Psystar's statements to the court avoided saying specifically what Rebel EFI does
Seems Psystar is withholding information here . . .
Yep. That's why I think the judge made an excellent, albeit pragmatic call. Without knowing the exact nature, he can't exclude (or include) Rebel EFI in the ruling. However, qualifying his statements to "discourage" Psystar from trying to push Rebel EFI is hopefully strong enough to be taken by the upstarts to just drop it.
Psystar may feel they have made a good choice in keeping the Rebel EFI out of the courts in the recent ruling, but based on the judges qualifier, I really doubt that's the case.
I don't mind freedom of information, or have a problem with the Hackintosh community per se, because they don't ask money for what they do. It's not that I agree their actions are right, but less condemning since they have no intention to turn a profit from their miscreant behaviour.
Nothing is going to happen to them. They will sell as much junk as they can and then shutdown and never pay a cent to Apple. Maybe even reopen under another name.
Well they'd better hurry. They've got until Dec. 31st to comply with the court's ruling.
I don't think so. I believe a decision has to be published to be regarded as a precedent. I'm not sure what action must be taken for a decision to be published, but the vast majority of them are not.
This is GREAT. I've been waiting for this since the dawn of psystar. I come from the osx86 community, and feel like celebrating. Those jerks stole so much stuff we did it's not even funny. They got what they deserved. I have a small piece of faith restored in the american judicial system.
I assume the irony is intentional. But if not, allow me to point out to you that the American judicial system, in which your faith has been recently restored might soon disappoint you again. Some of Judge Alsup's injunctions could easily apply to OSX86. To wit:
"Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers."
Well, it appears that Psystar's website is officially down. Good riddance to those thieves. I wonder what the psystar-lickers that supported them think of the final outcome.
The unfortunate part is that we may never know who really was behind the scenes bankrolling this sham. Perhaps someday, a mole can have a drink with the owner, get him drunk and sing like a canary.
Psystar has alleged that Apple engaged in "anticompetitive attempts to tie Mac OS X Snow Leopard to its Macintosh line of computers."
Isn't that Apples entire business model? Unfathomable that they are allowed to even try. I think I will sue MS for not building computers for their OS. Seems logical.
Yep. That's why I think the judge made an excellent, albeit pragmatic call. Without knowing the exact nature, he can't exclude (or include) Rebel EFI in the ruling.
This statement:
"Intentionally inducing, aiding, assisting, abetting or encouraging any other person or entity to infringe Apple's copyrighted Mac OS X software."
Includes Rebel EFI and anything else of a similar nature, without actually using the name Rebel EFI.
As Rebel EFIs only purpose is to allow you to make a derivative work of OS X, thereby infringing on Apple's copyrighted Mac OS X software.
Well, it appears that Psystar's website is officially down. Good riddance to those thieves. I wonder what the psystar-lickers that supported them think of the final outcome.
The unfortunate part is that we may never know who really was behind the scenes bankrolling this sham. Perhaps someday, a mole can have a drink with the owner, get him drunk and sing like a canary.
Good bye Psystar. You.will.not.be.missed.
Psystar is done for, but what about the other Mac clone makers? Can't Apple do something specific in hardware that put an end to it, like a return to PowerPC
Interestingly, Psystar's site is currently listing Rebel EFI for the low, low price of $0.00!
I expect a further lawsuit or some-such in the near future, as they are breaking the "permanent injunction" by continuing to make this product available.
IANAL. But I'd also believe, releasing the whole product, source and all for free as a "f**k you" to Apple would probably open them up to some serious legal repercussions. Would it not?
I don't think so. I believe a decision has to be published to be regarded as a precedent. I'm not sure what action must be taken for a decision to be published, but the vast majority of them are not.
That may be true. I'm not a lawyer. I just found this definition from this site and it looked good...
the definition: Precedent means deferring to a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which forms the basis in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment. The requirement that a lower court must follow a precedent is called stare decisis.
