The only reason Psystar/OSx86 has gained the notoriety that it has is because Apple do not sell a mid-range tower. I've priced out Hackintosh builds trying to match an 8-core MacPro spec for spec. It would cost as much or more for me to build it myself, and have none of the Apple customer service goodness to go with it. A nice little 4-core minitower can be built for considerably less, however. If Apple would simply offer something like this for sale, the (apparently) huge pent-up demand for such a box would be satisfied very quickly, Psystar would become irrelevant, OSx86 would recede back into the mists of ubergeekery, and the problem would be solved by the marketplace, with minimal enrichment of lawyers.
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.
Psystar is however INSTALLING the software, modifying it with the patched files, and then selling the machine.
THAT is what is illegal under the DMCA. It also breaks the EULA because Psystar has to click I Agree every single time they install it. You have an excuse that you didn't read it before you bought the software only once, when you repeatidly buy the software, you have had ample chance to read the agreement you agreed to in licensing someone elses property (because the buyer doesn't own the software itself under copyright and IP law)
it'd be like suing Nintendo because Wii games only play on the Wii, and not a generic Playstation. How ridiculous.
No......... It's like Nintendo suing someone who builds and sells modified PS3s that also play Wii games... to which I say, "where's the case?"
Apple should just leave Psystar alone. They'll never seriously affect their market share, but they'll pacify the alienated Apple nerds who want their mid-tower graphics machines... like me.
Not that I'd buy a Psystar PC. I already built a hack.
No......... It's like Nintendo suing someone who builds and sells modified PS3s that also play Wii games... to which I say, "where's the case?"
Apple should just leave Psystar alone. They'll never seriously affect their market share, but they'll pacify the alienated Apple nerds who want their mid-tower graphics machines... like me.
Not that I'd buy a Psystar PC. I already built a hack.
So illegal is OK as long as you support the cause.
You are the hack
What you are saying is, I can kill someone as long as I have reasons, and its okay, the police should let me be, because laws don't matter.
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 that the question here is regarding how those 'modified' files were created. If someone reverse engineered them to bypass the copy protection, I think DCMA has something to say about this.
if they used Apple proprietary information to create these files, I think that there are some other legal issues here.
Close but Apple still wins this one.
P.S. I agree that I don't understand where the money is coming from to support this legal battle. What does Pystar think they will gain in the end? Who's pockets are supporting this activity really? Perhaps it is Pystar's suppliers!?!?!
Psystar is however INSTALLING the software, modifying it with the patched files, and then selling the machine.
THAT is what is illegal under the DMCA. It also breaks the EULA because Psystar has to click I Agree every single time they install it. You have an excuse that you didn't read it before you bought the software only once, when you repeatidly buy the software, you have had ample chance to read the agreement you agreed to in licensing someone elses property (because the buyer doesn't own the software itself under copyright and IP law)
If by "modifying OS X" you mean tweaking a few kexts, you'd be accurate... but if that's copyright violation, so is installing drivers for third party hardware, i.e. eyeTV, MIDI controllers, unsupported printers, etc...
The "hacking" is done to the PC's boot sector - NOT OS X.
Won't argue about the EULA part, it's obviously a breach, it's just a matter of whether the EULA is constitutional.
I think that the question here is regarding how those 'modified' files were created. If someone reverse engineered them to bypass the copy protection, I think DCMA has something to say about this.
if they used Apple proprietary information to create these files, I think that there are some other legal issues here.
Close but Apple still wins this one.
P.S. I agree that I don't understand where the money is coming from to support this legal battle. What does Pystar think they will gain in the end? Who's pockets are supporting this activity really? Perhaps it is Pystar's suppliers!?!?!
Either way, circumventing copy protection is illegal. One's reason (outside of research I believe) doesn't matter. Obviously using it in a commercial situtation clearly makes it not research. Its fairly easy to intercept data passing across a bus, so I'm sure the OSX86 group or whoever it was who found the key just needed a few standard electronic diagnostics tools and a lot of patience.
I've read their attorney over there is a high-payed attorney - my guess? Maybe no one is standing behind them; maybe he's got an agreement for x% of the shares, and there is a belief that they would be worth something if successful...because the ruling would follow them if their business was sold to someone bigger? Who knows. Or maybe they believe if they win, they would get a large chunk of change awarded to them.
