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.
It is not a copy protection, but it is a protection method more like the zone/region system found on dvds. There are no protective methods that restrict you from copying the contents of a retail dvd, and if you have a mac it will play just fine even though it is a copy.
You bought the product. You are abiding by the EULA if you put on one of the included Apple labels. (put both on to be extra safe) Technically you may still be violating the DMCA by cimcumventing "copy protection" however at that point it becomes more of a fair use issue. You bought the product, you abided by the EULA and it didn't work. You HAD to cicumvent copy protection to use the product as outlined in the Apple EULA.
I am personally starting to think there is more merit behind Apple's recent claim that Psystar is being backed by other parties. How can a small company like this afford the lawyer talent to fight this case.
Grant it, the lawyer firm maybe trying to make a name for themselves and how else to do that but take on the big guy and win a fight everyone says can not be won. Or they are hoping they will win and will get a cut of significantly large sum of money, however this is less likely these days since it could cost this law firm money if they lose and have to pay Apple their costs.
Face it most companies never want these kinds of cases going to court since you have no idea of the outcome and it might set a precedent you do not what out in the public. Generally speaking big companies want to settle these thing out of court, look at all the previous Apple cases most all were settle quietly with no public information on what the outcome was. This is done for a reason.
Now you can bet Apple tried pay to make this go away, and why would a small company walk way from that kind of money. Most all this paper work back and forth is about posturing and positioning to see who has the stronger position so they can ask for more or less depending on the situation.
There appears to be something bigger going on here, why does this company care if it ships a computer with OSX or Vista, most likely its client could care less.
No but they do have to modify OS X to get it to install on a non-mac before they sell it to you. They then include a full version in the package, but that Full version is not what they install. You cannot, from what I have read, simply install a fresh OS X copy without first doing a mod during or before installation.
So even if you could simply install OSX, which you can't, but just for the sake of this argument, you are still circumventing the copy protection as you are fooling the copy protection into believing that you have a real Apple Mac.
But again, everything I have read states you have to modify or patch code in order for it to run on a hackintosh.
You can install straight from a retail DVD. You prep the partition with an EFI emulator. Nothing illegal about that. Then install the Retail copy of leopard. An unmodified disc. After it's complete you can then copy some new files over.
So you don't have to modify a thing on the disc itself. And once installed you are free to install software and tweak your system so how would copying over and replacing a couple of files be any different? As long as you never altered the retail DVD itself?
You can install straight from a retail DVD. You prep the partition with an EFI emulator. Nothing illegal about that. Then install the Retail copy of leopard. An unmodified disc. After it's complete you can then copy some new files over.
So you don't have to modify a thing on the disc itself. And once installed you are free to install software and tweak your system so how would copying over and replacing a couple of files be any different? As long as you never altered the retail DVD itself?
LMAO
You idiot
"you then copy some files over"
Meaning it won't run without the file changes everyone says it needs
You can install straight from a retail DVD. You prep the partition with an EFI emulator. Nothing illegal about that. Then install the Retail copy of leopard. An unmodified disc. After it's complete you can then copy some new files over.
So you don't have to modify a thing on the disc itself. And once installed you are free to install software and tweak your system so how would copying over and replacing a couple of files be any different? As long as you never altered the retail DVD itself?
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.
Once you buy OS X, yes you can take it home and do whatever the hell you want with it; you can install it on an hackintosh if you want, use it as a coaster....whatever. Apple has never tried to stop the hackintosh home industry, but Apple will not provide support for your hackintosh computer and they can not be forced, legally, to provide support for hackintoshes.
People have been hacking Apple's OS for years, in their own homes and in an underground, free environment. The problem with Phystar is they are selling to a mass market a non-licensed version of the Mac OS and that is illegal.
Once you buy a bottle of Coke a cola you can take it home and do whatever you want with it, drink it, pour it into different bottles, spray it on your lawn, who cares. But if you pour it into a different bottle, and then SELL it to someone else that is illegal.
It's similar to buying stock photography, if I buy a photo from istockphoto.com I can use that photo for anything I want, as long as I am not selling a reproduction of that photo to someone else. If I slap that photo on a T-shirt and then sell that T-shirt I need a special extended license to do so.