Precedent means that the principle announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases. A recent decision in the same jurisdiction as the instant case will be given great weight. Decisions of lower courts are not binding on higher courts, although from time to time a higher court will adopt the reasoning and conclusion of a lower court. In contract law, the term "condition precedent," means a situation which must exist before a party to a contract has to perform.
Intentionally inducing, aiding, assisting, abetting or encouraging any other person or entity to infringe Apple's copyrighted Mac OS X software.
Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.
Playing any part in a product intended to circumvent Apple's methods for controlling Mac OS X, such as the methods used to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.
Given those three, I really don't see how they could continue to sell the Rebel EFI. As to what affect this will have on OSX86? I'm not overly concerned, as I own all Apple hardware. IMO, Apple will never go after individuals who do this simply because they would never be able to find them, and it's really not worth the bother. A web site dedicated to it however...
Isn't that Apples entire business model? Unfathomable that they are allowed to even try. I think I will sue MS for not building computers for their OS. Seems logical.
Have you missed the entire court proceedings? The court ruled in no uncertain terms that Apple's business model is 100% legal.
Your silly anti-Apple rants are worthless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson
I expect a further lawsuit or some-such in the near future, as they are breaking the "permanent injunction" by continuing to make this product available.
Well, it's over. Not unexpected given the November ruling.
That said, I have to express bewilderment at some of the sentiments expressed here. It seems to me we have a lot of Apple Apologists and hardcore anti-Psystar sentiment. Really....you're "celebrating" and expressing joy? Granted, Psystar's arguments and behavior are annoying. But, there was a time here where the overall tone of these forums was anti-establishment and quite critical of Apple. Things like the DCMA and EULAs were a big deal...and not popular at all. Obviously things have changed.
Examples:
Quote:
This is GREAT. I've been waiting for this since the dawn of psystar
Quote:
*Celebrates*
Finally reason is seen in open court.
Quote:
Congratulations in order for Apple. It is a sweet victory against a thief. And so other thieves beware because Apple is gonna get them.
Now, what Psystar was doing was certainly illegal. Namely, they were buying copies of Mac OS X at retail, essentially modifying them, and selling them with their own computers. They even used to call their computers "OpenMac." There are serious trademark and copyright issues here, and they got nailed for them.
Psystar raised another issue though: Is it improper that I buy a copy of OS X and make it run on my own machine? Is it wrong for me to modify my own product to enable it to run OS X? Can I then sell that product without OS X? Psystar focused on these type of arguments in public statements. Of course, this is not what they were actually doing. They used Apple trademarks, openly sold software to circumvent Apple's system and then sold the computer with Mac OS X. Therein lies the problem.
This ruling actually concerns me though, because IMO it strengthens EULAs (dangerously so). From what I understand, it is clearly illegal for me to take a purchased copy of OS X and install it on non-Apple hardware. It's illegal for me to fit my machine with a chip that enables OS X to run. It's certainly illegal to sell that machine, with or without OS X. Frankly, I see a problem there.
This is where Psystar's public arguments have some merit and make some sense. Apple shouldn't be able to tell me what computer I can install OS X on for my own use any more than Toyota can tell me what roads to drive on. Apple shouldn't be able to prevent me from modifying my own machine to run OS X, nor prevent me from selling that machine without using their trademarks. Again though, I realize Psystar was in a different boat, so to speak.
Why would Microsoft want people to install or buy generic PC's with OSX installed?? I can't see any reason why Microsoft would be backing Psystar..
Well, this would be the conspiracy theorist's answer: Because they want to bring OS-X's shittiness quotient to Microsoftian levels. If OS-X gets installed in so many different machine configurations then it will lose its "It just works!" cachet. Everyone will have a story about hearing of someone who installed OS-X in his machine and it had so many bugs
Comments
I think the judge's statement #2, pretty much precludes the use of Rebel EFI, at their peril.
Psystar's statements to the court avoided saying specifically what Rebel EFI does
Seems Psystar is withholding information here . . .
Yep. That's why I think the judge made an excellent, albeit pragmatic call. Without knowing the exact nature, he can't exclude (or include) Rebel EFI in the ruling. However, qualifying his statements to "discourage" Psystar from trying to push Rebel EFI is hopefully strong enough to be taken by the upstarts to just drop it.
