I almost thought they were going to let this slide. I kept wondering when they were going to release the hounds...
This is going to be a pretty monumental factor in determining the future of Apple, Macs, and OS X. If Psystar is givin the green light, which IMO I don't think they will, Psystar won't be the only cloner, there will be others.
This is a very interesting case regarding the rights of a corporation vs the rights of the consumer, and I am actually really anxious to hear well thought out arguments on both sides.
The rights of the consumer have exactly zero to do with this. This is a corporation suing another corporation that is modifying and reselling their copyrighted material.
Look at all the apple fan boys in here. What apple is doing is in no way good for the consumer. They are just trying to protect their business of selling overpriced hardware to their customers.
Dude... you are a FOOL.... Apple is in business to make money. Not to give you crap for free. If you come up with a good idea and want to make a living off it you might discover this is a good thing and what has made the USA so prosperous. If you think their computers are too expensive then go buy a POS windows machine and do whatever. Apple, Mercedes, Chevy... or whatever the company has the right to sell their products at the highest price they think they can get. If they price it too high then their products won't sell and they'll loose their asses. If they price them too low then they are idiots who loose millions serving people like you. If they get what they can then they make a profit... and can reinvest it to come up with the next cool thing.... like the iPhone.... and I totally love mine!!!! I was happy to pay $399 for it too.....
The rights of the consumer have exactly zero to do with this. This is a corporation suing another corporation that is modifying and reselling their copyrighted material.
Who said Pystar is actually paying Apple for the copies of OSX it is then hacking and redistributing? I would think that would be pretty easy to discover. If they are in fact using the ONE disk they bought, hacked and resold to many customers, I would think they would be in deep doo no matter what. I find it difficult to believe they are actually buying these copies of OSX since they obviously have no concept of moral nor legal right in the first place.
Who said Pystar is actually paying Apple for the copies of OSX it is then hacking and redistributing? I would think that would be pretty easy to discover. If they are in fact using the ONE disk they bought, hacked and resold to many customers, I would think they would be in deep doo no matter what. I find it difficult to believe they are actually buying these copies of OSX since they obviously have no concept of moral nor legal right in the first place.
They ARE buying a copy of OSX for every machine they sell with it installed, they give it to the customer with the machine. That doesn't get them off the hook though.
Hmm, well I went into a local store when and picked up a box labelled "Mac OS X". I went to a cash register and gave the store some money in exchange for the box. That seems like a sale to me.
I think Paystar is within their rights as long as they are not modifying OS X.
Apple can put whatever it wants to in it's so-called "license agreement", but that doesn't make it legally binding.
Well in that case they are screwed as you cant install it without modifying it.
Also, if you think about it, all of the OS X releases are upgrades. Upgrades for your previous version. Software upgrades for your Mac hardware. There is not a more expensive version for stand alone machines, just upgrades for existing systems.
[QUOTE=Zaphodsplanet;1278968]With the exception of Powermac.... Apple has always sold there OS as a package deal.... you buy their OS to run on their computers.[QUOTE]
What is Powermac?
Quote:
They are STEALING an OS they have NO RIGHT TO RESELL!!!!! aka... they are CRIMINALS!!!
Where do you get the idea they were stealing anything?
I belive the user even gets the original box the OS came in when purchased by Psystar.
Quote:
Psystar is about to be History... and They deserve it for STEALING property that isn't theirs to use.
What was stolen?
Quote:
Duh!!!!
Agreed!
Yes, they will very likely lose and go out of business but if you were Apple's lawyer, they would definitely win!
Look at all the apple fan boys in here. What apple is doing is in no way good for the consumer. They are just trying to protect their business of selling overpriced hardware to their customers.
Actually what Psystar is doing can be quite detrimental to the consumer. Apple could introduce various software protection like other over-protective software companies, they could introduce various software/hardware protection schemes, or they could increase the cost of MacOS X. Apple has been very soft on software protection of their MacOS and very reasonable on the cost of MacOS updates. I very much do not want to see Apple resorting to software protection schemes like some of the other software companies.
