Not force apple to. But stop them from suing others. Essentially is boils down to the EULA which will not hold up. And psystar is buying each copy of OSX so apple is getting paid.
I think people are going to be suprised by this case.
Essentially I think you're correct in that, should it go to trial, this case will raise important questions about the legal strength of a EULA. However, I don't agree that Apple's EULA will not hold up in court. Typically, a clearly-worded EULA is legally binding; there is precedent for this. Apple may be asking more than normal, but I believe in this situation the court will rule in their favor.
Again, this has nothing to do with my opinion of Apple. This suit is frivolous and will fail.
Before Microsoft, everyone sold the OS and computer together as one product. Remember the C64, Apple II, etc?
Now, Psystar might think Microsoft's business model is better, but that doesn't mean anyone who doesn't follow it is being antitrust. Were C64, Apple 2 etc antitrust?
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.
No one forcing any one to get into any contract. You have the legal right to return any software if you don't agree to the EULA. Even if you open the software box you can return it. Beside, the box already lists system requirements and it clearly say "Mac computer".
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.
They are buying a box of software that is supposed to be used to upgrade only Apple computers and has a licence in the box that says can't be used for anything else. Then they are modifying that software (again in violation of the agreement contained in the box), to use it for a different purpose. Then they are taking Apple's software updates and patches and hacking them to work on their customers machines. they are also encouraging others to do the same.
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.
There is no copy protection circumvention. Retail copies of OSX have no copy protection whatsoever.
Sorry, I should have said "alleged violation of the DMCA". Also copy protection isn't the right term. Certainly it would appear that Apple believes that OS X does have "don't run on non-Apple hardware" measures and that Psystar are circumventing them, in violation of the DMCA.
I mean where ever this will lead and end it will bring positive to consumers. If court allows mac to be sold on other computers or for Apple to continue huge PC takeover.
Sorry, I should have said "alleged violation of the DMCA". Also copy protection isn't the right term. Certainly it would appear that Apple believes that OS X does have "don't run on non-Apple hardware" measures and that Psystar are circumventing them, in violation of the DMCA.
AHAHAH i love your signature, its very clever with it's irony
Yes in the EULA Apple states that this is a license for a computer purchased from Apple. The EULA is a contract you agree to with the purchase of the software. Their is no law that gets you out of a contract you agreed to abide by.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh
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.
Yes in the EULA Apple states that this is a license for a computer purchased from Apple. The EULA is a contract you agree to with the purchase of the software. Their is no law that gets you out of a contract you agreed to abide by.
There is no copy protection circumvention. Retail copies of OSX have no copy protection whatsoever.
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.
This isn't entirely true. EULA has been upheld in court. There have been some court cases where EULA has not been upheld. But that was on a technicalities and differing opinions of fair use. These cases were nearly 20 years ago. Today these rules would be looked at entirely differently.
In the past the user was able to say they were not properly informed of the terms of the EULA. Now you are forced to agree to the EULA's terms to use the software. So their can be no argument that you were not informed.
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.
I said that a while ago. I would love to see what Psystar would do in court if Apple asked them to demonstrate how to install Mac OS from the box on a formatted Psystar computer without using third party software. They simply cannot do it.
This isn't entirely true. EULA has been upheld in court. There have been some court cases where EULA has not been upheld. But that was on a technicalities and differing opinions of fair use. These cases were nearly 20 years ago. Today these rules would be looked at entirely differently.
In the past the user was able to say they were not properly informed of the terms of the EULA. Now you are forced to agree to the EULA's terms to use the software. So their can be no argument that you were not informed.
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."
Before Microsoft, everyone sold the OS and computer together as one product. Remember the C64, Apple II, etc?
Now, Psystar might think Microsoft's business model is better, but that doesn't mean anyone who doesn't follow it is being antitrust. Were C64, Apple 2 etc antitrust?
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?
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.
Comments
Not force apple to. But stop them from suing others. Essentially is boils down to the EULA which will not hold up. And psystar is buying each copy of OSX so apple is getting paid.
I think people are going to be suprised by this case.
Essentially I think you're correct in that, should it go to trial, this case will raise important questions about the legal strength of a EULA. However, I don't agree that Apple's EULA will not hold up in court. Typically, a clearly-worded EULA is legally binding; there is precedent for this. Apple may be asking more than normal, but I believe in this situation the court will rule in their favor.
Again, this has nothing to do with my opinion of Apple. This suit is frivolous and will fail.
Before Microsoft, everyone sold the OS and computer together as one product. Remember the C64, Apple II, etc?
Now, Psystar might think Microsoft's business model is better, but that doesn't mean anyone who doesn't follow it is being antitrust. Were C64, Apple 2 etc antitrust?
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.
No one forcing any one to get into any contract. You have the legal right to return any software if you don't agree to the EULA. Even if you open the software box you can return it. Beside, the box already lists system requirements and it clearly say "Mac computer".
They are buying a box of software that is supposed to be used to upgrade only Apple computers and has a licence in the box that says can't be used for anything else. Then they are modifying that software (again in violation of the agreement contained in the box), to use it for a different purpose. Then they are taking Apple's software updates and patches and hacking them to work on their customers machines. they are also encouraging others to do the same.
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.
The case has to do with copyright violation and the copy-protection circumvention in violation of the DMCA.
There is no copy protection circumvention. Retail copies of OSX have no copy protection whatsoever.
There is no copy protection circumvention. Retail copies of OSX have no copy protection whatsoever.
Sorry, I should have said "alleged violation of the DMCA". Also copy protection isn't the right term. Certainly it would appear that Apple believes that OS X does have "don't run on non-Apple hardware" measures and that Psystar are circumventing them, in violation of the DMCA.
Sorry, I should have said "alleged violation of the DMCA". Also copy protection isn't the right term. Certainly it would appear that Apple believes that OS X does have "don't run on non-Apple hardware" measures and that Psystar are circumventing them, in violation of the DMCA.
AHAHAH i love your signature, its very clever with it's irony
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.
Yes in the EULA Apple states that this is a license for a computer purchased from Apple. The EULA is a contract you agree to with the purchase of the software. Their is no law that gets you out of a contract you agreed to abide by.
A EULA will not hold up in court.
AHAHAH i love your signature, its very clever with it's irony
There is no copy protection circumvention. Retail copies of OSX have no copy protection whatsoever.
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.
In the past the user was able to say they were not properly informed of the terms of the EULA. Now you are forced to agree to the EULA's terms to use the software. So their can be no argument that you were not informed.
A EULA will not hold up in court.
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.
I said that a while ago. I would love to see what Psystar would do in court if Apple asked them to demonstrate how to install Mac OS from the box on a formatted Psystar computer without using third party software. They simply cannot do it.
A EULA will not hold up in court.
EULA can hold up in court. However, in previous cases parts of EULA were challenged not the entire EULA. But that was more than 15 years ago.
This isn't entirely true. EULA has been upheld in court. There have been some court cases where EULA has not been upheld. But that was on a technicalities and differing opinions of fair use. These cases were nearly 20 years ago. Today these rules would be looked at entirely differently.
In the past the user was able to say they were not properly informed of the terms of the EULA. Now you are forced to agree to the EULA's terms to use the software. So their can be no argument that you were not informed.
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.
Round 1 to Apple.
Before Microsoft, everyone sold the OS and computer together as one product. Remember the C64, Apple II, etc?
Now, Psystar might think Microsoft's business model is better, but that doesn't mean anyone who doesn't follow it is being antitrust. Were C64, Apple 2 etc antitrust?
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?
Psystar's legal burn rate is likely their limiting factor. I'm betting their lifespan is being measured in months at best.