If by "modifying OS X" you mean tweaking a few kexts, you'd be accurate... but if that's copyright violation, so is installing drivers for third party hardware, i.e. eyeTV, MIDI controllers, unsupported printers, etc...
The "hacking" is done to the PC's boot sector - NOT OS X.
Won't argue about the EULA part, it's obviously a breach, it's just a matter of whether the EULA is constitutional.
-Clive
DMCA and Copy Protection is more than just "can this software install". The kexts are part of OS X. They decrypt system files using a key only Apple is supposed to have, and refuse to decrypt on any non Apple system. This isn't about EFI, this is exactly about modifying OS X post-install by replacing kexts. That is the violation of DMCA, the exact same type that has been successful in previous lawsuits by the movie industry, game industry, and music industry. This is what the law was created for. (Note that HP failed in a DMCA suit against a generic cartridge provider, because there wasn't breaking of encryption or other such systems)
You can do whatever you want with the system, you can hose it, install other software, modify the resources so it says I AM A SMURF for all I care. Thats all legal as long as you keep it on your machine. However modifying the system in anyway to BYPASS their copy protection and encryption code is illegal outside of a research project, whether for personal use or commercial use. That is the law of the land and has been the last 10 years.
So illegal is OK as long as you support the cause.
You are the hack
What you are saying is, I can kill someone as long as I have reasons, and its okay, the police should let me be, because laws don't matter.
Uh... okay, hyperbole much? The EULA part is a breach of contract, which is not "illegal" per se, but could have legal ramifications, if terms were set. Apple has not set terms of what happens if you breach the EULA, therefore there are no consequences. And by the way, murder in self defense is not illegal. Murder in war is also not illegal. What justifies them? If you want to proclaim that there is no circumstance under which EULA should ever be broken, even if it violates your constitutional rights... say for example (since you like hyperbolistic examples so much) that OS X's EULA says that you must submit your first-born child as human sacrifice to Steve Jobs... you have a right to revolt. Apple's EULA bars legally-purchased copies of OS X from ending up anywhere else but on a bucket of bolts that only Apple sells. This is an abomination of consumer choice. I'm not saying psystar should legal have a right to sell hackintoshes but to bar consumers from building them WOULD be a obstruction of a consumer's rights.
The situation would be akin to this (modifying the Nintendo situation from earlier): Joe buys a PS3 from the store. Joe buys a copy of Super Mario Galaxy (Wii only) from the store. Joe modifies the hardware of the PS3, allowing it to play SMG. Is that illegal?
What if he sells it?
Sony got money for the system. Nintendo got their asking price for the game... what's the problem?
The situation would be akin to this (modifying the Nintendo situation from earlier): Joe buys a PS3 from the store. Joe buys a copy of Super Mario Galaxy (Wii only) from the store. Joe modifies the hardware of the PS3, allowing it to play SMG. Is that illegal?
What if he sells it?
Sony got money for the system. Nintendo got their asking price for the game... what's the problem?
Have to say I totally agree. As I mentioned in my earlier post, Sony tried and failed to ban software that allowed PlayStation games to run on PCs, Macs and Dreamcast consoles.
If someone can build a machine that will install and run an off the shelf copy of OS X then, regardless of what the EULA might say, there is very little that Apple can do to stop them selling those machines.
DMCA and Copy Protection is more than just "can this software install". The kexts are part of OS X. They decrypt system files using a key only Apple is supposed to have, and refuse to decrypt on any non Apple system. This isn't about EFI, this is exactly about modifying OS X post-install by replacing kexts. That is the violation of DMCA, the exact same type that has been successful in previous lawsuits by the movie industry, game industry, and music industry. This is what the law was created for. (Note that HP failed in a DMCA suit against a generic cartridge provider, because there wasn't breaking of encryption or other such systems)
You can do whatever you want with the system, you can hose it, install other software, modify the resources so it says I AM A SMURF for all I care. Thats all legal as long as you keep it on your machine. However modifying the system in anyway to BYPASS their copy protection and encryption code is illegal outside of a research project, whether for personal use or commercial use. That is the law of the land and has been the last 10 years.
Look. Copyright protection is important. I'm not trying to state otherwise. I'm saying that when it is being used to violate consumer's rights (like Apple is), the law has overstepped its bounds and must be repealed/reworked. This is PRECISELY why the DMCA has the exemptions it does. The most notable one I can think of is the exemption that allows one to break encryption on a mobile phone to make it carrier independent. This circumstance is directly analogous breaking OS X's "encryption" (a misnomer if you ask me) to run it hardware-independent.
