or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Psystar drops antitrust gripes in fresh counterclaim against Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Psystar drops antitrust gripes in fresh counterclaim against Apple - Page 2

post #41 of 144
A EULA is a contract that stipulates the use of a license. If you agree to it you are bound to its terms as long as you operate under that license. Apple can say you hereby agree to wear red socks every time you use their computer, and you are within your rights to refuse to enter into the contract. Psystar doesn't get to whine because Apple created a license that contains grants and restrictions.

Psystar's legal burn rate is likely their limiting factor. I'm betting their lifespan is being measured in months at best.
post #42 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

So if Apple were to license it's OS software per computer, not computer company, at a price of $25,000.00 for each computer sold, would that end the lawsuit and cause Psystar to go back where it once came?

Nice try, but I think that would make Apple guilty of hindering competition.
post #43 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiana61 View Post

Nice try, but I think that would make Apple guilty of hindering competition.

Competition with whom?
post #44 of 144
Another important thing to note here is that Apple lawsuit claims that Psystar part of a larger plot. I think another "competing" company values MAC OSX as a significant technology and wants to get hold of it by hook or crook.

I suspect a company like MSFT which has its roots in Law may be behind it. Think about it... Bill Gates is from a family of attorneys. He was himself a law student before he found passion in computers.
Some of the "key" MSFT revenue streams are successful because of their strong team of attorneys.

MSFT stole Windows GUI from Apple. (Xerox which was using only as concept).
MSFT "killed" Netscape by monopolistic control and anti-competitive means.

It is all a hunch but I do believe there is something bigger behind Psystar, A small company with little money cannot risk taking on Apple. Especially after losing round 1. This is all very unusually daring or foolish.
post #45 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by libran_ca View Post

Another important thing to note here is that Apple lawsuit claims that Psystar part of a larger plot. I think another "competing" company values MAC OSX as a significant technology and wants to get hold of it by hook or crook.

I suspect a company like MSFT which has its roots in Law may be behind it. Think about it... Bill Gates is from a family of attorneys. He was himself a law student before he found passion in computers.
Some of the "key" MSFT revenue streams are successful because of their strong team of attorneys.

MSFT stole Windows GUI from Apple. (Xerox which was using only as concept).
MSFT "killed" Netscape by monopolistic control and anti-competitive means.

It is all a hunch but I do believe there is something bigger behind Psystar, A small company with little money cannot risk taking on Apple. Especially after losing round 1. This is all very unusually daring or foolish.

If microsoft were behind it and psystar won then OSX would be sold as an option on every PC out there. I'm sure Microsoft wants to go head to head with OSX like that. Makes perfect sense.
post #46 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post

You don't have to modify apples code. You just add EFI emulation. And there are boards starting to show up that use EFI. A retail copy of OSX could boot right up straight out of the box with no modification whatsoever. You would add drivers or rather kexts but that would be adding, not modifying. No different than installing your own software on your computer. There is also a USB EFI emulator. Plug that in a board running an Intel or even now certain Nvidia chipsets and OSX boots up right out of the box.

And apple certainly doesn't own EFI.

No but they do have to modify OS X to get it to install on a non-mac before they sell it to you. They then include a full version in the package, but that Full version is not what they install. You cannot, from what I have read, simply install a fresh OS X copy without first doing a mod during or before installation.

So even if you could simply install OSX, which you can't, but just for the sake of this argument, you are still circumventing the copy protection as you are fooling the copy protection into believing that you have a real Apple Mac.

But again, everything I have read states you have to modify or patch code in order for it to run on a hackintosh.

The Pystar claim is bull. Apple is not a software company, they are first and foremost a hardware company with first class software to support their hardware. They have a right to make software only compatible with their own hardware, just like Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo.
post #47 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post

From the Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard EULA, Section 2A: "This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time."

You get two apple labels with the retail DVD.