As well, a few of us would disagree that their hardware is overpriced, they may be missing a prosumer tower, but sales figures seem to indicate most of their hardware is reasonably priced, or sales would not be increasing.
Technically every boxed copy of Mac OS X is an upgrade to the Mac OS license included with a Mac computer. Just because Microsoft sells Windows with a stand-alone license, Apple is not obligated to do the same.
they filed a complaint one day after psystar distributed their first computers. Apple did not wait. its just the process takes a very long time in the justice department.
For the matter of antitrust, there is none. Coke has the option of not revealing their secret formula. Same with Apple. They have the option of not sharing their OS because its in the agreement and its their competitive advantage. Thats why there is such a thing called GNU license. thats why linux is open and no one sues.
EULA, thats why microsoft can by law sue someone for sharing their windows with another if they agree to use only one computer. Just so u know, when u buy microsoft's windows, you buy a license. depending on which version, but for the consumer, its usually for one computer. That agreement is similar to apple.
What's the hurry? Apple will take down this guy in the time and manner of their choosing, and when they're done, he'll lose all interest in a repeat performance. That serves as a warning to others who might contemplate similar actions. IOW, Apple is going to make an example of Psystar, and well they should.
[QUOTE=Chris_CA;1278994][QUOTE=Zaphodsplanet;1278968]With the exception of Powermac.... Apple has always sold there OS as a package deal.... you buy their OS to run on their computers.
Quote:
What is Powermac?
Where do you get the idea they were stealing anything?
I belive the user even gets the original box the OS came in when purchased by Psystar.
What was stolen?
Agreed!
Yes, they will very likely lose and go out of business but if you were Apple's lawyer, they would definitely win!
i think you should reread EULA. It is the same as downloading songs from p2p. u are using those materials without the consent of the owner of the copyright.
and that would be categories as stealing. just because it is still in the original box doesnt prove anything. Again, u are using those materials without the consent of the owner of the copyright.
Look at all the apple fan boys in here. What apple is doing is in no way good for the consumer. They are just trying to protect their business of selling overpriced hardware to their customers.
i think u should go court and learn the term copyright. i now its stupid but its what motivates people to innovate. And besides, it is never the intention of Apple to sell cheap computers. Its like telling ferrari's to lower their price. i mean toyota can do the job as well as ferrari, taking people to destination and at a cheaper cost. i dont see u complaining to them.
Apple never said guarantee lower price!!! Apple is no Wal Mart.
I would have rather seen EULAs invalidated, as they are truly wrong. But, Psystar is screwed here now that they are re-distributing updates. That is an easy line in the sand-- they were fools to even consider doing it.
I'm in agreement with many here that Apple waited so long simply to be able to base their case on something that they have a good chance of winning. That would be the modification of Mac OS/X. Even that is not a given because so much of OS/X is open source. I expect the case to get very detailed if Psystar gets any sort of legal backing.
As to the issue of Psystar's morality in this case, if such can even be attributed to a company, I don't see them on any lower legal plane that Apple itself. Lets face it there is a lot of open source software in MAC OS/X, one of the reasons I switched to Apple, so the issues become very complex very quickly. Like what exactly did Psystar modify and where did the code come from. Was the modification made solely for compatibility and interoperability reasons?
As for Psystar's claim of anti trust violations they may have grounds there as Apple has an absolute lock on PC's running Mac OS/X. Which comes back to possibly why Apple has focused their suit on a very narrow issue of copyright infringement.
I think the biggest problem here is that unless the principals of Psystar have a big bank account they will need outside help to win against Apple. People need to realize that just because Apple does something doesn't mean it is something that will stand up in court. Further one can make a very good argument that Apples trust like behaviour is actually worst than Microsoft's.
I would have rather seen EULAs invalidated, as they are truly wrong. But, Psystar is screwed here now that they are re-distributing updates. That is an easy line in the sand-- they were fools to even consider doing it.
i dont think u mean that. China is a country with almost no EULA. It means everything goes cheaper because other people can copy and redistribute your creation.
I think when you click "I Accept" When prompted with the terms and conditions of the license agreement you enter a legally binding contract.