Psystar may feel they have made a good choice in keeping the Rebel EFI out of the courts in the recent ruling, but based on the judges qualifier, I really doubt that's the case.
I don't mind freedom of information, or have a problem with the Hackintosh community per se, because they don't ask money for what they do. It's not that I agree their actions are right, but less condemning since they have no intention to turn a profit from their miscreant behaviour.
Nothing is going to happen to them. They will sell as much junk as they can and then shutdown and never pay a cent to Apple. Maybe even reopen under another name.
Well they'd better hurry. They've got until Dec. 31st to comply with the court's ruling.
Certainly not the two ignoramus brothers. Until we follow the deep money to the source -- Microsoft , Dell, Sony, etc. -- this judgment is moot.
Is "Journalism" really dead or will we get an answer?
Stab in the dark . . . Elevation Partners.
Precedent, baby, Precedent!
I don't think so. I believe a decision has to be published to be regarded as a precedent. I'm not sure what action must be taken for a decision to be published, but the vast majority of them are not.
Certainly not the two ignoramus brothers. Until we follow the deep money to the source -- Microsoft , Dell, Sony, etc. -- this judgment is moot.
Why would Microsoft want people to install or buy generic PC's with OSX installed?? I can't see any reason why Microsoft would be backing Psystar..
This is GREAT. I've been waiting for this since the dawn of psystar. I come from the osx86 community, and feel like celebrating. Those jerks stole so much stuff we did it's not even funny. They got what they deserved. I have a small piece of faith restored in the american judicial system.
I assume the irony is intentional. But if not, allow me to point out to you that the American judicial system, in which your faith has been recently restored might soon disappoint you again. Some of Judge Alsup's injunctions could easily apply to OSX86. To wit:
"Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers."
Stab in the dark . . . Elevation Partners.
Good call! Maybe Anderson is holding a grudge from being thrown under the bus in the options backdating thing. Rubenstein also exudes hostility.
Hmmmmmmmmm
Best bit of news and an epic conclusion to 2009.
The unfortunate part is that we may never know who really was behind the scenes bankrolling this sham. Perhaps someday, a mole can have a drink with the owner, get him drunk and sing like a canary.
Good bye Psystar. You.will.not.be.missed.
Psystar has alleged that Apple engaged in "anticompetitive attempts to tie Mac OS X Snow Leopard to its Macintosh line of computers."
Isn't that Apples entire business model? Unfathomable that they are allowed to even try. I think I will sue MS for not building computers for their OS. Seems logical.
Yep. That's why I think the judge made an excellent, albeit pragmatic call. Without knowing the exact nature, he can't exclude (or include) Rebel EFI in the ruling.
This statement:
"Intentionally inducing, aiding, assisting, abetting or encouraging any other person or entity to infringe Apple's copyrighted Mac OS X software."
Includes Rebel EFI and anything else of a similar nature, without actually using the name Rebel EFI.
As Rebel EFIs only purpose is to allow you to make a derivative work of OS X, thereby infringing on Apple's copyrighted Mac OS X software.
Well, it appears that Psystar's website is officially down. Good riddance to those thieves. I wonder what the psystar-lickers that supported them think of the final outcome.
The unfortunate part is that we may never know who really was behind the scenes bankrolling this sham. Perhaps someday, a mole can have a drink with the owner, get him drunk and sing like a canary.
Good bye Psystar. You.will.not.be.missed.
Psystar is done for, but what about the other Mac clone makers? Can't Apple do something specific in hardware that put an end to it, like a return to PowerPC
edit: Just re-checked, although the front page is listing it as $0, the product page is listing it as $50
Interestingly, Psystar's site is currently listing Rebel EFI for the low, low price of $0.00!
I expect a further lawsuit or some-such in the near future, as they are breaking the "permanent injunction" by continuing to make this product available.
IANAL. But I'd also believe, releasing the whole product, source and all for free as a "f**k you" to Apple would probably open them up to some serious legal repercussions. Would it not?
