Apple seeks permanent injunction to prevent Psystar sales

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 95
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rbonner View Post


    Why do all threads have to be threads about the $%@#$@ matte screen?



    No, the question needs to be "Why in the hell did Steve, do away with the matte screen?" When we were perfectly fine with choice!



    'Choice and competition', where'd I hear that before? Oh yeah, the government run health care plan. Pass it and we'll have no choice and no competition. Just like we have no matte screen iMacs. The Liberals of the world think they always know what's best for the rest of us but negate suffering from their stupidity themselves. I bet Steve has matte screen 27" i7 Silver & Black iMac at him home even as I type!
  • Reply 22 of 95
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    Who wants to bet that as a final f-you, Psystar manages to "accidentally" let loose all it's stuff as open source?



    Agreed, but would only hurt whoever is really funding them.
  • Reply 23 of 95
    djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rbonner View Post


    Why do all threads have to be threads about the $%@#$@ matte screen?



    Agreed. I really wish the mods don't simply file those in the shit can where they belong since they are always off-topic. Those of us who couldn't give a shit are really sick of all the whining.
  • Reply 24 of 95
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Wasn't all Psystars stuff already open source, just that they chose not to acknowledge it after they stole it from the Hackintosh community who originally made it?



    Anyway being "Open Source" still doesn't make cracking tools legal.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    Who wants to bet that as a final f-you, Psystar manages to "accidentally" let loose all it's stuff as open source?



  • Reply 25 of 95
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    Judge Alsup ruled that the customer owns the physical disc but does not own the software on it. The customer is licensing the software from Apple. Therefore Apple has the right to determine where and under what circumstances their licensed software is installed and used.



    This goes for the individual hackintosh user also, not just Psystar. You do not have the legal right to install OS X on any piece of hardware you choose. You do not own OS X, you license it from Apple. And Apple has specified that you may only install it on Apple produced hardware. Therefore Apple, if it chooses to in the future, has the legal grounds to go after any hackinotsh, much like the RIAA goes after individual file sharers.



    I like that idea!
  • Reply 26 of 95
    jukesjukes Posts: 213member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    Wasn't all Psystars stuff already open source, just that they chose not to acknowledge it after they stole it from the Hackintosh community who originally made it?



    Yes. Everything Psystar uses is open source.
  • Reply 27 of 95
    jukesjukes Posts: 213member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I wonder about that, too. They don?t have locks on their HW. It?s just the OS seeing if the machine is an appropriate Mac.



    There is a chip. It's called the System Memory Controller. Every Hackintosh needs to load some software to emulate what the SMC does. This appears to be where most of the DMCA infringement comes from, since the SMC needs to be decrypted and reverse engineered in order to write the software emulator for it.



    Apple could have tried harder to protect it when they switched to x86, but they probably had much more to worry about at the time and weren't really concerned with it. It's expensive and difficult at this point to add something now that doesn't break the installed base of Macs.
  • Reply 28 of 95
    geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,131member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jukes View Post


    There is a chip. It's called the System Memory Controller. Every Hackintosh needs to load some software to emulate what the SMC does. This appears to be where most of the DMCA infringement comes from, since the SMC needs to be decrypted and reverse engineered in order to write the software emulator for it.



    Apple could have tried harder to protect it when they switched to x86, but they probably had much more to worry about at the time and weren't really concerned with it. It's expensive and difficult at this point to add something now that doesn't break the installed base of Macs.



    I don't know........ with all the great technology Apple has at their disposal and all the funding they have at their disposal.....they could if they wanted put a little chip in every Apple computer made that would make it impossible to install OS X on any computer that did not have this chip.

    It could be done with very little expense compared to all the legal fees associated with litigation.

    There has to be a reason why they have not done this yet.......
  • Reply 29 of 95
    djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jukes


    There is a chip. It's called the System Memory Controller. Every Hackintosh needs to load some software to emulate what the SMC does. This appears to be where most of the DMCA infringement comes from, since the SMC needs to be decrypted and reverse engineered in order to write the software emulator for it.



    Apple could have tried harder to protect it when they switched to x86, but they probably had much more to worry about at the time and weren't really concerned with it. It's expensive and difficult at this point to add something now that doesn't break the installed base of Macs.