It's the same with Phystar. It's illegal for them to SELL a computer with the Max OSX installed, they don't have the license to do that and Apple does not have to provide them with a special license to do so. End of story.
Why would Microsoft open up a larger market for one of their competitors? They want everyone using Windows, not more people using OSX.
I do wonder where Psystar is getting all this money to pay their lawyers, though.
I honestly don't understand why people think it's Microsoft. I know they are the knee-jerk reactionary embodiment of apple's "nemesis", but I honestly think it couldn't be further from the mark. Try some one looking for an alternative to MS, like HP or Dell.
So you can't tweak and customize the OS you bought and installed? You can't install files and play in the system files for further customization? Once it's legally installed on your computer? We all do it.
If I installed this on my apple labeled computer per the EULA and it didn't work do you not then have the right to do what you need to do to get it to work? From a fair use standpoint?
It's all how psystar lawyers can spin it. There are other very interesting cases out there that may apply here and this will not be a cut and dry case nor an easy victory for apple. Nor do I think apple is going to win in quite the way they hope they will.
It's the same with Phystar. It's illegal for them to SELL a computer with the Max OSX installed, they don't have the license to do that and Apple does not have to provide them with a special license to do so. End of story.
So conceivably they may have to stop selling it with leopard pre-installed but they could include a disc and software so you could install it yourself on the computer you just bought?
It certainly would. That line is not specific and can mean any number of things. And seeing how EULA's have a hard time in court anyways...
I seriously doubt it would in every way.
A) A sticker is not a label
It wasn't labeled by apple
C) Clearly what they mean is something totally different than placing a sticker on something. Any idiot in the world would see through that definition.
That is a completely grasp at a straw that wouldn't be there.
Regardless of my feelings for Apple, this is bullshit. It's Apple software, it's Apple hardware. There's no illegal behavior. This would be like suing Nintendo because Mario isn't available on the Xbox. Even worse: it'd be like suing Nintendo because Wii games only play on the Wii, and not a generic Playstation. How ridiculous.
Not quite. It's like suing Nintendo for stipulating that Wii games are only allowed to run on a Wii, and not on any other hardware, regardless of whether this is possible or not. And here things are not so clear cut.
The one similar case I know well was Bleem!, a PlayStation emulator for the PC and Dreamcast. It was an emulator that did NOT require an (illegal) copy of the PlayStation BIOS as it was able to emulate it. Sony sued and eventually lost, all though they 'won' in the sense that they put Bleem! out of business with the cost of defending themselves. Sony also lost a similar case against Connectix VGS, a PlayStation emulator for Macs.
I'm no lawyer, and there may well be significant differences in the cases, but on the surface it would seem that Apple may well eventually lose their case against Psystar. I don't like the idea, but I think it's more of a case of "when" than "if".
C) Clearly what they mean is something totally different than placing a sticker on something. Any idiot in the world would see through that definition.
That is a completely grasp at a straw that wouldn't be there.
What they mean and what it says are two different things. Once you place a apple label on your computer it is then apple labeled. Does that mean that apple has to place the label there? Most likely, but it doesn't quite say that.
It all comes down to facts and what the agreement actually says. Because it's unclear it would be thrown out. And like I said, EULA's have a very hard time standing up in court anyways.
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.
What they mean and what it says are two different things. Once you place a apple label on your computer it is then apple labeled. Does that mean that apple has to place the label there? Most likely, but it doesn't quite say that.
It all comes down to facts and what the agreement actually says. Because it's unclear it would be thrown out. And like I said, EULA's have a very hard time standing up in court anyways.
Except label is a legal term, they will use the legal definition.
You are forgetting about an important piece of the chain-- the person that purchases the software and the hardware.
This time around they are getting closer to issues that I consider important: How much can a software vendor restrict the rights of someone who purchases their product. Implicitly, this challenges EULAs as a class of contract.
We haven't been able to purchase software for a very long time. If you read the agreement, you are purchasing a right to use the software, as in a lease. If you had leased an apartment and then sold it to someone else, I don't think anyone would be the least bit surprised when you were promptly evicted and/or arrested.
