allows you to make authorized copies of Mac OS X. For example, when you install it onto your Mac, you are making an authorized copy because it's in compliance with the EULA. The copyright owner (Apple) has authorized you to make that copy.

Apple has the right to dictate how and if you can make copies of their software. When you purchase the DVD, you purchase 1 copy of the software, and you enter into an agreement whereby Apple dictates the terms under which you can make additional copies (i.e. installing it). You may make other legal copies (such as archival). But you may not modify the copy you bought, or make additional copies outside the terms of the EULA. It would seem that Psystar is making an unauthorized copy when they put it on non-Apple hardware.

When you purchase a family-pack of OSX, Apple agrees to let you make multiple copies of the OS. They have the right to dictate how many copies you make, how you make them, and if you may distribute them.

[Virgil-TB2]

Originally Posted by TBell

I actually agree with the First Sale Doctrine argument by Psystar. However, the First Sale doctrine doesn't extent to modifying the software for anything other then personal use.

Exactly.

It's the same as saying one should be allowed to buy a book, change something trivial like the cover or the title and re-sell it as their own work for a bit more money. What's worse, is that they are (metaphorically) leaving the authors name on the changed cover associating them with the new work.

You can't do this with any other IP, I don't see why computer programs would be any different.

Edit: I didn't notice the same sentiments were already expressed above and even used a book metaphor. Creepy!

[focher]

By many of the definitions people create for themselves here regarding the First Sale doctrine, third party software that modifies the OS would be considered a violation of Apple's copyright. That's ridiculous.

The main issue that Apple has is that the code modifications are only for allowing for interoperability. There are such interoperability exceptions to the DMCA.

You must remember that Apple will have to demonstrate exactly how it is being harmed. They are realizing the sale of the software, so their only harm is that they don't get a hardware sale out of it - but they don't necessarily get that anyway if someone buys it and installs on an existing Mac.

Anyone who argues that this case is cut-and-dry one way or another should be ignored. This is a very gray area of the law, especially in regards to copyrights. Psystar is not outside the realm of reason in their defense argument.

[bitWrangler]

Originally Posted by pdiddy

What on earth does that have to do with the case? Sure, you can buy OS X and then resell it. Fine. You can't alter the OS X code, and you can't install it on non Apple hardware. That's the issue. Nice red herring, but it's going to get thrown out just as quickly as the last one.

Which they know, yet they still continue with this garbage anyway. There has to be something else going on behind the scenes. Nobody is this stupid.

Agreed. Apple isn't claiming that psystar (or anyone else) can not sell the software to whoever they choose and AFAIK there isn't any language in the EULA that prevents this. Rather, there is language in the EULA that prevents the installation of the software on non Apple branded hardware, regardless of whether it is being resold. So once psystar installs OSX on their hardware, they've broken the EULA and what they do after that is pretty much moot (legally).

It is indeed hard to imagine that those guys have sold enough units to finance all these legal actions or that their entire legal team is willing to do all this work with any realistic expectation of winning and securing a decent payday. I don't think it's too tinfoilhattish to think that some third party(ies) is helping here.

[charlituna]

Originally Posted by TBell

I actually agree with the First Sale Doctrine argument by Psystar. However, the First Sale doctrine doesn't extent to modifying the software for anything other then personal use.

something Psystar is trying to brush under the rug.

Originally Posted by gumbygo

Doesn't the First Sale Doctrine only apply to the DVD copy of Mac OSX you purchase?

Which is why Psystar is claiming that they bought a copy for every machine that they sold. and that DVD went in the box with the hardware.

but here's the catch. they had to modify the software to make it work on their hardware. which means, Apple is arguing, created a PsystarMacOS. PMOS is based off of Apple's software of which a good third is NOT open source. That portion is copyright protected and was violated by Psystar.

So if Psystar sold 100 machines with their hacked software, that's 100 counts of copyright theft. oops.

Originally Posted by focher

You must remember that Apple will have to demonstrate exactly how it is being harmed. They are realizing the sale of the software, so their only harm is that they don't get a hardware sale out of it - but they don't necessarily get that anyway if someone buys it and installs on an existing Mac.

the courts have upheld that Apple has the legal right to try hardware and software together. no monopoly violation etc.

that is why Psystar tried to pull off a claim that Apple didn't properly register their copyright and thus can't sue etc. which was false but props for the cajones to be that stupid.