This is why I feel it is justified for users to do so... and - if a judge decides that Psystar's process is actually a breach of copyright (I'm not convinced it is) - for Psystar to NOT do so.
Even so, I feel as though Apple is just creating bad blood by trying to forcibly stomp them out. That's why I said that Apple should just leave these guys alone because they will never be a threat to Apple, and, in the short term, they will please the geeks who will never be content with Apple's hardware offerings that come as a result of a closed system.
I'm content with this choice, but even #4 would still be considered "illegal." Besides, it's not really a question of buying a "mac" or a "PC." It's about being able to choose what hardware I want with want operating system I want.
I feel wronged that my choice in OS limits my hardware selection because of a missing vendor ID, rather than something actually consequential, like compatibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelab
If someone can build a machine that will install and run an off the shelf copy of OS X then, regardless of what the EULA might say, there is very little that Apple can do to stop them selling those machines.
I think the OSx86 group is getting very close to this, actually... They have boot disks that allow one to install from the Retail DVD.
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.
But they're not close to that at all.
Apple isn't suing people who buy their product. They are suing a company that is modifying their copyrighted intellectual property and RESELLING it.
The case of a person doing things in the privacy of their own home is completely different than a company reselling in quantity.
You don't have to modify apples code. You just add EFI emulation.
Except that's not what they are doing, they ARE modifying apple's code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75
And there are boards starting to show up that use EFI. A retail copy of OSX could boot right up straight out of the box with no modification whatsoever.
Has that been confirmed with one of the new boards or is that just speculation on your part? Link?
It may be possible, but that assumes that apple hasn't customized the EFI code at all, if they do then cloning their EFI would require duplicating copyrighted code. That's what shut down the PSX emulator, since the software emulation app contained bits of proprietary sony code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75
Essentially is boils down to the EULA which will not hold up.
Are you forgetting that psystar is shipping a hacked version of OSX which violates the derivative works part of copyright law, or ignoring it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75
They are then adding EFI emulation and whatever drivers are needed for the hardware. Not modifiying but rather addition to.
Nope, they are using a hacked version of OSX, looks like they didn't even do it themselves but just used the one people have done and made available online.
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75
There is no copy protection circumvention. Retail copies of OSX have no copy protection whatsoever.
If there is no copy protection, then why can't you install it on a PC? Sure looks like they protected it to me.
Have to say I totally agree. As I mentioned in my earlier post, Sony tried and failed to ban software that allowed PlayStation games to run on PCs, Macs and Dreamcast consoles.
If someone can build a machine that will install and run an off the shelf copy of OS X then, regardless of what the EULA might say, there is very little that Apple can do to stop them selling those machines.
Actually, the difference would be if someone created an interface that ran OSX applications instead of actually running the os. When I ran the Virtual Game station from Connectix it wasn't emulating the PS experience so much as it was just making the games playable. if this was making OSX applications (itunes, iPhoto, even photoshop) able to run on, say, a modified custom os Psystar put together THEN you can draw on the similarities. Games are a third party "application" licensed to run on a platform.
If someone can build a machine that will install and run an off the shelf copy of OS X then, regardless of what the EULA might say, there is very little that Apple can do to stop them selling those machines.
But that doesn't help Psystar because few people are going to buy a computer like that where they have to install the OS for themselves. The problem has always been there is no off the shelf copy of Mac OS X just the upgrade. They are deceiving potential buyers into thinking 'It is just like a Mac but cheaper'. Aside from no OS installed no automatic updates, no service no support, questionable compatibility and a host of other unknowns - yeah I can see thousands of savvy computer buyers jumping on this deal. You could do the hack for yourself if you are ok with all the disadvantages.
Nice try, but I think that would make Apple guilty of hindering competition.
Nope, you make the same mistake as psystar. How can apple possibly hinder competition when no matter what they do, people have the option of buying windows?
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647
In the past (10.4 and earlier), that WAS the case. It is not any more. You don't have to change a single thing with an OS X disk and certain hardware to get it to boot and install. You can take a fresh disk out of the package, stick it in, boot off of it, and install.... again with certain hardware.