I know you're being partly serious, but there is no way that would work in court as an argument.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #48 of 144
its so stupid this is angering me just reading this i cant even imagine what the people at apple are feeling. the way i look at it is like any other software. so because you can buy a copy of the software outside of the machine it doesnt mean its not made specificly for those.

its like having creative sue apple because they cant use the ipod software on their mp3 players its pure bullshit. If i was a company who had a product and took the time to develop my own software and user interface there should even be a law governing what i can and cannot do with it. you cant force a company to make their software public thats so freakin stupid
BBAAHHH FCKUNIG PSYSTAR PICEE OF SIHT MOETHRFKCUERS
post #49 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoX360 View Post

No but they do have to modify OS X to get it to install on a non-mac before they sell it to you. They then include a full version in the package, but that Full version is not what they install. You cannot, from what I have read, simply install a fresh OS X copy without first doing a mod during or before installation.

In the past (10.4 and earlier), that WAS the case. It is not any more. You don't have to change a single thing with an OS X disk and certain hardware to get it to boot and install. You can take a fresh disk out of the package, stick it in, boot off of it, and install.... again with certain hardware.

Quote:
So even if you could simply install OSX, which you can't, (YES YOU CAN), but just for the sake of this argument, you are still circumventing the copy protection as you are fooling the copy protection into believing that you have a real Apple Mac.

You aren't fooling anything. There is no copy protection period. All it sees is if the hardware is compatible. If they were checking for apple hardware serial numbers, and the user had to hack the install dvd from doing that or flashed their EFI to emulate it, THEN it'd be fooling it.

Quote:
But again, everything I have read states you have to modify or patch code in order for it to run on a hackintosh.

The data you have read is outdated.
Quote:
The Pystar claim is bull. Apple is not a software company, they are first and foremost a hardware company with first class software to support their hardware. They have a right to make software only compatible with their own hardware, just like Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo.

I completely agree.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #50 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by talkshowonmute View Post

its so stupid this is angering me just reading this i cant even imagine what the people at apple are feeling. the way i look at it is like any other software. so because you can buy a copy of the software outside of the machine it doesnt mean its not made specificly for those.

its like having creative sue apple because they cant use the ipod software on their mp3 players its pure bullshit. If i was a company who had a product and took the time to develop my own software and user interface there should even be a law governing what i can and cannot do with it. you cant force a company to make their software public thats so freakin stupid
BBAAHHH FCKUNIG PSYSTAR PICEE OF SIHT MOETHRFKCUERS

LOL

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #51 of 144
I fail to see why Psystar is still getting press. It's a shady company run by a shady guy. They mark up cheap budget machines to the point where Apple's markups aren't really that much considering that you get better performing and better designed hardware.

Psystar never had a chance and only an idiot would believe this business idea wouldn't lead to legal troubles. They are going to be spending more in court than they'll ever make selling these things.

In the mean time, Appleinsider is giving them all kinds of press, along with any other BS story that has anything remotely to do with Apple. I don't know how they ever thought an antitrust lawsuit would hold up against a company with a 5% marketshare. There are literally hundreds of OS distributions to choose from in the home and enterprise PC markets, ranging from $0-thousands

Nothing to see here, folks. I give Psystar 4 more months maximum of existence before they tank.
post #52 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by libran_ca View Post

Another important thing to note here is that Apple lawsuit claims that Psystar part of a larger plot. I think another "competing" company values MAC OSX as a significant technology and wants to get hold of it by hook or crook.

I suspect a company like MSFT which has its roots in Law may be behind it. Think about it... Bill Gates is from a family of attorneys. He was himself a law student before he found passion in computers.
Some of the "key" MSFT revenue streams are successful because of their strong team of attorneys.

MSFT stole Windows GUI from Apple. (Xerox which was using only as concept).
MSFT "killed" Netscape by monopolistic control and anti-competitive means.

It is all a hunch but I do believe there is something bigger behind Psystar, A small company with little money cannot risk taking on Apple. Especially after losing round 1. This is all very unusually daring or foolish.

Why would Microsoft open up a larger market for one of their competitors? They want everyone using Windows, not more people using OSX.