[technohermit]

Originally Posted by silverpraxis

Your analogy only works if you bought OSX off the shelf, used it until you were finished with it, formatted your HDD, then sold OSX to someone else to install as they wish. That is perfectly legal.

A book analogy synonymous with what Psystar is doing is almost impossible to create since there are different laws that focus on different works. I guess I'll try:

You buy a book, you rip out some of the pages, glue in new ones, then resell the "new story" under the original author's name, without their consent, for a profit. That's illegal.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by silverpraxis

It's a victimless crime if you do it in your own home and keep it for personal use, it's another thing if you create a production line and start selling copies of an altered OS on overpriced, underpowered hardware that mimics Apple products.

Aren't they buying the OS one copy per machine? I didn't think they bought one DVD off the shelf and started mass producing copies for their machines from it. That would be dumb, and illegal on many levels without question.

Originally Posted by silverpraxis

On a sidenote, if Psystar or "their mysterious conspirator" have all this money, why don't they invest in R&D and create their own superior openPsyOS and sell it to run on any hardware?

I think, in the same vain that Apple likes to make money off of hardware, this company (and many others I'm sure) wants to make money off of hardware without getting involved in operating systems of their own, as well. I just wish it went the other way, where Apple says "...sure, no problem, pay us $399 per seat and you can have it. Without our support for driver issues, of course "

That aside, I am for copyright changes in this country. Especially music and movies. I don't see the problem with a 40-50 year copyright on these things. That should pretty much cover the artist who created it. Also, the DMCA has tread all over fair use without limit. And the companies/artists have the potential right now to lock people up and destroy their lives for stealing a CD. Theft it may be when you download a movie, but copyright infringement likely not. If you walk into a store and steal a DVD, they (any movie studio) hardly have the right to track you down in jail and sue you for $250,000.

Sorry for the off-topic, but it bugs me.

[mjtomlin]

Originally Posted by focher

You must remember that Apple will have to demonstrate exactly how it is being harmed. They are realizing the sale of the software, so their only harm is that they don't get a hardware sale out of it ...

Well it hurts Apple, because Apple sells computers, not a stand-alone operating system. The retail box is basically just an upgrade for Macs that didn't ship with the new version. At only $129, Apple could easily prove that they do in fact consider it to be nothing more than an upgrade for existing Macs; all they'd have to do is compare it to the cost of a full retail version of Windows Vista Ultimate.

Originally Posted by focher

... but they don't necessarily get that anyway if someone buys it and installs on an existing Mac.

They actually did get it already, with the original sale of the Mac. That hardware sale subsidizes the development of future OS updates and upgrades.

[technohermit]

Originally Posted by mjtomlin

Well it hurts Apple, because Apple sells computers, not a stand-alone operating system. The retail box is basically just an upgrade for Macs that didn't ship with the new version. At only $129, Apple could easily prove that they do in fact consider it to be nothing more than an upgrade for existing Macs; all they'd have to do is compare it to the cost of a full retail version of Windows Vista Ultimate.

Why Vista Ultimate? Why not Red Hat or Ubuntu or some other random free OS? Or how about XP OEM, for system builders? Or Home Premium? Ultimate only because it favors Apple the most? There are plenty of OS's out there based on similar code to OS X that Windows prices need not be considered. Apple has a fancy GUI for a basically open source back end. Why would that need be compared with the most over-priced bloatware on the market?

[quinney]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

It's like Apple is the bartender dealing with a belligerent drunk.

Or like dealing with the Black Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"
(after all his limbs have been chopped off)

[DavidW]

Originally Posted by focher

You must remember that Apple will have to demonstrate exactly how it is being harmed. They are realizing the sale of the software, so their only harm is that they don't get a hardware sale out of it - but they don't necessarily get that anyway if someone buys it and installs on an existing Mac.

Apple doesn't need to demostrate hows it's being harm. Apple only needs to show that they own the copyright to OSX and that Psystar is using their IP in such a way that it wasn't intended to be used. And it's clearly stated on the box on how it's to be used. That's it. They can stop Psystar from loading off the shelf OSX into their hardware based on this. Every copyright owner has control of how their IP can to be used. Apple only needs to show monetary harm if they were to sue for damages. As far as I know, Apple is only suing to stop Psystar from using OSX on their unauthorized hardware.