We haven't been able to purchase software for a very long time. If you read the agreement, you are purchasing a right to use the software, as in a lease. If you had leased an apartment and then sold it to someone else, I don't think anyone would be the least bit surprised when you were promptly evicted and/or arrested.
Agreed. Just like we can't buy movies or music. If we did buy them, then we'd have the right to redistribute it to whomever we want. The laws of trademarks, copyrights, patents, and copy protection are a bit too difficult for some people to understand.
So you can't tweak and customize the OS you bought and installed? You can't install files and play in the system files for further customization? Once it's legally installed on your computer? We all do it.
If I installed this on my apple labeled computer per the EULA and it didn't work do you not then have the right to do what you need to do to get it to work? From a fair use standpoint?
It's all how psystar lawyers can spin it. There are other very interesting cases out there that may apply here and this will not be a cut and dry case nor an easy victory for apple. Nor do I think apple is going to win in quite the way they hope they will.
You can do it but you cannot start making money doing it and brag about it in the media! Apple never bothered with people who installed Mac OS X on their PC because very few people do it and they cannot track them. But when someone start a business and make money then it is different story.
The same goes for putting Apple stickers on a computer and call it Apple labeled. You can do it (you really don't have to anyway) in the privacy of your home but you cannot start a business selling PC with Apple sticker on them. You will be violating Apple trademark and will get shutdown for that.
You can rip your music to your personal computers and iPods but you cannot start selling iPods on ebay preloaded with music you ripped from you CDs without the proper permissions.
You can rip your music to your personal computers and iPods but you cannot start selling iPods on ebay preloaded with music you ripped from you CDs without the proper permissions.
You could if you included the original CD's. Psystar isn't taking one copy of leopard and making copies and selling it on every PC. Each PC includes it's own copy of Leopard which was legally purchased.
Comments
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.
It is not a copy protection, but it is a protection method more like the zone/region system found on dvds. There are no protective methods that restrict you from copying the contents of a retail dvd, and if you have a mac it will play just fine even though it is a copy.
You bought the product. You are abiding by the EULA if you put on one of the included Apple labels. (put both on to be extra safe) Technically you may still be violating the DMCA by cimcumventing "copy protection" however at that point it becomes more of a fair use issue. You bought the product, you abided by the EULA and it didn't work. You HAD to cicumvent copy protection to use the product as outlined in the Apple EULA.
Grant it, the lawyer firm maybe trying to make a name for themselves and how else to do that but take on the big guy and win a fight everyone says can not be won. Or they are hoping they will win and will get a cut of significantly large sum of money, however this is less likely these days since it could cost this law firm money if they lose and have to pay Apple their costs.
Face it most companies never want these kinds of cases going to court since you have no idea of the outcome and it might set a precedent you do not what out in the public. Generally speaking big companies want to settle these thing out of court, look at all the previous Apple cases most all were settle quietly with no public information on what the outcome was. This is done for a reason.
Now you can bet Apple tried pay to make this go away, and why would a small company walk way from that kind of money. Most all this paper work back and forth is about posturing and positioning to see who has the stronger position so they can ask for more or less depending on the situation.
There appears to be something bigger going on here, why does this company care if it ships a computer with OSX or Vista, most likely its client could care less.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
I know you're being partly serious, but there is no way that would work in court as an argument.
It certainly would. That line is not specific and can mean any number of things. And seeing how EULA's have a hard time in court anyways...
... I'm betting their lifespan is being measured in months at best.
PYSTAR = Dildos without a battery
No but they do have to modify OS X to get it to install on a non-mac before they sell it to you. They then include a full version in the package, but that Full version is not what they install. You cannot, from what I have read, simply install a fresh OS X copy without first doing a mod during or before installation.
So even if you could simply install OSX, which you can't, but just for the sake of this argument, you are still circumventing the copy protection as you are fooling the copy protection into believing that you have a real Apple Mac.
But again, everything I have read states you have to modify or patch code in order for it to run on a hackintosh.