I do wonder where Psystar is getting all this money to pay their lawyers, though.
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
post #53 of 144
It seems to me the difference between OS X and the Wii OS or Playstation OS is that you can buy a copy of OS X WITHOUT any hardware

if apple were to make 10.x updates online updates somehow and stopped selling discs then psystar/hackintoshers would have to buy hardware and copy the OS. Problem solved.
post #54 of 144
Given that users can choose a Windows PC, a Mac, a linux box, etc for the same purposes, and Apple's decade-long campaign of appealing to switchers, I think the monopoly argument is bogus.

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply
post #55 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by 413X View Post

It seems to me the difference between OS X and the Wii OS or Playstation OS is that you can buy a copy of OS X WITHOUT any hardware

if apple were to make 10.x updates online updates somehow and stopped selling discs then psystar/hackintoshers would have to buy hardware and copy the OS. Problem solved.

I was thinking that. In fact, don't microsoft make Office disks that are update-only. I don't understand why OSX discs aren't update-only. It's still great to have disks to boot off as a backstop, but I would expect something would be possible here.

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply
post #56 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post

No they aren't hacking updates. You can install updates direct from apple. The only issue is the point updates and you simply have to run a script then install apples combo update. However this type of update has been disabled on psystars.

They are then adding EFI emulation and whatever drivers are needed for the hardware. Not modifiying but rather addition to.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Yes, you need to add EFI emulation, kernel extensions for specific hardware etc etc. However, you also need to disable/replace the kernel extension "Dont Steal Mac OS.kext". This is used to decrypyt Apple's encrypted binaries. These are key programs such as the Finder. This kext is tied to the hardware in order to correctly decrypt these binaries on the fly.

You'll find that any Hackintosh out there needs to have either a dsmos.kext or an AppleDecrypt.kext or similar and that the "Dont Steal..." kext has been removed.

This is the copy protection that Apple have employed and that Psystar and any Hackintosh builder need to break in order to get OS X to run.
post #57 of 144
More information can be found here:

Apple Binary Protection

and here..

Netkas Frequently Asked Questions
post #58 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by knightlie View Post

I do wonder where Psystar is getting all this money to pay their lawyers, though.

Assuming there are deep pockets involved I would say it's the Dells and Gateways of the world that would love to be out from under the thumb of Microsoft. They have virtually no bargaining power when dealing with MS because they have no viable alternative OS.
post #59 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiana61 View Post

Nice try, but I think that would make Apple guilty of hindering competition.

Guilty of hindering competition, dude don't make me laugh.
post #60 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by akhomerun View Post

Nothing to see here, folks. I give Psystar 4 more months maximum of existence before they tank.

If their legal campaign is really financed by someone, they'll live at least until the case comes to trial in about a year.
post #61 of 144
If you make an upgrade only DVD, how do you do a re-install or a fresh install when you change out your harddrive?

As another person wrote (quite well) I'm also extremely ticked about the Psystar crap. Seriously, Apple pours a lot of money for R&D to make OS X so that their product in unique and people want it. That's the point, right? No one is required to give their innovation away to the competitor! People want Mac because of what Apple does in regards to hardware and software development that makes an amazing product!
post #62 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsteveman1 View Post

So this is directed at not just you, but the others who keep insisting that EFI is the only difference here.

There is copy protection, i'm surprised none of you have even mentioned it at all, and it is called protected binaries. You run OS X on an EFI machine, sure the kernel will not panic and most of the system will start, but the interface won't, including the dock, the finder, and some other key things that are quite important if you really want to use the OS.

The protected binaries are encrypted by a key, and that key is in the system management controller chip in every real mac. Sometime during the boot process, one of the kernel extensions grabs this key out of the chip and allows the kernel to decrypt the pages for these protected binaries when they are run.

Now, this is ABSOLUTELY a copy protection method, and will be protected by the DMCA, even though it can be broken by either reading the key out of the hardware and decrypting the binaries, or replacing the kernel extension responsible for doing the decryption, with one that contains the key. The fact that it doesn't prevent someone from running OS X who has not paid for it or has no serial number (there isn't one) is irrelevant. It does prevent stock OS X from running on even a compliant EFI machine, and that is all that matters, to actually get it to run you have to get around the encryption.