As far as I know, Dell can come along and pay Apple 1000 dollars per copy of OSX that they loaded on to Dell PC's. Apple don't have to accept it. Apple can force Dell to stop. Even though Apple can't prove that it's being harmed. OSX is Apple IP and they can dictate who gets to use it and how it's used.

And it doesn't matter that Apple doesn't realize any new hardware sale when a Mac user buys an off the shelf copy of OSX to update his Mac. A Mac user is entitle to the discounted upgrade cost of OSX because his original Mac purchase subsidized the developement of OSX. The discounted cost of an off the shelf copy of OSX is to cover the cost of upgrading an existing OSX license. Not a new OSX license. Which is what Psystar needs to purchase for their hardware. An off the shelf copy of OSX IS NOT a new license for OSX.

[mrsteveman1]

Psystar still maintains that Apple's code within Mac OS X to verify the presence of Apple hardware, which forces a kernel panic or infinite loop if the test fails, "does not constitute a technological copyright protection measure" or "effectively control access to a copyrighted work." Apple has accused Psystar of patching a part of the Mac OS X code to enable it to run on third-party hardware.

Ugh, how long is it going to take before they get the facts right?

The kernel panic is because the bios doesn't provide certain structures to the kernel at boot time, i believe it has to do with the device tree, on a real mac the firmware does hardware discovery and not the kernel, when that info isn't provided to the kernel, it panics, and probably reboots endlessly on most machines. This is just how it works, not malicious attempts to screw cloners.

And there is in fact a technological protection method they had to break, protected binaries. Since the court has already said Apple has the right to tie the software to their hardware, i don't think they will be willing to exempt circumvention of these protected binaries as interoperability. These binaries DO effectively control access to a protected work, though they could claim the key has been freely given out to every mac owner (its in the SMC chip)

[crees!]

When I hear the word usurp I think Obama, not Apple.

[tundraBuggy]

Originally Posted by focher

By many of the definitions people create for themselves here regarding the First Sale doctrine, third party software that modifies the OS would be considered a violation of Apple's copyright. That's ridiculous.

The main issue that Apple has is that the code modifications are only for allowing for interoperability. There are such interoperability exceptions to the DMCA.

You must remember that Apple will have to demonstrate exactly how it is being harmed. They are realizing the sale of the software, so their only harm is that they don't get a hardware sale out of it - but they don't necessarily get that anyway if someone buys it and installs on an existing Mac.

Anyone who argues that this case is cut-and-dry one way or another should be ignored. This is a very gray area of the law, especially in regards to copyrights. Psystar is not outside the realm of reason in their defense argument.

This case is absolutely cut-and-dry. If one person purchases a Psystar system (such as myself) with OSX and has a terrible experience and the end result is a person who thinks that OSX is trash, Psystar has accomplished nothing more than destroying the Apple experience. If Apple can prove that Psystar has undervalued the Apple brand name (easily done with people like me), Psystar will not only shut down, but also they (or their legal investors) will pay BIG damages.
The end of the road is near.

[jpellino]

It's the closest feature-match mainstream OS for the client version of OSX. Home Premium leaves out encryption and remote desktop. Ubuntu is wonderful, and a great value, and I use it, but it's no OSX.

Originally Posted by technohermit

Why Vista Ultimate? Why not Red Hat or Ubuntu or some other random free OS? Or how about XP OEM, for system builders? Or Home Premium? Ultimate only because it favors Apple the most? There are plenty of OS's out there based on similar code to OS X that Windows prices need not be considered. Apple has a fancy GUI for a basically open source back end. Why would that need be compared with the most over-priced bloatware on the market?

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by quinney

Or like dealing with the Black Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"
(after all his limbs have been chopped off)

Another good analogy.

[gastroboy]

Originally Posted by technohermit

Perhaps the pro-Apple stance on this issue is because last time they let the incompetent build cheap sh*t and load OS on it, Apple almost went under.

Actually the last time there were clones it showed Apple to be incompetent, slow, unable to compete, and that they were building expensive sh*t. The clones kept trumping Apple on each release and, in the case of Power Computing, built an innovative Internet shop to market them, which became the origins of the Apple Store after Apple bought them out.

