Psystar claims Apple asking for non-existent, redundant info - Page 4

Good one!

So you are saying that I, after having legally purchased a retail copy of Mac OS X, must follow exactly what Apple wants, and I am not allowed to make any modifications, even in the privacy of my own home? You are wrong about that.


No it isn't. It's called the right to private property.


Yes you can. You simply can not copy the original and distribute copies of it, whether for free or for sale. You are able to transfer ownership of the property however if only one copy is being used.


No, you don't even know what intellectual property rights are when it comes to this. You are saying that it is ILLEGAL for a customer of a music CD to import their music into iTunes because it is against the EULA of the CD. Which, of course, is simply not true.


Yes, it DOES matter if Psystar actually purchased the copies of Mac OS X. If only one copy is in use per computer, then Psystar is not guilty of copyright infringement. In other words, there is no intellectual property rights problem in question. It comes down to EULA, which have been shown to be worth nothing in court.

Apple is a fantastic level and i don't think they have sunk to a new low. It is the sh*t bag company Psystar who are trying to capitalize on something that just shouldn't be done. Is it really worth going through all this trouble Psystar? If you want to use Mac OS then just buy a Mac and support the company. These grease balls need to be stopped.

This has already been explained to you.

Intellectual Property law places limits on what you can do with "private property."

You are wrong. It doesn't come down to the EULA, because Psystar is not the End User. How can an entity that is not an End User violate an agreement they are not party to?

And according to others in this thread, EULAs have been tested in court and sometimes they've been upheld. Would be nice to see some links either way.

I think the word you are looking for is "installing" a copy of Windows XP onto a computer. No matter what you may think, installing from a disc which you purchased legally at retail is not illegal.

At the factory, Dell installs Windows XP onto the computer and includes the backup with the computer so that you can reinstall it. Dell does not include two different discs with two different CD-keys. It includes the installed version and the disc version of the SAME COPY.

Do you understand the difference between installing something and copying it?

And just to add, not all "private property" falls under the realm of Intellectual Property. IP law only applies to certain things.

Actually, you're not correct. When you install OSX (or any software) you do so with the agreement that you follow the license terms and conditions.

Can you modify OSX at home and tinker with it? Sure, but, if you start distributing or sharing that with others, then you become a target because that clearly violates the license agreement.

It's like music. No one is going to know that you are re-mixing Britney's newest song in your home on your computer, but, as soon as you put it on the Internet, you've exposed yourself to lawsuits.

In other words, you can violate someone else's Copyright or Intellectual Property rights all you want unless you get caught.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's clear that when Solipsism says "copy" he means it as "duplicate" rather than in reference to licensing, which is how you are using it. Dell gives you two "copies" of the same OS - an original on optical disc and an installed duplicate on the HDD - two copies, one license.

Intellectual property law is another way of saying COPYRIGHT LAW. Copyright law prevents someone from copying a book word for word in its entirety and giving it to someone else in its entirety.

Intellectual property law does not prevent the owner from ripping pages out of the book for his own enjoyment. It does not prevent the owner from scanning the pages of the book into a computer so that the owner can read them in that format.

He was coming to the conclusion that because there were two "copies" as he calls it, Dell was in a very special relationship with Microsoft to allow that to happen. No special relationship however is necessary to install software from a disc. It may be in two different formats, but it is the same "license" if you want to use that word. I did not want to give him the benefit of his using semantics to prove a point instead of legal reasoning to prove a point.

Either way, his point is moot: the license that Dell has to install a copy of Windows XP onto a machine and include the physical media is the same license that Joe Blow has to install a copy of WIndows XP onto a machine and include the physical media.

Sorry I forgot that Apple is bound by totally different rules to everyone else and here was I thinking I was just pointing out the hypocracy in an earlier posters comments about big bad corporate Apple.


Whoever bought up Sony as an example chose a pretty poor one, rootkit anyone?

Do you know that the whole cracking the encryption thing on DVD's came about largely as a result of being unable to play DVD's on PC's especially those running Linux.

Back to the case, Psystar is stupid I always thought that ignorance of the law is no defence, Sorbonnes-Oxley requires that documentation be kept for 7 years.

The judge should set a caveat that if the "missing" documents are ever produced somewhere else eg the IRS, that those involved be imediately jailed for contempt and perjury, this could be done in the form of a "good behaviour bond" or whatever the American equivalent is.