    Today 07:18 PM



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by geekdad View Post


    I don't know........ with all the great technology Apple has at their disposal and all the funding they have at their disposal.....they could if they wanted put a little chip in every Apple computer made that would make it impossible to install OS X on any computer that did not have this chip.

    It could be done with very little expense compared to all the legal fees associated with litigation.

    There has to be a reason why they have not done this yet.......



    You missed the point of the Jukes post you quoted. There is such a chip, and workarounds already exist. They could invest time and money to make such hacking more difficult, and expect the same end result, with software hacks to emulate or disregard the SMC chip (or whatever they came up with). With legal precedent, they can stop anyone who follows like Psystar, with much less effort and cost.



    I think Apple is far less interested in the casual hacker/hobbyist, and much more interested in business who seek to profit off of Apple's licenses.
  • Reply 30 of 95
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jukes View Post


    Yes. Everything Psystar uses is open source.



    Really? OSx is open source? I think not.
  • Reply 31 of 95
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post


    No, the question needs to be "Why in the hell did Steve, do away with the matte screen?" When we were perfectly fine with choice!



    Give up man glassy is the new sexy and it's here to stay. I gave up and got a MacPro Quad (which wasn't TOO sad a purchase almost a year ago now) and let go my anger. I even held out until someone gave back a new 15in MBP antiglare and snatched that up refurb, life is good again.



    If you can't swing the MP you can always do what I did before; 20in iMac (now 21in) and buy a 2nd matte screen and attach it. Sucks but I don't see them going matte on that system again. Well, or until that class action against Apple hits because the vibrant, color-exploding screens ruined regular life for them away from it and the wounds will never heal.



    Oh wait I almost forgot.. Apple makes the best systems and has the best customer service in the world, we are lucky to have them in our lives.
  • Reply 32 of 95
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post


    You missed the point of the Jukes post you quoted. There is such a chip, and workarounds already exist. They could invest time and money to make such hacking more difficult, and expect the same end result, with software hacks to emulate or disregard the SMC chip (or whatever they came up with).







    Nah, they could make a chip that couldn't be emulated easily in software. For instance what about tying a performance feature to the chip that if it wasn't available (on a hacintosh) OS X and apps would slow to a crawl? Like 56k dialup crawl speed?



    The hackers would have to rewrite OS X from the ground up to avoid this necessary performance feature and all third party apps as well. Third party programmers would go along and use the feature because it's sort of a DRM thing, because if someone is willing to steal OS X to run on their hackintosh, they most likely would steal their software too.







    Quote:

    With legal precedent, they can stop anyone who follows like Psystar, with much less effort and cost.





    In the U.S. yes, but now Apple has to duplicate this for every country that has a cloner company. And some countries don't give a flying ratt's behind neither. So a cloner can set up operations and mail the clones all over the world. Pystar was just stupid to do it in this country that's all. They will move shop you'll see, they got press now, which was their intention all along.



    Look how hard Microsoft is trying to get the Chinese to pay for Windows, they don't bother. They get their copy of a hacked Windows from their local street vendor and there is nothing the Chinese government or Microsoft can do about it.





    Quote:

    I think Apple is far less interested in the casual hacker/hobbyist, and much more interested in business who seek to profit off of Apple's licenses.



    Well what happens is the casual hobbyist gets the whole thing to work so easily eventually, writing code to help anyone do it. Then it gets posted to a geek website or several and next thing you know people are making money selling OS X Atom netbooks to their friends.



    This is exactly why Apple quickly tried to disable OS X on Atoms, because a method was published (just recently in fact) and the geeks were hot to trot to make a little dough for the holidays.





    The game of whack a mole starts out pretty slow and easy, but it gets faster and faster to the point it's impossible to whack every mole, unless you know the pattern.



    There is no pattern in the game Apple is playing, they will lose if they continue on this path.



    It's because Apple seriously didn't think OS X had a chance or overestimated Microsoft, and planned on becoming just another high end Windows PC vendor along with the name change to Apple from Apple Computer and the Intel switch. Thus the reason moved a lot of their apps to Windows as well. (Safari for crying out loud? WTF??)



    And why the hell do you name a program to run Windows on Mac's "Bootcamp" anyway if your not trying to send a message?