But still, big powerful Psystar should stop picking on little ol' Apple because some Apple users are becoming extremely disturbed at the prospect of not being told what they should buy and use.

[gastroboy]

Originally Posted by mjtomlin

That hardware sale subsidizes the development of future OS updates and upgrades.

Prove that.

This thread is totally full of the most ludicrous suppositions and wishful thinking! But then I guess that is par for the course.

[ouragan]

Florida-based Psystar makes its argument in a 17-page response to Apple filed in a San Francisco court last week,*again accusing*Apple of violating copyright law by requiring Mac OS X run only on Apple hardware. *This is Psystar's second line of defense after its claims regarding*anti-trust violations*were thrown out of court for reportedly being self-defeating.

Instead, Psystar now claims it buys legitimate copies of the Mac OS from retailers and even directly from Apple itself, and under the*doctrine of first sale*doesn't need Apple's permission to resell them. By taking action against Psystar, Apple is effectively trying to override accepted sales practices.

"Apple attempts to usurp [the Copyright Act] by telling Psystar and its customers that Apple--and Apple alone--will say whether, how or by whom its software is...distributed or used," Psystar's attorneys write

The owner of any good may decide how he will use his own property. By granting a license to use Mac OS X, Apple is trying to dictate how the owner of a license will use Mac OS X, to restrict the rights of fair use defined by laws.

Apple is trying to restrict the use of a Mac OS X licence beyond the time of sale when property is transferred from Apple to the buyer. This attempt is clearly abusive and ought to be barred by the Courts.

[GmanMac]

Originally Posted by gastroboy

Prove that.

This thread is totally full of the most ludicrous suppositions and wishful thinking! But then I guess that is par for the course.

Prove it?

I guess they subsidize future OS updates by letting people steal and hack their products.

[bokuwaomar]

Originally Posted by gastroboy

Prove that.

This thread is totally full of the most ludicrous suppositions and wishful thinking! But then I guess that is par for the course.

I doubt anyone here would be able to prove that, but it is both plausible and probable. DO you know of any company that makes a profit by selling a commercial OS that has less than 10% market share at $129? Probably not. The cheapest commercial OSes are probably OEM licenses for Windows, which are only cheap because the hardware vendor provides all support and not Microsoft. Now, someone brought up Linux earlier, and while some distributions are pretty nice (I personally like openSUSE), most of the software that makes up those Linux distributions is developed largely by volunteer programmers in their spare time. If the majority of the developers were actually paid to write that software, Linux as we know it would not be available for free.

[silverpraxis]

Originally Posted by technohermit

Aren't they buying the OS one copy per machine? I didn't think they bought one DVD off the shelf and started mass producing copies for their machines from it. That would be dumb, and illegal on many levels without question.

I didn't mean to sound like I thought they bought one copy and installed it on multiple systems. I meant that they are buying one copy per machine, but altering the code and selling the altered code for profit. I say for profit because they aren't selling altered OSX as a standalone, but using it to entice customers to buy their hardware. Without OSX, who would buy their hardware, who would even notice them?

Originally Posted by technohermit

I think, in the same vain that Apple likes to make money off of hardware, this company (and many others I'm sure) wants to make money off of hardware without getting involved in operating systems of their own, as well. I just wish it went the other way, where Apple says "...sure, no problem, pay us $399 per seat and you can have it. Without our support for driver issues, of course "

Psystar could just as easily buy a license to sell Vista on their machines legally. Perhaps not just as easily as Psystar pretty much went behind Apple's back and altered software that didn't belong to them, repackaged it, and sold it. I just thought of another analogy, kinda rocky, but it's kind of like scalping tickets... If you look at it from the perspective of them standing in front of the Apple Store saying, "Apple's iMac starts at $1200, but I'll sell you this tower that runs OSX starting at $550." That's a possible hardware sale taken from Apple. It's sort of a moot point though, as I'm pretty sure 99.9% of people buying those Open Computers know what they are getting into.

Originally Posted by technohermit

That aside, I am for copyright changes in this country. Especially music and movies. I don't see the problem with a 40-50 year copyright on these things. That should pretty much cover the artist who created it. Also, the DMCA has tread all over fair use without limit. And the companies/artists have the potential right now to lock people up and destroy their lives for stealing a CD. Theft it may be when you download a movie, but copyright infringement likely not. If you walk into a store and steal a DVD, they (any movie studio) hardly have the right to track you down in jail and sue you for $250,000.