This is what the hackintosh people have been doing for quite a while, and i suspect it is exactly what psystar is doing. Either way, there is no way to run stock mac os x on non-apple hardware without getting around that encryption, because those things simply will not run unless they are decrypted, and once you do that you have circumvented Apples protection method.

It is not a copy protection, but it is a protection method more like the zone/region system found on dvds. There are no protective methods that restrict you from copying the contents of a retail dvd, and if you have a mac it will play just fine even though it is a copy.

You bought the product. You are abiding by the EULA if you put on one of the included Apple labels. (put both on to be extra safe) Technically you may still be violating the DMCA by cimcumventing "copy protection" however at that point it becomes more of a fair use issue. You bought the product, you abided by the EULA and it didn't work. You HAD to cicumvent copy protection to use the product as outlined in the Apple EULA.
post #63 of 144
I am personally starting to think there is more merit behind Apple's recent claim that Psystar is being backed by other parties. How can a small company like this afford the lawyer talent to fight this case.

Grant it, the lawyer firm maybe trying to make a name for themselves and how else to do that but take on the big guy and win a fight everyone says can not be won. Or they are hoping they will win and will get a cut of significantly large sum of money, however this is less likely these days since it could cost this law firm money if they lose and have to pay Apple their costs.

Face it most companies never want these kinds of cases going to court since you have no idea of the outcome and it might set a precedent you do not what out in the public. Generally speaking big companies want to settle these thing out of court, look at all the previous Apple cases most all were settle quietly with no public information on what the outcome was. This is done for a reason.

Now you can bet Apple tried pay to make this go away, and why would a small company walk way from that kind of money. Most all this paper work back and forth is about posturing and positioning to see who has the stronger position so they can ask for more or less depending on the situation.

There appears to be something bigger going on here, why does this company care if it ships a computer with OSX or Vista, most likely its client could care less.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
post #64 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

I know you're being partly serious, but there is no way that would work in court as an argument.

It certainly would. That line is not specific and can mean any number of things. And seeing how EULA's have a hard time in court anyways...
post #65 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpellino View Post

... I'm betting their lifespan is being measured in months at best.

PYSTAR = Dildos without a battery
OMG here we go again...
Reply
OMG here we go again...
Reply
post #66 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoX360 View Post

No but they do have to modify OS X to get it to install on a non-mac before they sell it to you. They then include a full version in the package, but that Full version is not what they install. You cannot, from what I have read, simply install a fresh OS X copy without first doing a mod during or before installation.

So even if you could simply install OSX, which you can't, but just for the sake of this argument, you are still circumventing the copy protection as you are fooling the copy protection into believing that you have a real Apple Mac.

But again, everything I have read states you have to modify or patch code in order for it to run on a hackintosh.

You can install straight from a retail DVD. You prep the partition with an EFI emulator. Nothing illegal about that. Then install the Retail copy of leopard. An unmodified disc. After it's complete you can then copy some new files over.

So you don't have to modify a thing on the disc itself. And once installed you are free to install software and tweak your system so how would copying over and replacing a couple of files be any different? As long as you never altered the retail DVD itself?
post #67 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post

You can install straight from a retail DVD. You prep the partition with an EFI emulator. Nothing illegal about that. Then install the Retail copy of leopard. An unmodified disc. After it's complete you can then copy some new files over.

So you don't have to modify a thing on the disc itself. And once installed you are free to install software and tweak your system so how would copying over and replacing a couple of files be any different? As long as you never altered the retail DVD itself?

LMAO
You idiot
"you then copy some files over"

Meaning it won't run without the file changes everyone says it needs

Stop skirting the issue
post #68 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post

You can install straight from a retail DVD. You prep the partition with an EFI emulator. Nothing illegal about that. Then install the Retail copy of leopard. An unmodified disc. After it's complete you can then copy some new files over.

So you don't have to modify a thing on the disc itself. And once installed you are free to install software and tweak your system so how would copying over and replacing a couple of files be any different? As long as you never altered the retail DVD itself?