Could you provide a link to an example? Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75
So you can't tweak and customize the OS you bought and installed?
Of course you can. You just cant tweak the OS and resell the tweaked version, it's a violation of copyright law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielchow
I'd say they're still an end-user.
That makes no sense at all. They're not USING any of the machines, they're reselling them, and the machine doesn't END in their possession, they sell them to an END USER.
They'd probably be fine if they hacked the machines but never resold them, but that's not much of a business model, is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75
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.
Except that the copy on the psystar PC's is a modified one, which is the copyright violation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
No......... It's like Nintendo suing someone who builds and sells modified PS3s that also play Wii games... to which I say, "where's the case?"
The case is there assuming the modded machine contains Nintendo code (modified or not).
Look. Copyright protection is important. I'm not trying to state otherwise. I'm saying that when it is being used to violate consumer's rights (like Apple is), the law has overstepped its bounds and must be repealed/reworked. This is PRECISELY why the DMCA has the exemptions it does. The most notable one I can think of is the exemption that allows one to break encryption on a mobile phone to make it carrier independent. This circumstance is directly analogous breaking OS X's "encryption" (a misnomer if you ask me) to run it hardware-independent.
OS X and mobile phones are not analogous. Apple does not make a profit from OS X the way Microsoft makes profit from Windows. Apple uses OS X to sell Macs. The Mac is where Apple makes its money. Why would a judge order Apple to open OS X when their business model does not profit from OS X.
Exactly what consumer protections are you talking about?
Quote:
Even so, I feel as though Apple is just creating bad blood by trying to forcibly stomp them out. That's why I said that Apple should just leave these guys alone because they will never be a threat to Apple, and, in the short term, they will please the geeks who will never be content with Apple's hardware offerings that come as a result of a closed system.
-Clive
Apple is still a relative small player in the PC market. Only this year have they exceeded selling 2 million computers per quarter. That's still nothing compared to Dell and HP.
Ultimately the problem is that Psystar is feeding from Apple's work. Apple has spent its own resources and capital to create OS X and the Mac brand. Psystar has put up no risk in OS X or the Macs success or failure. Apple want to keep full control of its property.
I don't believe that. Can you post a link to this case?
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelab
Have to say I totally agree. As I mentioned in my earlier post, Sony tried and failed to ban software that allowed PlayStation games to run on PCs, Macs and Dreamcast consoles.
Comments
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.
Psystar is however INSTALLING the software, modifying it with the patched files, and then selling the machine.
THAT is what is illegal under the DMCA. It also breaks the EULA because Psystar has to click I Agree every single time they install it. You have an excuse that you didn't read it before you bought the software only once, when you repeatidly buy the software, you have had ample chance to read the agreement you agreed to in licensing someone elses property (because the buyer doesn't own the software itself under copyright and IP law)
it'd be like suing Nintendo because Wii games only play on the Wii, and not a generic Playstation. How ridiculous.
No......... It's like Nintendo suing someone who builds and sells modified PS3s that also play Wii games... to which I say, "where's the case?"
Apple should just leave Psystar alone. They'll never seriously affect their market share, but they'll pacify the alienated Apple nerds who want their mid-tower graphics machines... like me.
Not that I'd buy a Psystar PC. I already built a hack.
No......... It's like Nintendo suing someone who builds and sells modified PS3s that also play Wii games... to which I say, "where's the case?"
Apple should just leave Psystar alone. They'll never seriously affect their market share, but they'll pacify the alienated Apple nerds who want their mid-tower graphics machines... like me.
Not that I'd buy a Psystar PC. I already built a hack.
So illegal is OK as long as you support the cause.
You are the hack
What you are saying is, I can kill someone as long as I have reasons, and its okay, the police should let me be, because laws don't matter.
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 that the question here is regarding how those 'modified' files were created. If someone reverse engineered them to bypass the copy protection, I think DCMA has something to say about this.
if they used Apple proprietary information to create these files, I think that there are some other legal issues here.
Close but Apple still wins this one.
P.S. I agree that I don't understand where the money is coming from to support this legal battle. What does Pystar think they will gain in the end? Who's pockets are supporting this activity really? Perhaps it is Pystar's suppliers!?!?!
Psystar is however INSTALLING the software, modifying it with the patched files, and then selling the machine.