EULA are hardly upheld in court. If a line of the EULA said "You agree to give Steve Jobs fellatio on a nightly basis if you install this software", do you think that would hold up in court? Of course not.


If you want to sell your modification but you destroy the original such that only one version of the operating system is in existence, then that is perfectly legal. There is absolutely no legal reason why you can not sell a modification of something as long as copyright was not breached.


See, you are putting it on the internet such that many others are using the modification from the original purchased version. This violates copyright and is illegal.



Non sequitur.

It also governs its unlicensed disribution (of the modified product) at a profit, especially if there is a business behind it.

You missed that part.

You're comparing Psystar to an individual doing something for their own personal use/enjoyment.

Not the same thing at all.

Just to be clear, there is precedence that a buyer can resell software they bought, but the modification and copying of said software is not allowed if they are going to sell it. The pre-installation, regardless if Psystar is still using a hacked copy of OS X, is a violation of that.

Here is some evidence that they were also using other's people's code without permission to get OS X installed and how it could hurt the tinkering OS X community.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/16/o...systar-either/
http://www.pcmech.com/article/psysta...-os-x-is-real/ Mac EFI emulator license that Psystar was using and may still be using. This only one piece of this stolen puzzle. Their are plenty of drivers (KEXTs) that they'd have to steal, too.

EFI V1 - V8
Redistribution and use in binary form for direct or indirect commercial purposes, with or without modification, is stricktly forbidden.
Redistributions in binary form for non-commercial purposes must reproduce the above license notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Neither the names of EFI V1-V8 copyright owner nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived direct or indirect from this software Now it looks like they are using Chameleon. This can do it with the original DVD, but it looks to require additional partitions which then recompiles (ie: hacking it) the OS X code for the final installation. The last time I built an OSx86 machine this method was not available. It looks like no matter how you slice it Psystar is in multiple violations.

No it isn't. OEM licensed copies of Windows are cheaper. Dell buys OEM copies of Windows, and it is only allowed to do so in order to re-sell said copies. If you purchase an OEM copy and use it as an end-user, you are breaking the license agreement.

It's a pretty stupid agreement if you ask me. It just comes down to semantics. Why should the consumer effectively pay Microsoft two different prices for the same thing depending on the channel through which he buys it? (i.e. buy at retail and you pay $199 for Windows, but buy a new computer from Dell and you're effectively paying $99 for Windows.) Of course, if you as an end-user buy an OEM copy and install it on your own machine for your own use, and later get caught you could say that you bought the OEM copy, installed it on the machine, sold the machine to your mother (legitimising the OEM copy) and then she sold it back to you.

Why would an EULA include that or anything similar?

Who the hell says they don't hold up in court?? They certainly do if the victimized party's IP rights have been violated and the EULA conforms to "fair use" standards.

EULAs are subject to limits. EULAs don't usually include grossly exaggerated requirements that have nothing to do with "fair use."




He doesn't understand that modifying a product and then turning around and reselling it with a buisness behind it is a problem.

This isn't about some kid playing around with a hackintosh. It''s about someone taking your product, cracking/modifying it, and then reslling it at a profit as part of a business to do the same, without your permission.

If someone has a problem with that, they have a problem with Intellectual Property law at large. Which means thta they have serious issues when it comes to understanding the marketplace and how people with ideas and products are supposed to function in it.

delete

Here is a link to other links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-s...puter_software Of course, none of this relates to Psystar as they are not the end user and the duplication and hacking of the IP is not covered by this law.


Dell is buying it at a bulk rate and in bulk packaging which we know lowers the price. It also allows MS to maintain a built in dominance by having major OEMs with Windows pre-installed. They can offer lower rates if they include the Windows sticker on their machines and agree to other terms.


MS' OEM partner licensing strictly forbids them from reselling OEM discs without the accompanying HW, yet I've heard of people being able to do so.

Apple might have a problem with it, and it looks like it does, but since Psystar's copies of OS X are are all legal, purchased copies of Mac OS X, Apple does not really have a foot to stand on legally other than their EULA.

Buying something, modifying it, and then selling it IS LEGAL as long as copyright was not violated. The only thing it violates is whatever crap Apple has in its EULA.



It is like saying that someone buys a car, modifies its internal computer, and sells it again is committing an illegal act and can be prosecuted by the car manufacturer, which is simply bogus.

