Unauthorized Mac clone maker Psystar appeals Apple lawsuit - Page 3

As long as it's made by Apple, and branded a Mac, then it's a Mac.

Look, this is not rocket science. I'll try and break it down for you.

Fact#1 MS not only bundled IE with their OS, but they tried to lock out every other browser.

Fact#2 Apple does not lock out MS Windows, or other os systems ... it even includes Boot Camp to make it easy to run Windows


Fact#3 I have never heard of anyone being sued by Apple for building a "hackintosh" (Your hardware running their OS) .... just don't try to sell it for a profit!

It is not unreasonable for Apple to expect a company should not use Apple's IP to build their own company.

Finally.

Psystar is not selling clones right now, but there are plenty of other companies selling Mac clones! See:
http://news.cnet.com/2300-31021_3-10...%2Envr_38606_1

Try doing a copy and paste of a book, print multiple copies, give it a different title and then try selling thousands of copies in the marketplace. Let's see how far you get .... that's what Pystar was tying to do with Apple OS .... not only illegal but also immoral IMHO.

I think the reasoning behind this is because of MS's EULA, that allows you to run one copy on one computer, and it generally means 95% of all PC's. Microsoft's ubiquity and the common understanding that you can install it on just about any PC. It does not, however, carry over to other operating systems, and does not account for all other EULA's. People just have been used to being able to run Windows on any PC they choose, because MS allows it. Apple doesn't. They do, however, allow you to not run OS X on an Apple branded computer, if you so choose.

Apple's OS X agreement is different, and cannot be assumed to allow you to install it on any hardware you'd like. I understand why Psystar tried to refute the EULA, but it was found to be legal and binding, so the argument over Apple abusing its copyright is over. They don't, and what they have done with the EULA is perfectly legal.

A Dell is a Dell ... An IBM is an IBM .... a HP is a HP and a Mac is a Mac ... They are all PCs (personal computers) but they are all different and unique. If you change the OS it is still the same hardware. To be technically correct, since you like to play with semantics, you probably should say, for example, I have a Mac running Windows ... or I have a Dell running OSX .... or I have a Mac running Apple's Snow Leopard. For the love of Mike, can you stop arguing just for the sake of arguing? Get a hobby.

It's not different at all. Buy an HP or a Dell, and try to put their 'Windows Image' disk in another brand PC, and you'll get a message that you can't install it because it's not an HP, Dell, or whatever.

People just confuse MS with hardware vendors. It is to their benefit that it installs on as much hardware as possible, across many vendors. Apple however, just acts like a standard hardware vendor.

Your contradicting yourself.

A Dell is a Dell, a IBM is a IBM, a HP is a HP and a ..... Apple is a Apple.

You see your using the companies name to describe the computer it comes from.

In fact Apple Computer used to use the slogan "Get a Apple" a long time ago.

And that doesn't include all the overseas companies doing the same thing in countries with little IP protection laws and enforcement.

You missed my point (probably because I didn't word it very well). The key words in my statement were "as your own product."

In other words you don't have the right to set up a business called "bsenka publishing," buy books from various publishers in bulk, put your own cover on them, and resell them as your own product. That's the close parallel in publishing to what Psystar is doing in computers.

This thread is going pretty much the way all threads on Psystar go, which is why I'm not commenting much, but to add another aspect that I haven't seen come up yet ...

A lot of folks seem to be arguing (Psystar among them), that the issue is that you *bought* the software so you should "own" it not be a "licensee" of it. What they forget is that software is ephemeral and different from concrete products as objects that can be bought and sold. That's the whole reason for software licensing.

If I "owned" a the software in the same way as I owned a physical object, then I can resell it over and over again, because it's just code. If it were not for software licensing, most of the computer revolution of the last 30 years or so would not have happened. We'd all still be using 386's and playing Oregon Trail if software licensing didn't exist. there would be no computer games, decent office software or anything like iTunes. Not only would Apple computer never have been able to survive, Microsoft might not either. Software licensing (as opposed to owning it), is the backbone of the industry.

Software licensing and the protection of IP is what allows the computer industry to exist at all. At least in the state it is now. The "free" world that Psystar (and half the idiots at the EEF), pines for would be a nightmare in reality.