What if you are a minor or if you are mentally incompetent? These are two groups of people that can not legally enter into contracts.
EULA's are known as being just about the most anti-consumer contracts ever. I don't know of any major lawsuits concerning them, but it seems to me that the way they are written and "signed" could be successfully challenged in court. Back in the old days, you had to at least scroll down through the entire EULA to get to the Accept part. Now, you can accept after looking at very few lines.
What if you are a minor or if you are mentally incompetent? These are two groups of people that can not legally enter into contracts.
True but it is safe to assume those at Psystar installing Mac OS X onto their machines are certaintly not minors or mentally incompetent therefore they can be prosecuted on the grounds on breaking the license agreement they chose to accept.
Comments
This is going to be a pretty monumental factor in determining the future of Apple, Macs, and OS X. If Psystar is givin the green light, which IMO I don't think they will, Psystar won't be the only cloner, there will be others.
This is a very interesting case regarding the rights of a corporation vs the rights of the consumer, and I am actually really anxious to hear well thought out arguments on both sides.
The rights of the consumer have exactly zero to do with this. This is a corporation suing another corporation that is modifying and reselling their copyrighted material.
Look at all the apple fan boys in here. What apple is doing is in no way good for the consumer. They are just trying to protect their business of selling overpriced hardware to their customers.
Dude... you are a FOOL.... Apple is in business to make money. Not to give you crap for free. If you come up with a good idea and want to make a living off it you might discover this is a good thing and what has made the USA so prosperous. If you think their computers are too expensive then go buy a POS windows machine and do whatever. Apple, Mercedes, Chevy... or whatever the company has the right to sell their products at the highest price they think they can get. If they price it too high then their products won't sell and they'll loose their asses. If they price them too low then they are idiots who loose millions serving people like you. If they get what they can then they make a profit... and can reinvest it to come up with the next cool thing.... like the iPhone.... and I totally love mine!!!! I was happy to pay $399 for it too.....
The rights of the consumer have exactly zero to do with this. This is a corporation suing another corporation that is modifying and reselling their copyrighted material.
I couldn't agree with you more Mindbinder....
Who said Pystar is actually paying Apple for the copies of OSX it is then hacking and redistributing? I would think that would be pretty easy to discover. If they are in fact using the ONE disk they bought, hacked and resold to many customers, I would think they would be in deep doo no matter what. I find it difficult to believe they are actually buying these copies of OSX since they obviously have no concept of moral nor legal right in the first place.
They ARE buying a copy of OSX for every machine they sell with it installed, they give it to the customer with the machine. That doesn't get them off the hook though.
Hmm, well I went into a local store when and picked up a box labelled "Mac OS X". I went to a cash register and gave the store some money in exchange for the box. That seems like a sale to me.
I think Paystar is within their rights as long as they are not modifying OS X.
Apple can put whatever it wants to in it's so-called "license agreement", but that doesn't make it legally binding.
See this case for an example: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-software.html
Well in that case they are screwed as you cant install it without modifying it.
Also, if you think about it, all of the OS X releases are upgrades. Upgrades for your previous version. Software upgrades for your Mac hardware. There is not a more expensive version for stand alone machines, just upgrades for existing systems.
What is Powermac?
They are STEALING an OS they have NO RIGHT TO RESELL!!!!! aka... they are CRIMINALS!!!
Where do you get the idea they were stealing anything?
I belive the user even gets the original box the OS came in when purchased by Psystar.
Psystar is about to be History... and They deserve it for STEALING property that isn't theirs to use.
What was stolen?
Duh!!!!
Agreed!
Yes, they will very likely lose and go out of business but if you were Apple's lawyer, they would definitely win!
They are violating apple's software license, and they are selling a modified version of Apple's OS without permission.
Look at all the apple fan boys in here. What apple is doing is in no way good for the consumer. They are just trying to protect their business of selling overpriced hardware to their customers.
Actually what Psystar is doing can be quite detrimental to the consumer. Apple could introduce various software protection like other over-protective software companies, they could introduce various software/hardware protection schemes, or they could increase the cost of MacOS X. Apple has been very soft on software protection of their MacOS and very reasonable on the cost of MacOS updates. I very much do not want to see Apple resorting to software protection schemes like some of the other software companies.