Case in point, I've built several Hackintoshs using the very handy HCLs, walkthroughs and code supplied through InsanelyMac and other sources. I have no problem with and see nothing illegal about altering IP that you use on a personal level. But what Psystar is doing is illegal on many levels. Worse than that, it's against a free market system and they are doomed even if they could win this case. Still waiting for g3pro to respond to my question on that.

Apple isn't dictating what you do AFTER you make a purchase. Apple is trying to dictate to Psystar what it can do BEFORE you make a purchase.

Take note that Apple isn't suing some lone consumer who went out an installed OSX on a PC. It is suing a corporation who is using Apple's intellectual property to sell a product at Apple's expense.

There is a difference between what a consumer does with copyrighted material after it is bought, and what a corporation does with copyrighted material after it is bought. If a regular consumer installed OSX for himself, this would be fair-use under the copyright laws. Psystar cannot do the same thing because it is trying to make a profit.

The consumer qualifies for an exception to the general monopoly Apple is granted in it's copyright because it is for non commercial use and is not significantly interfering with Apple's business model. Psystar does not qualify because it's use is for profit. .

I buy a book. I tear out 5 pages. I sell it to someone else.
That's legal.

I buy a book. I tear out 5 pages. I scan it into my computer and print out a copy. I sell it to someone else.
That's illegal.

A company buys 5000 books. The company tears out 5 pages from each book. They sell the books to customers.
That's legal.

A company buys 1 book. The company tears out 5 pages from that book. The company scans it into my computer and print out 5000 copies. They sell the copies to customers.
That's illegal.


And that's intellectual property law.

Can you please repeat your bullshit question for everyone?

Psystar was the one who purchased the original copies of the operating system, not the purchaser of the computer. The word you are looking for is "end-user".

Unfortunately what the say and what they do aren't necessarily the same thing which I I wouldn't be confident at all that they are purchasing copies. I wouldn't expect them to state in their documentation that

All copies of OS X sold by Psystar are pirated from Apple Computers.

You can also buy an OEM copy of Windows if you are "building" a computer, which comes down to licence of the person you are buying the parts from, of course this is covered by Microsoft's EULA which is different to Apple's EULA.

I'm certain that they are. Besides their whole BS business model being built around the fallacy that shipping a retail copy of Mac OS X means we hack and and duplicate it, there is anecdotal evidence of popular tech site blogging about their Psystar experience to see exactly what they get with the purchase. The images always show a retail copy of Mac OS X Leopard. Of course, that copy could have fallen off the back of a truck.

Sure. But Microsoft also sells OEM licensed copies to resellers for smaller assembly outfits that don't deal directly with Microsoft.

For example, there's a reseller in the UK called dabs.com. They sell both the retail version of Vista, and the OEM version. Dabs.com is one of the biggest and most succesful online retailers for computer-related items in the UK, they've been selling OEM copies of Windows for years and years so I'm sure if Microsoft didn't want them to, they wouldn't be doing it.

The retail version has better packaging and costs £112.98, the OEM version is functionally exactly the same and costs £71.28.

According to the OEM license (the XP version of which I have read, BTW), I am allowed to purchase the OEM version for installation onto a machine for subsequent reselling. So, as I said, if I buy a Mac, and the OEM version of Windows, install Windows on the Mac with bootcamp, and then sell that Mac to my mother, she has a legitimately licensed copy of Windows and I haven't broken the OEM licence agreement.

How come my mum gets to pay only £71.28 for Windows, but I've got to pay £112.98? Like I said, it's OK because my mum can sell me back the Mac and strictly speaking no-one's broken the OEM license.

You are clearly somebody who doesn't have a understanding of copyright law. A copyright is a monopoly granted under the Constitution of the United States. The end user license is essentially a contract under which the copyright holder grants another party the right to use it's copyrighted work.

For instance, if McDonald's wants to use Gene Roddenberry's Captain Kirk character in a commercial to sell it's Big Macs it has to get Roddenberry's permission. Roddenberry can dictate the exact terms under which McDonald's can use the character. So, if Roddenberry says McDonald's can use the character for one month in it's commercials, no court in the US would allow McDonald's to use it for two months even though MacDonald's paid for one. Further, if McDonald's bought a James T. Kirk doll at Toys R' Us, it couldn't legally use that doll in a commercial to sell Big Macs without Roddenberry's permission both because of copyright and trademark issues.