Sure, copyright and IP laws are absolutely totally f*cked up right now and have been for a while, but the "I can do whatever the hell I want with the software I bought" point of view is not the answer. It's a childish, simplistic, stupid idea that solves no problems and creates a lot more in it's wake.

Your absolutely right, unfortunately most of the world doesn't even know what capitalism is, much less a software license.

These Psystar fellows I suspect were recent immigrants, giving the wording of some of their material in broken English. Thus they were most likely acting upon the ideals of their original country.

They probably thought they hit a gold mine, putting OS X on generic PC's.

It was called an IBM Personal Computer and was marketed primarily to business.

The problem is that Psystar's public arguments have little to do with their legal arguments. My understanding is they purchased OS X, used code to make it run on a generic PC, then sold the whole product as one. They also infringed on Apple's trademarks (such as "Mac" and "OS X").

Their public argument implies they merely made hardware that worked with Mac OS X. If that were the case, they might have had a chance. Then, we'd be getting into what Apple can and can't do in terms of what you do with your software license. In other words, can Apple legally prevent you from building a machine that runs their product? Right now the answer seems to be "yes." But it would be an interesting case.

Your right of course, as you well know over time the IBM Personal Computer and it's clones became known in a general sense as "PC's".

Mac's were different back then, hardware and software speaking, and called "Mac's" to differ them from "PC's", even though Mac's are personal computers too.

It does seem they acted in a unknowing manner or based upon the ways things are done in their country, perhaps that's why Apple let them off so easily.

And they copied others people's work and passed it off as their own, so they weren't too bright.

Maybe this is the distraction they'll use to flee the country?

What I want to know is who the heck is backing this company financially? Sometime ago there were rumors of industry backing, whatever that means is anyone's guess. It just seems so odd that this company keeps clawing back and appealing cases and making lawsuits and won't give up. Its not like they have even made any profits from this venture. Who is backing this and why are my two questions.

Little problem here, Apple does not sell a stand alone version of their OS, never have. They have only ever sold upgrades.

I also have never understood where Psystar was coming from. If Microsoft can tie their OS to the xbox 360, Sony their OS to the PS3, Nintendo to the Wii and so on, why no OS X (or any other apple OS) to their own computers... after all today all gaming systems out really are just very limited computers

Hello and welcome to AI.



Well the OS disk sold by Apple can either upgrade the older OS or install a fresh version.

Windows can do that too, so I guess that makes it a hybrid of the two types.


If you so happen to buy a Mac right after a major OS update, Apple will usually supply a upgrade only disk, which can't be used to install the OS, just upgrade the older one.





Well the Xbox uses three PowerPC G5 processors and the PS3 a (up to) 9 core Cell processor.

These are totally different processor families than the x86 based generic PC's that companies like Dell, HP, Sony and Apple use.

So basically any x86 based OS's like Windows, Linux, Unix, OS X can run on each others PC hardware as they all use the same processor family.

Back before Apple switched to x86 Intel processors, they indeed did use PowerPC processors, so OS X was tailored to work with only that processor family and hardware. Giving it a hardware lock, just like the X-Box or the PS3.

What Psystar, and a lot of other cloners, want to do is use OS X on PC hardware made by others than Apple since Apple basically made their computers the same as generic PC's. Apple isn't allowing this as this would rob them of hardware sales, but people do it anyway in droves.

Either this was a fatal mistake or part of a carefully calculated plan.

It's my opinion Apple should have added something extra to their computers in hardware so that OS X couldn't run very easily or not at all on the x86 processor family. Thus avoiding this mess.

i would feel deceived as a consumer if psystar won any of their insane lawsuits against apple...because that'd show that apple can produce incredible products and software but cannot safeguard their intellectual property

Crazy.... like a fox!

I have finally figured out who Paystar's backer is!

RMS!

Actually Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.

As someone else suggested, you might want to read up on some history.

Yes, I was referring to Psytar's use of an off the shelf copy of OS X that they paid for (not an OEM disk.) Confusing this EULA with an off the shelf copy of Microsoft's Windows EULA would be easy to do if you don't read it--meaning focusing on the reports siding with Psystar. In that case "common sense" really doesn't apply, because the common understanding is that MS' EULA allows you to install Windows on one PC of your choosing. Apple's never has. They have, however, branded image disks to their individual machines (iMac, MBP, etc), which is a wholly separate matter.

Not to be facetious, but I've never seen this before.