I don't think so. I believe a decision has to be published to be regarded as a precedent. I'm not sure what action must be taken for a decision to be published, but the vast majority of them are not.
That may be true. I'm not a lawyer. I just found this definition from this site and it looked good...
the site: http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/precedent/
the definition: Precedent means deferring to a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which forms the basis in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment. The requirement that a lower court must follow a precedent is called stare decisis.
Precedent means that the principle announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases. A recent decision in the same jurisdiction as the instant case will be given great weight. Decisions of lower courts are not binding on higher courts, although from time to time a higher court will adopt the reasoning and conclusion of a lower court. In contract law, the term "condition precedent," means a situation which must exist before a party to a contract has to perform.
Intentionally inducing, aiding, assisting, abetting or encouraging any other person or entity to infringe Apple's copyrighted Mac OS X software.
Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.
Playing any part in a product intended to circumvent Apple's methods for controlling Mac OS X, such as the methods used to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.
Given those three, I really don't see how they could continue to sell the Rebel EFI. As to what affect this will have on OSX86? I'm not overly concerned, as I own all Apple hardware. IMO, Apple will never go after individuals who do this simply because they would never be able to find them, and it's really not worth the bother. A web site dedicated to it however...
Isn't that Apples entire business model? Unfathomable that they are allowed to even try. I think I will sue MS for not building computers for their OS. Seems logical.
Have you missed the entire court proceedings? The court ruled in no uncertain terms that Apple's business model is 100% legal.
Your silly anti-Apple rants are worthless.
I expect a further lawsuit or some-such in the near future, as they are breaking the "permanent injunction" by continuing to make this product available.
Well, they have until Dec 31 to comply.
That said, I have to express bewilderment at some of the sentiments expressed here. It seems to me we have a lot of Apple Apologists and hardcore anti-Psystar sentiment. Really....you're "celebrating" and expressing joy? Granted, Psystar's arguments and behavior are annoying. But, there was a time here where the overall tone of these forums was anti-establishment and quite critical of Apple. Things like the DCMA and EULAs were a big deal...and not popular at all. Obviously things have changed.
Examples:
This is GREAT. I've been waiting for this since the dawn of psystar
*Celebrates*
Finally reason is seen in open court.
Congratulations in order for Apple. It is a sweet victory against a thief. And so other thieves beware because Apple is gonna get them.
Now, what Psystar was doing was certainly illegal. Namely, they were buying copies of Mac OS X at retail, essentially modifying them, and selling them with their own computers. They even used to call their computers "OpenMac." There are serious trademark and copyright issues here, and they got nailed for them.
Psystar raised another issue though: Is it improper that I buy a copy of OS X and make it run on my own machine? Is it wrong for me to modify my own product to enable it to run OS X? Can I then sell that product without OS X? Psystar focused on these type of arguments in public statements. Of course, this is not what they were actually doing. They used Apple trademarks, openly sold software to circumvent Apple's system and then sold the computer with Mac OS X. Therein lies the problem.
This ruling actually concerns me though, because IMO it strengthens EULAs (dangerously so). From what I understand, it is clearly illegal for me to take a purchased copy of OS X and install it on non-Apple hardware. It's illegal for me to fit my machine with a chip that enables OS X to run. It's certainly illegal to sell that machine, with or without OS X. Frankly, I see a problem there.
This is where Psystar's public arguments have some merit and make some sense. Apple shouldn't be able to tell me what computer I can install OS X on for my own use any more than Toyota can tell me what roads to drive on. Apple shouldn't be able to prevent me from modifying my own machine to run OS X, nor prevent me from selling that machine without using their trademarks. Again though, I realize Psystar was in a different boat, so to speak.
Why would Microsoft want people to install or buy generic PC's with OSX installed?? I can't see any reason why Microsoft would be backing Psystar..
Well, this would be the conspiracy theorist's answer: Because they want to bring OS-X's shittiness quotient to Microsoftian levels. If OS-X gets installed in so many different machine configurations then it will lose its "It just works!" cachet. Everyone will have a story about hearing of someone who installed OS-X in his machine and it had so many bugs