Apple simply hasn't given Psystar permission to use OSX at all. Unlike use regular folks, Psystar doesn't have permission to buy the OS at all, much less install it.

Copyright law recognizes some exceptions that prevent a copyright holder from exercising a total monopoly over a copyrighted work. One would be allowing a consumer to use a copyrighted work as he or she sees fit after the purchase provided the use is both non commercial and doesn't interfere with the copyright holder's business.

Psystar, however, is trying to use Apple's copyrighted work to make a profit at Apple's expense. The court's have never allowed that.

Furthermore, prosecution is what a government does when somebody does something illegal. Companies can't prosecute. They can certainly persecute and sue in civil court. In addition, it likely would be illegal for a consumer to buy a car, modify it's computer, and re-sell it without the manufacturer's permission if the consumer made a business out of doing so. This is because of both copyright and trademark law. Microsoft and Sony threaten to sue people all the time for doing just what you suggest with X-Boxes and and Playstations. Mod chips are illegal because they alter the copyright holders copyright for commercial gain.

No, it's not legal. You can not modify a copyrighted work without permission.

If you want to give the impression you know what you're talking about, it helps to get basic punctuation right. Read my signature and learn.

At first glance it looks like the OEM version is wholesale pricing with only a mark up from the wholesale reseller. That is common enough, but the OEM version also takes any support or warranty off MS' shoulders. I've been going through MS' OEM partner site and it's confusing, to say the least. Their URL hierarchy is bullocks. That sounds like a reasonable rate difference and allows those who, say, purchased an HP with Vista last year and who upgrade to a retail version of Windows 7 to get support from MS as HP will not support that. You and I don't need that insurance, but I can see who would need that support.

•

http://oem.microsoft.com/public/seo/partner_program.htm

If you build and sell new PCs or servers, you are a system builder. Whether you build one system a month or more than a hundred systems, Microsoft offers operating systems software and application software, acquired from Authorized Microsoft OEM Distributors, specifically for you to preinstall on the systems you build. • http://oem.microsoft.com/public/sbli...se_english.pdf

7.\t End User Support. You must provide end user support for the Software or Hardware. You will provide support under terms\tat\tleast\tas\tfavorable\tto\tthe\tend\tuse r\tas\tthe\tterms\tthat\tyou\tprovide\tto\tsupport \tany\tCustomer\tSystem.\tAt\ta\t
minimum,\tyou\twill\tprovide\tcommercially \treasonable\ttelephone\tsupport. • http://www.microsoft.com/oem/authdist/UnitedStates.mspx
PS: I could have been wakeboarding and kiteboarding today but instead I'm reading legal mumbo jumbo that are making my eyes tired and brain hurt.

Oh my gosh! I accidentally crossed words out in my book! And then I sold it to someone else. I just broke the LAW!!!



You people will go to any lengths to defend Apple's anti-competitive actions, even if it means abandoning common sense and reason.

Psystar doesn't have PERMISSION to buy the OS? Are you bonkers?


The courts have never allowed resale? Are you insane?

And you say "at Apple's expense". Do you even know what you are saying? Apple gets paid IN FULL for each copy of Mac OS X it sells to Psystar.

Ah yes, it's a support thing. Why call it an OEM version? Why the clause about re-selling? Why not an "OEM/reduced support" version - the OEM version as it stands is identifiable to Microsoft as an OEM version through its license key so they can deny support to anyone using an OEM version as an end-user.

...how to make a million dollars loading full retail copies of Windows onto hand-built PCs?

Easy - start with $2M.

When you have to compete with the ridiculously overpriced computers from Apple, you have a lot of room to make a profit.

You're not allowed to modify and re-sell at a profit. Would Psystar be able to sell its machines if they weren't running OS X? OS X is the only remarkable thing about them - without it Psystar is just another box maker and you may as well save some money by getting the same specs for less from DELL.

So Psystar is modifying Apple's IP in order to make a profit; I'm pretty sure that's illegal.

Even if you don't know anything about law, it's been obvious for a long time now that Psystar is a joke. Just look at the crap they've been coming out with. Read the story that this thread is supposedly about. You cannot be serious if you think these guys have a snowball's chance in hell of winning any legal battle, even if they were right!