My friend happened to buy a unibody MBP with Leopard installed, after SL was released. The Apple Store just threw a boxed copy of SL in the bag. It wasn't designated as upgrade only, because every one of their OS's is upgrade only. You can still do a fresh install off these disks though, because it would be stupid to have only the option to update an existing OS. They seem to never run as "fresh" as a clean install. Can you point me to a disk designated as upgrade only?

Meaning what you inferred--one would need an existing earlier OS on the hard disk or it won't run?

Nice post. And I'd like to thank you for using bold for emphasis instead of caps. So, thank you!

So you're saying the Panther restore disks required you to first install Jaguar?

That is, of course, absurd. The entire computing industry today is based on the principle that the creator owns the product and can decide how to license it. Are you arguing that Microsoft should lose the right to restrict site licenses to the sites they are sold to? Or that it should be OK for me to buy 1,000 student licenses for Windows and sell them at full retail?

The only apparent exception (open source software) isn't an exception at all. OSS comes with a license that tells you what you can do with the software. The fact that OSS developers don't charge for the software doesn't eliminate the fact that their license controls what you do with it.


Not a chance. Linux users are almost always cheap and would never pay for a quality Apple machine. Windows users are, by and large, Apple-haters and wouldn't buy a Mac. The tiny number of people who would run Windows on a Mac already do.


No. You have to wait for a court decision - which has now been done. What Psystar did is illegal. End of discussion.

I'm sick of these "I want to use OS X and don't want to pay Apple for a Mac" whiners. The concept is very simple. I'll try to explain it using small words. Apple made OS X. They can do what they want. They don't have to let you use it at all. You have NO rights to use OS X. Now, because Apple wants to make money, they say "we'll let you use OS X under SOME conditions if you pay us for a license". If you don't pay, you don't have a license. If you don't agree with the conditions, you don't have a license. A license is a contract. It only works if both parties to the contract agree. By the fact that you're not agreeing with the license, THERE IS NO CONTRACT and you therefore have zero right to use it.

To those of you claiming that you BOUGHT OS X, you're just plain wrong. If you owned it, you could make 1 million copies and sell them - which you clearly don't have the right to do. If you owned it, you could name it "Mike's OS" and sell it to anyone you wish under that name. You don't have the right to do that, either. Even if Apple would consider selling you OS X in its entirety, it would cost you billions of dollars. Did you spend that much for the retail box you bought?


Yeah, I guess that's true - if you're not bright enough to understand the difference between an OS and a wallpaper. No matter how you dress Ubuntu up, it doesn't have the ease of use and elegance of OS X. You may not care, but many people do.


No, its not. The difference is that Microsoft has been ruled a monopoly in the PC operating system and Apple has not. Furthermore, Microsoft has been found to have abused that monopoly. THAT is the difference.

Microsoft chose a different marketing strategy than Apple which paid off handsomely for them, but that doesn't mean that it's the only strategy they could have chosen. If Microsoft had decided in 1982 that MS DOS could only be used on IBM systems, it would have been perfectly legal.

That's only because you're either misinformed or not thinking straight.

Dell is the manufacturer. The computer is an Inspiron, for example.

IBM is the manufacturer (actually, not any more, now it's Lenovo). ThinkPad is the computer.

Anyone who says the bought a Dell is making a statement like "I just bought a new General Motors". It's not incorrect, but it's also extremely misleading and imprecise.

No, Im saying that the Restore Disc was only for that PowerBook model. Ah, I see that I have misunderstood that conversation. Mea culpa.

It's all good
I was thinking if 'Tripper could do it, it may change my EULA position a bit. Windows disks do in fact check for previous versions when designated as upgrade only, so there would be some confusion there between a "retail" OS X disk and an "upgrade only" OS X disk, which I've never seen. And for good reason, they are all upgrade only disks. Unlike Windows upgrade disks, though, because they allow clean installs, upgrade installs, as well as archive and installs.

Wrong. Apple doesn't offer any such "upgrade" disc that only upgrades prior versions. I have done the "Up to Date" program with both Mac OS X and iLife. My iLife '09 disc is a "Drop in CPU" disc and it is no different than the retail version. A prior version of iLife is not required for installation. My Snow Leopard disc is also the $9.95 "Not for Resale" upgrade copy and it is no different than the retail version. It will install Snow Leopard on a reformatted hard drive that does not require a previous version of OS X to be updated.