    Steve was ready to throw in the towel on OS X along with PPC processors to save Apple if it was hampering sales. Just lucky it turned out that Microsoft produced the abortion called Visa.
  • Reply 33 of 95
    djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    Nah, they could make a chip that couldn't be emulated easily in software. For instance what about tying a performance feature to the chip that if it wasn't available (on a hacintosh) OS X and apps would slow to a crawl? Like 56k dialup crawl speed?



    The hackers would have to rewrite OS X from the ground up to avoid this necessary performance feature and all third party apps as well.



    In the U.S. yes, but now Apple has to duplicate this for every country that has a cloner company. And some countries don't give a flying ratt's behind neither. So a cloner can set up operations and mail the clones all over the world. Pystar was just stupid to do it in this country that's all. They will move shop you'll see, they got press now.



    Look how hard Microsoft is trying to get the Chinese to pay for Windows, they don't bother. They get their copy of a hacked Windows from their local street vendor and there is nothing the Chinese government or Microsoft can do about it.



    Well what happens is the casual hobbyist gets the whole thing to work so easily eventually, writing code to help anyone do it. Then it gets posted to a geek website or several and next thing you know people are making money selling OS X Atom netbooks to their friends.



    This is exactly why Apple quickly tried to disable OS X on Atoms, because a method was published (just recently in fact) and the geeks were hot to trot to make a little dough for the holidays.



    Anti-copying methods have historically shown to be totally ineffective, and a waste of money. Most anti-copying techniques are cracked within hours, or sometimes even before the product is released. Apple knows this, which I suspect is why their products are such a breath of fresh air to it's user base. We aren't treated like criminals. Any kind of hardware dongle can always be emulated in software, or simply bypassed with inserted code. If what you suggested was so simple, we would all be plugging hardware dongles in to use our software. If you're old enough, you may actually remember using a hardware dongle. I know I do. They were a PITA, and didn't last long as a copy protection scheme.



    I also disagree about foreign countries. Although there are some havens for copyright violators, most make efforts to prevent such. There are also many instances where US law has stated foreign law as precedent and vice versa. They don't simply ignore it at whim. It's funny you should mention that. Congress is currently debating a new treaty that some 160 countries are looking to sign onto indicating they will honor another countries copyright laws.
  • Reply 34 of 95
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post


    Anti-copying methods have historically shown to be totally ineffective, and a waste of money. Most anti-copying techniques are cracked within hours, or sometimes even before the product is released.



    Any hardware solution would have to be very hack proof, which I don?t see, and have have been in place for years without knowledge as to support legacy Macs. For instance, Apple would have needed HW solution in place with every Intel Mac to make it useful with Snow Leopard. That doesn?t seem viable.
  • Reply 35 of 95
    djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Any hardware solution would have to be very hack proof, which I don?t see, and have have been in place for years without knowledge as to support legacy Macs. For instance, Apple would have needed HW solution in place with every Intel Mac to make it useful with Snow Leopard. That doesn?t seem viable.



    I agree. I just don't see them implementing some sort of hardware dongle this late in the game. I suppose it's possible for future models with caveats written in for the earlier models, but the very same methods used to bypass it for the older models could simply be used to bypass the dongle.



    A waste of time and money.
  • Reply 36 of 95
    This was about way more than your average geek hacking their own PC to run MacOS X. Psystar was directly attacking Apple's business model, and worse, they were attacking the validity of hardware/software coupling.



    Had Apple's ability to tie it's software to its hardware been disrupted, it would set a dangerous legal precedent affecting all markets in the US - potentially affecting any product. Imagine a car company being required to allow their automobile operating code to be installed and run on an automobile designed by someone else. Could you imagine the kind of problems and dangers that could arise? What about an airplane? Don't think that this is a far-fetched argument. Once the door is open, degeneration happens quickly.



    Kudos to Apple for fighting this one. Psystar is not anyone's friend, they are a self serving and extremely dangerous little group, whom I suspect were funded by some equally devious and dangerous perps.
  • Reply 37 of 95
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post


    Anti-copying methods have historically shown to be totally ineffective, and a waste of money. Most anti-copying techniques are cracked within hours, or sometimes even before the product is released. Apple knows this, which I suspect is why their products are such a breath of fresh air to it's user base. We aren't treated like criminals. Any kind of hardware dongle can always be emulated in software, or simply bypassed with inserted code. If what you suggested was so simple, we would all be plugging hardware dongles in to use our software. If you're old enough, you may actually remember using a hardware dongle. I know I do. They were a PITA, and didn't last long as a copy protection scheme.