THAT is what is illegal under the DMCA. It also breaks the EULA because Psystar has to click I Agree every single time they install it. You have an excuse that you didn't read it before you bought the software only once, when you repeatidly buy the software, you have had ample chance to read the agreement you agreed to in licensing someone elses property (because the buyer doesn't own the software itself under copyright and IP law)
If by "modifying OS X" you mean tweaking a few kexts, you'd be accurate... but if that's copyright violation, so is installing drivers for third party hardware, i.e. eyeTV, MIDI controllers, unsupported printers, etc...
The "hacking" is done to the PC's boot sector - NOT OS X.
Won't argue about the EULA part, it's obviously a breach, it's just a matter of whether the EULA is constitutional.
-Clive
I think that the question here is regarding how those 'modified' files were created. If someone reverse engineered them to bypass the copy protection, I think DCMA has something to say about this.
if they used Apple proprietary information to create these files, I think that there are some other legal issues here.
Close but Apple still wins this one.
P.S. I agree that I don't understand where the money is coming from to support this legal battle. What does Pystar think they will gain in the end? Who's pockets are supporting this activity really? Perhaps it is Pystar's suppliers!?!?!
Either way, circumventing copy protection is illegal. One's reason (outside of research I believe) doesn't matter. Obviously using it in a commercial situtation clearly makes it not research. Its fairly easy to intercept data passing across a bus, so I'm sure the OSX86 group or whoever it was who found the key just needed a few standard electronic diagnostics tools and a lot of patience.
I've read their attorney over there is a high-payed attorney - my guess? Maybe no one is standing behind them; maybe he's got an agreement for x% of the shares, and there is a belief that they would be worth something if successful...because the ruling would follow them if their business was sold to someone bigger? Who knows. Or maybe they believe if they win, they would get a large chunk of change awarded to them.
If by "modifying OS X" you mean tweaking a few kexts, you'd be accurate... but if that's copyright violation, so is installing drivers for third party hardware, i.e. eyeTV, MIDI controllers, unsupported printers, etc...
The "hacking" is done to the PC's boot sector - NOT OS X.
Won't argue about the EULA part, it's obviously a breach, it's just a matter of whether the EULA is constitutional.
-Clive
DMCA and Copy Protection is more than just "can this software install". The kexts are part of OS X. They decrypt system files using a key only Apple is supposed to have, and refuse to decrypt on any non Apple system. This isn't about EFI, this is exactly about modifying OS X post-install by replacing kexts. That is the violation of DMCA, the exact same type that has been successful in previous lawsuits by the movie industry, game industry, and music industry. This is what the law was created for. (Note that HP failed in a DMCA suit against a generic cartridge provider, because there wasn't breaking of encryption or other such systems)
You can do whatever you want with the system, you can hose it, install other software, modify the resources so it says I AM A SMURF for all I care. Thats all legal as long as you keep it on your machine. However modifying the system in anyway to BYPASS their copy protection and encryption code is illegal outside of a research project, whether for personal use or commercial use. That is the law of the land and has been the last 10 years.
So illegal is OK as long as you support the cause.
You are the hack
What you are saying is, I can kill someone as long as I have reasons, and its okay, the police should let me be, because laws don't matter.
Uh... okay, hyperbole much? The EULA part is a breach of contract, which is not "illegal" per se, but could have legal ramifications, if terms were set. Apple has not set terms of what happens if you breach the EULA, therefore there are no consequences. And by the way, murder in self defense is not illegal. Murder in war is also not illegal. What justifies them? If you want to proclaim that there is no circumstance under which EULA should ever be broken, even if it violates your constitutional rights... say for example (since you like hyperbolistic examples so much) that OS X's EULA says that you must submit your first-born child as human sacrifice to Steve Jobs... you have a right to revolt. Apple's EULA bars legally-purchased copies of OS X from ending up anywhere else but on a bucket of bolts that only Apple sells. This is an abomination of consumer choice. I'm not saying psystar should legal have a right to sell hackintoshes but to bar consumers from building them WOULD be a obstruction of a consumer's rights.
The situation would be akin to this (modifying the Nintendo situation from earlier): Joe buys a PS3 from the store. Joe buys a copy of Super Mario Galaxy (Wii only) from the store. Joe modifies the hardware of the PS3, allowing it to play SMG. Is that illegal?
What if he sells it?
Sony got money for the system. Nintendo got their asking price for the game... what's the problem?