No version of the Mac OS has ever been an "upgrade" in which it required a previous version to be installed or verified. You can buy a copy of Mac OS X and install it on a blank hard drive.

However, in the Windows world, if you buy one of their "upgrade" versions, it requires a previous version to be installed on the hard drive, or scan a previous version CD, in order for the installation to continue. That is what an upgrade version is, it verifies ownership of a previous version. The full price "retail" version of Windows does not require verification of a previous version and can be installed on a blank hard drive.

Nothing ever smart came out of Florida.

I love their comment of, "We don't condone piracy and we have never done that." What a load of SHIT. They bought a Mac Mini, hacked OS X, and used that Mini to image and clone every piece of shit PC they made. They didn't buy a copy of Mac OS X for each PC they made, and that was proven in discovery. The retail copy of Mac OS X was useless unless you signed over all your rights against the company and then they gave you their special CD to hack the software so you could reinstall OS X.

They are nothing more than worthless thieves. The book analogy is excellent. You cannot do whatever you want with a book. You don't have the right to copy said book, and resell it as your own. That is illegal too. They are just a bunch of typical PC dumbshits.

So sick of this screw the corporation mentality. Everyone wants the greatest new technology at dirt cheap prices & they think they have the right to tell companies to just bend over & take it cause "I want, I want, I want!!!"

Apple has worked hard to progress technology instead of stifle it. They've given a ton back to open-source communities. Sure they gain from some open-source too but even in doing that they are doing open-source a big favor since they are bringing real weight behind those projects allowing them to flourish out beyond the super geekdom.

They've also been huge in pushing customer expectation for quality & service, something all users benefit from because now others like Dell & HP want to drag their own name out of the mud.

Psystar is just making a fool of themselves. They need to just go the way of the dodo.

Almost correct, Apple did ship some discs requiring Panther be installed for some of their Tiger Discs that shipped for that extra $10 if you bought a Panther machine just before the announcement of Tiger. I know cause I got one when I bought my first Mac & when I reloaded it before selling it I was required to reinstall Panther & then Tiger.

I don't know about before that but I know with Leopard that all changed & you simply installed Leopard & then put in your Tiger disc to install the iLife & other optional packages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
Your contradicting yourself.

A Dell is a Dell, a IBM is a IBM, a HP is a HP and a ..... Apple is a Apple.

You see your using the companies name to describe the computer it comes from.

In fact Apple Computer used to use the slogan "Get a Apple" a long time ago.
End Quote


Someone can correct me if I'm wrong I believe Mac & PC became terms out side of their original technical meaning back in the early days of the Microsoft/Apple wars. At that time the acronym PC moved from just Personal Computer to describe any MS-DOS/Windows running computer due to their massive dominance of that market and Apple's own attempts to shirk the label of PC. The name Macintosh was a model just like PowerBook or MacBook but the term Mac was actually coined to give a name to the operating system that came on an Apple Macintosh computer. The name Mac actually refers to the OS running on an Apple computer & is not from the machine model name.

What makes it more interesting is that the Mach microkernel was used in the original NeXTSTEP OS developed by Steve Jobs (also exits in current OS X). One might wonder if the Mac name to the OS might come from here but it would seem very unlikely since the original Mac OS was not based on that microkernel. The name Macintosh is actually a type of apple(the fruit) & since the original OS for the first Macintosh computer officially had no name upon release Mac properly ensued as they needed a name to distinguish the GUI based OS from other DOS offerings on the market.

In completely technical terms Macs are a Personal Computer but the term PC is now heavily associated with Microsoft Windows & Apple has retained the name Mac in their OS offerings allowing them to still be called Macs. Chances are the name PC will live on to be thought of as Windows installed computers until Microsoft looses their market majority on the non-Apple Personal Computer and even then it may be that a new acronym will be coined to describe non-Windows computers of other OS type that begin to flood the market in the future.

Makes no sense. I mean the efi program is free at osx86 and the only sense to make a hac would be a 4-8 core machine for $800 otherwise. A waste of time. I can understand there is now mid range machine that's headless but I've tried a hack. Not one problem
works as advertised. But pystar needs to give it a rest.

But as Apple shows this was NOT about the EULA but Psystar breaking the DMCA based code Apple used to prevent MacOS X from being installed on non mac-software.