    I wasn't talking anti-copy like a dongle (which Quark X-Press had when it first came out and was very effective at preventing casual copying by employees), I was talking performance hobbling.



    Say Microsoft tied so much of Windows operations to their proprietary Direct X video cards, it wouldn't run very well or at all on OpenGL video cards. Mac's wouldn't be able to run Windows without licensing Direct X from Microsoft right?



    See where I'm going?



    Quote:

    I also disagree about foreign countries. Although there are some havens for copyright violators, most make efforts to prevent such. There are also many instances where US law has stated foreign law as precedent and vice versa. They don't simply ignore it at whim. It's funny you should mention that. Congress is currently debating a new treaty that some 160 countries are looking to sign onto indicating they will honor another countries copyright laws.





    Even if all countries agree to enforce, that only stops the visible companies that they can find or have the resources to go after or care. You really think every country is going to have it's own version of the RIAA storming people's houses looking for hackitoshes? Get real. Even if possible, it still leaves the home gamers and local tech guys wanting to make some money for the holidays selling hackintoshes to their friends.



    Apple fighting the cloners is just like Microsoft's mistake with their security, fighting from the bottom up instead of the top down.
  • Reply 38 of 95
    djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    I wasn't talking anti-copy like a dongle (which Quark X-Press had when it first came out and was very effective at preventing casual copying by employees), I was talking performance hobbling.



    Say Microsoft tied so much of Windows operations to their proprietary Direct X video cards, it wouldn't run very well or at all on OpenGL video cards. Mac's wouldn't be able to run Windows without licensing Direct X from Microsoft right?



    See where I'm going?



    Even if all countries agree to enforce, that only stops the visible companies that they can find or have the resources to go after or care. You really think every country is going to have it's own version of the RIAA storming people's houses looking for hackitoshes? Get real. Even if possible, it still leaves the home gamers and local tech guys wanting to make some money for the holidays selling hackintoshes to their friends.



    Apple fighting the cloners is just like Microsoft's mistake with their security, fighting from the bottom up instead of the top down.



    Your idea of creating some sort of slowdown via software code is no different than a hardware dongle. If it can be written to work properly on a Mac, then it can be bypassed in software. To be minimally effective, It would require code to be strewn through the entire OS to be effective. It would be a total rewrite, which would take way to much money, time, and support resources, all to prevent something that a lawsuit can do just as well. I would imagine that Apple has already thought about all the pro's and cons of trying to tack on some sort of copy protection scheme, or simply barring people like Psystar from continuing. I think they made the right choice. They obviously thought they could win, and they have so far. A permanent injunction against them preventing the sale of any future hardware or software that bypasses Apple hardware or licensing restrictions is just as effective when it counts - In apples pocketbook.
  • Reply 39 of 95
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Any hardware solution would have to be very hack proof, which I don?t see, and have have been in place for years without knowledge as to support legacy Macs. For instance, Apple would have needed HW solution in place with every Intel Mac to make it useful with Snow Leopard. That doesn?t seem viable.





    Of course not, now that Mac's are really generic PC's like any other.
  • Reply 40 of 95
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post


    Your idea of creating some sort of slowdown via software code is no different than a hardware dongle. If it can be written to work properly on a Mac, then it can be bypassed in software. To be minimally effective, It would require code to be strewn through the entire OS to be effective. It would be a total rewrite, which would take way to much money, time, and support resources, all to prevent something that a lawsuit can do just as well. I would imagine that Apple has already thought about all the pro's and cons of trying to tack on some sort of copy protection scheme, or simply barring people like Psystar from continuing. I think they made the right choice. They obviously thought they could win, and they have so far. A permanent injunction against them preventing the sale of any future hardware or software that bypasses Apple hardware or licensing restrictions is just as effective when it counts - In apples pocketbook.



    On top of that it adds complexity to the coding with more points of potential failure and performance loss. This pretty much goes against everything Apple tends to do with their OS.
Sign In or Register to comment.