I think you've just won the case for Apple
post #69 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

So, if I go to an Apple store and purchase a copy of OS X then what do I have? No where on the box does it say that this is an "upgrade" from a previous version as is done in the Windows world. The EULA is the only thing that attempts to tie it to Apple hardware.

I fully agree that the user experience of purchasing an Apple branded computer to run OS X will be better than running said software on a hackintosh. Apple has not claimed that this is their concern-- that companies like Pystar diminish the value of their brand by providing systems that do not live up to the Apple Standard. There might be some meat to that argument though.

I am in no way an apologist for Pystar, but at the same time I would love to see a challenge to the idea that a customer can be forced to enter into a contract after a sale is made or not be able to use the software or get a refund. Common-sense EULAs are one thing (even the "no warranty" crap), but today they have gotten out of hand as a class.

Once you buy OS X, yes you can take it home and do whatever the hell you want with it; you can install it on an hackintosh if you want, use it as a coaster....whatever. Apple has never tried to stop the hackintosh home industry, but Apple will not provide support for your hackintosh computer and they can not be forced, legally, to provide support for hackintoshes.

People have been hacking Apple's OS for years, in their own homes and in an underground, free environment. The problem with Phystar is they are selling to a mass market a non-licensed version of the Mac OS and that is illegal.

Once you buy a bottle of Coke a cola you can take it home and do whatever you want with it, drink it, pour it into different bottles, spray it on your lawn, who cares. But if you pour it into a different bottle, and then SELL it to someone else that is illegal.

It's similar to buying stock photography, if I buy a photo from istockphoto.com I can use that photo for anything I want, as long as I am not selling a reproduction of that photo to someone else. If I slap that photo on a T-shirt and then sell that T-shirt I need a special extended license to do so.

It's the same with Phystar. It's illegal for them to SELL a computer with the Max OSX installed, they don't have the license to do that and Apple does not have to provide them with a special license to do so. End of story.
post #70 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by knightlie View Post

Why would Microsoft open up a larger market for one of their competitors? They want everyone using Windows, not more people using OSX.

I do wonder where Psystar is getting all this money to pay their lawyers, though.

I honestly don't understand why people think it's Microsoft. I know they are the knee-jerk reactionary embodiment of apple's "nemesis", but I honestly think it couldn't be further from the mark. Try some one looking for an alternative to MS, like HP or Dell.
It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
post #71 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

I think you've just won the case for Apple

So you can't tweak and customize the OS you bought and installed? You can't install files and play in the system files for further customization? Once it's legally installed on your computer? We all do it.
If I installed this on my apple labeled computer per the EULA and it didn't work do you not then have the right to do what you need to do to get it to work? From a fair use standpoint?

It's all how psystar lawyers can spin it. There are other very interesting cases out there that may apply here and this will not be a cut and dry case nor an easy victory for apple. Nor do I think apple is going to win in quite the way they hope they will.
post #72 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by webhead View Post

It's the same with Phystar. It's illegal for them to SELL a computer with the Max OSX installed, they don't have the license to do that and Apple does not have to provide them with a special license to do so. End of story.

So conceivably they may have to stop selling it with leopard pre-installed but they could include a disc and software so you could install it yourself on the computer you just bought?
post #73 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post

It certainly would. That line is not specific and can mean any number of things. And seeing how EULA's have a hard time in court anyways...

I seriously doubt it would in every way.

A) A sticker is not a label
B) It wasn't labeled by apple
C) Clearly what they mean is something totally different than placing a sticker on something. Any idiot in the world would see through that definition.

That is a completely grasp at a straw that wouldn't be there.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #74 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by vercordio View Post

Regardless of my feelings for Apple, this is bullshit. It's Apple software, it's Apple hardware. There's no illegal behavior. This would be like suing Nintendo because Mario isn't available on the Xbox. Even worse: it'd be like suing Nintendo because Wii games only play on the Wii, and not a generic Playstation. How ridiculous.