-Clive
This is an abomination of consumer choice.
You could buy a Mac
You could buy a PC
or... build a PC
or... build a Hack'
How much more choice do you need?
The situation would be akin to this (modifying the Nintendo situation from earlier): Joe buys a PS3 from the store. Joe buys a copy of Super Mario Galaxy (Wii only) from the store. Joe modifies the hardware of the PS3, allowing it to play SMG. Is that illegal?
What if he sells it?
Sony got money for the system. Nintendo got their asking price for the game... what's the problem?
Have to say I totally agree. As I mentioned in my earlier post, Sony tried and failed to ban software that allowed PlayStation games to run on PCs, Macs and Dreamcast consoles.
If someone can build a machine that will install and run an off the shelf copy of OS X then, regardless of what the EULA might say, there is very little that Apple can do to stop them selling those machines.
DMCA and Copy Protection is more than just "can this software install". The kexts are part of OS X. They decrypt system files using a key only Apple is supposed to have, and refuse to decrypt on any non Apple system. This isn't about EFI, this is exactly about modifying OS X post-install by replacing kexts. That is the violation of DMCA, the exact same type that has been successful in previous lawsuits by the movie industry, game industry, and music industry. This is what the law was created for. (Note that HP failed in a DMCA suit against a generic cartridge provider, because there wasn't breaking of encryption or other such systems)
You can do whatever you want with the system, you can hose it, install other software, modify the resources so it says I AM A SMURF for all I care. Thats all legal as long as you keep it on your machine. However modifying the system in anyway to BYPASS their copy protection and encryption code is illegal outside of a research project, whether for personal use or commercial use. That is the law of the land and has been the last 10 years.
Look. Copyright protection is important. I'm not trying to state otherwise. I'm saying that when it is being used to violate consumer's rights (like Apple is), the law has overstepped its bounds and must be repealed/reworked. This is PRECISELY why the DMCA has the exemptions it does. The most notable one I can think of is the exemption that allows one to break encryption on a mobile phone to make it carrier independent. This circumstance is directly analogous breaking OS X's "encryption" (a misnomer if you ask me) to run it hardware-independent.
This is why I feel it is justified for users to do so... and - if a judge decides that Psystar's process is actually a breach of copyright (I'm not convinced it is) - for Psystar to NOT do so.
Even so, I feel as though Apple is just creating bad blood by trying to forcibly stomp them out. That's why I said that Apple should just leave these guys alone because they will never be a threat to Apple, and, in the short term, they will please the geeks who will never be content with Apple's hardware offerings that come as a result of a closed system.
-Clive
You could buy a Mac
You could buy a PC
or... build a PC
or... build a Hack'
How much more choice do you need?
I'm content with this choice, but even #4 would still be considered "illegal." Besides, it's not really a question of buying a "mac" or a "PC." It's about being able to choose what hardware I want with want operating system I want.
I feel wronged that my choice in OS limits my hardware selection because of a missing vendor ID, rather than something actually consequential, like compatibility.
If someone can build a machine that will install and run an off the shelf copy of OS X then, regardless of what the EULA might say, there is very little that Apple can do to stop them selling those machines.
I think the OSx86 group is getting very close to this, actually... They have boot disks that allow one to install from the Retail DVD.
-Clive
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.
But they're not close to that at all.
Apple isn't suing people who buy their product. They are suing a company that is modifying their copyrighted intellectual property and RESELLING it.
The case of a person doing things in the privacy of their own home is completely different than a company reselling in quantity.
You don't have to modify apples code. You just add EFI emulation.
Except that's not what they are doing, they ARE modifying apple's code.
And there are boards starting to show up that use EFI. A retail copy of OSX could boot right up straight out of the box with no modification whatsoever.
Has that been confirmed with one of the new boards or is that just speculation on your part? Link?
It may be possible, but that assumes that apple hasn't customized the EFI code at all, if they do then cloning their EFI would require duplicating copyrighted code. That's what shut down the PSX emulator, since the software emulation app contained bits of proprietary sony code.
Essentially is boils down to the EULA which will not hold up.
Are you forgetting that psystar is shipping a hacked version of OSX which violates the derivative works part of copyright law, or ignoring it?
They are then adding EFI emulation and whatever drivers are needed for the hardware. Not modifiying but rather addition to.