As well, a few of us would disagree that their hardware is overpriced, they may be missing a prosumer tower, but sales figures seem to indicate most of their hardware is reasonably priced, or sales would not be increasing.
For the matter of antitrust, there is none. Coke has the option of not revealing their secret formula. Same with Apple. They have the option of not sharing their OS because its in the agreement and its their competitive advantage. Thats why there is such a thing called GNU license. thats why linux is open and no one sues.
EULA, thats why microsoft can by law sue someone for sharing their windows with another if they agree to use only one computer. Just so u know, when u buy microsoft's windows, you buy a license. depending on which version, but for the consumer, its usually for one computer. That agreement is similar to apple.
What took Apple so long?
What's the hurry? Apple will take down this guy in the time and manner of their choosing, and when they're done, he'll lose all interest in a repeat performance. That serves as a warning to others who might contemplate similar actions. IOW, Apple is going to make an example of Psystar, and well they should.
What is Powermac?
Where do you get the idea they were stealing anything?
I belive the user even gets the original box the OS came in when purchased by Psystar.
What was stolen?
Agreed!
Yes, they will very likely lose and go out of business but if you were Apple's lawyer, they would definitely win!
i think you should reread EULA. It is the same as downloading songs from p2p. u are using those materials without the consent of the owner of the copyright.
and that would be categories as stealing. just because it is still in the original box doesnt prove anything. Again, u are using those materials without the consent of the owner of the copyright.
Look at all the apple fan boys in here. What apple is doing is in no way good for the consumer. They are just trying to protect their business of selling overpriced hardware to their customers.
i think u should go court and learn the term copyright. i now its stupid but its what motivates people to innovate. And besides, it is never the intention of Apple to sell cheap computers. Its like telling ferrari's to lower their price. i mean toyota can do the job as well as ferrari, taking people to destination and at a cheaper cost. i dont see u complaining to them.
Apple never said guarantee lower price!!! Apple is no Wal Mart.
As to the issue of Psystar's morality in this case, if such can even be attributed to a company, I don't see them on any lower legal plane that Apple itself. Lets face it there is a lot of open source software in MAC OS/X, one of the reasons I switched to Apple, so the issues become very complex very quickly. Like what exactly did Psystar modify and where did the code come from. Was the modification made solely for compatibility and interoperability reasons?
As for Psystar's claim of anti trust violations they may have grounds there as Apple has an absolute lock on PC's running Mac OS/X. Which comes back to possibly why Apple has focused their suit on a very narrow issue of copyright infringement.
I think the biggest problem here is that unless the principals of Psystar have a big bank account they will need outside help to win against Apple. People need to realize that just because Apple does something doesn't mean it is something that will stand up in court. Further one can make a very good argument that Apples trust like behaviour is actually worst than Microsoft's.
Dave
I would have rather seen EULAs invalidated, as they are truly wrong. But, Psystar is screwed here now that they are re-distributing updates. That is an easy line in the sand-- they were fools to even consider doing it.
i dont think u mean that. China is a country with almost no EULA. It means everything goes cheaper because other people can copy and redistribute your creation.
Like i said before
NO EULA MEANS NO MOTIVATION TO INNOVATE
I think when you click "I Accept" When prompted with the terms and conditions of the license agreement you enter a legally binding contract.
What if you are a minor or if you are mentally incompetent? These are two groups of people that can not legally enter into contracts.
EULA's are known as being just about the most anti-consumer contracts ever. I don't know of any major lawsuits concerning them, but it seems to me that the way they are written and "signed" could be successfully challenged in court. Back in the old days, you had to at least scroll down through the entire EULA to get to the Accept part. Now, you can accept after looking at very few lines.
What if you are a minor or if you are mentally incompetent? These are two groups of people that can not legally enter into contracts.
True but it is safe to assume those at Psystar installing Mac OS X onto their machines are certaintly not minors or mentally incompetent therefore they can be prosecuted on the grounds on breaking the license agreement they chose to accept.