You can install straight from a retail DVD. You prep the partition with an EFI emulator. Nothing illegal about that. Then install the Retail copy of leopard. An unmodified disc. After it's complete you can then copy some new files over.
So you don't have to modify a thing on the disc itself. And once installed you are free to install software and tweak your system so how would copying over and replacing a couple of files be any different? As long as you never altered the retail DVD itself?
You can install straight from a retail DVD. You prep the partition with an EFI emulator. Nothing illegal about that. Then install the Retail copy of leopard. An unmodified disc. After it's complete you can then copy some new files over.
So you don't have to modify a thing on the disc itself. And once installed you are free to install software and tweak your system so how would copying over and replacing a couple of files be any different? As long as you never altered the retail DVD itself?
LMAO
You idiot
"you then copy some files over"
Meaning it won't run without the file changes everyone says it needs
Stop skirting the issue
You can install straight from a retail DVD. You prep the partition with an EFI emulator. Nothing illegal about that. Then install the Retail copy of leopard. An unmodified disc. After it's complete you can then copy some new files over.
So you don't have to modify a thing on the disc itself. And once installed you are free to install software and tweak your system so how would copying over and replacing a couple of files be any different? As long as you never altered the retail DVD itself?
I think you've just won the case for Apple
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.
Once you buy OS X, yes you can take it home and do whatever the hell you want with it; you can install it on an hackintosh if you want, use it as a coaster....whatever. Apple has never tried to stop the hackintosh home industry, but Apple will not provide support for your hackintosh computer and they can not be forced, legally, to provide support for hackintoshes.
People have been hacking Apple's OS for years, in their own homes and in an underground, free environment. The problem with Phystar is they are selling to a mass market a non-licensed version of the Mac OS and that is illegal.
Once you buy a bottle of Coke a cola you can take it home and do whatever you want with it, drink it, pour it into different bottles, spray it on your lawn, who cares. But if you pour it into a different bottle, and then SELL it to someone else that is illegal.
It's similar to buying stock photography, if I buy a photo from istockphoto.com I can use that photo for anything I want, as long as I am not selling a reproduction of that photo to someone else. If I slap that photo on a T-shirt and then sell that T-shirt I need a special extended license to do so.
It's the same with Phystar. It's illegal for them to SELL a computer with the Max OSX installed, they don't have the license to do that and Apple does not have to provide them with a special license to do so. End of story.
Why would Microsoft open up a larger market for one of their competitors? They want everyone using Windows, not more people using OSX.
I do wonder where Psystar is getting all this money to pay their lawyers, though.
I honestly don't understand why people think it's Microsoft. I know they are the knee-jerk reactionary embodiment of apple's "nemesis", but I honestly think it couldn't be further from the mark. Try some one looking for an alternative to MS, like HP or Dell.
I think you've just won the case for Apple
So you can't tweak and customize the OS you bought and installed? You can't install files and play in the system files for further customization? Once it's legally installed on your computer? We all do it.
If I installed this on my apple labeled computer per the EULA and it didn't work do you not then have the right to do what you need to do to get it to work? From a fair use standpoint?
It's all how psystar lawyers can spin it. There are other very interesting cases out there that may apply here and this will not be a cut and dry case nor an easy victory for apple. Nor do I think apple is going to win in quite the way they hope they will.
It's the same with Phystar. It's illegal for them to SELL a computer with the Max OSX installed, they don't have the license to do that and Apple does not have to provide them with a special license to do so. End of story.
So conceivably they may have to stop selling it with leopard pre-installed but they could include a disc and software so you could install it yourself on the computer you just bought?
It certainly would. That line is not specific and can mean any number of things. And seeing how EULA's have a hard time in court anyways...
I seriously doubt it would in every way.
A) A sticker is not a label
C) Clearly what they mean is something totally different than placing a sticker on something. Any idiot in the world would see through that definition.
That is a completely grasp at a straw that wouldn't be there.
Regardless of my feelings for Apple, this is bullshit. It's Apple software, it's Apple hardware. There's no illegal behavior. This would be like suing Nintendo because Mario isn't available on the Xbox. Even worse: it'd be like suing Nintendo because Wii games only play on the Wii, and not a generic Playstation. How ridiculous.