Nope, they are using a hacked version of OSX, looks like they didn't even do it themselves but just used the one people have done and made available online.
There is no copy protection circumvention. Retail copies of OSX have no copy protection whatsoever.
If there is no copy protection, then why can't you install it on a PC? Sure looks like they protected it to me.
Have to say I totally agree. As I mentioned in my earlier post, Sony tried and failed to ban software that allowed PlayStation games to run on PCs, Macs and Dreamcast consoles.
If someone can build a machine that will install and run an off the shelf copy of OS X then, regardless of what the EULA might say, there is very little that Apple can do to stop them selling those machines.
Actually, the difference would be if someone created an interface that ran OSX applications instead of actually running the os. When I ran the Virtual Game station from Connectix it wasn't emulating the PS experience so much as it was just making the games playable. if this was making OSX applications (itunes, iPhoto, even photoshop) able to run on, say, a modified custom os Psystar put together THEN you can draw on the similarities. Games are a third party "application" licensed to run on a platform.
If someone can build a machine that will install and run an off the shelf copy of OS X then, regardless of what the EULA might say, there is very little that Apple can do to stop them selling those machines.
But that doesn't help Psystar because few people are going to buy a computer like that where they have to install the OS for themselves. The problem has always been there is no off the shelf copy of Mac OS X just the upgrade. They are deceiving potential buyers into thinking 'It is just like a Mac but cheaper'. Aside from no OS installed no automatic updates, no service no support, questionable compatibility and a host of other unknowns - yeah I can see thousands of savvy computer buyers jumping on this deal. You could do the hack for yourself if you are ok with all the disadvantages.
Nice try, but I think that would make Apple guilty of hindering competition.
Nope, you make the same mistake as psystar. How can apple possibly hinder competition when no matter what they do, people have the option of buying windows?
In the past (10.4 and earlier), that WAS the case. It is not any more. You don't have to change a single thing with an OS X disk and certain hardware to get it to boot and install. You can take a fresh disk out of the package, stick it in, boot off of it, and install.... again with certain hardware.
Could you provide a link to an example? Thanks.
So you can't tweak and customize the OS you bought and installed?
Of course you can. You just cant tweak the OS and resell the tweaked version, it's a violation of copyright law.
I'd say they're still an end-user.
That makes no sense at all. They're not USING any of the machines, they're reselling them, and the machine doesn't END in their possession, they sell them to an END USER.
They'd probably be fine if they hacked the machines but never resold them, but that's not much of a business model, is it?
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.
Except that the copy on the psystar PC's is a modified one, which is the copyright violation.
No......... It's like Nintendo suing someone who builds and sells modified PS3s that also play Wii games... to which I say, "where's the case?"
The case is there assuming the modded machine contains Nintendo code (modified or not).
Look. Copyright protection is important. I'm not trying to state otherwise. I'm saying that when it is being used to violate consumer's rights (like Apple is), the law has overstepped its bounds and must be repealed/reworked. This is PRECISELY why the DMCA has the exemptions it does. The most notable one I can think of is the exemption that allows one to break encryption on a mobile phone to make it carrier independent. This circumstance is directly analogous breaking OS X's "encryption" (a misnomer if you ask me) to run it hardware-independent.
OS X and mobile phones are not analogous. Apple does not make a profit from OS X the way Microsoft makes profit from Windows. Apple uses OS X to sell Macs. The Mac is where Apple makes its money. Why would a judge order Apple to open OS X when their business model does not profit from OS X.
Exactly what consumer protections are you talking about?
Even so, I feel as though Apple is just creating bad blood by trying to forcibly stomp them out. That's why I said that Apple should just leave these guys alone because they will never be a threat to Apple, and, in the short term, they will please the geeks who will never be content with Apple's hardware offerings that come as a result of a closed system.
-Clive
Apple is still a relative small player in the PC market. Only this year have they exceeded selling 2 million computers per quarter. That's still nothing compared to Dell and HP.
Ultimately the problem is that Psystar is feeding from Apple's work. Apple has spent its own resources and capital to create OS X and the Mac brand. Psystar has put up no risk in OS X or the Macs success or failure. Apple want to keep full control of its property.
Have to say I totally agree. As I mentioned in my earlier post, Sony tried and failed to ban software that allowed PlayStation games to run on PCs, Macs and Dreamcast consoles.