Sorry for the off-topic, but it bugs me.

If you walk into a store and steal a DVD, you stole $20 from a store basically. If you use a torrent to download a DVD, you're uploading it back to the community at the same time, which is making illegal copies for distribution. That is more damaging to studios than stealing a disc you'll use for (assumed) private use. But I agree with you, many laws are outdated and need to change. I think they need to tackle a few outside of our copyright system first however.

[silverpraxis]

Originally Posted by ouragan

The owner of any good may decide how he will use his own property. By granting a license to use Mac OS X, Apple is trying to dictate how the owner of a license will use Mac OS X, to restrict the rights of fair use defined by laws.

Apple is trying to restrict the use of a Mac OS X licence beyond the time of sale when property is transferred from Apple to the buyer. This attempt is clearly abusive and ought to be barred by the Courts.

The owner of any good is allowed to decide how they will use their own property. When you buy OSX, you are buying the license to use THEIR software. So you can do whatever you'd like with the license, make copies, post it online, etc, as long as it's not damaging to any party (such as altering the license to make Apple look bad). You never own the rights to the software, only Apple does. Just as movie studios own the rights to their movies, you are just licensed a copy for private use and duplicating for archival/back-up purposes only.

Just like purchasing a license to drive, you aren't allowed to drive however you want, there are rules and stipulations to protect others, yourselves, and the vendor (state government in this case).

What is fair use? Buying a product from a vendor, repackaging it, and undercutting the price of the original vendor (through Psystar's hardware sales) because you didn't have to pay for the original R&D and support? That's fair use? Really?

[macologist]

legalities aside...

When we buy Macs, we hope that everything works as promised... But that doesn't happen always! So, WHY would anyone buy anything from PsyStar and such, and even pay them for Extended Warranty, if:

PsyStar is in Court against Apple
It's Future is a Question Mark

vs. buying THE REAL THING, and have a THE REAL COMPANY behind it?

How much $$ is PsyStar saving their customers!

Even if they sold each model for HALF PRICE, it wouldn't be worth it, why?
Cause I would never deal with a FLY BY NIGHT FOLKS like that!
Why bother, when there are REAL APPLE STORES where every salesperson is a Mac User, as opposed to some guys that just assemble cheap parts to make a FAKE!

But, I doubt it's even HALF PRICE, and thus can't be worth all the headaches!

Going to Apple for help, vs. CHEAP GUYS - is insane!!!

Isn't all our TIME precious!!!

I, like others, am also wondering if someone else is not behind PsyStar?

How do they just appear out of nowhere and start all that, plus have $$ for Legal Wars?

Why hasn't that been exposed? YET!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Plus, their hardware is UGLY!

[silverpraxis]

I truly believe Psystar does diminish Apple's reputation by operating as they are. They bundle PC keyboards for use with OSX, the Win key is used as the Apple key, etc. Time Machine, a major feature of OSX Leopard, isn't supported on Open Computers. Psystar decides what third party software compatibilities their customer support will help you with. Boot Camp isn't supported.

Not to mention, when you buy from Apple, Apple will help move your files from your old PC or Mac to your new computer. That customer service is not available from Psystar either.

And I really don't like how their website says "The Open and OpenPro can run Mac OS X Leopard to various degrees of support."

[camroidv27]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I don't recall Apple suing because of the original installation, they were suing because they distributed modified update binaries.

I find it silly that Pystar even was using modified binaries. With all the work we've seen in OSX86 (and by-the-by I think Pystar should give something back to that community if it hasn't already), we can install OS X on regular hardware without modifying any of Apple's code (though some open source stuff needs to be modified in a very small fashion), can even use the retail disk to install, and the Apple Software Update program works too. Check the forums. Better yet, check my grammar. :P

It does however mean installing your own kexts to fit your hardware. It would be like installing a peripheral that Apple does not already have drivers for.

(Someone correct me if I'm wrong here)



I'm bored of this case now... wake me at the finale.

[vandil]

If Apple would bring back a built-to-order Mac Pro that could be configured with more desktop-oriented hardware (as opposed to $3000 workstation hardware) and sell them for as low as $1500 like they did in the past, there wouldn't be a market for Hackintoshes.