Not quite. It's like suing Nintendo for stipulating that Wii games are only allowed to run on a Wii, and not on any other hardware, regardless of whether this is possible or not. And here things are not so clear cut.
The one similar case I know well was Bleem!, a PlayStation emulator for the PC and Dreamcast. It was an emulator that did NOT require an (illegal) copy of the PlayStation BIOS as it was able to emulate it. Sony sued and eventually lost, all though they 'won' in the sense that they put Bleem! out of business with the cost of defending themselves. Sony also lost a similar case against Connectix VGS, a PlayStation emulator for Macs.
I'm no lawyer, and there may well be significant differences in the cases, but on the surface it would seem that Apple may well eventually lose their case against Psystar. I don't like the idea, but I think it's more of a case of "when" than "if".
I seriously doubt it would in every way.
A) A sticker is not a label
C) Clearly what they mean is something totally different than placing a sticker on something. Any idiot in the world would see through that definition.
That is a completely grasp at a straw that wouldn't be there.
What they mean and what it says are two different things. Once you place a apple label on your computer it is then apple labeled. Does that mean that apple has to place the label there? Most likely, but it doesn't quite say that.
It all comes down to facts and what the agreement actually says. Because it's unclear it would be thrown out. And like I said, EULA's have a very hard time standing up in court anyways.
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.
I'd say they're still an end-user.
What they mean and what it says are two different things. Once you place a apple label on your computer it is then apple labeled. Does that mean that apple has to place the label there? Most likely, but it doesn't quite say that.
It all comes down to facts and what the agreement actually says. Because it's unclear it would be thrown out. And like I said, EULA's have a very hard time standing up in court anyways.
Except label is a legal term, they will use the legal definition.
Thank you for playing. Better luck next time.
You are forgetting about an important piece of the chain-- the person that purchases the software and the hardware.
This time around they are getting closer to issues that I consider important: How much can a software vendor restrict the rights of someone who purchases their product. Implicitly, this challenges EULAs as a class of contract.
We haven't been able to purchase software for a very long time. If you read the agreement, you are purchasing a right to use the software, as in a lease. If you had leased an apartment and then sold it to someone else, I don't think anyone would be the least bit surprised when you were promptly evicted and/or arrested.
We haven't been able to purchase software for a very long time. If you read the agreement, you are purchasing a right to use the software, as in a lease. If you had leased an apartment and then sold it to someone else, I don't think anyone would be the least bit surprised when you were promptly evicted and/or arrested.
Agreed. Just like we can't buy movies or music. If we did buy them, then we'd have the right to redistribute it to whomever we want. The laws of trademarks, copyrights, patents, and copy protection are a bit too difficult for some people to understand.
So you can't tweak and customize the OS you bought and installed? You can't install files and play in the system files for further customization? Once it's legally installed on your computer? We all do it.
If I installed this on my apple labeled computer per the EULA and it didn't work do you not then have the right to do what you need to do to get it to work? From a fair use standpoint?
It's all how psystar lawyers can spin it. There are other very interesting cases out there that may apply here and this will not be a cut and dry case nor an easy victory for apple. Nor do I think apple is going to win in quite the way they hope they will.
You can do it but you cannot start making money doing it and brag about it in the media! Apple never bothered with people who installed Mac OS X on their PC because very few people do it and they cannot track them. But when someone start a business and make money then it is different story.
The same goes for putting Apple stickers on a computer and call it Apple labeled. You can do it (you really don't have to anyway) in the privacy of your home but you cannot start a business selling PC with Apple sticker on them. You will be violating Apple trademark and will get shutdown for that.
You can rip your music to your personal computers and iPods but you cannot start selling iPods on ebay preloaded with music you ripped from you CDs without the proper permissions.
You can rip your music to your personal computers and iPods but you cannot start selling iPods on ebay preloaded with music you ripped from you CDs without the proper permissions.
You could if you included the original CD's. Psystar isn't taking one copy of leopard and making copies and selling it on every PC. Each PC includes it's own copy of Leopard which was legally purchased.