Not quite. It's like suing Nintendo for stipulating that Wii games are only allowed to run on a Wii, and not on any other hardware, regardless of whether this is possible or not. And here things are not so clear cut.

The one similar case I know well was Bleem!, a PlayStation emulator for the PC and Dreamcast. It was an emulator that did NOT require an (illegal) copy of the PlayStation BIOS as it was able to emulate it. Sony sued and eventually lost, all though they 'won' in the sense that they put Bleem! out of business with the cost of defending themselves. Sony also lost a similar case against Connectix VGS, a PlayStation emulator for Macs.

I'm no lawyer, and there may well be significant differences in the cases, but on the surface it would seem that Apple may well eventually lose their case against Psystar. I don't like the idea, but I think it's more of a case of "when" than "if".
post #75 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

I seriously doubt it would in every way.

A) A sticker is not a label
B) It wasn't labeled by apple
C) Clearly what they mean is something totally different than placing a sticker on something. Any idiot in the world would see through that definition.

That is a completely grasp at a straw that wouldn't be there.

What they mean and what it says are two different things. Once you place a apple label on your computer it is then apple labeled. Does that mean that apple has to place the label there? Most likely, but it doesn't quite say that.

It all comes down to facts and what the agreement actually says. Because it's unclear it would be thrown out. And like I said, EULA's have a very hard time standing up in court anyways.
post #76 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Why are people going on about EULAs? This case doesn't have anything to do with EULAs. Psystar is not an "EU" so the EULA doesn't apply. The case has to do with copyright violation and the copy-protection circumvention in violation of the DMCA.

I'd say they're still an end-user.
post #77 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post

What they mean and what it says are two different things. Once you place a apple label on your computer it is then apple labeled. Does that mean that apple has to place the label there? Most likely, but it doesn't quite say that.

It all comes down to facts and what the agreement actually says. Because it's unclear it would be thrown out. And like I said, EULA's have a very hard time standing up in court anyways.

Except label is a legal term, they will use the legal definition.
Thank you for playing. Better luck next time.
post #78 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

You are forgetting about an important piece of the chain-- the person that purchases the software and the hardware.

This time around they are getting closer to issues that I consider important: How much can a software vendor restrict the rights of someone who purchases their product. Implicitly, this challenges EULAs as a class of contract.

We haven't been able to purchase software for a very long time. If you read the agreement, you are purchasing a right to use the software, as in a lease. If you had leased an apartment and then sold it to someone else, I don't think anyone would be the least bit surprised when you were promptly evicted and/or arrested.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #79 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

We haven't been able to purchase software for a very long time. If you read the agreement, you are purchasing a right to use the software, as in a lease. If you had leased an apartment and then sold it to someone else, I don't think anyone would be the least bit surprised when you were promptly evicted and/or arrested.

Agreed. Just like we can't buy movies or music. If we did buy them, then we'd have the right to redistribute it to whomever we want. The laws of trademarks, copyrights, patents, and copy protection are a bit too difficult for some people to understand.
post #80 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post

So you can't tweak and customize the OS you bought and installed? You can't install files and play in the system files for further customization? Once it's legally installed on your computer? We all do it.
If I installed this on my apple labeled computer per the EULA and it didn't work do you not then have the right to do what you need to do to get it to work? From a fair use standpoint?

It's all how psystar lawyers can spin it. There are other very interesting cases out there that may apply here and this will not be a cut and dry case nor an easy victory for apple. Nor do I think apple is going to win in quite the way they hope they will.

You can do it but you cannot start making money doing it and brag about it in the media! Apple never bothered with people who installed Mac OS X on their PC because very few people do it and they cannot track them. But when someone start a business and make money then it is different story.

The same goes for putting Apple stickers on a computer and call it Apple labeled. You can do it (you really don't have to anyway) in the privacy of your home but you cannot start a business selling PC with Apple sticker on them. You will be violating Apple trademark and will get shutdown for that.

You can rip your music to your personal computers and iPods but you cannot start selling iPods on ebay preloaded with music you ripped from you CDs without the proper permissions.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Psystar drops antitrust gripes in fresh counterclaim against Apple